Skip to main content

Full text of "The doctrine of the Greek article applied to the criticism and illustration of the New Testament;"

See other formats 


|aGrGr oF 
Mo229d " ἄν 


THE 


DOCTRINE 


9 
OF THE 


GREEK ARTICLE 


APPLIED TO 


THE CRITICISM AND ILLUSTRATION 


OF THE 


NEW TESTAMENT. 


BY THE LATE RIGHT REV. 


THOMAS FANSHAW MIDDLETON, D.D. 


LORD BISHOP OF CALCUTTA. 


ARTICULI certe nature cognitio sat est necessaria, quamvis cum publico malo Ecclesiz hee 
soleant, non sine suspicione pudendze ignorantie, rideri. δ 
BouLius 1N THESAURO THEOL. PHILOL. 


A NEW EDITION, 


WITH PREFATORY OBSERVATIONS AND NOTES BY 


HUGH JAMES ROSE, B.D. 


JOINT-DEAN OF BOCKING. 


PRINTED FOR J. & J. J. DEIGHTON, CAMBRIDGE, 
ἃς ἡ. α. & F. RIVINGTON, LONDON. 


-.---΄..--- 


1833. 


= ie naar Mba as 
τς - τυ 


τ LTD ea) ld τὺ, 
7 walt MQ) ἐπ . “Re Ὁ 


in Ὑ Σ 


τ 
Zz 
—e 
. 


<= 
(ae 
2G 


᾿ 
ἊΣ 
all 
ἃ... 


a 
ε ~ 
ay 

Pe Cen, age 
eb 


PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 


BY THE EDITOR. 


Tue last edition of Bishop Middleton’s work on the Greek 
Article (published in 1828) being exhausted, application has 
been made to me to superintend a new edition, with such 
additions as I should judge advisable. Having long felt the 
highest veneration for Bishop Middleton’s character and abili- 
ties, I heartily rejoice at finding any opportunity of testifying 
my feelings towards him, and regret only that my powers 
second my inclinations so ill, that any thing which I can add 
to a work of his must be so unworthy of it and of him. 

I wish to say a few words on the work itself, and then to 
state what I have endeavoured to do in the present edition. 

The Inquiry into the Greek Article is a work to which sufli- 
cient justice has not been done in this country. I have been 
surprised to find how many men to whom I am accustomed to 
look with the highest respect, have not even read the volume’, 


1 The rapid sale of the last edition is rather owing, I think, to the value justly 
set upon Bishop Middleton’s notes on the New Testament, than to any interest 
in the theory of which he intended them only as the illustration. I may perhaps 
add here, that, as I have found no formal objections made to Bishop Middle- 
ton’s theory, I have thought that Mr. Le Bas’s call for a full discussion of the 
question, would, on the whole, be best complied with by noticing such observa- 
tions of modern critics as appear to be inconsistent with the Bishop’s rules, 
leaving his powerful reasoning in defence of them to speak for itself. See Mr. 
Le Bas’s admirable Life of Bishop Middleton, vol. i. p. 11. 


b 


vi PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 


and how little its real doctrines and real value are known. One 
reason probably is, that as it does not consist of detached and 
unconnected rules, but is, in point of fact, a very refined and 
ingenious theory, professing, at least, to account for all the 
usages of the Article on one principle, it cannot be examined 
in parts, but must be considered as a whole. As a whole, it 
appears to me to be a very remarkable specimen of meta- 
physical acuteness and subtilty ; such, indeed, as to require 
very close and very patient attention, that a due estimate of 
the theory on which they are employed may be formed. 
Such attention, I must think, would not be ill bestowed. 
Even they who have collected only such partial and detached 
rules for the use of the Article as the observations of various 
Critics supply, have learnt from them the extreme importance 
of the Article, and would readily confess, that a principle 
which would account for its use universally, (i. e. with such 
few exceptions as must obtain in every language, in the 
ease of a part of speech used at every instant,) would be 
a matter of very great consequence indeed. Nor would they 
who are most skilled in the habits and history of languages, 
be the slowest to believe in the existence of such a rule, 
notwithstanding the exceptions to which I have alluded. 


Now Bishop Middleton’s inquiry, at all events, professes to ὦ 


point out such a principle. They who knew the man, or who 
know any thing of his critical powers from his remarks on the 
N. T., might believe, without difficulty, that he was no framer 
or encourager of wild theories; and that though, like all men, 
he may have been deceived, his powerful, severe, and thought- 
ful mind would never have laid before the public any thoughts 
which had not been long weighed, and rigorously brought to 
every test which his powers and learning would supply. A 
prima facie case for the fair examination of the Inquiry is 
thus, I think, made out; and the importance of the matter is 
such, that it is very much to be wished that they who have the 
means and time, would confute Bishop Middleton, if he be 


PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. vii 


wrong, or would add their testimony to his theory, if they find 
it correct. Nothing of this sort, however, has appeared, 
with the exception of Professor Scholefield’s testimony, in 
the Preface to the last edition. JI have heard it, indeed, said 
of one or two great scholars, now dead, that they did not 
believe in Bishop Middleton’s theory; but I have never heard 
any thing more definite as to their objections, than that one of 
them stated that Bishop Middleton always chose his MS. 
This applies, of course, only to the illustrations of the theory 
from the N. T.; but, when Bishop Middleton’s notes on the 
N. T. are examined, I do not think that the objection can 
have any weight. If rules are laid down for the use of any 
word, and, where those rules are broken in a received text, 
MSS. either good or many, supply various readings which sup- 
port the rules, surely not only can there be no objection to the 
appeal to such MSS., but the rules themselves are almost as 
much confirmed as by their being observed in the text. I 
may safely appeal to the reader of Bishop Middleton’s notes, 
to say whether he is in the habit of calling in the assistance of 


one MS. against the authority of many, or of bad MSS. against 
good ones. 


As far as my own observation has gone, I must say, unhesi- 
tatingly, that I have found the violations of Bishop Middleton’s 
rules very rare: but I am sensible that my own reading for 
critical purposes has latterly been so much interrupted by bad 


health and other occupations, that my testimony is of little 
moment. 
There are now a few observations which appear to me not 


unworthy of the attention of those who are inclined to consider 
Bishop Middleton’s theory. 

First, I would observe that one of his rules, not connected 
with his theory, is proved fully by instances, viz. that definite 
Nouns used κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, and requiring the Article on that 
account, nevertheless lose it very often when occurring after 


vill PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 


a Preposition?. Now this fact, as Bishop Middleton men- 
tions, has not been observed by Philologers*, and consequently 
a very large class of instances which they are perpetually 
bringing to prove the existence of anomalies of a different 
kind, must go for nothing. Thus Schifer (on Plutarch, vol. ii. 
p. 286, v. 35, Anim. vol. v. p. 126,) says on εἰς πόλιν ἀπὸ 
στρατοπέδου, * In his similibusque τοπικοῖς nihil interest ad- 
datur articulus an omittatur; and he quotes from the same 
page, εἰς τὸ στρατόπεδον, ἐν τῇ πόλει and ἐκ τῆς πόλεως. Un- 
less other instances can be brought, his remark is not valid’. 
Again, Stallbaum (on Plat. de Rep. ii. p. 378, D.) says that 
the Article is often omitted before υἱὸς and πατήρ; but the 
only instances which he brings there are after ὑπό. Heindorf 
(ad Gorg. p. 523.) gives seven instances of omission of the 
Article with yij, but they are all after Prepositions. 


1 This is as remarkable in English as in Greek. From beginning to end, from 
top to bottom, from East to West ; by coach, by ship; by sea, by land; by day, by 
night ; up town, about house ; in shade, at church. 1 

The first three instances are cases of Correlatives; in the next two, there is a 
tacit reference, I think, to a Correlative; the next four are cases of words where 
the same liberty is taken occasionally without a Preposition; the two next cases 
are common Provincialisms. 

2 See, however, my quotation in Ὁ. 98. I see too that Poppo in his Index to 
Xenophon’s Anabasis, voce θάλαττα, notices the occasional omission of the Article 
with this word after some Prepositions. It is difficult to say on which side the fol- 
lowing remark of Kriiger (on Dion. Hal. Hist. p. 95.) ought to be cited: “ Arti- 
culus in tritis his μετὰ ᾿Ιλίου, μετὰ Ἐὐβοίας ἅλωσιν non adscisci solet.’? Hein- 
dorf (on Plat. Theztet. p. 20. A. Ἔν δὲ κιθαριστοῦ) observes the omission of the 


Article in such expressions. This arises, of course, from the writer knowing 


that he might not improperly omit it in the Correlative governed by the Prepo- 
sition. 

5. In his Meletemata, p. 116. Schifer’s instances are still worse. Soph. Trach. 
256. σὺν παισὶ καὶ γυναικί. Soph. Fr. ap. Schol. ad Aj. 190. μητρὸς φθορεὺς, 
where φθορεὺς is the Predicate, and thus μητρὸς loses the Article rightly. Xen. 
An. vii. 8, 9. and 22. are both cases of enumeration. Eustath. ad Iliad. 
Ρ. 405. 31. and 307. 25. aya παισί, And then, strange to say, Schafer goes on 
to. give instances where the Article és used with γυνὴ, &c. &c. 


ie 


Se ee 


PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 1X 


It may not be worth while to multiply instances under this 
head, (they are indeed too numerous to admit of citation,) but 
the Student must not neglect, when he finds Critics asserting 
that such and such words are used without the Article, and 
inferences are thence drawn, that there is no regularity as to 
its use, &c. &c., to examine the instances, and see whether 
very many of them are not attributable to this fact respecting 
the Preposition*. I have observed below that a large portion 
of Winer’s examples are of the kind alluded to. 


The same remark applies to another anomaly pointed out Prrcworsrn tare 


by Bishop Middleton, viz. the omission of the Article in 
Enumerations?. Thus we have in Plat. de ἄορι p. 574, ᾽Αντε- 


seme tant nee aaa 


χομένων δὴ Kal μαχομένων γέροντός τε καὶ γραός, where, these 


words being used in the sense of father and mother, Stall- 
baum adduces the instances to show that in such cases of 
relationship the Article is omitted. So in Plat. Crito, p. 51. 


Sass ee -.-: 


ϑρυομῥός τε καὶ πατρὸς καὶ τῶν ἄλλων προγόνων ἁπάντων + 


τιμιώτερόν ἐστι πατρίς.) where Stallbaum remarks that the 
Article is omitted before ratijo*, μήτηρ, παῖς, ἀδελφός, γῆ, 
πόλις, ἀγρὸς, when used de genere in universum, the two first 
words of the quotation supply no instance. Matthiz again 
(268. obs. 2.) quotes Xen. Cyp. vi. 3. 8. Συνεκάλεσε καὶ ἱππέων 
kat πέζων καὶ ἁρμάτων τοὺς ἡγεμόνας, as an exception to the 
rule (noticed by Heindorf ad Plat. Phed. p. 64, KE.) that 
the Article should stand with one Correlative if it does with 
the other; whereas the peculiarity arises from the source now 
under consideration. 

It will be found that these two anomalies do away with a 


1 Stallbaum’s correction of Plat. Phed. 64. E. in compliance with Heindorf’s 
rule, noticed just below, is, on this ground, unnecessary. 

2 This again is an English peculiarity. ‘ Sun, moon, and stars.’ 

5. It is a favourite notion among modern critics that words signifying relation-. 
ship lose the Article. See Schaf. on Plutarch, Anim. vol. iv. p. 409. App. ad 
Demosth. p. 329. Melett. p. 45. ad Soph. Gid. T. 630. Buttman ad Men. ὃ 7. 
and many others. It is quite certain that such words are very frequently used 


in enumerations. 


ἴδ 


Χ PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 


large class of the irregularities as to particular words alleged by 
critics. It must be added, that the words in which critics allege 
the existence of such irregularities are very few in number, and 
are words perpetually used as designating either objects of 
great importance or the common relations of life. The very 
fact that such irregularity is noticed, and that it exists in so 
few cases is a strong proof of the correctness of the rules from 
which the deviation is said to take place. And the words re- 
ferred to are precisely those where irregularity might be ex- 


pected, and where in other languages it actually takes place. . 


Looking to the example from the Crito, where the Article, if 
used with πατρός, would be used nearly as a Possessive, we 
might say in English ‘‘ Country is dearer than father and 
mother, and every other ancestor together;” or even “ Men 
esteem country before father, and mother, and every relation.” 
Here, doubtless, we might also say, “" One’s country,” and 
‘‘ Their country,” &c. In other languages, liberties are 
beyond all question taken with words, designating relations 
of such extreme importance as to be perpetually in the 
thoughts or on the tongue. I shall examine the words in 
question a little farther on. 

It must be observed farther, that in every language, while 
the same thought may be expressed with very great difference 
of forms and words jointly, it may also be expressed in words 
approaching very nearly to one another, while the forms, what- 
ever may be their resemblance to a careless eye, are clearly 
distinct. Thus, in our own language, in speaking of an army 
under severe distress, we might say, “they felt very great 
dejection,” or “ their dejection was very great”—two forms 
differing widely. But we might also say, “ the dejection was 
very great,” which approaches much nearer to the last: or, 
again, “there was great dejection.” So in Greek (Xen. 
Anab, iv. 8. 21.) we have (in Bornemann’s edition) ”Exewro δὲ 


οὕτω πολλοί, ὥσπερ τροπῆς γεγενημένης, καὶ πολλὴ ἦν ἡ 


ἀθυμία. Now, in’ this very place, many MSS. omit ἡ before 


i, ait ns - ἡ a 


PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. xi 


ἀθυμία; and we have in the same book, 37. πολλὴ ἀθυμία ἣν 
τοῖς "EXAnow. A careless reader might hence infer that there 
was no rule at all for the Article; and that in expressing 
(what is undoubtedly) the same thought, it might be either 
used or omitted, whereas the forms of expression are as dif- 
ferent in the Greek as in the two /ast English cases above. 
With the Article, we must construe ‘‘ The dejection (viz. that 
felt by the troops) was great”—without it, ‘‘ There was great 
dejection.” It is true, indeed, that in the former case, no 
dejection had been previously spoken of, but in many cases we 
may refer to what has not been actually mentioned, when 
its existence is quite obvious, and, so to speak, necessary. 
Under severe sufferings, it is clear that among a large body of 
men there will be some dejected; so clear, indeed, that 
it would be unnecessary for an historian to notice it. He 
therefore assumes, if he pleases, the existence of such dejec- 
tion, and then uses the Article with it when stating to what 
degree it existed. At the very end of the same book, we have 
καὶ καλὴ θέα ἐγένετο, where some MSS. read ἡ θέα. The 
forms differ; but either is correct. 

It is not easy to say how far this extends; yet nothing can 
be more certain, than that it does not at all make the use of 
the Article irregular or undecided. Let us look at another 


case. Bishop Middleton has observed, that in cases of enue em." 


meration, the Article is frequently omitted. But it is not 
necessarily omitted. ‘The fact is, that two forms of expression 
may be used. In a note on Xen. An. vii. 8. 9. (Λαβεῖν ἂν 
καὶ αὐτὸν καὶ γυναῖκα καὶ παΐδας καὶ τὰ χρήματα) Bornemann 
cites many similar instances, as vil. 1. 28. Cyrop. vii. 1.33. and 
2 26. De Rep. Ath. ii. 17. Hipparch. i. 1. Thucyd. vi. 12. 
Plat. Gorg. ὃ 61. Lucian. Piscat. 33. Among these a very 


good one is Cyrop. vii. i. 33. ἐπλεονέκτουν μέντοι of Αἰγύπτιοι 


καὶ πλήθει καὶ τοῖς ὅπλοις. “In number and in their arms.” « 
We might also say, “" In their number and their arms;” or © 


ba 
᾿ 


ψυ- 


“Τὴ number and arms.” ‘That is, (1.) both words might have, - 


ΧΗ PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 


or (2.) both might omit the Article, or (3.) the first might omit 
and the second take it, with equal correctness, and without the 
slightest laxity in the use of the Article. It is only that we 
may express the same idea in several forms; not that, when 
we have chosen one of these forms, it is any longer indifferent 
whether we use the Article or not. 

The extreme laxity of translation which we allow our- 
selves in cases where the idea is not altered by it (and we have 
just seen in how many ways the same idea may be expressed), 
leads us very often to fink that there is laxity in the usage of 
the Article. 

To these remarks must be added another, viz. that it is rea- 
sonable to suppose beforehand, and that critics have actually 


AK ¥¥1 


often observed how frequently MSS. vary as to the omission 
and insertion of the Article; and that, consequently, some 
exceptions to any rules laid down for its use, must be fairly 
expected on that score. Again, it is quite certain, that with 
words which are occurring every moment, liberties will be 
taken which will not be offered to those of rare occurrence, 
Of course, if it were supposed that these liberties were con- 
stant or universal, they would do away all notion of applying 
rules to the words to which they relate. But that is not the 
case. Such liberties are occasional, partial, and often mere 
vulgarisms, used by those who disregard all a ac- 
curacy in their language. 

I must now proceed to state, that Bishop Middleton’s other 
canons embrace and explain many of the cases where the use 
of the Article has been considered as extremely anomalous. 
I do not say that this proves the truth of the canons, but it 
certainly entitles them to fair consideration. Thus ἡγεῖσθαι 
θεούς is brought forward as a flagrant case of irregularity in the 
Article. Bishop Middleton himself has fully shown that (if his 
canons be allowed) the word could not have the Article here. 

At the same time I must add, that many of the cases 
alleged by critics as irregularities, are not so; and that more 


PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. xiii 


exact attention will show that they are either strictly regular, 
even according to rules allowed on all hands to be true, or that 
the irregularity itself falls under certain well-defined limits. 
Thus Siebelis (on Pausan. i. 3. 5.) gives several instances of 
Correlatives where the Genitive has not the Article, although 
the other word has. But then every one of these instances 
is the name of a country. See the same Critic on Pausan. v. 
14. 5. 

It will now be necessary. to consider those words which are 
said by various critics to permit an irregular use of the Ar- 
ticle. 


Words in which the Article is said to be omitted. 


Bishop Middleton observes (Chap. iii. Sect. 1. ὃ 3—5.) 
that Nouns, existing singly, take the Article; and that, con- 
sequently, the great elements of nature usually have it. But 
it is unquestionably true, that in many languages there are 
great liberties taken with the names of these elements. For 
example, in English, we not only say by sea and by land’, 
and ‘we got to land,” but we find constantly such phrases as 
Land was out of sight,” “‘ We saw land,” “ We had sea on 
the right hand, and /and on the left,” and so on. 

In English we may observe that similar liberties are often 
taken with words the one of which is used as a representative 
of the other. Thus, although we cannot in English take the 


liberties with swnx which are taken in Greek with ἥλιος, yet © 


_we shall find that in many cases day is with us the representa- 
tive of ἥλιος, and that then it is exposed to the same licence. 


* Language is so delicate a thing, that it is very dangerous to speculate on it 
without long and full observation. I am not very sure that Sea and Land, Day 
and Night, ὅς. are not a species of Correlatives; and that, if the Article is 
omitted with one, it is so with the other; and that this will hold even where both 
are not expressed. Thus we say by sea, even when land is not mentioned, there 
being a reference to it. 


χὶν PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 


Thus the Greeks said ἅμα ἡλίῳ ἀνίσχοντι, or ἡλίου ἀνατέλ- 
Novroc, &c. &c. And we say day broke, day came at last. 
It is rather curious to remark, that we only use swn in compo- 
sition for such purposes, and that then the compound word, 
when used to denote time, hardly admits the Article. Thus, 
sun-rise, sun-set, take the Article only when they denote the 
act, not the time of the day. 

I have just observed that sun is not treated in English as 
ἥλιος is in Greek. The same applies to moon. and σελήνη, 
heaven and οὐρανός. ‘The words so used in English seem to me 
principally what denote the great periods of the year, Spring, 
Winter, &c.; or again, harvest, or the times of the day, 
morning, noon, &c.; or again, sun-rise, &c.; or the names of 
meals ; and sea and land, &c., in all of which the word time is 


suppressed. 


᾿Αρχή. This word is a good specimen of the way in which 
Winer’s list is made up. He does not bring a single instance 
of omission of the Article with this word, except after Preposi- 
tions. Nor does an instance of irregular use occur in the 
N.T. Wherever the Article is omitted, it is in enumeration, 
&c.; in those cases, in short, where it is occasionally omitted, 
according to known principles, with every word. ‘The only 
apparent case is in Mark i. 1.; but there the usage is strictly 
correct, τοῦτό ἐστιν being understood as in xiii. 9. ἀρχαὶ 


ὠδίνων ταῦτα. 


βασιλεύς. See Heindorf ad Plat. Euthyd. p. 809. Hein- 
dorf says that the Article is more usual, but cites Aristoph. 
Plut. 173.; Plat. Charmid. ὃ 12. In both of these cases 
μέγας is used. Schiif. Mel. p. 4. Engelb. ad Plat. Menex. 
Ρ- 291. Gottleb. ad Menex. p. 47. Aristoph. Eq. 478. 
Zeun. ad Xen. Cyr. i. 512. I find in Isoc. Archid. ad finem, 
ἡγουμένου βασιλέως ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας τῆς ἡμετέρας. But here the 
omission is right; “‘ When a king of our race led them.” In 


PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. XV 


the Evag. p. 79. ed. Battie, we have βασιλεῖ τῷ μεγάλῳ, and 
again p. 102. 


γῆ. Poppo, ad Xen. Anab. vi. 2. 1. and in his Index, 
cites no case of omission except after a Preposition; nor ᾿ 
do I find any other in Kruger or Bornemann. Heindorf 
on Plat. Gorg. cites seven cases of omission, a// after Prepo- 
sitions. See Dorvill. on Chariton. p. 166. In the N. T. 
there is one good instance, viz. 2 Pet. iii. 10. καὶ γῆ καὶ τὰ ἐν “ 
αὐτῇ ἔργα κατακαήσεται. Acts xvii. 24. is a case of enumera- © 


tion. In Mark xiii. 27. Luke ii. 14. Heb. viii. 4. there is ἃ 7)... 


Preposition; and 2 Pet. iii. 5. is a doubtful case. See Heind. * 
ad Plat. Gorg. p. 265. In the phrase γῆς ἄνακτα, in Soph. 
Cid. Col. 1630, the Article is omitted with γῆς, because it is 
omitted with ἄνακτα. 


Γυνή. I do not find any instances given by the critics 
except such as are explicable by one or other of Bishop Mid- 
dleton’s rules—/( enumeration, coming after a Preposition, &c.). 
In 1 Cor. v. 1. ὥστε γυναῖκά τινα τοῦ πατρὸς ἔχειν, 1 do not 
see the reason for the omission, if the reading is correct. In 
1 Cor. vii. 10. and 11. γυνὴ and ἀνὴρ are without the Article, 
but this is an exclusive proposition. 


γνώμη. Kruger ad Xen. An. i. 6. 9. gives instances of the 
omission of the Article before this word in formule, like 
ἀπόφηναι γνώμην (as ibid. v. 5. 3. and 6, 7. Thue. 11. 86; 
iv. 125; vii. 72; viii. 67. Arrian. Exp. ii. 21. 8.); and he 
conceives that it is omitted elsewhere also, as in Thuc. i. 53. 
(where the phrase is εἰ δ᾽ ὑμῖν γνώμη ἐστὶν, ii. 12. ἦν γὰρ Περι- 
κλέους γνώμη πρότερον νενικηκυῖα. This opinion has not been 
mentioned before, (indeed Thucydides goes on to explain it,) 
and therefore, even if the construction were quite certain as to 
this point, the Article is not necessary,) vi. 47. 

I need only observe, that in the first instance of the latter 


ΧΥΪ PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 


class, and in all those of the first, the omission of the Article 
is proper and necessary, on a principle which Bishop Middle- 
ton has laid down in speaking of the omission with Verbs Sub- 
stantive, &c., but which even he has not perhaps carried quite 
far enough. It seems to me at least, that wherever, in the 
case of a Noun following a Verb, the action of the Verb in any 
way expresses or implies the producing, calling into existence 
or action} the thing expressed by the Noun, there the Article 
ought, on Bishop Middleton’s principle, to be omitted. Thus 
Plat. Protag. p. 325. E. πολὺ μᾶλλον ἐντέλλονται ἐπιμελεῖσθαι 
εὐκοσμίας τῶν παίδων, ἢ γραμμάτων τε kal κιθαρίσεως. Here 
εὐκοσμία is a quality not yet existing in the children, but to 
be infused by the master’s care; and so of the other words. 
So, again, id. ib. p. 327. A. ἀναγκάζουσα ἀρετῆς ἐπιμελεῖσθαι. 
Crito, p. 45. ἢ)". In Crito, p. 51. A. we have ὁ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ 
τῆς ἀρετῆς ἐπιμελόμενος, (where there is a sneer at Socrates), 
he is spoken of, not as attending to virtue so as to produce it 
where it did not exist before; but supposing it to exist, to 
attend to it. Perhaps the usage in the Crito, p. 52. A. 
ἀλλ᾽ ἡροῦ, we ἐφῆσθα πρὸ τῆς φυγῆς, θάνατον, is to be re- 
ferred to the principles here laid down. 


"ExxAnota. Winer puts this in the list; but out of 115° 
instances, I find only 1 Cor. xiv. 4. ἐκκλησίαν οἰκοδομεῖ, 
where the word is not used with the strictest regularity. In 
this case, therefore, I conceive that either there is a false 
reading, or that-we may take the word indefinitely; ὦ church ; 
* edifies not himself, but a whole assembly.” 


Εὖρος. Xen. An, iv. 8, 1. ποταμὸν εὖρος ὡς δίπλεθρον, 
et al., although in other cases the Article is added. So of 
πλῆθος, μῆκος, σταθμὸς, &e. (as in ἤβοι. Soe. ii. 24). The 


* Some may, perhaps, refer these two cases to the remark in p- 95. Τνώμη, 
however, does not belong to the class there noticed. 


PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. Xvil 


fact is, that two different forms of expression are used; just as 
in English we might say, ‘ A wall which in its thickness was : 
two feet ;” or, “ A wall which in thickness was two feet.” The ᾿. 
Article, if used, is used here as a Possessive ; and it is obvious 
that all these qualities may be spoken of as belonging to the 
thing to which they refer, in which case the Article is right ; 
or as abstract qualities, in which case it is not required. In 
English we might say, ‘‘ The river in its widest part was, &c. ;” 
or, “ The river in the widest part was, &c.” Besides which, it 
must be observed, that a Preposition is understood in all these 
eases; which would certainly, if expressed, justify the omis- 
sion of the Article; and it is not easy to say how far this may 
affect the question. 


ἥλιος. Bishop Middleton has himself noticed that this 
word may be considered almost as a proper name; and Poppo 
(ad Xen. An. y. 7. 6.) makes almost the same remark. 
Kriiger (ad Xen. An. 1. 10. 16.) observes only that the Article 
is omitted when ἥλιος is joined with δύεσθαι. But this is not 
so. In the place whence I cite Poppo’s remark, we have ~ 
ὅθεν ἥλιος ἀνίσχει. And I find ἅμα τῷ ἡλίῳ δυομένῳ in ii. 2. 
16. while we have ἅμα ἡλίῳ ἀνίσχοντι, 11. 1. 8. (and so Lucian » 
Var. Hist. i. p. 642. ed. Var.) ἀνατέλλοντι, ii. 8. 1. περὶ “ 
ἡλίου δυσμάς, vi. 8. 82. (See Jacobs ad Luc. Tox. Ρ. OO)jondt ¢ 
is worth observing, that in the N. T. out of thirty-two in- + 
stances, the Article is omitted only eight times; twice in the . 
phrase ἡλίου ἀνατείλαντος, Matt. xiii. 6. Mark iv. 6..in which 
it occurs, Mark xvi. 2, twice in an enumeration, Luke xxi. 25. 
Acts xxvii. 20. (and 1 Cor. xii. 40. is nearly the same); twice 
after ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς or -wv, Rey. vii. 2; xvi. 12. In Rey. 
xxii. 5. we have χρείαν οὐκ ἔχουσι φωτὸς ἡλίου, where it 
could not be otherwise any more than in the five preceding 
cases. 


ἡμέρα. We have ἡμέρα ἐγένετο in Xen, An. 11, 2. 18. and = ~ 


a 


XVill PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 


’ so in classical writers constantly. Luke iv. 42. and Acts xvi, 
35; xxiii. 12. γενομένης δὲ ἡμέρας. vi. 13. ὅτε ἐγένετο appa. 
xxii. 66. Acts xxvii. 29. 33. 39. John ix. 4. ἕως ἡμέρα ἐστίν. 
Acts xii. 3. ἦσαν δὲ ἡμέραι τῶν ἀζύμων. 2 Pet. 1, 19. ἕως ov 
ἡμέρα διαυγάσῃ. 


It will be observed, that if Bishop Middleton be right, even 
in these cases the Article would be improper, the Verb being 
Substantive, (the last case, in fact, comes under the same 
head,) and in all the other numberless places in the N. T. 
where this word is used, it is used with the strictest attention 
to the regular rules for the Article; the Article being omitted 
only after Prepositions, in Enumerations, or after Substantive 
Verbs, (as 1 Thess. v. 4. and 8). As Ido not see the word 
ever alleged by the Critics to be irregular in this point, except 
in such cases as the above, it ought not to be in the list. We 
have ὀψίας γενομένης in the same way, Matt. xvi. 2. 


ἥμισυ. In Xen. Hell. iv. 3.15. we have Σὺν ᾿Αγησιλάῳ 
(ἢν)---ἥμισυ μόρας τῆς ἐξ Ορχομένου. But this, I apprehend, 
is to be construed: ‘‘ There was with Agesilaus half a mora, 
viz. that which came from Orchomenus.” This construction 
is very common, With Pausanias it is perpetual. Thus καὶ 
νῆσον Oxeavoc ἔχει τὴν Boeravywy, i. 33. 4. Siebenkees, on 
i. 3. 5. indicates 1. 27. 9; iv. 31. 9. (λόγῳ τῷ Μεσσηνίων), 
ix. 40. 4, and 32.6; and Herod. νυ. 50%. In Xen. An, y. 
10. 10. 1 Thue, viii, 61. the omission is after a Preposition. 
In Mark vi. 23. the Article is omitted after ἕως. In Luke 
xix. 8. we have ra ἡμίση τῶν ὑπαρχόντων ; and elsewhere, viz. 


* The only case which appears to me doubéful is Acts xxvii. 33. Τεσσέραν καὶ 
δεκάτην ἡμέραν προσδοκῶντες. | 

2 In Pausanias, however, this usage is pushed to extremities. Thus iv. 
11, 9, ὅτι ἔργου τοῦ πρὸς ᾿Ιλίῳ καὶ τούτοις μέτεστι, the Article ought certainly 
to occur. This is a peculiarity of the writer. 


9 


" 


PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. ΧΙΧ 


Rey. xi. 9. 11; xii. 14. it is used indefinitely. This word, 
therefore, must be taken out of the list. 


θάλαττα. That the Article is omitted before this word 
there is no doubt. Thus Xen. An. iv. 7. 20. ὄψονται θάλατ- 
ταν. v. 1, 2. ἐπεὶ θάλατταν ἔχομεν. 

I have already noticed the use of this word in English, 
I am inclined to think, that in the celebrated exclama- 
tion in Xen. An. iv. 7. 94. our English cry would have 
been, Sea, sce aio the Article. ὦ eo Θεοῦ φωνή, in 
Acts xii. 22)” whe Sh Ἀπ Θ᾽ Do gtk ῥα) 

In the N. T. it is very remarkable bow. almost constantly 
the word takes the Article. Out of ninety-two cases, I only 
find, though the greater part of these are cases after a Prepo- 
sition four where it is omitted on that account, viz. Acts vii. 


fe ae ΚΑ Rock 


36 ; x. 6. and 32; 2 Cor. ΣΙ “26. In Luke xxi. 25. it is 


τιν omitted from Enumeration ; in James 1. 6. Jude xiii. the Cor- 


relative word is indefinite. In Rev. iv. 6. the word is used 
indefinitely. In xiv. 7. I presume it is omitted on the ground 
of Enumeration—@aXaocav καὶ πηγὰς ὑδάτων. But it is re- 
markable, that οὐρανὸς and γῆ. preceding have the Article. 
Matt. iv. 15. is an obscure place, but I see not why ὁδὸς 
should not be indefinite there. 


θύρα. Kruger, in his Grammatical Index to Xenophon’s 
Anabasis, cites Lucian. Dial. Mort. ix. 3. for omission of the 
Article with θύρα, (which does not occur, by the way, in the 
place of Xenophon, ii. 5. 31. to which he refers,) but the ex- 
pression is ἐπὶ θύρας ἐφοίτων. Winer cites Matt. xxiv. 33. 
Mark xiii. 29; but these are both with ἐπί. The word is 
strictly used through the N. T. with the Article indeed usu- 
ally and the Preposition. This word, then, must go out of 
the list. , 


κόσμος. Winer alleges only such phrases as ἀπὸ κατα- 
a2 


xx PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 


βολῆς κόσμου, ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς κόσμου, ἐν. κόσμῳ. This word, then, 
must also go out of the list. 


μεσημβρίας. The Article is only omitted after Preposi- 
tions. Winer cites πρὸς νότον, πρὸς ἑσπέραν, ὅς. This word 
must go out of the list. 


νεκροί. This word, when used for dead bodies, is occasion- 
ally used by the Greeks without an Article; as by Lucian. 
Ver. Hist. i. p. 663. ed. Var.; and Winer quotes Thuc. iv. — 
14; v.10. I find it without the Article in A]. V. H. xii. 
27. Ὁ. N. A. xiv. 27. It has the Article in Xen. An. iy. 2. 
18. and 23. Atl. N. A. iv. 7; 1. 16; xui. 3. In the N. T. it 
is used quite regularly. 


πρόσωπον. Winer cites only cases after a Preposition as 
usual ; and the fact is, that the word is strictly regular. In the 
phrase λαμβάνειν πρόσωπον, the Article could not be used. 

In 1 Pet. iii. 12. there is an Enumeration; ὦτα before is 
without the Article’. 


φώς (aman). Soph. Aj. 807. ἔγνωκα yao δὴ φῶτος ἠπατη- 
μένη. Is there any instance in prose? 


ψυχή. In Plato the Article is often omitted. Thus, Pheed. 
p- 83. Ὁ. ψυχὴ παντὸς ἀνθρώπου, x. 16. D. καταδεῖται 
“ψυχὴ ὑπὸ σώματος ὃ; (though such omission, in both Correla- 
tives, seems common in other words and languages). De Rep. 
p- 398. C. ψυχή ἐστιν ἁρμονία. 


ne 


1 I may observe here, that in some cases of Enumeration we find the first 
word with the Article, and the others not; as in this case, and Asch. Socr. 
Dial. ii. 2. τὰ ἀνδράποδα, καὶ ἵπποι, καὶ χρυσὸς, καὶ ἄργυρος." 

3. Schifer on Plutarch, t. iv. p. 409. notes that the Article is omitted in words 
expressing parts of the body. But I want proof of this, 


PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. ἘΠῚ 


With respect to the Abstract Nouns mentioned by Winer, 
nothing can be more curious than his list. 

᾿Αγάπη occurs 116 times in the N.T., and is always regular, ° 
unless 2 Cor. il. 8. κυρῶσαι εἰς αὐτὸν ἀγάπην be thought an ex- 
ception, which I do not take it to be, on the grounds stated 
. under γνώμη. Κακία is always regular; πλεονεξία {Π6 same. (It ° 
is so in 2 Cor. ix. ὅ). Πίστις, in all the numerous instances in 
which it occurs, is quite regular, except in Heb. xi. 1. ‘Apao- 
τία is always regular, for such phrases as au. τίκτειν (Jamesi. 15.) 
or ἐργάζεσθαι (Id. ii. 9.) belong to the same class as those no- 
ticed under γνώμη... And in the expression ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας, 
the Article would be improper ; for the expression is evidently 
not intended to express ‘ the forgiveness of a// sins,’ but ‘ the 
forgiveness of any sin.’ Thus, in the phrase ‘ Who can forgive 
sins but God alone?’ the question is not, ‘who can forgive 
every ‘en ” but ‘who can compass such a work as the forgive- 
ness of ‘sin ?’ 

In the case of ἀρετὴ, I am not yet convinced that there is not 
a law for the use of the Article, although I have failed to 
ascertain it. Stallbaum. ad Protag. p. 320. B. and 361. A. 
says that it is used without the Article for virtue in general ; 
but the MSS. vary in both these places, and ἡ ἀρετὴ occurs in 
p: 320. C. I see no variation, however, noted in p. 324. A. 
and C. and p. 328. C. 

There are a few other words on which it may be right to add 
an observation or two. I have already spoken of the names 
of arts as being apparently irregular, and explained why. (See 
note in p. 50). I may add here a few more instances, to show 
that the words are used in both ways. 

Plat. Sympos. 186. E. has 4} τε οὖν ἰατρική, ὥσπερ λέγω, 
πᾶσα διὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τούτου κυβερνᾶται' ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ γυμνασ- 
τικὴ, καὶ γεωργία. Μουσικὴ δὲ καὶ παντὶ κατάδηλος. 

Aristotle, through his Rhetoric, uses, I think, quite con- 
stantly ἡ ἹΡητορικὴ and ἡ Διαλεκτική ; and we may, perhaps, in 
every instance construe it, Zhe Art of Rhetoric. In i. 1. 2. 


ΧΧῚΪ PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 


we have it contrasted with other arts which have no Article, 
ἰατρική, γεωμετρία, ἀριθμητική ; and so elsewhere. This seems 
to me easily explicable. He would naturally mention with 
more form and emphasis the art which was the’ particular 
object of his treatise, as well as Logic, with which he is per- 
petually considering its connexion and difference as an art, 
(see p. 50.) while others which are only casually mentioned 
would be treated less ceremoniously, and called medicine, 
arithmetic, &c.; not The art of medicine, &c. 

In Aisch. Socr, ii. 27. we have ἔστιν ἄρα ἡ ἰατρικὴ τῶν ἐπιστη- 
μῶν ἡ πρὸς τοῦτο χρησίμη. Here, being mentioned distinctly 
as an art, it has the Article’. In § 36. however, we have 
εἴπερ ἡ iat. ola τε ἐστὶ τὸν νοσοῦντα παύειν, φαίνοιτο ἂν ἡμῖν 
ἐνίοτε καὶ ἰατρικὴ τῶν χρησίμων οὖσα πρὸς τὴν ἀρετὴν εἴπερ διὰ 
τῆς ἰατρικῆς τὸ ἀκούειν πορισθείη. 

We now come to the words ἄνθρωπος and ἀνήρ. Of the 
first I would remark, that the following passage from the Pro- 
tagoras of Plato (p. 821. C. D.) seems to settle definitively that 
in the Singular there is great laxity of usage: 

Προμηθεὺς---ὁρᾷ τὰ piv ἄλλα Joa ἐμμελῶς πάντων ἔχοντα, 
τὸν δὲ ἄνθρωπον γημνάν τε καὶ ἀνυπόδητον καὶ ἄρρῳτον καὶ 
ἄοπλον᾽ ἤδη δὲ καὶ ἡ εἱμαρμένη ἡ ἡμέρα ἰδ: γι ἐν ἡ ἔδει καὶ ἄν- 
θρωπον ἐξιέναι ἐ ἐν γῆς εἰς φώς. ᾿Απορίᾳ οὗν ἐχόμενος ὁ Προμη- 
θεύς, ἥντινα swrnplay τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ εὕροι, κλέπτει ‘Heehem 
καὶ ᾿Αθηνᾶς τὴν ἔντεχνον ᾿βοφίαν σὺν πυρί---ἀμήχανον rao nv 
ἄνευ πυρὸς αὐτὴν κτητήν τῳ ἢ χρησίμην γενέσθαι, .--καὶ οὕτω δὴ 
δωρεῖται ἀνθρώπῳ᾽ τὴν μὲν οὖν περὶ τὸν βίον σοφίαν ἄνθρωπος 


ταύτῃ ἔσχε. 
Now in one or two of these instances explanations might, I 


* Care must be taken in examining passages. Thus in Plato Protag. p. 322, 
B. we have (in speaking of the primitive condition of man) πολιτικὴν yap τέχνην 
οὔπω εἶχον --ὕτ᾽ οὖν ἀθροισθεῖεν ἠδίκουν ἀλλήλους ἅτε οὐκ ἔχοντες τὴν πολι- 
τικὴν τέχνην. In the first case, the Article is omitted because the Proposition is 
Negative ; and in the second, it would be inserted (even if not necessary on other 
grounds) on the score of Renewed Mention. 


PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. XXili 


think, be devised, which would account for the use of the 
-Article; but then they would be fatal to the explanations of 
other cases. Thus, it might be said that in the first case the " 
Article is used because the genus was intended, and omitted in 
the second because an individual was meant. | _ But then, what 
is to be said of the omission in the last case? In the Singular 
then, ἄνθρωπος and 6 ἄνθρωπος appear to denote the genus; 
but even here it appears that where the genus is to be emphati- 
cally brought under notice, the Article is used. 

With respect to the opinion of Critics, I can hardly attach 
much weight toit. Stallbaum (on Plat. Pol. p. 619. B.) says, 
that when used de genere universo, ἄνθρωπος sometimes has, 
and sometimes has not, the Article. He refers to his notes on 
the Crito, p. 51. A. and Protag. p. 355. A. See, on ἄνθρω- 
πος, Bornemann. de gem. Cyrop. recens. p. 65. N. Thue. 
1. 41 ; vi. seq.; v.47. Xen. Cie. vi. 8. Aristot. Pol. vii. 12. 4. 
Athenag. Leg. 10. Rechenb. 

With respect to ἄνθρωποι, I would wish accurate inquiry to 
be made whether it is not used without the Article, as we use 
men, i. 6. not so decidedly for a generic description as man, or 
mankind, or 6 ἄνθρωπος, or οἱ ἄνθρωποι; as, for example, 
‘The man passed among men for an old man.’ This does not, 


of course, mean ali mankind on-the one hand, nor any pars) 


ticular persons on the other, but generally such men. as knew 
him, It seems to me, at least, that when the most generic 
description is meant to be given, the Article is added; but it 
wants very long and careful observation to decide this’. ᾿ 

As to ἀνὴρ, 1 must be contented with giving what I find in 
the Critics. Heindorf (on Plat. Theetet. p. 162. A. φίλος ~ 
ἀνήρ) refers to a note on Phedr. p. 267. A. where he inserts 
the Article in the sentence, σοφὸς γὰρ ἀνήρ. So De Rep. i. 
p- 331. EK. He refers too to Brunck, (on Soph. Cid. ο. 1486,) 


1 In Thuc. i. 41. one must translate, ‘In a time when men, attacking their 


enemies, think little of any thing in comparison with victory.’ 


Χχὶν PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 


and wishes to insert the Article. Also in Euthyd. p. 283. B. 
and Theeetet. p. 162. H. All these are Nominatives ; and Mat- 
thize (264. 262. 5.) says, that in the oblique cases the omission 
is not found, except in the Tragedians. But in the note on 
this latter place (of the Theztetus) Heindorf says, that on 
longer observation he would not now insert the Article against 
MSS. He refers, in confirmation of this, to Plat. Pheed. p. 98. 
B. where Stallbaum, after Wyttenbach and others, thinks that 
irrision is denoted by the omission of the Article. And again, 
on Pol. ix. p. 595. C. ἀλλ᾽ οὐ γὰρ πρό γε τῆς ἀληθείας τιμη- 
τέος ἀνήρ, Stallbaum attributes the omission to contempt. 
This, however, is still a Nominative, where the reading must 
be very uncertain. | 

Stallbaum also (on Plat. Phed. p. 98. B.) says, that the 
omission of the Article denotes trrision. He quotes Soph. Aj. 
1162. 1170. Aristoph. Ach. 1128. Herm. ad Soph. Cid. C. 
32. But in the places of the Ajax, the expression is simply, 
‘I have seen a man bold, &c.’ It is not the omission of the 
Article in what is meant to be a definite description, but that 
the speaker in Greek, and in every language, speaking 
in indignation or scorn, describes his adversary indefinitely, 
and leaves the application to be made by that adversary, or 
others. 

Herman (on Soph. Phil. 40.) observes, that in the Trage- 
dians some words take or omit the Article, even though defi- 
nitely used; but some have it always in a given definite sense. 
Thus ἀνὴρ always has it when it means a particular man, (not 
a husband), as is clear (1.) from our finding the Article with it 
always in the oblique cases, where a certain man is spoken οἵ; 
and (2.) from this, that in the Attic parts the first syllable 
never can be long, except where the Article is joined with it; 
and that it never requires the Article where the first syllable 
is short. 

But in the Attic Dramatic writers we cannot doubt about 
the usage. Thus, in Soph, Aj. 59. 


ΔΝ δ». σὰ ai a a i 


PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. XXV 


~ , 
"Eye δὲ φοιτῶντ᾽ ἄνδρα μανιάσιν νόσοις 


"Qrovvov. 
See too Aristoph. Lysist. 152. 


I have just noted a few references to various Critics who 
deliver some of Bishop Middleton’s more familiar rules. 

Chap. iii. Sect. i. § 1. Renewed mention. See Kriiger on 
Xen. Anab. i. 4. 2. and 7; iv. 5. 16; v. 9. 13; vi. 6. 5. and 
8. 6°. 

ὃ 2 and 3. Kar ἐξοχὴν and Monadic Nouns. Bornemann (ad 
Xen. Anab. iii. 2. 13.) mentions the use of the Article of any 
celebrated thing. So Kriiger, on the same book, iii. 5. 11. on 
τὸν προδότην, the well-known traitor. See his note on y. 1. 4. 
7. Ony. 9. 5. he says that it is necessary ‘ ad rem de more 
factam significandam, and in his Index says that it signified 
‘rem in vulgus notam,’ giving as instances Xen. An.i. 1. 6, 
τὴν Ἑλληνικὴν δύναμιν, the (well-known) Greek army ; v. 9. 
5. ai σπονδαὶ, the (usual) libations (after supper); vii. 1. 19. 
ταῖς ἀξίναις, those which the soldiers were in the habit of 
carrying. See Poppo’s observation on Schneider’s note on 
iy. 7. 27. τοὺς δακτυλίους. (The δακτύλιοι are so noticed also 
in Lucian’s Dialogues of the Dead, in that between Alexander, 
Hannibal, and Scipio ’). 

§ 4. Possessive. See Kriiger on Anab. i. 10. 5. and y. 7. 5. 
Poppo on vi. 5. 7. 

§ 7. Correlatives. In Soph. Cid. C. 1848. where we have 
τῆσδε δημοῦχος χθονὸς, we find Brunck wishing to read τῆσδ᾽ 
6. It is curious to find that Schiifer, who opposes him, brings 
as similar instances, (1.) v. 1476. ἄνακτα χώρας τῆσδε, and (2.) 


1 Kriiger refers to his Index as a supplement to his notes, and it contains some 
valuable observations. 

2 The quotation from Pericles’s λόγος ἐπιτάφιος, in Aristot. Rhet. i. 7. con- 
tains some good examples: τὴν νεότητα ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ἀνηρῆσθαι ὥσπερ τὸ ἐὰρ 
ἐκ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ εἰ ἐξαιρεθείη. 


ΧΧΥῚ PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 


v. 1630. γῆς ἄνακτα. Nor does Elmsley make any remark in 
citing this from Schafer. ‘Without impropriety, I hope I may 
observe, that there is very frequently to be found in Critics a 
want of this nice discrimination of the uses of the Article, 
which we find in Bishop Middleton. 

Siebelis, on Pausan i. 3. 5. gives instances of Relation where 
the Genitive has not the Article; but they are al/ names of 
countries, which follow nearly the laws of Proper Names. See 
him again on vy. 14. 5. Rie 

Herman, on Soph. Philoc. 888. ἡ ial τοῦ νοσήματος, 
says that this is Definite, id quod in hoc morbo molestum est ; 
and that if ἡ be omitted, it is Infinite, st guid in eo molestum 
est, asin German, Es hat dich doch nicht lastigkeit der kran- 
kheit vermocht. 

On v. 81. he says, that as τῆς. νίκης means victory in general, 
κτῆμα ought to have the Article, to signify ‘non aliquam sed 
omnem victorie adeptionem,’ 

I add an instance where the apparent irregularity ean be ~ 
explained. Plat. Protag. p. 325. C. τῶν οἴκων ἀνατροπαΐί. 
Here ἀνατροπαὶ is anarthrous, because it is the Predicate 
where ἡ ζημία was Subject. But then, why-rév olkwv? Be- 
cause without the Article, the sense would be wholly different. 
The sentence is, “ But in the case where death to their chil- 
dren, and exile, and confiscation of property, and, to say all 
in a word, destruction of their families.” Without the Article 
we must construe ‘‘ destruction of families.” If this had been 
predicated as the consequence, another evil might have seemed 
to be in the writer's mind. Just before, in speaking of confis- 
cation of property, the Article is not wanted, and is not used. 

On the matter of Predicate and Subject, it may be well to 
observe, that Matthiz says that the Subject has not the Ar- 
ticle, if it isa general idea. 'Two of his three instances are, 
Isoc. ad Demonic. p. 8. B. καλὸς θησαυρὸς παρ᾽ ἀνδρὶ orov- 
daly χάρις ὀφειλομένη. Nicocl. p. 28. A. λόγος ἀληθὴς καὶ 
νόμικος καὶ δίκαιος ψυχῆς ἀγαθῆς καὶ πιστῆς ciowAdviotu The 


Atta 


PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. XXVll 


third is, ἄνθρωπος (in the Protagoras) πάντων χρημάτων μέ- 
toov ἄνθρωπος. 

Again, he says that the Predicate has the Article, if it is a 
definite object, in which it is affirmed that it belongs to the 
general idea in the subject, as Eur. El. 381. 

τίς δὲ πρὸς λόγχην βλέπων 

Μάρτυς γένοιτ᾽ ἂν ὅστις ἐστιν ἀγαθός ; 
Plat. Pheed. p. 78. C. ταῦτα μάλιστα εἶναι τὰ ἀξύνθετα. (This 
case is especially explained by Bishop Middleton.) Philemon 
ap. Stobeum. Floril. Grot. p. 211. εἰρήνη ἔστι τἀγαθόν. 
(This is a singular instance indeed.) Lucian Dial. Mort. 
17. 1. τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸ ἡ κόλασίς ἐστιν, where a particular punish- 
ment is spoken of. 

I will now proceed to give the additional instances which I 
have lately collected, which bear upon Mr. Granville Sharp’s 
rule. 

Plat. de Rep. p. 398. C. τὴν ἁρμονίαν καὶ ῥυθμόν. 


Id. Pol. iv. p. 586. Εἰ. τῇ ἐπιστήμῃ καὶ λόγῳ. ies 

Id. ibid. viii. p. 557. C. of παῖδές τε καὶ yor}. & 
ναΐκες. ἕρ ΕΞ 

Id. Legg. vi. p. 784. C. ὁ σωφρονῶν καὶ σω- ἀκ Ὁ 
φρονοῦσα. = Bis 

Id. ibid. v. p. 771. E. τῇ παρούσῃ φήμῃ καὶ λόγῳ. ἡ “αὶ = 

Id. Protag. p. 327. B. ἡ ἀλλήλων δικαιοσύνη 3 Aves, 

ῳ 


καὶ ἀρετή. 
Id. Pol. vi. p. 516. Β. τῶν ἄστρων τε καὶ σελήνης. 


τυ Aristot. Rhet. i. 1. 1. ὁ δ᾽ ἐκκλησιαστὴς καὶ δικαστὴς ἤδη 


περὶ παρόντων καὶ ἀφωρισμένων κρίνουσι. 
6- Id. ibid. 2. 7. τὸ γὰρ τέκμαρ καὶ πέρας ταὐτόν ἐστι, κατὰ τὴν 
ἀρχαῖαν γλώτταν. 

Id. ibid. 8. τὴς διαλεκτικῆς καὶ ῥητορικῆς. But ini. 1. 3. 
ἡ διαλεκτικὴ καὶ ἡ ῥητορική. 

Id. ibid. 8. 1. τοῦ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον. 

Id. ibid. 4. τὸ σύμφερον καὶ βλαβερόν ; and again, τοῖς ἔπαι- 


μη Ν ’ 
νοῦσι καὶ ψέγουσι. 


ΧΧΥΠῚ PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 


Id. ibid. 9.1. τῷ ἐπαινοῦντι καὶ ψέγοντι. 

Id. ibid. 10. 1. περὶ δὲ τῆς κατηγορίας καὶ ἀπολογίας. 

Id. ibid. τὸ δίκαιον καὶ ἄδικον. 

Id. ibid. 11. 2. τοῖς εἰθισμένοις τε καὶ δυναμένοις. 

Id. ibid. ἐν τῷ μεμνῆσθαί τε καὶ ὁρᾷν. 

Id. ibid. τὰς μαχητικὰς καὶ τὰς αὐλητικὰς καὶ ἐριστικάς. 

Id. ibid. τοῖς πένθεσι καὶ θρήνοις. 

Pausanias vi. 6. 9. τὴν Λοκρίδα καὶ 'ῬΡηγίνην. 

Thucydides i. 54. ὑπὸ τοῦ ῥοῦ καὶ ἀνέμου. 

Ibid. 140. τὴν βεβαίωσιν καὶ πεῖραν τῆς γνώμης. 

Ibid. 141. ἡ τε μεγίστη καὶ ἐλαχίστη δικαίωσις. 

Ibid. 143. τὴν μὲν γῆν καὶ οἰκίας ἀφεῖναι, τῆς δὲ θαλάσσης 
καὶ πόλεως φυλακὴν ἔχειν. 

Ibid, ii. 50. τὰ γὰρ ὄρνεα καὶ τετράποδα. 

Ibid. iv. 84. ὑπὸ τῶν τοξευμάτων καὶ λίθων. 

Xen. Mem. i. 1. 19. τά τε λεγόμενα καὶ πραττόμενα καὶ τὰ 
σιγῇ βουλευόμενα. 

Id. Cyrop. i. 6. 17. δοκεῖ ἥ τε ὑγίεια μᾶλλον παραμένειν 
καὶ ἰσχὺς προσγενέσθαι. But this is no instance; health ex- 
isted before ; strength is a new acquirement. 

Id. Anab. ii. 1. 7. τὰς τάξεις τε καὶ ὁπλομαχίαν. : 

Id. ibid. ii. 2. 5. οἱ στρατηγοὶ καὶ λοχαγοί'. 

Isocrates Archid. p. 58. ἢ τοῦ διάγεσθαι καὶ περιποιῆσαι 
σφᾶς αὐτούς. 

Id. Evag. p. 83. τὸ δ ἑτέρων ζητεῖν τὴν κάθοδον καὶ 
θεραπεύειν τοὺς αὐτοῦ χείρους ὑπερεῖδε. 

Id. ibid. p. 89. ἐν τῷ ζητεῖν καὶ φροντίζειν καὶ βουλεύεσθαι. 

Id. ibid. p. 102. τῶν ᾿Ημίθεων τοὺς πλείστους καὶ ὀνομαστο- 
τάτους. This is of the same person. © 

Id. Busir. p. 163. τὴν Λακεδαιμονίων ἀργίαν καὶ πλεο- 


νεξίαν. 


1 I may mention that Xenophon’s practice about these words differs. We 
have στρατηγοὶ καὶ λοχαγοὶ without any Article very often, as Anab. iii. 5. 7; 
iv. 3. 26. 6.12. 7.25; vi. 3. 12. 4. 30. Cyrop. iii. 3.11. Both have the Article 
in il. 5. 25; v. 2, 13; vii. 1.13. and elsewhere. See iv. 4.21; v. 4. 23; vi. 5. 4. 


9 re ee el ee 


Ne eee 


ζυ.. 


PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. ΧΧΙΧ 


Id. ibid. p. 177. τῶν πλεῖστα εἰδότων καὶ βουλομένων ὠφε- 
λεῖν, of the same people. 

Herodian i. 17. 25. τοῦ φαρμάκου καὶ μέθης. 

Id. i. 17. 3. τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους καὶ λοιποὺς πατρῴους φίλους. 

Id. i. 16. 7. τὴν ἔνδοξον καὶ ἐνιαύσιον πορφύραν. (See too 
i. 16. 10). 

Id. ii. 4. 12. τὴν re Ἰταλίαν καὶ ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔθνεσι 
ἀγεώργητόν τε καὶ παντάπασιν οὖσαν ἀργόν. 

Kriiger’s observations on this point are worth quoting. On 


~ Xen. An. vii. 2. 16. he says, that properly the Article is not 2... “i 


added to the second word, when ‘ utrumque vocabulum in 


unam notionem conjunctum cogitandum est, but that as it is ~ ~~ 


usually of very little consequence whether this is signified or 
not,)the Article is often inserted where it would not be ex- 
pected. On vii. 7. 36. τὸ πολὺ καὶ τὸ ὀλίγον he inserts the 
Article on the authority of one MS., because ‘ sine eo voces 7. 
et ὁ. conjungi posse diceretur, cum ut opposite cogitande sint.’ 
In the same sentence he edits ἡ δύναμις τοῦ ἀποδίδοντος καὶ 
Tov λαμβάνοντος, but seven MSS. omit the second Article. 
On this subject it may be sufficient to observe, that of all 
these instances, none goes against Mr. Sharp’s rule as ex- 
plained by Bishop Middleton, with the exception of the two 


_. first from Aristotle’s Rhetoric. That they should have been 


so long overlooked, standing where they do, is a proof how 
little interest is excited by the subject. On these instances I 
hardly know what to say, except that the fact, that the sen- 
tence is explaining how the Ecclesiast and Dicast differ, pre- 
vents any possibility of the two words being referred to the 
same person ; and that in the same way, in the second case, the 
obvious fact, that the writer is treating of and explaining two 
different terms, and showing that they come to the same thing, 
would prevent any misunderstanding. If these explanations 
are not thought sufficient, it must be allowed that Mr. 
Sharp’s rule is not universal, but its general truth cannot be 
shaken. | 

In connexion with this subject, it deserves attention, that 


ΧΧΧ PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 


the Greek writers not only, as Bishop Middleton remarks, 
omit the Article altogether in an enumeration of particulars, 
but that they occasionally insert the necessary Article (or 
Articles with the first clause or clauses of a sentence, and omit 
it before the others, where other particulars are enumerated 
in clauses of a form exactly like the first. Thus, Thue. ii. 2. 
τῶν λιμένων τὴν χῶσιν καὶ τειχῶν οἰκοδόμησιν καὶ νεῶν ποίη- 
σιν. Here both Articles are omitted in the second and third 
clauses. 

Plat. Pol. viii. p. 533, seq. ἀρέσκει τὴν piv πρώτην μοῖραν 
ἐπιστήμην καλεῖν, δευτέραν δὲ διανοίαν, τρίτην δὲ πίστιν, καὶ 
εἰκασίαν τετάρτην. 

, Xen. Cc. ix. 7. ἄλλη (φυλὴ) τῶν ἀμφὶ λοῦτρον, ἄλλη ἀμφὶ 
néxrpac} ἄλλη ἀμφὶ τραπέζας. 

Plat. Protag. p. 329. C. μόρια δ᾽ αὐτῆς ἐστιν ἡ δικαιοσύνη καὶ 
σωφροσύνη καὶ ὁσιότης. 

There are some few instances which I have observed, for 
which I cannot satisfactorily account, and I think it right to add 
them. A very few exceptions, however, do not at all go to shake 
rules, which of course can only be general, and very possibly 
observers of greater sagacity than myself will see the reasons 
for these exceptions, or show that they fall within Bishop 
Middleton’s rules. 

Plat. Gorg. p. 497. E. ᾿Αγαθοὺς ἄνδρας καλεῖς ἄφρονας καὶ 
δειλούς. Why not rove adpovac? 

Id. Thezetet. p. 151. E. Αἴσθησις, φῆς, ἐπιστήμη. 

Id. Charmidas, p. 161. A. οὐκ ἄρα σωφροσύνη ἂν εἴη αἰδώς. 
As the two last are not reciprocating Propositions, I do not 
see why the Article is omitted. 


Id. Protag. Ρ. 329. D. ὥσπερ pd achive δον ταν μόριά dort 
στόμα τε καὶ ῥὶς καὶ ὀφθαλμὸς καὶ ὦτα ἢ ὥσπερ τὰ τοῦ χρυσοῦ 
μόρια οὐδὲν διαφέρει τὰ ἕτερα τῶν ἕτερων. Why is the Article 
omitted before f cpecitest Ὁ Just below we have ὥσπερ ra τοῦ 


προσώπου μύρια". 


‘ It may be well finally to subjoin instances which I have observed, where 


~eth ori ee hia 


- “ραν... “ιν ee eee 


ΨΥ νυ ἀν ee ee 


a 


PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. XXX1 


It only remains that I should state what has been done in 
this edition. In the first place, Mr. Winstanley’s book against 
Mr. Sharp, which was the most considerable of all published 
on the subject, has, I believe, been fully examined in all its 
material parts. Mr. Winstanley shows much reading and 
great attention to the question, but does not, as I trust I have 


shown, at all shake Mr. Sharp’s positions, as explained and Ὁ 


confirmed by Bishop Middleton. As the rule has been much 
canvassed in speaking of certain titles and names given to our 
Lord, I have, with considerable labour, given in my Appendix 
a full view of every instance of each of the most remarkable 
titles applied to Him. I have likewise examined Winer’s 
book, which is one of the most celebrated of modern books on 
the New Testament, and have given from him, and also from 
Gersdorf’s work on the Characteristics of the Style of the 
Writers of the New Testament, whatever seemed most im- 
portant on the Article. Besides this, I have used all the 
diligence I could in collecting the dicta of modern foreign 
Critics on this subject. I cannot in truth say that I think 
they amount to very much, except to this, that they show that 
most Critics have paid very little attention to the subject. Still 
it was only right, that in a new Edition of the only great 
work on the Greek Article, whatever-had been said by eminent 
Scholars should be added; and this, to the best of my ability, 
I have done, besides adding such other instances of the use of 
the Article, as my own reading chanced to supply. 


Critics have given explanations of particular passages where the Article occurs 
‘in a way which, to a Student, might be embarrassing. 
Soph. El. 6 σὺν γυναιξὶ τὰς μάχας ποιούμενος. 
His battles, whatever battles he fight. 
Id. ibid. 554. τὰ πολλὰ πνεύματ᾽, those many winds which are accustomed to 
blow, (the Euripus being very stormy), or the many winds which detained the 
Greek fleet. 


oe ee 
4 ἡ ot) = ~ ro ae, 


᾿ ΩΣ ae ΨΕῚ 
. 
΄ » y 
; Js ee ee eee oe “4 be 4 
“i sibs ρινῤιφα ἡ fusion eel 
ail ae 
' iq wt 
ἡ»: ᾿ 5 
rs bie ae 
/ Ἵ ; ri } 
emit YY ben Jon wie 7 fad «οὶ oid ΗΕ 
ΝΣ ὩΣ » 5-2 ow ra - 
ΤΟΝ PAN? fl ἐγ Gil Or ond, 3 Pele iz. 3 pe ee 
ae 
- 
2 a oF ay ith μρᾷ 
Path "es 
| 4γι τα 
wy -» 
= 
5 Zz md ot a he » οἱ 
> & y 


5 ‘ Re eye 


Vien 


Ἂν} >. 


TO 


4. 


THE REVEREND 
JOHN PRETYMAN, D.D, 


ARCHDEACON AND RESIDENTIARY OF LINCOLN, 
PREBENDARY OF NORWICH, &c. &c. 


My pear Sir, 


Tue satisfaction which usually attends the 
termination of a literary labour, is, in the present 
instance, greatly increased by the opportunity afforded 
me of publicly stating the obligations which I owe 
to a Patron and Friend. The day which first recom- 
mended me to your notice, is distinguished in the 
annals of my life. Your nice and inflexible regard 
to integrity, your accurate estimate of mental powers, 
and your almost intuitive knowledge of character, 
confer honour on those who, in any, even the lowest 
degree, possess your favourable opinion: but when 
I reflect that, endowed with these qualities, you 
selected me to discharge a trust, the most momen- 
tous which man can delegate, allowing largely, as 
I ought to do in such a case, for the fallibility of 


human judgment, I cannot but feel the value of 
b 


XXXIV DEDICATION. 


your preference ; I cannot repress emotions of self- 
complacency and pride. 


But not merely for the gratification of my vanity 
am I indebted to your kindness ; I have to acknow- 
ledge substantial benefits. You have smoothed the 
path of my future life; you have supplied incite- 
ments to diligence ; you have facilitated my exertions, 
whatever be the end to which they may hereafter 
be directed; you have placed me in a situation in 
which indolence might sink into repose, and in 
which, if activity fail of its reward, defeat may find 
consolation. 


And yet, Sir, the retrospect cannot be contem- 
plated without deep regret. Of the two excellent 
young men whose minds it became my duty to cul- 
tivate, one is now no more’: the wound inflicted 


* Henry Georce Preryman died of a decline on the 16th 
October, 1807, having just completed his 17th year: his remains 
are deposited in Bristol Cathedral, on the North side of the Altar: 
in the ensuing autumn he would have proceeded to the University. 
I cannot but be solicitous to record some memorial of his mind: 
to those, therefore, who have the candour to excuse the defects of 
a juvenile trifle, I offer the following Inscription, supposed to be 
intended for a statue of our immortal statesman, Mr. Pirr. I might 
have selected a more favourable specimen of my lamented Pupil’s 
talents: but the present is recommended by its brevity, by the 
interest of its subject, and by its being his last attempt in Greek 
composition. It was written in December, 1806; and it is printed 
exactly as it was found among his papers. 


— ee eee eee 


DEDICATION. XXXV 


by his departure, is yet unhealed; and the chasm 
which he has left in our affections, will not soon 
be closed. I mean not to wrong Parental anguish 
by pretending to share it; Nature has given it a 
character of its own; it is a Sacred Sorrow, which 
is profaned by the intrusion of affected sympathy. 
You will concede, however, that mine is a case of 
no common disappointment, and you will allow me 
to indulge in expressions of grief, which well may 
be sincere. Your second Son, from the completion 
of his sixth year, had been committed to my sole 
tuition: and with daily opportunities of observing 
his character, and of witnessing his conduct, not to 
have loved him, would have evinced an insensi- 


bility which I hope does not exist. While the 


ἜἘΙΣ TO ΠΙΤΤΟΥ ’ATAAMA. 


Μῶν, ὦ ’yd0’, αὐχεῖς ᾿Αγγλικὸς πεφυκέναι; 
βαιόν γ᾽ ἐπισχὼν ᾿Αγγλίας σωτῆρ᾽ ὅρα. 
βροντὴ γὰρ ὡς ἤστραπτεν ἧς γλώσσης σθένος, 
ὀργάς 7 ἔθελξεν αἱμύλος μύθων χάρις" 
πυκναῖς δὲ βουλαῖς τοῦδε, γῆς Εὐρωπίας 
ἔπτηξ᾽ ἀλάστωρ, ἠδ᾽ ἄγρας ἡμάρτανεν'" 

ov γὰρ δόλοισι ΠΙΤΤΟΣ ἐσφάλη ποτέ, 

ἀλλ᾽ ἄκρον ὡς πύργωμα τῆς μοναρχίας 
ἔστη, θρόνους τ᾽ ὥρθωσε τοὺς ἐρειψίμους" 
ψυχῆς δὲ μᾶλλον ἠγάπησε πατρίδα, 

πάντων τ᾽ ἄναξ (ὦ θαῦμα) τέθνηκεν πένης. 
θρήνων ἀπλήστων λήγετ᾽, ὦ ΠΙΤΤΟΥ φίλοι, 
γοώμενοι μάταια" κάλλιστον γέρας 

οἱ πρόσθεν ἐχθροὶ προσφέρουσ᾽ «αἰκουσίως, 
θανόντος ἔργα καὶ λόγους μιμούμενοι. 


b2 


ΧΧΧΥῚΪ DEDICATION. 


qualities of his heart engaged my esteem, the en- 
dowments of his mind commanded my admiration. 
To simplicity ever unsuspicious, to warmth and 
generosity of feeling, to.a temper the most docile 
and affectionate, to the habitual yet unconscious 
exercise of native benevolence, and to firm faith 
in the truths of our Religion, he added a quick 
and clear apprehension, a lively and creative fancy, 
much acuteness of discrimination, and a power which 
is rarely possessed in youth, that of directing all the 
energies to a given subject. Of his attainments I 
should not speak without great hesitation, if less 
partial judges had not inferred from them the cer- 


tainty of his future distinction: I was encouraged | 


to hope that Cambridge would number him among 
her illustrious sons; and I anticipated the grateful 
and repeated tidings, | 


er τ , 

OTL OL νέαν 
κόλποισι παρ᾽ εὐδόξοιο Πίσας 
ἐστεφάνωσε κυδίμων ἀέθλων 


πτεροῖσι χα iray. 


Thus prematurely is dissolved a connexion of more 
than thirteen years’ continuance. At a crisis so in- 
teresting, I have solicited permission to prefix your 


name to the following Volume. The merits of the 


performance may not entitle it to your zealous patron- 
age ; but its design, and the circumstances in which 
it has been produced, lead me to h@pe that you will 
not regard it with total indifference. It is, I trust, 


strictly within the line of our Profession; it was 


a et ek ee be tar vi 


τ αὶ νόος 


DEDICATION. XXXVI 


written in intervals of relaxation from duties originat- 
ing in your partiality; and I cannot suppose that here 
Association will suspend its wonted influence on the 
feelings, though it may not bias your judgment. 


I have now, Sir, to take my leave of you, with fer- 
vent prayers for your own happiness, and for that of: 
your Family. I am shortly to withdraw from polished 
and literary society, from friendships endeared to me 
by similarity of pursuits, and by uninterrupted habits 
of kindness and confidence, to exercise the obscure, 
but important function of a Village Pastor: I am to 
seek other companions, to form new connexions, to 
engage in fresh projects : but whatever be my destiny, 
I cherish the belief that your good wishes will attend 
me, and that if ever your good opinion can avail to 
my welfare, you will not withhold it. 


I am, 
My dear Sir, 
With sentiments of unfeigned 
Gratitude and respect, 


Your obedient and faithful Servant, 


THOMAS FANSHAW MIDDLETON, 


Norwich, 1st Jan. 1808. 


- ; ps yin πὸ συυνντς, δ τ 
3 P + - ᾿ ΡΜ “ἢ A Ἧ ᾿ ᾿ Γ ABS 
5 Sentaraedy rai Yale FORT AC 
ify Δ i λα 


- a), 3 5 ᾿ “ me = is Be γ 42: + “ 
Aor Tei segs JOT TERIOR ΘΙ ἢ 


‘ - +) : = εἰ ἘΝ 
Ons τι SST an it εὴ it Ἔα ? 

. τὰν - δι ἢ eS re 

snanba bee ὙΜΟΥ ean sted soir ¥. 

Ὗ = Ls ᾿ " * 


we 


a ts ᾿ Q : ῇ ‘ sos ν ἌΝ ᾿ aa) ᾿ 
ot ry ἸΟῪ To ‘Renae a "a 
Ὶ 5 ᾿ s as ᾿ aes § 
Yo 1. tor Dae ee eigaqintl ὙΓΠΘ am 


AB ie wi iy ot ΓΙ ene cit φὴ 


ἫΝ, 3 ar Fig reer os ν oe) 2 ay 
* SORT OF BYTE pns aqfiitebisiit εὐ χε 


ΠΤ ΠΕ 9 the oF ἘΠ 


« 


ry 


τς 
᾿ ae 
ν᾿ 243? 


Tee frre 
4. Ἃς Aut 


sR" naalilsit he’ ὁδοῦ ide 


ἐν. Se τς o me “eh sates Bt 


enh 


ass 


; VOT area Ie . 


4 ν᾿ 
at “ai 

“. , ᾿ ‘ ar . \ Ἵ 

‘ epee) 2 « 2) > = sae xy v1 ἐν 


ay Rae ge eRe aniete ia 


te a eh εἶν, ae ety pene 


PREFACE. 


Tuer Student in Theology cannot fail to have remarked, that 
the exposition of various passages of the New Testament is by 


Commentators made to depend on the presence or the absence : 


of the Article in the Greek original. He has observed, that 
on this ground frequently they have attempted to correct mis- 
translation, to strengthen what they thought too weak, or to 
qualify what was deemed too strong. Criticisms of this kind 
he probably regarded as being at least plausible, till he per- 
ceived that they sometimes degenerated into refinements not 
haying any visible foundation in truth; that distinctions were 
made, which were not warranted by the general tenor of Scrip- 
ture; that the examples by which it was sought to establish 
the proposed exposition, were not always strictly parallel; and 
that Critics, instead of accurately investigating the laws of the 
Greek idiom, were not unfrequently content to argue from the 
practice in their own. 

These charges, however, even if we admit them in their full 
extent, detract nothing from the general value of Grammatical 
Interpretation, as applied to the Sacred Volume: they tend only 
to show that a particular philological question has not hitherto 
been sufficiently examined. To the Grammatical interpretation 
of the N. T. every sensible and unbiassed Christian will give 
his strenuous support. When, indeed, we consider how many 
there are who seek to warp the Scriptures to their own views 
and prepossessions, it seems to be the only barrier which can 
be opposed successfully against heresy and corruption. Partial 
Versions may be framed, and false Expositions sent forth into 
the world: but these cannot, if the friends of religion accu- 


χὶ PREFACE. 


rately study the original of the Scriptures, long mislead man- 
kind. It was the judicious admonition of one of the Fathers, 
and the lapse of centuries has not abated its eh or propriety, 
ἡμεῖς οἱ πιστοὶ παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς ἐξετάσωμεν καὶ “Bobantocmai en TOV 
ῥημάτων τὴν ἀκρίβειαν. ; 

That the uses of the Greek Article should not have been 
more correctly ascertained, may excite surprise, when we per- 
ceive that hints tending to prove the importance of the subject 
may be traced even in the writings of the Fathers. In Justin, 
in Irenzus, in Clement of Alexandria, in Origen, in Athana- 
sius, in Epiphanius, in Chrysostom, and in Theophylact, we 
find that stress is sometimes laid on the Article as prefixed to 
particular words, though no principles are generally inculeated : 
and a Latin Father, Jerome, remarking on Galat. v. 18. that 
πνεύματι is there anarthrous, adds, gue quidem minutia magis 
in Grecd quam in nostra lingud observate, qui ἄρθρα penitus 
non habemus, videntur aliquid habere momenti. Indeed, if we 
regard the subject as a question merely of Profane Philology, 
it possesses a degree of interest which might have more 
strongly recommended it to notice. In the course of the last 
century almost every topic connected with Greek Criticism 
has been minutely and profoundly discussed: we have seen 
disquisitions on the Homeric Digamma, on the Greek Accents, 
on Dialects, on the quantity of the Comparatives in ION’, on 
the licence allowed in Tragic lambics and on their Czesura, on 
the Greek Particles, and on Metres, especially those of Pindar. 
I will not deny that these inquiries are all of them of the 
highest importance to the cause of Classical Literature: yet 
the present, considered in the same point of view, may claim 
at least a secondary rank, whilst in its connexion with The- 
ology, and, perhaps, I may add, with the Philosophy of 
Grammar, it admits them not to any competition’. 


1 See the masterly critique in the Monthly Review, New Series, vol.. Xxix, 
p- 427, et seqq. 

2 It is true that a work entitled “ Vindicie Articuli ὃ, ἡ, τό, in N. T.” was 
published by Adrian Kluit, and if I mistake not, in the Dutch language, about 
forty years ago. When I commenced my undertaking, I was not aware that such 


me ee oe 5 - 


PREFACE. ΧΙ 


‘This subject, however, has of late acquired additional interest 
from the Controversy occasioned by a work of Mr. Granville 
Sharp’s. This gentleman contends that such phrases in the 
N. T. as τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ ought to be interpreted of one 
individual, so as to afford evidence of our Saviour’s Divinity, and 
that such had been the rendering of many of our older English 


Versions: Beza had also strenuously supported the same opinion; "Ὁ 


as did many other Critics, The interpretation maintained 
by Mr. Sharp became the more probable from being sanctioned 
by the excellent Editor of Dawes’s Miscellanea Critica, the 
present Bishop of St. David’s. The same interpretation was 
also powerfully confirmed by the elaborate researches of Mr. 
Wordsworth, who has proved that most of the disputed texts 
were so understood by the Fathers. If any thing under this 
head remained to be done, it was to show that the same form 
of expression in the Classical Writers required a similar ex- 
planation, and also to investigate the principle of the Canon, 
and to ascertain its limitations: this 1 have attempted in some 
of the following pages. 

But the Criticism, as well as the Illustration, of the N. T. is 
involved in the present inquiry. Michaelis (Introd. vol. i. 
p- 267.) has well observed, that ‘‘ the difference even of an 
Article must not be neglected in collating a MS.:” and yet in 
this respect the MSS. are frequently at variance. It is, then, 
much to be desired, that even in this particular, the text should 
be restored as nearly as possible to the reading of the Auto- 
graphs: and I perceive not how this can be effected with any 
tolerable ground of security, unless we first ascertain what 
reading the idiom requires, or at least prefers: for the mere 
majority of MSS. will hardly satisfy the Critic: in many in- 
stances it will be seen that “‘ major pars meliorem vicit.” 


a book existed; and that it exists, is all which I know of it now, when my work 
is nearly printed off. Our agreement, therefore, if we ever agree, must be 
regarded as independent evidence of the same truth. I suspect, however, that 
we have proceeded on different principles, because Schleusner, in his Lexicon, 
though he appeals to Kluit, has in many important passages explained the Article 
in a manner from which, as will be seen, 1 entirely dissent. 


ΧΙ PREFACE. 


In this investigation, however, and indeed in tracing the 
most obvious uses of the Greek Article, I found it impossible 
to proceed with any thing like certainty, unless the Article 
itself were first clearly defined, and its nature well understood. 
It has therefore been my endeavour, in the former Part of my 
volume, to resolve the question, What is the Greek Article? 
and to show that the solution offered will explain its principal 
uses in the Greek Writers: examples of these several uses are, 
of course, subjoined. In the Second Part I have applied to 
the Greek Text of the New Testament the doctrine laid down 
in the Part preceding. In each of them, if I have, in any 
considerable degree, attained the ends proposed, I shall not 
have occasion to regret the time and the labour which it has 
cost me: the former Part will not then be uninteresting as a 
Grammatical speculation; it may assist the young men who, 
in our Schools and Universities, exercise themselves in Greek 
composition; and, judging from the errors in respect of the 
Article, which still deform many editions of the Classics, it 
may not be wholly useless to Editors, who have not particu- 
larly attended to the subject. On the same supposition, the 
Second Part will be found, in some instances, to have corrected — 
faulty translation; in others, where different interpretations 
have their advocates, to give to one side the preponderance; in 
some, to vindicate the integrity of the Text from wanton con- 
jecture; in others, to restore its purity by the adoption of 
rejected readings: in a word, to be subservient both to the 
Illustration and to the Criticism of the N. T. I am aware, 
however, that to plan and to execute are very different things ; 
that the imagination readily conceives what the hand cannot 
pourtray; and that the best performances of the strongest 
minds bear but a faint resemblance to the archetype. I am, 
therefore, to expect that I shall need the Reader's indulgence ; 
on which, however, I cannot produce any very unusual claims. 
To him who urges the difficulty of his subject, it is fair to 
retort, that he ought to have measured his own strength. I 
might, indeed, allege, that a more ready access to libraries (for 


PREFACE. xii 


my own is not large, ὀλέγον re φίλον re) would certainly have 
enriched my work, and might possibly have prevented some 
mistakes: even this, however, would be of little avail; and 
every thing, perhaps, which is usually adduced on such occa- 
sions, may be comprised in the brief declaration, 6 γέγραφα, 
γέγραφα. 3 

But though I cannot assert extraordinary pretensions to the 
lenity of the Reader, I shall be justified in the attempt to 
counteract the effect of prejudice. An opinion prevails, that 
practical inferences deduced from inquiries of this kind are 
unsafe and futile: there are persons who appear to believe that 
the usages of language are rarely reducible to fixed rules; that 
their agreement is merely coincidence, and that Idiom is to be 
attributed solely to custom. I do not hold such reasoning 
to be at all philosophical; custom in language bears a close 


analogy to chance in physics; each of them is a name for the 


operation of unerring causes, which we want either the ability 
or the inclination to apprehend. Qualified by such a confession, 
each of these terms may be tolerated; but neither of them is to 
be employed as the appellation of a power which disdains to 
act harmoniously and consistently with itself, and is impelled 


only by caprice. In the formation of: language every thing ». « 


indicates design tending to discoverable ends: and in its actual 


_ application, though there are some anomalies, they bear no 
᾿ proportion to the instances in which the strictest regularity, the 
/ most undeviating uniformity, prevails. Of the Greek lan- 


guage these remarks are true in an especial degree: and there 
is some colour for the singular notion of Lord Monboddo, that 
this tongue was formed by grammarians and philosophers 
according to the rules of art. That some licence, indeed, in 
the use of the Article takes place in certain cases, it will be 
seen that I have readily admitted: but even for this we shall 
frequently be able to account, nor is it ever such as to invali- 
date the general truth of my theory. With respect to those 
canons which I have considered as most certain, I ought to 
state that they are confirmed not merely by the examples 


xliv PREFACE. 


adduced, but by multitudes which, for several years past, have 
occurred to my observation: yet if a few untoward instances 
from unquestionable authorities can be cited against. me, (and 
they have not been studiously suppressed), I must seek refuge 
in the remark of a distinguished Critic, that ‘‘ when a rule has 
been established by ninety-nine examples out of a hundred, an 
exception in the hundredth will not overturn it” “ «4 (mG 

There are also Readers who turn with disgust from every 
thing which has the appearance of subtilty. I cannot deny 
that the reasoning of my First Part may occasionally require 
a somewhat close attention: but. the subject, if we would really 
understand it, seems not to admit the superficial treatment 
which the taste of our day would unhappily introduce into 
science of almost every kind. ΤῸ throw a veil of mystery over 
that which in itself is plain and obvious, is indeed culpable: 
but more injury, I believe, arises to the human mind from the 
attempt to make all knowledge popular: it is better that the 
frivolous should remain in ignorance, than that the thinking 
and inquisitive should not have their faculties duly exerted. | 
If the subject which I have undertaken to discuss has derived 
from my method of considering it an obscurity which does not 
really belong to it, I regret the waste of my own labour, as 
well as that of the Reader’s; but I am much more apprehen- 
sive of having failed in that acuteness of distinction, that logical 
precision, and that depth of research, without which inquiries 
of this nature cannot be prosecuted to their full extent. 

The Second Part, accompanied throughout. by the Greek 
Text, would have assumed the form of a new edition of the 
Greek Testament: I thought it better, however, to trust to 
the hope, that they who were interested in the subject, would 
have the Greek Testament lying open before them, than to 
increase the bulk of the work by an appendage which might 
justly be condemned as of no real use. 


' Mr, Marsh’s Letters to Mr. Travis, p. 257. 


Si )ο, 


͵ 


TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


PART i, 
PAGE 
Opinions of Grammarians respecting the Greek Ar- 
Cuap I. { " ticle eee eeesee ees eee ese οι“ “ε««“ς( 0. Seseeereeves j—5 
' Sect. I. On the Article in Homer............ PRT 
Cuap. Il. \-—— II. Object of its relation................00. 14 
Article —— III. Obscure reference ..........ceeeeeccees 18 
defined. —— IV. Anticipative reference vindicated ......., 21 
_  - Le V. Participle of Existence understood........ 25 
F § 1. Renewed mention ............ 32 
§ 2. κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν eeecee eoeceereeesees 33 
$3. _Monadic Nouns. .:...9. «τος οἷ 34 
προ Τ᾽ § 4. ἜΝ in sense of Possessive ' 
[nsertions , POUMINS 55 νἀ ρον θοὸς ib. 
in δ. δ. Objects of Nature ............ ib. 
A. «, }} Reference. δ 6. Neuter Adjectives ............ 35 
δῆς, Correlatived oo ies decsdess canis 36 
B.S 8... PoRatived ΣΝ . Fi ΠΣ sid. wo. 38 
yee SOs "μὲν md ἌΣ pk wre sinlnye nite ole wey de ib 
Sect. II. . 
Insertions, J § 1. Hypothetic Use....+......... 39 
. Ἢ in Foy! Clanses ὅρον ΕΙΣ, ἘΣ ον Σὰν 40 
~ Cuap. ΠῚ: / Hypothesis. — Pog er 
Appellatives. § 1. Propositions of Existence ...... 42 | 
§ 2. After Verbs Substantive, &c.... 43 
§ 3. After Verbs of appointing, ὅς... 45 
Sect. IIL. § 4. Apposition ..... eben ον seece, ib. 
2 Crininc tnt § 5. Exclusive Propositions ........ 46 
' ‘| §6. Governing Nouns before Indefi- 
nite governed..... seteeeees 48 
§ 7. Governed after Indefinite govern-. 
TES cise gitin)6:50ld. 0 G4m sob ἀν δ Ὁ 49 
- Sect. IV. . 
ας | Insertions ( § 1. Subject and Predicate.......... 50 
τ and 3 2. Attributes connected by Copula- 
missions, MS. Saas whe ευν ον sane Ben Ὁ 
\ combined. 


Proper 
P Names 


Cuapr. IV. {οι what occasions the Article is placed before Proper 


Names. 


see woe eee eee eeeeeer ee eee eee ewe wee eeaes 71—88 


xlvi TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

§ 1. Most Abstract sense ....0-.... 91 

Sect. I. J § 2. - Personification........++- coeee 92 

Cuap. V. Insertions. ἡ ὃ 3. Possessive Pronoun. ....-.++5. 93 
Abstract § 4. Referenc€s..ec.csssvecwact eg 

Nouns. 

Sect. II. ¢§ 1. ΜΕΥ causes of omission....-. 94 

Omissions. 18 2. Adverbially .......ccccsse cess 95 

a5 wien dames § 1. After Prepositions ........ coin) ae 

ΟΗΑΡ VEL APT ca oer § 2. Enumeration..... vo cis oa τ᾿ 99 
Anodmaties. τον πε τς δ. Ondinals 0x0 <esass so ceca 100 
Steere Shy re § 4.” Superlatives.........de ssc sseen eee 

eeeeseos aon ab RAE mac in the Singular . .......e.. 102 

eee enle ee airs § 2. — inthe Plural.............. 103 

Caan VIE ἘΠ ΑΒ atts § 3. — with Abstract Nouns....... 105 
With certain eevee eeseners δ 4, ὅλος eeeesesee S@eeseecteseesse ib. 
words. ee ee § 5 οὗτος eeeeerse ΣΤ e 106 
ee ee i δ... § 6. ὅδει io. idl akene eee keene 107 

- eseeevaedvgres § 7. ἐκεῖνος Sere cosets eoeveeeeeres ib. 

pra ate a4 & Ἐν Ων § 1. With one Article ............ 110 
Concord. ἢ “771: ον. With two Articles ......... oxen bth 
How far Classical Rules respecting the Article apply 2 

WT > ite leerttrint mauris ay αἰ βρης νρρέντις τ: . 115-190 

PART ἢ; 
Notes on the NEW TESTAMENT... 02.0..cseeee seeeee+123—470 
Appendix I.—On the Codex Beze....... ἄρ Ἐν aie cccecec 94. ..471-.-485 
————_II. (By the present Editor.)—The Usage of the various 
Appellations of our Blessed Lord ..... eee. 486—496 


INDEX sees eerste ates "νον. Fees eeeeeeeinee ws seses Scopevvenvenene 


q bas 


- γον “ὋΝ i helt ΣΝ ἌΡ᾿ 


ae τνρονα ναι ᾿ Ὁ βασι τ % 


, 


Lt aon otal > ἧς 


» 7 5 Ἢ f 
¥ i. © ΝΥ Reid te * τος 
ae λιν ᾿ es 
Ὶ Se οἵ 
Ὶ 


πὰρ 5 ae "Ὁ γ᾿ Pu 
ara BVLGLAS ἀν Ὧν 


τ᾿ Ἷ 


“a ‘ ἥν δὲ ΝΣ a 
EM gs ρα τ aR τι ημε: Vrs 
ἐν ᾿Ξ Ra a 5 1. ue 


{ 4 ABs med ΤΌΤ: oe ings wie | τ κὴ Ὗ a We ae [ων 
sche Be Ge sole. i Prd οςρυϊρύδοφο gree ie 


ἐν ἃ ᾿ : ey 
He ce Pei ΠΗ pee; ἴδε Ae ὦ» “ites 


} ΓΙ ry 
ῷ. ὄν" ἣ ς rats ἜΝ > ιν hear ὌΝ ana 


ΤᾺ i re pug ἂν 5h eae sy Beas το τωρ. 
ΠΤ ΡΥ tes 
acti ica ae. AY: pricy sbienetek: bhi Wena Be teeter ; 
Creeps ARH ic hEeS ΝΥ sabreinpmpeladagest ἔν ya dip ἐκ «Ὁ ἃ 
arya ες 03 pan That eee pe cgie Patete, at ee | 


1 sicths Tits S| fitness potas ay 2 SPO Ss: 


i fs " 
- τὴ i or ᾿- δ , F} .Ἃ ( 5 
, " Το 7: aie sa) ay ἌΣ ἢ x} + ta 


3 ὃ.» iJ r - Ὁ ξ at ᾿ 
: rio Fel at Αι Te ne > ΠΤ ee δε 
7 ie be t . ν ¢ 4 al 
νυν ἔνε toa » ἢ τ κλ δ ᾿ ; 
Ἐν laer. ΣΙ τι ie ioe May Wa aah a te Ae ΣΕ ἪἋ 
Γ΄. . - ν᾿ 


: ve τ- Ι Ἵ af: γ᾽ 
© tH ἔνε eee, ‘ths "ἢ ‘< er aioe Cy a ae es ae > i 


Reedy. wey a ret ‘aay a pt bre EDR! 


Ming ae εἰλρόγηι oe ak Mics ool Petal pe a 


haa εὐ τ aaa Pains aaa 


δ᾽ 
, ν Ἧ } 
ἣν ae ἢ 
ΤΥ ἐ x ‘ 


PART I. 


INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND USES 


GREEK ARTICLE. 


CHAPTER I. 


OPINIONS OF GRAMMARIANS RESPECTING THE GREEK 
ARTICLE. 


We learn from Glass, in his Philologia Sacra, that Julius 
Cesar Scaliger called the Greek Article loquacissime gentis 
flabellum ; and that Budzeus represents the Attic writers as at 
one time inserting the Article by a Pleonasm, and at others 
omitting it by an Ellipsis. This doctrine, while it seems to 
command assent from the authority of those who have pro- 
pounded it, is nevertheless so abhorrent from the genius of a 
philosophical language, like that of the ancient Greeks, that no 
fallible authority is of sufficient force to rescue it from the 
consequences of its inherent improbability. If in any lan- 


guage there could be a Part of Speech, which without offence 


to Syntax might thus be employed or discarded at the pleasure 
of the speaker, that language might with more reason be sup- 


posed to be the French; which has not, like the Greek, the 


appearance of having been contrived by a synod of philoso= - 


phers, but might rather be thought to owe its peculiarities to 

the fashion of the court and the habits of the gay and frivolous. 

In French, however, the laws respecting their Articles are 

rigorously observed ; and an Englishman, who has not attended 

to the rules, will probably find, that of the faults which he 
B 


2 OPINIONS OF GRAMMARIANS ο΄ [σπᾶρ. 


commits in translating into that language a page of English, 
those which regard the Articles, are not the least considerable 
part. The nation, therefore, to which in modern times all 
others are accustomed to impute loquacity, does not employ its 
Articles as mere flabella; and there is at least a presumption, 
that among the Greeks the Article was subservient to some 
graver purpose. 

He however, who pretends to determine the uses of the 
Greek Article, should first endeavour to investigate its nature 
and origin. Without such an inquiry he may, indeed, collect 
from Greek writers something like rules for its insertion or 
omission; but he will not be able to give them probability 
and consistency: they will not be of general application; he 
will be driven to the unsatisfactory solution of Pleonasm and 
Ellipsis; and he will be compelled to admit, as is done con- 
tinually, that though the Article is by its nature a Definitive, 
it is sometimes used to mark éndefiniteness, or is wholly with- 
out meaning: a doctrine which is countenanced in the excellent 
Lexicon to the New Testament by Schleusner. Quodeunque 
ostendis mihi sic, incredulus odi. There must be some com- 
mon principle, by attending to which these opposite uses of 
the Article may be reconciled to each other and to common 


sense ; there must be, to use the words of Plato’, τὸ νοούμενον. 


ἕν εἶναι, ἀεὶ ὃν TO αὐτὸ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν" and it is worth our while to 
inquire for it. But first it may be right briefly to examine the 
principal opinions on the subject. | a0 

1 have often thought, that if Aristotle had left us a treatise 
on Grammar, it would have ranked with the most valuable 
remains of antiquity; and yet the little which he has said 
respecting the Article in his Poetics, is so obscure, that Mr. 
Twining, his very learned translator, confesses his inability to 
understand it. Aristotle says that an Article is “a sound 


without signification, which marks the beginning or the end 


of a sentence, or distinguishes, as when we say, THE word φημὶ, 
THE word περί *.” 


f 


1 Voli X. Ed. Bipont: p. 83, © Ae ϑρεν = δ ρυνεβυδνονβ a tren 

* Αρθρον δέ ἐστι φωνὴ ἄσημος, ἣ λόγου ἀρχὴν ἢ τέλος ἢ διορισμὸν δηλοῖ, 
οἷον τὸ φημὶ καὶ τὸ περὶ, καὶ τὰ ἄλλα. Με. Twining observes, “ the commen- 
tators all tell us, that this means the prepositive and the subjunctive Article ; but 
none of them have clearly and fairly shown us how the one, because it is placed 


r. | RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 3 


Whatever be the true interpretation of this passage, I despair 
of discovering in it any thing to my present purpose. 

A great deal of curious matter on the subject of the Article, 
and indeed on almost every part of the science of Grammar, 
may be found in Apollonius Dyscolus, a very acute writer, who 
flourished about the middle of the second century. Of many 
of his remarks I shall make use hereafter. I do not perceive 
that he has any where defined the Article, and consequently he 
has no theory; though he has many facts, for the most part 
corroborating the theory, which I suspect to be the true one. 
He makes Articles and Pronouns to be different things, yet he 
allows a relation between them, and says that if_the Article 
lose its Substantive, it then becomes a Pronoun. This writer 
makes frequent mention of Zrypho, who had composed a 
Treatise expressly on the subject of the Article: the work is 
unfortunately lost. 


T¢ RELI 


divided into the Prepositive and the Subjunctive : but, Sia 
perly speaking, the Prepositive only is the Article; and it 
serves to recall that which had previously been known in the 
discourse.” This Grammarian, therefore, seems to understand 
the Article to be a distinct Part of Speech, as was observed of 
Apollonius: nor is it true, that it is always employed to recall 
that which had previously been known in the discourse. 

Mr. Harris has devoted to the Article a large portion of his 


before a word, marks the beginning of a sentence or discourse, or how the other 
marks the end of it, because it follows the word to which it belongs. In the sen- 
tence before us, for example, in what sense does the subjunctive Article mark 
the end of the sentence, τέλος λόγου 3 I am not sure that Aristotle and his 
commentators may not mean, that the Nominative of 6, as in ὁ ἄνθρωπος for 
example, must, in the natural order of speaking, precede every thing which can 
be affirmed of 6 ἄνθρωπος, and that in the same natural order the affirmation will 
be completed, before ὁ ἄνθρωπος can be referred to by ὃς in a clause subjoined : 
in this sense ὁ might be said to mark the beginning of a sentence, as ὃς will mark 
the énd of it. I know not whether this conjecture deserve any notice: [I offer it 
for the want of something more satisfactory. 

1 Ed. Basil. 1523. P- 155. Τὸ δὲ ἄρθρον ἐστὶ μὲν λόγου πτωτικὸν μέρος͵ προ- 
τασσόμενον τοῖς ὀνόμασι" διαιρεῖται δὲ εἰς προτακτικόν τε καὶ ὑποτακτικόν" 
κυρίως γε μὴν ἄρθρον τὸ προτακτικόν" ποιεῖ δὲ pax ONE pag τοῦ ae τοῦ 
ἐν τῇ συντάξει. τοῦ ἘΠ SLR F 

τ᾽} ἕω Prd we 
59 : 


thre Choe 


4 OPINIONS OF GRAMMARIANS [cHAP. 


Hermes: he has, however, so closely followed Apollonius, that 
he is liable to the same objection. He makes the Article to be 
nearly allied to the Pronoun, and infers from Apollonius, that 
they may be best distinguished by the circumstance, that “‘ the 
genuine Pronoun always stands by itself, while the genuine 
Article requires a Noun for its support.” This is so vague, 
that it may be applied with nearly equal propriety to mark 


the difference between Substantives and Adjectives ; and yet 


between the Article and the Adjective there is not ay 
analogy. 

But the author from whom most was to be ipehiiall on this 
subject, is Lord Monboddo; who has written very largely 
on the Origin and Progress of Language, and was deeply 
versed in the remains of the Greek philosophers and metaphy- 
sicians. He observes, vol. ii. Ὁ. 53. ‘* This Part of Speech 
(the Article) very well deserves a chapter by itself; for, if I 
mistake not, it is of as subtle speculation, as perhaps any thing 
belonging to language, particularly as it is used in Greek.” 
He attempts to show, that ‘‘ its office is different from that of 
a Pronoun of any kind, and that it deserves to be ranked by 
itself among the Parts of Speech.” After many remarks dis= 
tinguished by ingenuity and acuteness, he gives the following 
definition: “ It is the prefix of a Noun; denoting simply, that 
the Noun to which it is prefixed, is the same with that which 
_ was before mentioned, or is otherwise well known.” In such 
instances as ὁ σοφὸς ἐπαινεῖται, Lord Monboddo would say, that 
6 σοφὸς, though not previously mentioned, is yet well known, 
because it represents a species, which must be better known 
than any individual of it. My principal objection to this defi- 
nition is, that it makes the Article a distinct Part of Speech, 
the contrary of which will be shown, and also that it is not 
consistent with what Apollonius had remarked, that the Article 


in losing its Noun becomes a Pronoun. It is not conceivable — 


that Parts of Speech originally distinct should be liable to such 
a transformation, 

Mr. Horne Tooke, in the two parts of the Diversions of 
Purley already published, has not given us any explicit account 
of the Greek Article: all which I can collect is, that he is 
dissatisfied with that of Mr. Harris. Our English rar, which, 
we are so frequently told, is very similar to the Article of the 


1. RESPECTING THE GREEK ARTICLE. 5 


Greeks, Mr. Tooke makes to be the Imperative of a Saxon 
Verb, signifying to take or to see. In this case, | apprehend, 
the Greek and English Articles in their nature and origin have 
very little resemblance: and, perhaps, in no respect do lan- 
guages differ more widely, than in the several contrivances 
which they have adopted on this occasion. 

The opinions of other Grammarians might have been detailed, 
so as to extend this chapter to a considerable length. I am 
not, however, aware that they would furnish us with any view 
of the subject different from all those which have been already 
given. My own idea of the Greek article shall be reserved for 
another chapter. 


6 . ARTICLE DEFINED. [cHap. 


CHAPTER 1]. 


ARTICLE DEFINED. a 
δὲ... ἃ 


δ. h + Fe i? 


“Tur Greek Prepositive Article is the Pronoun Relative ‘O, so 
employed that its relation is supposed to be more or less ob- 
_scure; which relation, therefore, is explained in some Adjunct, 


annexed to the Article by the Participle of Existence ΟΣ τ 


pressed or understood ’. 


Hence the Article may be considered as the Subject, and its , 


“Adjunct as the Predicate, of a Proposition, differing from ordi- 
nary Propositions, only as Asswmption differs from Assertion : 
for this is the only difference between the Verb and the Parti- 
ciple, between ἐστὶν and &v.—The Adjunct annexed to the 
Article will hereafter be called its Predicate. 

- But before the reader can be expected to acquiesce in this 
account, it will be necessary to offer its vindication at some 
length. 


SECTION 1. 
ON THE ARTICLE IN HOMER. 


The inquirer into the nature of the Greek Article will first 
turn his attention to Homer, as being the earliest Greek 


1 Τὸ might by some be expected, that I should rather have called the Article a 
Pronoun Demonstrative; since Pronouns Relative are, according to grammarians, 
those which have relation to persons or things already mentioned ; whilst those 


which are Demonstrative, now for the first time point out the person or thing in — 


question. It will be shown, however, that the Article was originally used as a 
Pronoun Relative, in the usual acceptation of that term, and that subsequently, 
when it ceased to be so used, there was still an implied reference to some object 
which had occupied the mind of the speaker, though perhaps not previously 
declared. Apollonius de Syntaxi, p. 104. Ed. 1590, has on a similar occasion a 
similar distinction. He says that οὗτος and ἐκεῖνος, though strictly speaking 
they are Demonstrative Pronouns, sometimes become Pronouns Relative: in 
which case δεῖ νοεῖν, drt ἡ ἐκ τούτων δεῖξις ἐπὶ TON NOYN φέρεται, ὡς τὰς μὲν 
τῆς ὄψεως εἶναι δείξεις, τὰς δὲ TOY ΝΟΥ. 


\ 
τὶ 


en ee ee a ee ee 


a ee ἕν αὶ 


ων 
δ ὩΣ 


ee 


i 


11.) ARTICLE DEFINED. 7 


writer, whose works have descended to the present time: but '- 
Homer's use of the Article is, if we adopt the belief of some 
critics, a subject of much perplexity. We are;indeed. told, 
that what we call the Article, was the invention of later times. 
Heyne* has words to this effect: ‘‘'That Homer knew nothing 
of the Article, and that 6 is with him equivalent to αὐτός or 
ἐκεῖνος, has been repeatedly remarked, and the remark has 
been confirmed by the inquiries of many learned. men, espe- 
cially of Wolf’ and Koeppen.”—Now, that what the Gram- 
marians denominate the Article is thus employed by Homer, 
I readily admit : the difficulty is to understand, on what solid 
ground Homer's use of the Article is wholly distinguished 
from that of subsequent writers; and if any thing excites my 
wonder, it is, that what has been acknowledged to hold true 
partially, should not be perceived to be true universally : for 
though the later usage of the Article may afford instances, 
the exact parallels of which are not to be found in Homer, yet 
these variations are so few, and so evidently deducible from a 
common origin, that we shall hardly be justified in considering 
the Article of Homer as being different in its nature from " 
that of Pindar, Xenophon, or Lucian: as well might we assert, 
that the language of Homer is radically distinct from that of 
succeeding Greek writers, because some of his words gra- 
dually fell into disuse, or were afterwards employed in a 


_ somewhat different acceptation. But let us attend to, Homer's 


use of the Article, and observe whether the supposed differ- 
ence really exist: in other words, whether if, as is admitted, 
the Article of Homer be a Pronoun, the Article of other 
Greek writers must not be allowed to be the same Pronoun. 
The first occurrence of the Article in the Iliad is A. v. 6. 
τὰ πρῶτα, in which there is nothing peculiar: κατὰ τὰ ὄντα 
πρῶτα πράγματα will complete the Ellipsis: In v. 9. we have 
Ὁ γὰρ βασιλῆϊ χολωθείς" in which sense, indeed, subsequent 
writers generally used αὐτὸς or ἐκεῖνος. In v. 11. we meet 
with TON Χρύσην, i. 6. with the Article prefixed to a proper 
name, than which nothing is more common in the Greek prose 


1 Excurs. II. ad Iliad. P. 
2 Wolf, however, revokes his decision on this subject. See note on Reitz. de 


Prosod. p. 74. He there says, “ pINGUIUS quedam scripsi de Homerico usu Arti- 
euli,” &e. 


8 ARTICLE DEFINED. [ CHAP. 


writers: but of this more will be said in the sequel. V. 12 
Ὁ γὰρ ἦλθε resembles v. 9.—In v. 19. TA δ᾽ ἄποινα (unless 
it be τάδ᾽ ἄποινα, as Heyne suspects, I think without cause) 
is the proffered ransom of Chryseis.—V. 33. ἔδδεισεν δ᾽ Ὁ 
γέρων" Chryses had been called γέρον above, v. 26.—In v. 35. 
Ὁ yepade differs from ὁ γέρων only in having the Article 
prefixed to an Adjective.—In v. 47. ‘O δ᾽ ἤϊε, &c. is similar to 
ν. 9.—In v. 54. we have THe δεκάτῃ scil. ἡμέρᾳ.---ἶπι v. ὅδ. 
TQx used with reference to Achilles just mentioned.—In addi- 
tion to these examples, which are not selected, but taken 
without any omission, I will notice Z. 467. 6 πάϊς, the child 
spoken of before.—A. 847. τὸ ἕλκος the wound of Eurypylus. 
-- π. 358. Αἴας 6 μέγας by way of distinction.—A. 576. τὰ 
χερείονα νικᾷ.---Κ. 11. ἐς πεδίον τὸ Towikdv.—B. 278. ἡ 
πληθύς.---Ἰ. 842. τὴν αὐτοῦ φιλέει καὶ κήδεται. 561]. γυναῖκα.-- 
Δ. 399. τὸν υἱὸν his son.—E. 146. τὸν δ᾽ repov.—E. 414. τὸν 
ἄριστον ᾿Αχαιών.---Ζ. 41. οἱ ἄλλοι.---Α. 198. τῶν ἄλλων. ---ἰΞ. 
31. τὰς πρώτας. Many other examples might easily be col- 
lected. Now the question is, with respect at least to the 


latter class, in what do they differ from the examples, which - 


occur in the writers of succeeding ages? Would the reader, 
supposing them to have been taken from Thucydides or De- 
mosthenes, have doubted for a moment in what light they 
should be considered? And if he were told, that in all such 
instances, what he took for an Article was in truth a Pronoun, 
would he not immediately ask, wherein then lay the difference ? 
for assuredly, if he were not acquainted with the dispute 
respecting the usage in Homer, he would never suspect the 
slightest peculiarity in the nature or use of the Article (o 

Pronoun) in any one at least of the examples last adduced; 
and if he were convinced with the critics, that Homer’s Arti- 
cle was every where a Pronoun, equivalent to αὐτὸς or ἐκεῖνος, 
he would be compelled to acquiesce in the conclusion, that the 
same might be affirmed of the Article universally. But would 
this conviction immediately ensue? Certainly, an apparent 
difference between the latter class of examples and some of 
the former ones, such as ὁ γὰρ ἦλθε, &c. might induce him to 
adhere to the commonly received opinion, that Articles and 
Pronouns are distinct things; especially if that opinion had 
been derived from any of the high authorities, which may be 


ἃ νον ἃ ν΄, 


——— ἥρυ. 


eS ee” a 


ι. ARTICLE DEFINED. 9 


found inits favour. ‘ That there is,” says Harris’, “ a near 
relation between Pronouns and Articles, the old Grammarians 
have all acknowledged; and some words it has been doubtful 
to which class to refer. The best rule to distinguish them is 
this: the genuine Pronoun always stands by itself, assuming 
the power of a Noun, and supplying its place. The genuine 
Article never stands by itself, but appears at all times asso- 
ciated to something else, requiring a noun for its support, as 
much as Attributes or Adjectives.” The Grammarians, how- 
ever, of whom Harris speaks, are not a/l those of antiquity, 
since the Stoic School, of whom Grammar and Dialectics were 
the favourite studies, did, according to Priscian, consider the 
Pronoun and the Article as the same thing, making only this 
distinction, that they called the Pronoun the defined, and the 
Article itself the undefined Article’. There is, therefore, no 
great presumption in proceeding to inquire, whether the for- 
mer opinion, not indeed as it is limited to Homer, but asserted 
generally, be not founded in truth. 

It is obvious, that in such phrases as 6 γὰρ ἦλθε, ὃ δ᾽ ἤϊε, 
τὴν μὲν ἐγώ, &c. A. 183. ὃ and τὴν must be considered as 
Pronouns. ‘The pronominal nature of 6 is, therefore, in some 
instances, established beyond contradiction ; and we have only 
to ascertain whether this pronominal nature be ever lost. 
Thus we read Ihad I. 341. 


ὅστις ἀγαθὸς Kal ἐχέφρων, 
ΤῊΝ αὐτοῦ φιλέει καὶ κήδεται, ὡς καὶ ἐγὼ ΤῊΝ 
Ἔκ θυμοῦ φίλεον, 


where the latter τὴν is a Pronoun relating to Briseis, and the 
former, if we attend to the common distinction, is no other 
than the Article to γυναΐκα understood: but is not the one as 
much the representative of γυναῖκα, as the other is of Briseis? 
Here, indeed, γυναῖκα is so evidently implied, that no obscu- 
rity arises from its being omitted. But suppose the case 
otherwise; and that, though the context would afford a tole- 
rable clue to the sense, some little obscurity were still to 


1 Herm. p. 73. 

2 This passage is quoted by Harris. ‘ Articulis autem pronomina connume- 
rantes, finitos ea articulos appellabant: ipsos autem articulos, quibus nos caremus, 
infinitos articulos dicebant.”’ Herm. p. 74. 


10 ARTICLE DEFINED. [ CHAP. 


remain. .For instance, if A. 33. we had read ὡς ἔφατ᾽" ὁ δ᾽ 
ἔδδεισεν ᾽, the sense could hardly have been mistaken, but yet 
would not have been absolutely certain: 6 TEPQN makes 
every thing clear; for though independently of the context 
6 might refer to any male already mentioned, yet 6 γέρων 
must refer to the only o/d man hitherto spoken of: but does 
ὁ on this account lose its nature? In the former instance it 
is admitted on all hands to be strictly a Pronoun: and how 
does the addition of γέρων v. 33. or γεραιὸς v. 35. destroy its 
essence? As well might we say that the éd/e of the Latin 
ceases to be a Pronoun, as often as it is associated with a 
Substantive, Adjective, or Participle, with all of which it is 
so frequently found. 

But there are instances by which it may be clearly ei 
that Homer himself entertained no idea of the difference be- 
tween the Pronoun and the Article; for that it was an even 
chance, supposing a difference, which of the two he had used: 
which could not consistently happen, were the difference essen- 
tial. Thus in narrating the conflict between Hector and Pa- 
troclus, Π. 793. he says, 


TOY δ᾽ ἀπὸ piv κρατὸς ΚΥΝΈΗΝ βάλε Φοῖβος ᾿Απόλλων, 
Ἢ δὲ κυλινδομένη καναχὴν ἔχε ποσσὶν ὑφ᾽ ἵππων. 


Supposing the sentence to conclude thus, which unquestion- 
ably it might do, “H would according to the vulgar distinction 
be a Pronoun referring to “κυνέην, exactly as τοῦ refers to 
Patroclus: but so it happens, that the writer has added in the 
next verse AvA@me τρυφάλεια. The common doctrine will 
teach us, that this makes a prodigious difference, and that 
though we had determined, as might the writer also, to regard 
Ἢ as a Pronoun, it is at once degraded on the appearance of 
τρυφάλεια, and sinks into a mere Article; and yet the only 
alteration which takes place, is, that instead of relating to 
κυνέην, as was supposed, it is made to relate to the synonymous 
word τρυφάλεια. It is plain, therefore, in this example, that 
the difference between the Article and the Pronoun is not 
essential, but accidental; and consequently, when we are 
speaking of the nature of the Article, that there is no differ- 


1 Asin ὁ γὰρ ἦλθε, &c. 


Ee σαν υς — 


11. ARTICLE DEFINED. Il 


ence at all. Now if we recollect that there is no conceivable 
instance, in which the very same thing may not happen with- 
out the least violation of the author’s meaning, that is, in 
which to the Article, used confessedly as a Pronoun, we may 
not subjoim the noun, &c. of which it is intended to be signi- 
ficant, as A. v. 9. 6 γὰρ, &c. is ὁ γὰρ ΘΕΟΣ or 6 γὰρ ΑΠΟΛ- 
ΛΩΝ, it becomes evident that there is no ground whatever for 
making a distinction between the natwre of the Article 6 and 
the Pronoun ὃ, and that the “near relation” is in truth no 
other than perfect identity.. They differ no more than he, 
who should announce his name to me, would differ from the 
same man, if he concluded that his name were known to me 
already. And what is here said with respect to examples 
taken from Homer, is true universally. Hence the remark of 
Heyne and others, that Homer knew nothing of the Article, 
might have been made with equal reason of any subsequent 
Greek writer. Homer’s Article, it is admitted, is a Pronoun: 
but so is the Article universally; and Homer’s usage of the 
Article, as the reader must be convinced, from the instances 
adduced, has nothing in it peculiar, but accords strictly, so far 
as it goes, with the practice of succeeding ages. The German 
Critic appears, indeed, to have been alarmed by some untract- 
able examples; and therefore he proceeds to call in question 
the authenticity of the Article, wherever it is found in Homer’; 
or, where it cannot be omitted without injury to the verse, 
he insinuates that the verse itself is spurious. Thus may any 
theory, however extravagant, be supported: but this is trivial 
in comparison with the hardihood which could deny that. the 
lliad was the production of one mind’. 

1 Thus.on [iad P. 635. Ἠμὲν ὕπως TON νεκρὸν ἐρύσσομεν, he adopts the 
correction of Bentley, Ἢμὲν ὕπως νεκρόν re ἐρύσσομεν. But what is to be 
done with v. 509. of the same book, Ἤτοι μὲν TON νεκρὸν ἐπιτράπετ᾽ ? 

2 See Heyne’s Homer, Vol. VIII. Excurs. iii. ad Lib. xxiv. For an ingenious, 
and, I think, a satisfactory account of the origin of the Hymns. attributed to 
Homer, the reader may consult the Epistola Editoris prefixed to Hermann’s 
valuable edition of those Poems. Ifthe incongruities, which occur in the Hymns, 
were found also in the Iliad, I should readily accede to Heyne’s opinion: the 
Hymns, however, are, comparatively speaking, short Poems, in each of which 
the plan, such as it is, is perpetually interrupted by the introduction of extra- 
neous matter: the plan of the Iliad, the most perfect, perhaps, which any Epic 


Poem can boast, is continued without interruption or deviation through the 
Twenty-four Books. 


12 ARTICLE DEFINED. [cwar. 


As connected with the subject of the Article in Homer, I 
will briefly notice two passages from eminent Greek writers, 
Plutarch and Eustathius. 'The passage from Plutarch is gene- 
rally referred to by Philologists, and it has not been overlooked 
by Heyne, nor indeed by his forerunner, Clarke. It is in the 
Platonice Questiones*, though I cannot but wonder that 
Heyne should advert to it at the very time when he asserts, 
that Homer knew nothing of the Article. Plutarch says, 
that “even Homer, who excels in beauty of diction, pre- 
fixes Articles to few of his Nouns, as to cups wanting handles, 
or helmets needing crests : hence some verses, in which he has 
done so, have been marked as spurious; for example: 


Αἴαντι δὲ μάλιστα δαΐφρονι θυμὸν ὄρινε 
ΤΩι Τελαμωνιάδῃ" and 
ὄφρα ΤΟ κῆτος ὑπεκπροφυγὼν ἀλέοιτο" 


and a few others: and yet the multitude of verses, in which 
the Article does not appear, suffer nothing in point of beauty 
or perspicuity.” If this be Plutarch’s meaning, so far from 
proving that Homer never used the Article, it proves incon- 
testably that he sometimes did use it, though rarely; and it 
ought to be remembered, that Plutarch in this place was not 
likely to admit the use to be more frequent than it really is, 
since the main object of his argument was to prove, that only 
Nouns and Verbs are essential to language. 

The passage from Eustathius is of a different cast: I have it 
on the authority of Rezzius de Prosodia Greca. It asserts 
only, that ‘‘ when the Articles throw away their Nouns, and 
thus become Pronouns, they are pronounced with a greater 
vehemence of tone: thus, if in 6 yap (Απόλλων) βασιλῆϊ χο- 
λωθείς, we omit ᾿Απόλλων, ὃ is there uttered more audibly’.” 
At first this may appear to indicate a real distinction between 
the Article and the Pronoun, marked by a difference of pro- 
nunciation: but when considered, it affirms only what we 
should expect to happen; that when the object, of which the 


ΤΡ, 412. Edit. Bas. 1574. ὅπου καὶ Ὅμηρος ἐπέων κόσμῳ περιγενόμενος 
ὀλίγοις τῶν ὀνομάτων ἄρθρα, ὥσπερ λαβὰς ἐκπώμασι δεομένοις, ἢ λόφους 
κράνεσιν, ἐπιτίθησι. 

* Eustath. p. 22. σφοδρότερον ἐκφωνοῦται κατὰ τοὺς τόνους... «ἐξακούστερον 
ἐκφωνεῖται. ; 


eee 


ΣΝ oe ee 


Aire ΩΝ 


11. ] ARTICLE DEFINED 13 


Article is meant to be significant, is not added, the mind of the 
hearer is forcibly to be directed to the Article itself, as the sole 
and unassisted representative of the speaker’s meaning. The 
writer admits, that ὃ ᾿Απόλλων and 6 alone in the verse alluded 
to are perfectly equivalent: whence it is obvious, that in the 
judgment of Eustathius 6 has in both cases the very same 
nature, viz. that of a Pronoun; but that in the one the 
person, whom it designates, is not easily mistaken, while 
in the other the addition of Apollo removes all ambiguity. 
Heyne, indeed, remarks on οἱ δὲ θεοὶ, A. 1. (a most legitimate 
example of the Article, in a verse too, which from its situation 
is completely proof against the exterminating process) that 
θεοὶ ““ accipiendum est per interpretationem,” as if it were thus 
pointed, of δέ, θεοί, πὰρ Znvi, &c. But is not this uniformly 
true of the acknowledged Article in a// Greek writers? Does 
not the Noun subjoined in all cases equally answer the pur- 
pose of explanation? Or is explanation in this instance more ᾿ 
necessary or more allowable than in thousands of others? The 
gods, it is true, had not recently been mentioned; and, there- 
fore, οἱ by itself, however well understood by the writer, would 
have conveyed no clear idea to the reader: but neither in 
cases, in which the acknowledged Article is found, is the object 
of relation in general at all more clear, though known of course 
to the speaker: in both, therefore, something explanatory is 
subjoined. The Argument, then, which Heyne has employed 
to show that Homer, in this place, A. 1. has not used the 
Article, proves demonstratively that he has used it, by showing 
that he has placed the Pronoun οἱ (as Heyne would justly call 
it) in the very situation, in which, though it changes not its 
nature, it assumes the name of an Article, and exercises a func- 
tion, by which alone the Article is distinguished. 

The Article 6 and the Pronoun 6 are, then, essentially the 
same thing, differing only in having or not having an Adjunct: 
and the Pronoun in both these ways is repeatedly employed by 
Homer. Hence it appears that the opinion of the Stoics (see 
page 12.) was not incorrect: 6 is always a Pronoun, though it 
usually retains that name, only when it is a defined Article, i.e. 
when the object of its relation is so plainly marked, that no 
mistake can arise, and when, consequently, no Adjunct is re- 
quisite; they called it an undefined Article, when such addition 


14 ARTICLE DEFINED. [omar. 


became necessary to the perspicuity of its meaning. But of 
this addition, more in the following heads of inquiry. | Under 
the present it may be observed, that of the Pronominal or 
defined use of the Article, that 1 mean, in which it is used 
without an Adjunct, we find numerous remains, of a date much 
later than the time of Homer. . The Ionic writers, as Herodo- 
tus for example, whose language so nearly resembles that’ of 
Homer, use the Article in this manner in all its cases begin- 
ning with Τ The same thing has been observed of the 
Dorians'. By the Attic writers also it is so employed under 
certain restrictions, as after Prepositions’; in joining together 
persons or things, the names of which are suppressed; im par- 
tition and ernie and where it is followed by the subjune- 
tive Article 6c’. ' 


SECTION II. 


OBJECT OF ITS RELATION. 


The second question which will occur, supposing it to have 
been shown that the Article, as used originally, and even by 
later writers, was no other than the Pronoun, respects’ the 
object of its relation. 

In solving this question, which has indeed been already 
touched upon, it may be of use to attend to the Gender of the 
Article; and this, as every one knows, is invariably the same 
with that of the Predicate annexed or understood: insomuch 
that certain ancient Grammarians were hence of opinion, that 
the Article was invented to mark the Gender*. This opinion 
Apollonius has very clearly refuted; and he humourously ob- 
serves, that as well might we suppose Nouns invented to show 
the Gender of the Article *; but when he adds, that the Article 


' Reiz. de Prosod. Gr. p. 7. 

2 Reiz. p. 11. 

* As Aristot. Top. vi. 13. ὃ 14. ἐὰν μὴ καθ᾽ αὑτὰ TA, ἐξ ΩΝ obrcacas 
ἀγαθά. Here is another instance, and that not from Homer, in which the Article 
and Pronoun are demonstrated to be essentially the same: τὰ is τὰ πράγματα, 
but how is its nature affected, whether πράγματα be expressed or understood ἢ 
Similar examples may be found in Lysias, Plato, &c. 

* Ob μετρίως δέ τινες ἐσφάλησαν ὑπολαβόντες τὴν παράθεσιν τῶν ἄρθρων εἰς 
γένους διάκρισιν παρατίθεσθαι τοῖς ὀνόμασι. Apoll. Ῥ. 28. 

5 Ὡς τὰ ὀνόματα ἐπενοήθη εἰς διάκρισιν τῶν ἐν τοῖς ἄρθροις γενῶν. p. 30. 


10 


oe at yd iy 


It. | ARTICLE DEFINED. 15 


removes the ambiguity of Gender merely ἐκ παρεπομένου, he 
seems to go too far, and to ascribe to mere coincidence that 
which arises out of the nature of the case; and this is the point 
now to be examined. 

Apollonius, who every where dintizigritshes between the Pro- 
noun and the Article’, ascribes relation to both; though in 
tracing this relation through certain uses of the Adticlés he is 
compelled to admit that the relation is sometimes different 
from what is generally understood by the term. His words 
are, ““ Sometimes the relation is to some person whom we an- 
ticipate*, where the Article appears to be indefinite ; as when 
we say, Let him who has slain a tyrant be honoured: for here 
the Article refers to a future person.” Here, no doubt, the 
fact can thus only be explained: but this is not the only case, 
in which we are compelled to have recourse to such a solution. 
We sometimes find the Article prefixed to Nouns, with which 
it has no generical agreement, as ro ᾿Αριστάρχοι, ἡ σήμερον, 
&e. where Apollonius acknowledges, what is beyond dispute, 
that the Article refers to the thing understood, i. 6. to ὄνομα, 
ἡμέρα, &e. as the case may require. There are also instances, 
in which, by the confession of the speaker, the Article cannot 
refer to any thing preceding, as in what the Scholiast on Aris- 
tophanes calls ‘‘ swearing elliptically,” of which we have an 
example in an Epigram of Strato, from an inedited Anthology 
referred to by Kéen ad Greg. Cor. p. 65. 


Ei μὴ νῦν Κλεόνικος ἐλεύσεται, οὐκ ἔτ᾽ ἐκεῖνον 


Δέξομ᾽ ἐγὼ μελάθροις, οὐ μὰ TON— 


> > , 
οὐκ ὀμόσω. 


In this and all similar instances it is plain, that the speaker 
considers himself as not having at all developed his meaning, 
inasmuch as the object of the relation is not expressed. 

It is evident, then, that the reference is sometimes prolep- 
tical or anticipative; and this circumstance added to the gener- 
ical agreement, induces a suspicion, that it will always bear, 


1 Πῶς οὖν τοσαύτης διαφορᾶς οὔσης παραδέξεταί τις τὸ ὑφ᾽ ἕν μέρος λόγου 
ὑπάγειν τὰ ἄρθρα καὶ τὰς ἀντωνυμίας ; p. 94. 

2"Eo@ bre καὶ προληπτικώτερον πρόσωπον ἀναφέρει" OTE δὴ καὶ ἀοριστῶδες 
φαίνεται" ὁ τυραννοκτονήσας τιμάσθω" τὸ γὰρ ὡς ἐσόμενον πρόσωπον ἀνεπό- 
λησεν, p. 32. 


16 ARTICLE DEFINED, [ CHAP. 


if not always require, to be so explained: but let us observe. 
On opening the Anabasis of Xenophon at hazard, I find (Book 
III. not far from the beginning) the following passage: Ὁ 
μέντοι Ξενοφῶν, ἀναγνοὺς τὴν ἐπιστολήν, avaxowwovrat Σω- 
κράτει τῷ ᾿Αθηναίῳ περὶ τῆς πορείας. Καὶ ὁ Σωκράτης, ὑποπ- 
τεύσας, μὴ τι πρὸς τῆς πόλεώς οἱ ὑπαίτιον εἴη, Κύρῳ φίλον 
γενέσθαι, ὅτι ἐδόκει ὁ Κῦρος προθύμως τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις, 
κι τ A. Throughout this passage, let us attend to the refer- 
ence of the Article as often as it is used. Ὁ μέντοι. Who? 
the reference must not here be considered as retrospective ; 
for since Xenophon was last mentioned, mention had been 
made both of Cyrus and of Proxenus: if, therefore, the 
reference be to Xenophon, it is distinguishable only by the 
addition of his name. To what does THN refer in ἀναγνοὺς 
τὴν ἐπιστολὴν The last feminine Substantive 15. πατρίδος, 
and ἐπιστολὴ has not yet occurred; the reference is to émioro- 
λὴν subjoined, which alone the writer could have in view. 


Σωκράτει τῷ ᾿Αθηναίῳ᾽ here the reference is not to Σωκράτει. 


generally and absolutely, because such a reference would be 
useless ; but it is to that distinguishing attribute of Socrates, 
which is annexed, viz. his being an Athenian. Τῆς πορείας 
is similar to τὴν ἐπιστολήν.---Καὶ 6 Σωκράτης" here it may 
be said that the Article may refer to Σωκράτης just men- 
tioned. Certainly it may; but the writer did not think this 
reference sufliciently marked, or he needed not have attempted 
to make it plainer by repeating the name. Τῆς πόλεως" simi- 
lar to τὴν ἐπιστολήν. Ὃ Κῦρος is similar to ὃ Σωκράτης. 
Τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις" no plural Substantive has yet occurred ; 
τοῖς is evidently an anticipation of Λακεδαιμονίοις. In the 
same manner we might proceed, and with the same result, to 
the end of the volume. 

In these instances, then, no doubt can arise as to the linia 


of the relation: at least, it will be adniitted to be anticipative, 


wherever the Noun, &c. annexed to the article is allowed. to 
be absolutely necessary to the perspicuity of the sense. Cases, 
indeed, will occur, of which two are found in the passage above 
cited, where the reference may be understood retrospectively : 

but then it is obvious in all such instances, that exactly in 
proportion as is the evidence that the reference is retrospec- 
tive, so will it be also evident that the Noun annexed is super- 


ee eee eee ee 
es ν ἊΨ — - > 


1.7 ARTICLE DEFINED. 17 


fluous. Thus, if in ὃ Σωκράτης above it be said, that ὁ will 
naturally refer to Σωκράτης in the preceding period, it must 
also be granted, that Σωκράτης annexed is needlessly intro- 
duced, and is absolutely without meaning: but this, surely, 
is more than the thinking reader will affirm or believe; and he 
will probably rather adopt the solution, that though the object 
of the relation might be conjectured without assistance, yet 
the writer judged it to be safer to afford that assistance by 
immediately subjoining the name of the person, to whom the 
Article was intended to refer. It is not consonant with the 
nature of language, nor with the practice of good writers, to 
suppose that words are ever wholly devoid of use. It is better 
to say in all such cases, that the caution of the writer was 
extreme ᾽. | itil ν᾽, 
If the doctrine here maintained be true, we see the reason, 
why the Article in all good writers is placed immediately, or 
almost immediately before its Predicate; for the reference 
being anticipative, the mind of the hearer will not bear long 
suspense; till the object of reference be known, every thing 
intervening will be disregarded. In retrospective reference, 
like that of ὃς or qui, the case is altogether different ; for 
there no suspense can take place: it is not known by the 
hearer, when an object is mentioned, that it will afterwards 
be referred to, nor till the reference is actually made.—The 
principal breach of this rule respecting the juxta-position of 
the Article and its Predicate is observable in the case of pro- 
per names. Thus we read in Homer 1]. xvit. v. 202. Ἢ μὲν 


1 Of this extreme caution there are some remarkable instances in 4lian: I 
will adduce one of these, in which the Predicate of the Article assumes an unu- 
sual form, while it strongly supports the doctrine, that such Predicate is the 
object of a relation supposed to be obscure. The passage will be found Var. Hist. 
Lib. i. cap. 30. Ὁ μὲν ἵππευε σὺν τῷ βασιλεῖ TO MEIPAKION. Now only 
two persons, the King and the Youth, had been mentioned: and the King seems 
by the context to be excluded from answering to 6, which of course will therefore 
relate to the Youth. The writer, however, has subjoined rd μειράκιον ; ἃ con- 
vincing proof that he considered such an addition as explanatory of the relation 
intended in the Pronoun, for else it has no meaning at all. Had the sentence 
begun with ὁ νεανίας, or some other masculine Noun synonymous with μειράκιον, 
the usual form would have been observed. He has, however, violated the prac- 
tice; but in so doing he has very remarkably confirmed the principle: for ὁ vea~ 
νίας would have afforded no new ground of argument. The same author has other 
similar examples. 


σ 


18 ARTICLE DEFINED. [cHAP. 


ἄρ᾽ ὡς strove’ ἀπέβη πόδας ὠκέα Ἶρις" but the reader is not 
here kept in much suspense, since if Iris had not been named 
at all, the sense would have been tolerably clear, and the 
reference would have been made to Jris, whose arrival and 
address are the principal subjects of the preceding verses. But 
more of this when we come to speak particularly of PRopER 
NAMES. 


SECTION III. 
OBSCURE REFERENCE. 


But the reader may still entertain some doubt respecting the 
existence of a relation admitted to be obscure: it will, there- 
fore, be expedient to show, that the reference here described is 
not without its parallel, and that there is in it no obscurity, 
which does not arise out of the nature of the case. 

In truth, the reference of Pronouns, even of those, I mean, 


which are acknowledged to be such, is at best obscure. Apol-— 


lonius has remarked this fact in the following words: ‘ Pro- 
nouns are of no use, when deprived of the person indicating 
and the person indicated: for when written, they are of all 
things the most indefinite, because then they are detached from 
their proper subject-matter. Hence we see the reason, why 
perfect writing requires the addition of the Nouns themselves*.” 
He goes on afterwards, indeed, to show that this remark applies 
only to Pronouns of the third person; a limitation, however, 
which does not affect the point now in question. It is, doubt- 
less, on a principle analogous to that laid down by Apollonius, 
that the Latin writers sometimes explain the reference con- 
tained in their Pronoun Relative qui, in which, however, the 
reference is perhaps as strongly marked as in any Pronoun of 
any language. Thus we find such expressions as the follow- 
ing: ““ Bellum tantum, quo bello omnes premebantur, Pom- 
peius confecit.” Cic. ‘* Ultra eum locum, quo in loco Ger- 


1 "Evexev τούτου καὶ πρὸς οὐδὲν χρειώδεις εἰσιν αἱ ἀντωνυμίαι, στερούμεναι 
τοῦ τε δεικνίντος προσώπου καὶ τοῦ δεικνυμένου᾽ εἴγε καὶ αἱ ἐγγραφόμεναι πάνυ 
“ἀοριστότατοί εἰσιν, ὅτι καὶ τῆς ἰδίας ὕλης ἀπεωσθησαν" ἔνθεν δοκεῖ πάνυ εὐλό- 
γως κατὰ τὰς ἐντελικὰς γραφὰς χωρὶς τῶν. προστεθειμένων ὀνομάτων τὰ τοῦ 
λόγου μὴ καθίστασθαι. Ῥ. 118. 


> δυσί" 


Fi ee. πιὰ 


IT. | ARTICLE DEFINED. 19 


mani consederant.” Ces. ‘* Diem instare, guo die frumentum 
militibus metiri oporteret.”. C@s.* And so in a multitude of 
instances. In all these we have a confession of obscure refer- 
ence, though the object of that reference has immediately pre- 
ceded the Pronoun, without the intervention of any other Noun 
to create extraordinary ambiguity. 

In the passage cited in Chapter I. from Theodore Gaza, it 
was affirmed, that there are two Articles, the Prepositive 6 
and the Subjunctive ὅς, though, according to that Gramma- 
rian, the Prepositive only, strictly speaking, deserves the appel- 
lation. This seems to be the proper place to attempt solutions 
of the two questions, Why ὃς was ever denominated an Article, 
and why that denomination was deemed unsuitable. We have 
just seen in what manner the Latins sometimes used their gui : 
if the Greek ὃς had been constantly so explained, it would, on 
the principles advanced in this Essay, deserve to be considered 
as an Article, no less than does 6; for we should then haye a 
Pronoun Relative, the confessedly obscure reference of which 
was explained by an Adjunct. In such a sentence as ἡ κώμη, 
εἰς ἣν (κώμην) ἀφίκοντο, μεγάλη ἦν, I should regard εἰς ἣν 
κώμην to be a legitimate example of the case, in which the 
Article, with its Predicate, conjointly referred to something 
preceding, though the insertion of the Predicate marked ex- 
treme caution. This, however, is not the exact passage, as it 
stands in Xenophon; nor do I know where one precisely of the 
same form is to be found. In Xenophon’s Anab. iv. 4. it is 
εἰς ἣν ἀφίκοντο κώμην, μεγάλη ἦν. This case differs from the 
former, inasmuch as κώμην is not here added from extreme 
caution, but from absolute necessity, because the object of 
reference had not yet been mentioned, and could not be con- 
jectured. The analogy, however, between d¢ and 6 may be 
traced in the following authentic example: in the [liad A. 306. 
ὋΣ dé κ᾿ “ANHP ἀπὸ ὧν ὀχέων ἕτερ᾽ Gopal ἵκηται, x. τ. A. we 
have ἃ close resemblance of the manner in which the Article is 
subservient to Hypothesis. See below, Chap. III. Sect. 2. 
But as this hypothetic use of ὃς is not very common, and as 
the other is scarcely, if at all, to be found, it was a natural 
consequence, that 6, in which both these uses are so frequent, 


1 Vid, Sanctii Minervam, Lib, ii. cap. 9. 
c2 


90 ARTICLE DEFINED. 7 - [onar, 


should come to be considered as the only legitimate Article; 
the Pronoun é¢ not having connection with any Noun, except 
that to which it was subjoined. 'They were called ἄρθρα, as we 
learn from the Grammatical Treatise published with St. Basil, 
but ascribed to Johannes Moschopulus, διὰ τὸ συναρτᾷσθαι τοῖς 
ὀνόμασιν" though, perhaps, this etymology may be doubted. 
There is not, then, any thing in the idea of obscure relation, 
which should lead us to question its existence: since we find it 
recognized both in theory and in practice; and that too in 
cases in which the obscurity is least liable to create confusion,. 


viz. in those in which the reference may be understood retro-— 


spectively; which in the case of the Article does not always 
happen. But what will be the consequence, should a Pro- 
noun, in the arrangement of a sentence, precede the Substan- 
tive, to which it is intended to refer? What, for example, in 
the following lines of Horace ? 


At neque dedecorant tua de se judicia, atque 
Munera, quze multa dantis cum laude tulerunt 
* Dilecti tibi Virgilius Variusque Poete. 


Here we have an instance of relation to the full as obscure as 
that for which I contend; nor could the hero of these verses 
ever conjecture to whom the Pronoun was intended to refer, 
till the names of Virgil and Varius were actually pronounced. 
To the writer or speaker, indeed, they exhibit nothing of ob- 
scurity; but neither does the anticipative reference of the 
Article, and for the same reason in each case: the object of 
reference is to him previously known. 

There is, moreover, nothing more natural than this kind of 
anticipation. We easily suppose, till we have taken time to 
reflect, that what we ourselves understand, must be understood 
by others: and in the ardour of speaking we are apt to adopt 


symbols recommended by their obviousness, and to us suf; — 


ficiently significant of our meaning, even where we are con- 
scious that to others that meaning is not without ambiguity. 
This propensity finds the readier excuse, whenever the subject 
not only is uppermost in our own minds, but is supposed to be 


so also in the mind of the hearer, whieh will happen whenever | 


we refer to something recently mentioned; and this practice 


7 


! 
Ee. μασι. 


u.] ARTICLE DEFINED. 921 


must be the more habitual to a people so rapid in thought and 
in expression, as were the ancient Greeks. 

It may, then, be affirmed, that in the reference of the 
Article there is no other obscurity than that which arises out 
of the nature of that reference; which has been shown gene- 
rally to be anticipative ; for that even where it is not necessary 
so to understand it, that is, where the Article may be made to 
refer to something preceding, still a strict regard to perspicuity 
prefers a repetition of the object to the risk of ambiguity and 
confusion. 


SECTION IV. 
ANTICIPATIVE REFERENCE VINDICATED. 


Further, it may be questioned, how far this doctrine of the 
anticipative reference of the Article accords with well known 
facts. ‘The Grammarians have asserted, and every one must 
have observed, that the Article is apparently subservient to the 
purpose of re/ation in the more usual sense of that term. In- 
deed its relative and its definitive powers seem to some writers 
to comprehend every thing which properly belongs to it, and 
to constitute its very essence. Thus it will be said, in the 
passage adduced (p. 16.) from Xenophon, τὴν ἐπιστολὴν, though 
no letter has been directly mentioned, recalls the idea of one 
implied in μετεπέμψατο. So τῆς πορείας relates to the expedi- 
tion proposed. So also τῆς πόλεως will be understood of 
Athens, κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν. All this and much more of the same 
kind may be admitted without any danger to the hypothesis, 
unless the reference of the Article and its Predicate conjointly 
be confounded with that of the Article alone; than which no 
two things are more distinct. Indeed, it could not be affirmed 
in the instances here adduced, that the respective Articles have 
by themselves any such reference, because till the several Sub- 
stantives, ἐπιστολήν, &c. were pronounced, the hearer could 
not possibly know what the speaker intended to add; nor 
would the reference in these instances be at all more plain, if, 
instead of the obsolete Pronouns τήν, &c. any of the more 
usual ones had been employed. It is evident, therefore, even 
where a retrospective reference is admitted to exist, that this 


92 ARTICLE DEFINED. [cHAP. 


reference is not declared by the Article considered imdepend- 
ently of its Predicate. The Article in these stances produces 
the effect not directly, but circuitously : it refers us to its Noun 
annexed; which Noun may possibly be the same with one 
already mentioned, and which, therefore, it recalls, or at least, 
as in the instances before us, with one already implied, and 
standing so prominent to the mind of the hearer, that he can 
hardly fail to make the application. And this is all which is 
meant by Apollonius, when he says, that the Article recalls 
the third person’, and that the Article with a Noun is equiva- 
lent to the Pronoun Relative *. So much for the only cases, 


in which the anticipative reference of the Article is liable to be 


called in question. 

But the same Apollonius admits that there are instances, in 
which the Article is used without any such retrospective refer- 
ence. He tells us that it is sometimes employed indefinitely, 
as in ὃ τυραννοκτονήσας τιμάσθω ** and further on he adds, that 
the Article is applied not only to defined persons, but also to 
that, which in its nature is most undefined, as in ὃ περιπατῶν 
κινεῖται, which, as he observes, is the same with εἴ τις περιπατεῖ, 
&c. Some other examples of an use equally indefinite will be 
noticed hereafter.—Now these instances and this admission of 
the great Grammarian are alone sufficient to excite a surmise, 
that the reference of the Article is very different from that 
which is commonly supposed; for surely nothing can be more 
improbable, than that any thing, in its nature one and the same, 
should be subservient to purposes diametrically opposite. 
Either the Article marking definiteness must be essentially 
different from that used to signify indefiniteness, (which, how- 


ever, is not pretended,) or else its reference must be of such a 


nature, as, properly understood, to combine and unite in one 
form these contradictory appearances. Sound philosophy offers 
us only these alternatives. The kind of reference, then, here 
maintained, seems adapted to reconcile these differences: for 
if the Article, strictly so called, in itself be always anticipative, 
and if the retrospection observable in the Article and its Pre- 
dicate conjointly cannot subsist without the Predicate (for 


ΤΡ, 54, 
ἡ ᾿Αντὶ τῶν ὀνομάτων τῶν per’ ἄρθρων. Ῥ. 103. 
δ PP: 78, 

10 


a 


“7 ARTICLE DEFINED. 23 


else no Predicate is employed; see above), it is just as intel- 
ligible why ὁ περιπατῶν should be spoken of any person what- 
eyer, as why ὁ ῥήτωρ should mean the particular orator, of 
whom mention has recently been made: for in strictness the 
meaning of the Article will be the same in each case; and the 
difference in the result will be merely accidental. ‘O περιπα- 
τῶν is equivalent to tle, qui circumambulat, whether any per- 
son has been affirmed to walk about, or not: and so ὃ ῥήτωρ 
is no more in itself than idle, gui est orator; though possibly 
the very recent mention of some ῥήτωρ may lead the hearer to 
identify the persons respectively implied. But this is by no 
means always the case. Examples of the contrary are abund- 
ant. Thus in Demosth. de Cor. ὃ 68. 6 TON ῥήτορα βουλό- 
μενος δικαίως ἐξετάζειν καὶ μὴ, &c.; τὸν ῥήτορα no more refers 
to any definite or particular person, than does ὁ βουλόμενος ; 
but is applicable to every individual, of whom Orator can be 
predicated. | 

The reference, therefore, of the Article itself is in strictness 
always anticipative, and its power of recalling persons and 
things already mentioned is not of the essence of the Article, 
however, by the aid of its Predicate, this power may indirectly 
be exerted. I conclude that I am here understood to speak 
of the Article usually so called: for when it has no Predicate, 
that is, when, as the Grammarians tell us, it passes into a Pro- 
noun, it is plain that the reference is supposed to be marked 
with sufficient clearness, and that such reference cannot be 
other than retrospective. 

But here it becomes important to ascertain the limits of this 
anticipation: is the speaker always at liberty to anticipate an 
Adjunct? Assuredly not: for then the Article might be used 
without necessity or meaning. The limits, however, are plainly 
deducible from the principles already laid down. We have 
seen that the Article and its Predicate together constitute 
what I have denominated an assumptive proposition: the ques- 
tion, therefore, is only, what are the cases in which an assump- 
tive proposition may be employed? Evidently it can be em- 
ployed only where the assumption contained in it is admissible 
from its being the assumption of that which will immediately 
be recognized in consequence of something which had pre- 
ceded; or else, where it is only conditional, the subsequent 


24, ARTICLE DEFINED. [cHap. 


assertion not being intended to apply in any greater extent, 
than is conceded to the assumption. Now the legitimacy of the 
former kind of assumption will be manifest, if we consider, 
that in making it we do nothing more, than assume of a Pro- 
noun those attributes or properties which, either from previous 
mention or from some other implied cause, are immediately 
understood to belong to the person or thing which the Pronoun 
represents. Thus, if I have been speaking of a horse, or of 
any thing in which the presence of a horse is implied, ἑώρακα 
τὸν ἵππον will be a legitimate assumption: otherwise it will 
not; for the assumption will not be admitted, not being intel- 
ligible. As often, however, as assumptions are made of that, 
which is implied in something preceding, it will happen, as in 
ἑώρακα τὸν ἵππον, that the same person or thing is meant, 
which had already engaged our notice: and hence, as these 
cases occur so frequently, some Grammarians have made the 
Article to be merely a Definitive. In objecting to this doe- 
trine, I do not deny that the Greeks, whenever they wish to 
speak of any thing definitely, do employ the Article: and this 
end could not by any other means be attained more fully. A 
Pronoun more or less obscurely recalling the Antecedent so 
intended, and having its obscure relation explained by the 
addition of the peculiar attributes of that Antecedent, must 
evidently form as complete a repetition of the intended object, 
as the mind can conceive. The Pronoun alone may be insuf- 
ficient, of which we have had examples: and in the repetition 
merely of the Noun, the individual spoken of would not be 
identified with that which had preceded: but the conjunction 
of both the Pronoun and its Adjunct leaves no ambiguity. 
Still, however, the Article is not in its nature a Definitive; 
for then what is usually called its indefinite sense could not have 
existence: it answers the purpose of a Definitive merely κατὰ 


συμβεβηκός : in strict truth, its Adjunct has a better claim to — 


the title, being, as we have seen, added to the Pronoun to 
ascertain its relation.—Of the other kind of assumption the 
case is somewhat different: it has no retrospective reference or 
effect; and in order to render it legitimate, nothing more is 
necessary than that the assertion connected with it should be 
bounded in its extent by the limits of the assumption. Thus 
in 6 περιπατῶν κινεῖται, κινεῖται is asserted of every one whe 


γ᾿ 


1.7 ARTICLE DEFINED. 25 


walks about, and of no other, whether such persons be infinite 
in number, or finite, or none at all. So Aristotle (de Mor. 
Nicom. lib. iv. cap. 2.) ἀγαπῶσι ta αὑτῶν ἔργα ΟἹ γονεῖς καὶ 
ΟἹ ποιηταί, here we find two sets of persons assumed, the one 
comprehending a very large proportion of the human race, and 
the other only a few individuals: yet since the extent of the 
assertion is in each case exactly commensurate with that of the 
assumption, the assumption is perfectly allowable: so also 
(ibid.) Aristotle has said, πλουτεῖν ov ῥάδιον TON ἐλευθέριον" 
this assumption also is legitimate, whatever be the degree of 
liberality existing among mankind: the proposition is only, 
that supposing a man to be liberal, it is difficult for such an 
one to grow rich: of him, who is not admitted to be liberal, no 
such difficulty is affirmed. 

It seems, therefore, that the remark made above (p. 20.) of 
the Article’s being the symbol of that which is uppermost in 
the speaker’s mind, is applicable not only to the case of refer- 
ence to something already mentioned, but also to the person or 
thing which is about to become the subject of an assertion: for 
such must at the time be the object most familiar to our own 
minds, though perhaps most foreign from that of our hearer. 

Hence it may briefly be observed, that the obscurity of 
reference in the former use of the Article is often great, but in 
the latter it is always total; since it is there impossible for the 
hearer to anticipate the Predicate. 

On the whole, it appears that the Article may be used, 
either when conjointly with its Predicate it recalls some 
former idea, or when it is intended to serve as the subject of 
an hypothesis. All the various uses of the Article will come 
under one of these two divisions. The case of Proper Names, 
and that of the names of Abstract Ideas, will be considered 
apart. ' 


SECTION V. 
PARTICIPLE OF EXISTENCE UNDERSTOOD. 


The only remaining question, to which the definition at- 
tempted is likely to give rise, respects the subintellection of the 
Participle of Existence, as a Copula between the Article and 


96 ARTICLE DEFINED. [ CHAP. 


its Predicate. It is worthy of remark, that Lennep, speaking 
of the Article, has these words: “ Articulus “O vicinitatem 
habere proprié videtur cum Participio Verbi εἰμι vel tw sum".” 
His precise meaning I pretend not to ascertain; nor are vicini- 


tatem and videtur words capable of very close restriction. It 


is probable, however, that he had some vague notion of the — 
truth which I would establish: possibly he meant, that the - 
Article in some places appeared to indicate an ellipsis of the 


Participle, and to convey the same meaning as if the Parti- 
ciple had been expressed: and this is not partially, but uni- 
versally, the case. If, indeed, it be admitted, on the proofs 
already given, that the Article is no other than a Pronoun, the 
subintellection of the Participle becomes a necessary conse- 
quence: for else between the Pronoun and its Predicate there 
will be no more connection, than if they occurred in different 
propositions. ‘O ἀνὴρ must signify, He, or the Male, being 
or assumed to be aman; or else the Pronoun and the Substan- 
tive have no common medium, no principle of union, by which 
they can be brought to act together in developing the ideas of 
the speaker. The conclusion will be the same, though the 
reasoning will be somewhat different, if we suppose the Predi- 
cate of the Article to be an Adjective. Thus in the proposi- 
tion, 6 ἀγαθὸς Σωκράτης φιλοσοφεῖ, ὁ ἀγαθὸς is equivalent to 
6 ὮΝ ἀγαθός, as Gaza, indeed, admits. He says that the 
latter phrase, τὸ ἐντελὲς jv’, i. e. that the former one is an 
ellipsis: the same is evident of nea? ὁ γεραιὸς in Homer, and 
of all similar instances*. Frequently, indeed, we find the Par- 
ticiple of Existence expressed: thus Aristotle (de Mor. doe. 
daud.) οἱ μάλιστα ἄξιοι ὌΝΤΕΣ ἥκιστα πλουτοῦσι" where the 
author’s meaning would have been equally certain, had the 
Participle been omitted. 

In order to perceive that the conclusion will not be different, 
where the Predicate of the Article is a Participle, it is neces- 
sary to attend a little to the nature of Propositions, and to the 
distinction between the Participle and the Verb. Logicians 
teach us that every Proposition contains a Subject and a Predi- 


1 Etymol. Vol. ii. p. 632. Edit. Scheidii. 

2 Gramm. Lib. iv. p. 131. 

* Compare the use of the Article in such expressions as the following: ἅπανθ᾽ 
ἕτερα τοῦ ἑνός, καὶ τὸ ἕν τῶν μὴ ἕν. Plato. Parmen. 40. J.S. 


είν 


vi tastenneniel ltt ta 


u.] ARTICLE DEFINED. 97 


eate connected by ἃ Copula; and that where this Copula is not 
marked by a distinct word, it is implied in the Verb. Thus 
in Homo EST animal, the Copula is manifestly est: in Homo 
ambulat, we find it not, indeed, distinctly expressed, but we are 
sure that it exists in ambu/at, for ambulat is equivalent to HST 
ambulans', ambulabit to E RIT ambulans, &c. Now if this 
happen invariably in the Verb, what will take place in the 
Participle? This differs from the Verb, says Harris’, in losing 
the assertion: I think he would have done still better in adding, 
** In place of which it takes an assumption * ;” for if in Σωκράτης 
γράφει there be an assertion that Socrates writeth, in Σωκράτης 
γράφων, there is an assumption of the same truth; so much so, 
that if the fact of his writing be disallowed, the assertion de- 
pending on it will amount to nothing: thus in Σωκράτης yea- 
φων ἥδεται, the assertion of his being delighted has no founda- 
tion, if Socrates never write.—It is plain, then, that the Parti- 
ciple differs from the Verb in being connected with its subject 
by ὦν, ‘instead of ἐστὶ, in the Present Tense, and by the cor- 
responding Participle of Existence in others; and this will 
hold equally, whether that subject be a Noun or a Pronoun, 
which latter the Article has been shown to be. We are, 
therefore, authorized to conclude, that the Participle of Exist- 
ence is virtually employed as an asswmptive Copula between the 
Article and its Predicate, even when that Predicate is a Parti- 
ciple: which, unless it contain within itself the assumptive 
Copula, must require the subintellection of such a Copula just 
as much as does the Adjective, (see p. 26.) since the difference 


between the Participle and the Adjective is, as Harris and ~ 


others have observed, that the former, besides an attribute, 


1 Arist. Met. Lib. iv. 6. Οὐδὲν γὰρ διαφέρει τὸ ἄνθρωπος ὑγιαίνων ἐστὶν ἢ Ny 


n ᾿ 


τὸ ἄνθρωπος ὑγιαίνει" ἢ τὸ ἄνθρωπος βαδίζων ἐστὶν ἢ τέμνων τοῦ ἄνθρωπον 
βαδίζειν ἣ τέμνειν. 

3 Herm, p. 184. “ Every complete Verb is expressive of an attribute of time, 
and of an assertion. Now if we take away the assertion, and thus destroy the 
Verb, there will remain the attribute and the time, which will make the essence 
of a Participle.” 

3 Itis true, indeed, that if an assumption (as will be shown) exist in the Parti- 
ciple, it must also have existed in the Verb, of which the Participle is a com- 
ponent part. In the Verb, however, the assumption was quiescent, being absorbed 
in the assertion: in the Participle it exercises a function as important, as did the 
assertion in the Verb. 


28 ARTICLE DEFINED. | ‘(cuap. 


expresses time: but time is not a Copula: consequently the 
Participle will require the assumptive Copula just as much as 
does the Adjective. 


1 Mr. H. Tooke, Vol. ii. p. 470, denies, after Sanctius, that there is in the Par- 
ticiple of the Present Tense any adsignification of Time: and his proofs consist in 
instances so chosen, that this Participle is associated either with a Verb of the 
Past or Future Tense, or else with the words always, at all times, &c. Of the 
former kind is “ accessit amans pretium pollicens ;’’ now in this example I really 
should have thought that the adsignification of time was plainly marked, and was 
necessary to the sense. It is true that the present time therein expressed is not 
the moment of my writing these remarks: but at that rate, present time cannot 
be made the subject of discussion: dum loquimur, fugerit: but surely in pollicens 
there is an adsignification of time, and that too present time, in respect of the act 
implied in accessit : that act, indeed, is spoken of as being past; yet as having 
once been present ; and the meaning is, that the two acts, viz. accedendi and polli- 
cendi, were simultaneous. Mr. Tooke allows that the Participles of the other 
Tenses do express time: and yet his argument will serve just as well to show that 
this too is a mistake: thus when Dido asks, “‘ Quem metui moritura ?” it may be 
objected that moritura cannot have a future sense, because of metui: yet the 
answer is plain: Dido was moritura, quum metueret: in all such cases we are to 
refer the time of the Participle to the time of the act, &c. implied in the Verb: 
for past, present, and future, cannot be meant otherwise than in respect of that 
act. Thus I may say, lapsus clamavi, labens clamavi, lapsurus clamavi; and all 
of them with an adsignification of relative time. 

Mr. Tooke’s own examples are, “ The rising aun always gladdens the sarthy ν 
and “ Do justice, justice being at all times mercy.” Now of the former of these 
I think it may be affirmed, that if we be permitted to attend to the meaning of the 
proposition, (and Mr. Tooke is a zealous advocate for common sense,) it is only 
that the Sun gladdens the Earth, so often as its rising is a present act: to say 
always, is not very correct. The difficulty proposed in the latter-example is to 


make out, how time present can be signified, where any thing happens continu-— 


ally: and yet even this involves no absurdity, unless it be absurd to say, that all 
time consists of an indefinite number of moments, in each of which, as it is 
present, the proposition is true. And this is a natural, because a compendious 
method (Mr. Tooke would call it an abbreviation) of expressing truths of this 
kind, instead of saying it always was so, and now is so, and ever will beso. Ac- 
cordingly, Mr. Tooke with the Participle being has associated at all times: I 
observe, that he has not given any instance, in which it may be connected with 
Adverbs either of past or of future time: he has not joined being with anciently or 
hereafter : with which, however, if that word have no adsignification of time pre- 


sent, it is not easy to discover, why it will not endure to be associated. It will — 


hardly be said, that at all times comprises time past and time future : this would be, 
to use Mr. Tooke’s own phrase on this very subject, but “a shabby evasion:” at 


any rate, if the term be thus comprehensive, let it be resolved into’ the three. 


times, of which it is composed, and the experiment be made separately on each: 
an example is wanted similar to the following: “this building, being anciently a 
Chapel, is now a Barn.” If I mistake not, a more specious instance, than any of 
those adduced by Mr. Tooke, is Homer’s, 


Ὅς yon τά 7’ ἐόντα τά τ᾽ ἐσσόμενα ΠΡῸ τ᾽ ἜΟΝΤΑ. 
This 


ate be 


11.} ARTICLE DEFINED. 29 


But I have said, unless the Participle contain within itself 
the assumptive Copula: for some Grammarians have thought 
that they discovered in the formation of Participles the very 
Copula in question. Scaliger says (see Hermes, p. 370.) that 
though the Romans rejected from their language the simple 
word ens, they used it in the composition of their active Parti- 
ciples; so that audiENs is ἀκούων wv. ‘This is true, no doubt: 
but how happens it that ἀκούων ὮΝ is foreign from the Greek 
idiom? Evidently, because the Greeks have made the very 
same use of ὮΝ, which the Latins made of ens: they have 
incorporated it with their Participles of the Present Tense in 


each of their six Conjugations. The assumptive Copula, there- ,.. 
fore, in 6 ἀκούων does not require to be distinctly expressed, 


being already contained within the Participle. 

Under this head it may be observed, that in the Greek 
Idiotisms, of ἀμφί, &c. ὃ τότε, &c. ὁ Φιλίππου, and many 
others of the same sort, every reader supplies ὄντες or ὦν, as 
the case may require, without hesitation. 

The Article, then, always indicates the subintellection of 


This example, however, tends to confirm the opinion of those Grammarians, 
who make ἐὼν to have been originally a Participle of a Past Tense, though even 
so early as in Homer’s time this acceptation seems not to have been sufficiently 
intelligible without the aid of πρό : that τά τ᾽ ἐόντα by itself would be understood 
of things present is evident from this very passage, and from many others of 


Homer. So also, in the 25th of the Hymns ascribed to Orpheus, 


ἐπιστάμενος TA τ᾽ ἜΟΝΤΑ, 
«“ Ψ , » e >” ev - 
Οσσα re πρόσθεν ἔην, boa τ᾽ ἔσσεται ὕστερον αὖτις. 


We have also in Plutarch de Isid. et Osir. this ancient inscription, ἐγώ 
εἶμι πᾶν τὸ γεγονὸς καὶ ΟΝ kai ἐσόμενον. In like manner in Xenoph. 
Οοηνῖν. Xantippe is said to be TON ΟΥ̓ΣΩΝ καὶ τῶν γεγενημένων καὶ τῶν 
ἐσομένων χαλεπωτάτη. In all such passages he who denies that ὧν has an 
adsignification of present time, must possess a degree of scepticism, with which 
it would be folly to contend. 

But after all, my hypothesis will not be affected, unless that something 
more, which, according to Mr. Tooke, the Participle contains over and above 
the attribute, be both distinct from and incompatible with the assumptive 
Copula. 

The dispute respecting ὧν is not confined to Grammarians; it has found its 
way into Theology. Socinus thought that this Participle, having no adsignifica- 
tion of present time, might as well be confined to the Past; and that thus an im- 
portant passage, John iii. 13. ὁ ὧν ἐν οὐρανῷ, might be softened by being ren- 
dered qui ERAT in colo. See Glass, Philol. Sacr. Ὁ. 434. ed. 1711. 


30 | ARTICLE DEFINED. [ouae. 


the Participle of Existence, where that Participle is not ex- 
pressed, or otherwise implied. 


I do not find that Apollonius has directly treated of this sub- 


intellection; but in some of his remarks we perceive plainly, 


that he recognized the principle, though he has not, if I re- 


member rightly, positively adverted to the fact. 

I will add only, in confirmation of this part of my theory, 
that it explains the reason, why the Article is prefixed only 
to Nouns, Adjectives and Participles*: for if the word annexed 
to the Article be in all cases the Predicate of an assumptive 
Proposition, of which the Article is the Subject, and the Par- 
ticiple of Existence expressed or implied the Copula, it is 
plain that the word so associated must be something, which in 
its nature is capable of being predicated, but which has not, 
where the insertion of ὧν is admissible, a Copula within itself ; 
for then there would be two Copule of the same kind, which 
no proposition admits. ‘Thus if in an assertive proposition I 
say, He is , leaving the place of the Predicate vacant, I 
can fill up this vacancy only by adding, a Philosopher, wise, or 
walking, &c. I cannot add walks any more than in Greek to 
ὁ ἐστὶν I could add ΠΕΡΙΠΑΤΈΕΈΙ, because walks and TIEPI- 
IIATEI contain each an assertive Copula, the place of which 


in the proposition in question is already occupied: and the 


same is true, if instead of the assertive Proposition He is, we 
take the assumptive one, He being : we can, therefore, say only 
ὁ φιλόσοφος, ὃ σοφὸς, ὁ περιπατῶν. 


1 Verbs of the Infinitive Mood. Author's MS. 


ee Δ λιν ὙΝν.. ..: 


ΓΝ, 


ey φρο " 


nt.) APPELLATIVES. 31 


CHAPTER III. 


APPELLATIVES, 


In the last Chapter it was my endeayour to produce evidence 
in favour of each distinct head of the Hypothesis: I am next 
to show, that if it be admitted, it is capable (if I may use the 
expression) of solving the principal phenomena: in other 
words, that it will account for the most remarkable pecu- 
liarities in the usage of the Article, and that what may to 
some appear to be arbitrary custom, is in truth, supposing the 
principles laid down to be sufficiently established, a natural, if 
not a necessary consequence. Should this point be made out 
to the satisfaction of the reader, it is obvious that some weight 
will accompany the decisions, to which this inquiry may lead. 
If the prevailing wsage in its principal varieties be such, as 
would arise out of the supposed nature of the Article, that 
nature, it will be concluded, has been accurately ascertained. 
I shall, therefore, on the evidence already adduced, suppose 
the Article to be such as it has been described to be, and shall 
now proceed to apply what has been Said, to the explanation 


τς of the most remarkable insertions of the Article; to its most 


remarkable omissions; and to some cases of insertion and 
omission combined. 


austin of ΕΝ SECTION 1. ἭΝ 


; ζ΄ 
INSERTIONS IN REFERENCE. § © jor hora 


It has been shown, that all the insertions of the Article are 
reducible to two kinds, arising out of one property, viz. its 
anticipative reference: for the anticipation must be either of 
that which is known, or of that which is unknown:) in the 
former case the Article with its Predicate is subservient to the 
purpose of retrospective reference, in the latter to that of hypo- 


32 APPELLATIVES. [ CHAP. 


thesis. Under the former of these heads we may class the 
cases, which are the subject of the present Section. 

§ 1. Renewed mention. When a person or thing recently 
mentioned is spoken of again, the Article, as is well known, is 
inserted when the mention is renewed: and this happens, not 
only when the same Noun is repeated, but also when a synony- 
mous one is used expressive of the same person or thing, and 
even when zo such Noun has preceded, but the existence of 
such person or thing may be inferred from what has been said: 
for then also the name of the person or thing, of which the 
existence is so inferred, has the Article prefixed. 


EXAMPLES. 


Xen. Mem. lib. mt. cap. 185. Κολάσαντος δέ τινος ἰσχυρῶς 
"AKOAOYOON, ἤρετο τί χαλεπαίνοι TQ: θεράποντι. 

ΖΞ βομίη. cont. Ctes. § 56. οὗτος ΠΡΟΔΟΥΣ τοῖς πολεμίοις 
Νύμφαιον φυγὰς ἐγένετο, ΤῊΝ κρίσιν οὐχ ὑπομείνας. 

Ibid. ὃ 84. ὅταν τι ΨΕΎΔΩΝΤΑΙ, ἀόριστα καὶ ἀσαφῆ πει- 
ρῶνται λέγειν, φοβούμενοι ΤΟΝ ἔλεγχον.. 

These examples present very different degrees of obscurity 
in the relation of the Article, though in each the reference is 
made equally clear by the subjoined explanation or Predicate. 
In the first we almost anticipate ἀκολούθῳ: and on finding 
the synonymous word θεράποντι we of course have no difficulty 
in perceiving, that the Article and its Predicate form a re- 
newed mention of ἀκόλουθος above. In the second, τήν, 
though anticipating an idea as much the object of the speaker's 
attention, as was that introduced by τῷ in the former, pre- 
sents a relation, which to the mind of the hearer is involved in 
total obscurity, yet by the addition of κρίσιν the relation of the 
whole is just as evident as it was in the first example. It was 


not at all more certain that τῷ θεράποντι indicated the same | 


person, who had just been denominated ἀκόλουθος, than that 
τὴν κρίσιν 15 the trial, to which the traitor would have been 
subjected.—It is superfluous to produce instances, in which 
the very same Noun is repeated, since they so frequently 
occur. 

But it will often happen, that even with the aid of the Pre- 
dicate, the reference will not appear to have been made to any 


Pe gn ey es νος Ὁ 
"ὦ he dl, ἮΙΣ Τὰ πὰ ὁ ΣΟΎ ΔΑ rd Bk (ἃ ee i) fo ἢ 


τι. APPELLATIVES. 33 


person or thing, which has been actually mentioned, nor even 
to that, the existence of which (as in Exam. 2. above) may be 
inferred from something already said: there lie dormant in the 
mind of every hearer a multitude of ideas, which are perfectly 
familiar to it, though not constantly the subjects of its con- 
templation, and to which, therefore, a reference may be made 
with the same certainty that the relation will be perceived, as 
if it were to something recently spoken of, or actually present 
to the mind. Of this reference there are various kinds, so 
closely allied to each other, that sometimes they are scarcely 
distinguishable. 
Thus the Article is said to be used 

§ 2. KAT ’EZOXHN, when it refers to some object, of 
which there are many, but no one of which is so familiar to 
the mind of the hearer, as that which is made the Predicate of 
the Article. 


EXAMPLES, 


Thuceyd. lib. ii. § ὅθ, Ἢ νόσος ἐπέκειτο ἅμα καὶ ‘O πόλεμος, 
i.e. the celebrated plaque, and the Peloponnesian War. 

Demosth. de Cor. ὃ 30. TO μέρος τῶν ψήφων οὐ λαβών, 
i, 6, the well known fifth part: where some MSS, insert 
πεμπτόν, a manifest gloss. | 

Aisch. cont. Ctes. ὃ 15. Ὁ ῥήτωρ γέγραφε, &c. meaning 
Ctesiphon. ; 

In the last example it will immediately be seen, that excel- 
lence does not necessarily enter into the idea, which this use of 
the Article is intended to convey: Aischines did not mean to 
compliment the friend of his great enemy: but in both in- 
stances the reference of the Article and the Predicate is at 
once perceived, as being made to objects which are familiar to 
the mind of him who is addressed. This remark is important, 
because the opinion is very prevalent, at least among the com- 


mentators on the New Testament, (as will be seen hereafter,) \ , 
that this use of the Article always indicates pre-eminent worth — 
or dignity ; than which no opinion can be more unfounded, — 


Pre-eminent dignity will, it is true, frequently be found ex- 

pressed by Nouns with the Article prefixed; and for the obvi- 

ous reason, that such dignity forms in every mind one of those 

ideas, which it has probably at some time or other entertained, 
D 


34 APPELLATIVES. [cuap. 


and to which, therefore, a reference may consistently be made. 
Thus, ancient writers sometimes speak of Homer under the 
appellation of Ὁ ποιητής. Considering his acknowledged pre- 
eminence, such a phrase must have been, in most cases, of 
obvious application: yet even this phrase, as Harris admits, 
‘ was not exclusively so understood, being used by Plato to sig- 
nify Hesiod, and by Aristotle to mean Euripides. On the 
whole it is not safe to infer universally, from this use of the 
Article, any thing more, than that the person or thing spoken 
of is from some cause or other well known: the particular 
cause may be a subject of further consideration. 

§ 3. Very nearly allied to the use last mentioned, is that of 
the Article prefixed to Monadic Nouns; i. 6. Nouns indi- 
. eating persons or things, which exist singly, or of which, if 
ας there be several, only one, from the nature of the case, can be 
the subject of discourse. 


EXAMPLES. 


Lysias, Orat. Gr. vol. v. p. 139. ᾿Εκκόψας ΤᾺΣ θύρας 
εἰσῆλθεν εἰς THN γυναικωνῖτιν. 

Demosth. de Cor. ὃ 53. ΟἹ μὲν Πρυτάνεις ΤΗ͂Ν Βουλὴν 
ἐκάλουν εἰς TO Βουλευτήριον᾽ ὑμεῖς δ᾽ εἰς ΤῊΝ ᾿Εκκλησίαν 
ἐπορεύεσθε. 

Plato Thezet. vol. ii. p. ὅθ. ἡμῖν Ὁ παῖς ἀναγνώσεται. 

§ 4. Under the same division may be classed the numerous 
examples, in which the Article has the sense of a Possessive 
Pronoun. 


EXAMPLES. 


Demosth. de Cor. ὃ 59. οὐχὶ ΤΩι πατρὶ καὶ THe μητρὶ 
μόνον γεγενῆσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ THe πατρίδι" where his may be 
supplied. 

Theocr. Idyll. iii. 52. adyém TAN kepadrav’ my, &c. 

Plato Thezt. vol. ii. p. 169. πρόσχες TON νοῦν᾽ your, &e. 

Arist. de Mor. Nic. lib. iv. ο. 3. πέντε TON ἀριθμόν" their, 
&e. ἢ 

§ 5. The same kind of reference will serve also to explain 


} Matt. xi. 29. ἀνάπαυσιν ταῖς ψυχαῖς. Ἡ. J. R. 


ee ee ee 


or 


ee νωτ μὰ) 


ἘΞΎ-“ eS 


11|.} APPELLATIVES. 35 


the Article, as we usually find it prefixed to the names of the 
great objects of nature. 


EXAMPLES. 


Arist. de Coelo. ii. 4. Σχῆμα δ᾽ ἀνάγκη σφαιροειδὲς ἔχειν 
ΤΟΝ οὐρανόν. 

Demosth. de Fals. Leg. vol. i. 426. - οὔτε ΤΟΝ ἥλιον ἠσχύ- 
VOVTO οἱ ταῦτα ποιοῦντες, οὔτε THN γῆν, ὅτε. 

§ 6. Moreover, the Article is frequently prefixed to Adjec- 
tives of the Neuter Gender, when they are used to indicate 
some attribute or quality in its general and abstract idea’. 


EXAMPLES. 


Eurip. Hippol. 451. TO σῶφρον we ἁπανταχοῦ καλόν. 

Plato, vol. i. p. 11. λέγε δὴ τί φὴς εἶναι TO ὅσιον καὶ TO 
ἀνόσιον. 

Than such ideas none are more familiar to the mind. 

In all these cases the reference of the Article is more obscure 
than in the case of renewed mention, strictly so called; but yet 
is explicable on the same principle: for in all of them it is to 
something which is easily recognized, though not hitherto par- 
ticularly mentioned. 

The next zsertions of the Article, which this part of the 


1 There are, however, instances in which ἥλιος especially rejects the Article, 
having become in some degree a Proper Name *. 

2 Hence Aristot. (Anal. Pr. cap. 40.) has noticed the difference between ἡ 
ἡδονὴ ἀγαθόν and TO ἀγαθόν. The former proposition is true; the latter false. 
Yet as Lord Monboddo has remarked, (on Lang. vol. ii. p. 72,) Philoponus 
seems to have mistaken the meaning of ἡ ἡδονή ἐστι τὸ ἀγαθόν, having con- 
founded it with ἀγαθόν. They who would be convinced how much more is con- 
tained in the former than in the latter, may find the difference exemplified with 
respect to τὸ καλὸν and καλόν, in the Hippias Major of Plato, as lively a dialogue, 
and as refined a satire, as exists perhaps in any language. 


* The learned Author, as has been noticed in a periodical publication, has 
here fallen into a slight mistake; γῆν, in this place, is not an example to his 
purpose, but has the Article for an obviously different reason: τὴν γῆν, πατρίδα 
οὖσαν, ἐφ᾽ ἧς ἕστασαν. The passage will be found in Vol. i. p. 477. of Bekker’s 
admirable edition —J. 5. 


pd2 


96 APPELLATIVES. [cHaAP. 


inquiry leads me to notice, are those which respect Correlatives 
and Partitives: the insertion, in these cases also, will be found 
to arise out of the nature of the Article and its Predicate, as 
already explained. 


§ 7. Correlatives are words in regimen’, having a mutual ),y\ 


reference; and consequently so circumstanced, that if the first 
relate to the second, the second must relate to the first. The 
Greek writers, it is observable, mark the relation in the second 
wherever it is necessary to mark it in the first*: in other 
words, where the first has the Article, the second has it like- 
wise. 

EXAMPLES. 


Plat. Thezet. vol. ii. p. 126. ἡ ΤΟΥ γεωργοῦ δόξα, ἀλλ᾽ 
οὐχὶ ΤΟΥ κιθαριστοῦ, κυρία.: 

Ibid. ibid. p. 182. ὁ TOY πλέθρου ἀριθμὸς καὶ πλέθρον, 
ταυτόν. 

Ibid. ibid. p. 71. ἡ ΤΩΝ σωμάτων ἕξις. 

It is plain that TOY γεωργοῦ and TOY nihetioena. are not 
spoken of as indicating in themselves any particular husband- 
man, &c.: they become particular only by their connection 
with their respective Correlatives. A particular opinion (ἡ 
δόξα) is supposed to imply a particular person, to whom that 
opinion belongs. In such cases, therefore, the relation ex- 
pressed by each Article and its Predicate conjointly is abund- 
antly authorized. Apollonius has adverted to this usage. He 
| says that Nouns in regimen must have Articles prefixed to both 
of them, or to neither: and that we must say either λέοντος 
σκυμνίον, or TO TOY λέοντος σκυμνίον. He excepts Proper 
Names in the Genitive, and also Βασιλεύς, from its affinity with 
them. De Synt. p. 90. There are, however, very many in- 
stances in which the Article of the first Noun is, from causes 
hereafter to be noticed, omitted: in those instances, the second 
Noun also, as will be seen, sometimes loses its Article. 


1 By regimen I understand the condition both of the governing and governed 
Noun: by the term first I mean the governing Noun, whatever be its position in 
the sentence; and by the second, the Noun governed. 

? The practice in our own tongue is wholly different: we can say, “ the mast of 
a ship,” &c.:; and this, consequently, is another of the cases in which the Greek 
Ariicle is supposed to be without meaning. I need hardly suggest, that the Greek 
practice has more of philosophical correctness. 


a ee ee ee 


τὴ] APPELLATIVES. 37 


But besides the case of Proper Names and that of Βασιλεύς;, 
I have noticed a few examples in which the rule has not been 
observed: they are not, however, such as to justify the expres- 
sion, τὸ λέοντος σκυμνίον᾽ for there no other usage would 
interfere with the ordinary idiom of the language; a circum- 
stance which, I think, invariably happens, where there is any 
deviation from the rule. Thus, 

Plato, vol. ii. p. 64. διὰ THN ἄδικόν τε καὶ ἄτεχνον ovva- 
yoynv “ANAPOS καὶ TYNAIKO®. 

Ibid. p. 185. μὴ Ἢ θέσις σε ταράττῃ ΛΕΓΟΜΈΝΩΝ τε καὶ 
ΓΡΑΦΟΜΈΝΩΝ. 7 

Dion. Hal. vol. i. edit. Reiske, p. 5. ἐπὶ TAS παραδεδο- 
μένας TIOAEQN τε καὶ ἜΘΝΩΝ ἡγεμονίας. 

Plutarch de 1514. p. 279. ΤΟ δὲ ΚΑΝΘΑΡΩΝ γένος. 

Xenoph. Cyrop. p. 140, καὶ ᾽᾿ΑΝΘΡΩΠΩΝ TO πᾶν γένος 
αἰδεῖσθε. 

Plato, vol. ii, p. 190. οἰηθέντες ἔχειν TON ἀληθέστατον 
ἘΠΙΣΤΗΜΗΣ λόγον". 

Now in all these instances we may observe something extra- 
neous interfering with the ordinary practice. In the three first 
examples, the Nouns governed come under the head Enumera- 
tion, (see Chap. vi. § 2,) which may cause them to be anar- 
throus. In the fourth and fifth instances, the governing Noun 
is γένος : I think it not improbable, if we consider that OI 
κάνθαροι and OI ἄνθρωποι will signify the respective γένος of 
each, (see next Section of this Chapter), that this circumstance 
may have rendered TQN superfluous: though, at the same 
time, from conformity with the practice in other cases, we 
commonly find, even after yévoc, that the Article is inserted. 
In the last example, we might have expected ΤῊΣ ἐπιστήμης. 
This, however, is what I have called an Abstract Noun, and 
such (as will be seen, Chap. v.) frequently reject the Article, 
however definite in their sense. 

The only Greek prose writer’, so far as I know, who, with- 


1 Genitives used in an adjective sense, and placed before the governing Noun, 
omit the Article: thus τὰ πολέμων (Socr. Eccl. Hist. p. 118.) is equivalent to 
τὰ πολέμῳν πράγματα, 1. 6. τὰ πολεμικὰ πράγματα. Origen. c. Cels. p. 116. 
τὴν ἀνθρώπων φύσιν. Philo, p. 92. ὁ Θεοῦ λόγος. Author’s MS. 

2 This limitation of the learned Author must be borne in mind, as the poets 


furnish us with such examples as, τὸ γὰρ πόλεως ὄνειδος. Asch. Theb. 534. 
΄. 8. 


38 APPELLATIVES. [cnap. 


out these or similar reasons, appears to disregard the usage, is 
Philo Judeus. His style is, indeed, florid and oratorical, but 
at the same time by no means correct. Josephus, another 
Jew, and the contemporary of phere: is not liable to the same 
censure. 

§ 8. The reasoning is similar in the case of Partitives, be- 
tween which and their respective Wholes, the same mutual 
relation subsists'. Indeed many of them fall in immediately 
with the preceding division: thus A&sch. cont. Ctes. ὃ 20. τὰ 
μέγιστα ΤΩΝ αἰσχρῶν. The only difference is, that many 
'. Partitives are of such a nature, as not to admit the Article 


4. before them, as τίς, ὕσος, or else admit it only in particular 


cases, as πολλοί, εἷς. ‘The following examples will serve as 
illustrations in general. 


EXAMPLES. 


Isoc. Paneg. ὃ 14. διαφέρουσιν ai μείζους ΤΩΝ συμμαχιῶν 
πρὸς τὴν ἀσφάλειαν. 4: 

Thid. ὃ 16. εἰ δεῖ τὸν ἀκριβέστατον ΤΩΝ λόγων εἰπεῖν. 

ZEsch. cont. Ctes. δ 8, συνεργοῦντές τισι ΤΩΝ ῥητόρων. 

Demosth. de Cor. ὃ 5. μηδενὸς ΤΩΝ μετρίων. 

Ibid. ὃ 58. μόνῳ ΤΩΝ ἄλλων. 

Ibid. § 61. ἔστιν ἃ ΤΩΝ ψηφισμάτων. 

Aristot. Metaph. lib. x. e. 1. ai μαθηματικαὶ ΤΩΝ ἐπισ- 
τημῶν. 

Plat. Thezet. vol. ii. p. 178. πολλοὶ ΤΩΝ σοφῶν. 

Ibid. p. 118. ἕνα ΤΩΝ νομέων. 

Ibid. p. 92. ἕκαστος ΤΩΝ ἀνθρώπων. 
᾿ Demosth. de Cor. ὁ 12. ὅσα προσετίθετο ΤΩΝ πολισμάτων. 

Plat. Thezet. vol. ii, 127. ΤΩΝ ἰδιωτῶν ὁστισοῦν. 

Arist. Top. lib. i. ο. 11. ἔνια ΤΩΝ προβλημάτων. 

This rule, however, is sometimes violated, especially in the 
case of ἀνθρώπων. 

§ 9. On the same principle we may explain the two Articles 
which are employed, when two things are opposed to each other 
by μὲν and δέ: for in them also a species of mutual relation 


1 This usage also is noticed by Apollonius; and the cause assigned by him 
agrees with what is here advanced: he says, τὸ μέρος τῶν πρός τι καθέστηκε, Kai 
ἔχει πρὸς τὸ ὕλον τὴν ἀπότασιν. P. 41, 


11. | APPELLATIVES. 39 


subsists. In the Pronominal sense (as it is called) of the Ar- 
ticle, the usage is extremely common: thus Isoc. ad Demon. 
TO μὲν ἀνόητον᾽ TO δὲ μανικόν" but we trace it also in cases, 
in which the Article has its Predicate, and that too, sometimes, 
where the opposition is not the most natural, as between per- 
sons and things. ‘Thus Demosth. de Cor. ὃ 2. φύσει πᾶσιν 
ἀνθρώποις ὑπάρχει ΤΩΝ piv λοιδοριῶν ἀκούειν ἡδέως, ΤΟΙ͂Σ 
δ᾽ ἐπαινοῦσι, χε. 


SECTION II. 


INSERTIONS IN HYPOTHESIS. 


§ 1. The following use of the Article differs from the pre- 
ceding ones, in which the Article and Predicate together recall 
some familiar idea,) being here subservient to the purpose of 
Hypothesis. In both cases the Predicate explains the obscure 
relation of the Article, but in the latter the Article, even with 
the aid of its Predicate, does not carry back the mind to any 
object with which it has been recently, or is frequently, con- 
versant. It is merely the representative of something, of 
which, whether known or dircaspimen an assumption is to be 
made. 


EXAMPLES. 


Demosth. de Cor. ὃ 71. πονηρὸν ‘O συκοφάντης ἀεί. 

Ibid. ὃ 94. Τί χρῆν TON εὔνουν πολίτην ποιεῖν ; 
᾿ς Xen. Mem. lib. iii. c. 1. ἃ δεῖ TON εὖ στρατηγήσοντα 
ἔχειν. 

Arist. de Mor, Nie. lib. iii. c. 6. Ὃ σπουδαῖος γὰρ ἕκαστα 
κρίνει ὀρθώς. 

Idem Prob. ὃ 18. TO μὲν οὖν ἕν ὥρισται' ΤΑ δὲ ee 
TOY ἀπείρου μετέχει. 

In these instances the Article is used, according to the 
Grammarians, indefinitely: and this circumstance, combined 
with the general notion of the defining power of the Article, is 
one of the causes which have led to the opinion, that its uses 
can never be determined with certainty. If, however, the : 


15 - 


40 APPELLATIVES. [ cHAP. 


pretended ambiguity has no existence; for the object of the 
Article’s relation is equally defined, whether that object (as in 
the case of renewed mention) be the person who has been spoken 
of in the preceding sentence, or whether it be some person or 
character now introduced for the first time. In both cases the 
Article is clearly explained. by its Predicate: that Predicate 
may indeed require to be understood with greater or less lati- 
tude; the degree of which the context and the general tenor of 
the argument will decide with sufficient exactness: thus in the 
᾿ς example from Demosthenes, if συκοφάντης had recently been 
mentioned, we should immediately infer that 6 συκοφάντης was 
the renewed mention of the same person: as the context stands, 
-.we clearly perceive, that 6 συκοφάντης must mean every per- 
son! of whom συκοφάντης can be predicated. The error has 
arisen from confounding the relation of the Article and its 
Predicate conjointly, with that of the Article alone: between 
which I have endeavoured to establish the true distinction. 

§ 2. In the same manner the Article is employed plurally, 
to denote whole classes and descriptions of persons or things. 


EXAMPLES, 


Xen. Mem. lib. iii. c. 1. διαγιγνώσκειν σε TOYS ἀγαθοὺς 
καὶ TOYS κακοὺς ἐδίδαξεν, i. 6. the two classes. 

Plut. de Isid. p. 264. λεγόμενον ΤΟΥΣ θεοὺς φρουρεῖν, 
ὥσπερ ΟἹ κύνες TOYS ἀνθρώπους. 

βομηο5 cont. Ctes. § 2. καταδουλούμενοι TOYS ἰδιώτας. 

Ibid. § 90. δεινὸν, ὦ ᾿Αθηναῖοι, εἰ TA piv ξύλα καὶ ΤΟΥ͂Σ 
λίθους καὶ TON σίδηρον ᾿, τὰ ἄφωνα ὑπερορίζομεν, &e. 

Demosth. de Cor. § 58. ΤΑ ῥήγματα καὶ ΤΑ σπάσματα, 


¢ N Α ~ ΄ ΄ - 
ταν τι κακὸν TO σωμα λάβῃ, TOTE κίνειται. 


1 It is only due to Mr. Winstanley to observe, that he clearly saw this pro- 
perty of the Article. After explaining that it includes every thing to which the 
term to which it is affixed can apply, he says that it must be defined “to be the 
symbol of universality or totality.” He then goes on to observe, that if prefixed 
to an Appellative, it denotes the whole genus. Thus ὁ ἄνθρωπος means all man- 
kind. And if the Appellative be limited by any form of distinction, then the 
words include as much as they can. Thus ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος is every good 
man. H.J.R. 

2 This word not being used in the plural, must be considered as in the singular 
denoting the genus. 


ἢ 
A 
: 
ἷ 
ἰ 


111. } APPELLATIVES. 41 


This usage is so prevalent, that, as far as 1 have observed, 
the Attic writers prefix the Article to plural Nouns almost 
universally, so often as an affirmative is true alike of aut the 
persons or things in question. The reason of this will be evi- 
dent, if we admit the principle laid down in the last paragraph: 
for then τὰ ῥήγματα must signify every thing, of which ῥῆγμα 
can be affirmed. This remark will serve to explain the true 
meaning of the Article in very many passages, in which it is 
usually supposed to be a mere verbum otiosum'. I would call 
this the inclusive sense of the Article, the force of which will 
be better understood from what will be said of Exclusive Pro- 
positions. 

It is worthy of notice that the hypothetical, as well as the 
other use of the Article, was known to Homer: thus TOY 
κακοῦ and TOY ἀγαθοῦ. Iliad xiii. vy. 279, 284. 

To some one of these heads we may, I believe, refer every 
insertion of the Article, of which the Greek writers supply ex- 
amples: and every such insertion will be explicable in one of 
the two ways proposed; either that the Article with its Predi- 
cate denotes a relation immediately recognized by the hearer; 
or else, where no such relation can be recognized, they serve 
conjointly to indicate an hypothesis. 'The Article itse/f is in 
each case the same, the object of its relation being known to 
the speaker, though unknown to the hearer, till it is explained 
in the Predicate’. | 


SECTION III. 
_» . OMISSIONS. 


From the most remarkable insertions of the Article, it will 
be right to proceed to its most remarkable omissions, and to 
show that they too may be accounted for on the principles laid 


1 Thus Plat. Theet. vol. ii. p. 159. τὰ ἐν ΤΟΙΣ κατόπτροις τῆς ὄψεως πάθη" 
in all mirrors whatever. 

2 There are cases in which the Article is properly expressed in Greek, though 
omitted in English, and which the Author has not particularly specified under 
any of his divisions. They may perhaps both be classed under Monadic Nouns, 
(p. 34.) To receive a drachma a day—dpaxpojy τῆς ἡμέρας λαβεῖν. 44 second 
Geryon—I'ypuwy ὁ δεύτερος. (Asch. Agam, 843.) See Chap. vi. § ὃ. J.S. 


7 


42 APPELLATIVES. [cHAP. 


down. ‘To this end nothing more will be requisite at present, 
than to remind the reader of what was said above respecting 
the Copula. ‘This was shown to be, in all cases, the Participle 
of Existence : whence it will follow, that the existence of the 
person or thing, to the name of which the Article is prefixed, 


is always supposed: nor, indeed, is it possible to indicate a - 


mode of existence (as is done in the Predicate) without as- 
suming the existence itself. 

§ 1.. Hence in propositions which merely affirm/or deny) 
existence, the name of the person or thing, of which existence 
is affirmed or denied, is without the Article. In each case the 
reason of the omission is, mutatis mutandis, the same: for to 
affirm the existence of that, of which the existence is already 
assumed, would be superfluous; and to deny it, would be con- 
tradictory and absurd. 


EXAMPLES. 


Arist. Categ. οι Ὑ8ώ:8 19. ἘΠΙΣΤΗΤΟΥ ; Μόν rap μὴ 
ὌΝΤΟΣ, οὐκ ἜΣΤΙΝ ᾽ΕΠΙΣΤΗΜΗ. 

/Esch. cont. Ctes. § 58. ΕἸΣῚ γὰρ καὶ δαλέβε ΓΡΑΦΑΙ. 

Ibid. ὃ 96. ἜΣΤΑΙ μὲν EIPHNH. 

Demosth. de Cor. § 48. οὐκ ἪΝ τοῦ πρὸς ὑμᾶς πολέμου 
ΠΈΡΑΣ. 

Ibid. ᾧ 99. τών κολακεύειν ἑτέρους βουλομένων ἜΞΕΤΑΣΙΣ 
ἮΝ. 

Plat. Theet. vol. ii. p. 173. τῶν ἐπιστημῶν ΕἸΣΙΝ αὖ 
ἜἘἜΠΙΣΤΗΜΑΙ. 

LXX. Ps. li. 1. οὐκ ἘΣΤΙ ΘΕΟΣ ". 

In all these instances the several Nouns would haye had the 
Article prefixed, had the propositions affirmed or denied of 


them any thing besides existence: for then the assumption of ++ 


the existence of the things represented by the Nouns would © 


have been necessary ὅ. 


1 The same words occur, Isaiah xlv. 14. where, however, Breitinger’s edition 
has Ὁ Θεός. The Vatican MS. as referred to by him in the V. R. has properly 
omitted the Article. There is a difference between this and the preceding clause 


* in the same verse: in’EN SOI ὁ Θεός ἐστι the existence of God is assumed. 


2 In Gersdorf’s Beitrige zur Sprach-charakteristik der Schriftsteller des 
N. T. p. 825—327, and again, p. 330, 331, is a large collection of similar 


tis 


4b 


Ce ER a AEE ARP NTI μ ἃ 


111. | APPELLATIVES. 43 


§ 2. Another omission, which arises out of the nature of the 


| Copula, is that which is observable in all Nouns preceded by 


Verbs (or Participles) Substantive or Nuncupative*. In such 
cases the Noun is always anarthrous. 


EXAMPLES. 


Demosth. de Cor. ὃ 23. ΑἸΤΙΟΣ EIMI τοῦ πολέμου. 

ZEsch. cont. Ctes. ὃ 20. τοὺς κονδύλους, ode ἔλαβεν ἐν τῇ 
ὀρχήστρᾳ ΧΟΡΗΓῸΣ ὮΝ. 

Ibid. ὃ 43. 6 τολμῶν ἐν ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς γράφειν ὅτι 
AESTIOTHS ἘΣΤΙΝ ἁπάντων ἀνθρώπων. 

Thid. ὃ 61. ᾿Αριστείδης 6 ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣ ᾽᾿ΕΠΙΚΑΛΟΥΜΈΝΟΣ. 

Demosth. de Cor. ὃ 52. ὃν οὐκ ἂν ὀκνήσαιμι ἔγωγε ΚΟΙ- 
NON ’AAITHPION ΕἸΠΕΙ͂Ν. 

Esch. cont. Ctes. ὃ 47. IPOAOTAS τῶν Ἑλλήνων τοὺς 
Bowrapyac "EKAAEXE. 

LXX. Ps. xlvi. 8. ὅτι BASIAEYS (scil. ἜΣΤΙ) πάσης τῆς 
γῆς 6 Ode. | : 

Esai. ix. 6. καὶ ΚΑΛΕΙ͂ΤΑΙ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ μεγάλης 
Βουλῆς “ATTEAOS, ΘΑΥΜΑΣΤΟΣ, ΣΥΜΒΟΥΛΟΣ, ἸΣ- 
ΧΥΡΟΣ, ὅζο. &c. 

The reader, who has attended to the sections on the prin- 
cipal insertions of the Article, will perceive that in all these 
examples the Nouns and Adjectives, which are printed in 
capitals, are used in senses which might seem to require the 
Article. In general they express some attribute or dignity 
possessed exclusively, and might therefore be expected to take 
the Article κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν: but this is forbidden by the Verb or 
Participle preceding; which is used to indicate, as hitherto 
unknown, the very truth which the presence of the Article 
would imply to be known or supposed already: for such, as we 
have seen, is the force of the assumptive Copula understood. 
Hence, if in the passage above quoted from A‘schines, the 


passages from the New Testament. Gersdorf, not having the key to these pas- 
sages, of course considers them as anomalous. A collection of this kind is a 
strong confirmation of Bishop Middleton’s rule. H. J. R. 

1 Bi μέντοι ἐπιφέροιτο τὸ ΓΈΝΕΣΘΑΙ, τὸ KAAEIZOAL, τὰ τούτοις σύζυγα, 
ἀποστήσεται τὸ ἄρθρον. Apoll. p. 70. 


~ 


44. APPELLATIVES. [cHap. 


Persian monarch had written ὅτι Ὁ δεσπότης ἐστίν, ὅχο. the 
here hypothesis has no place) to be the lord of mankind: in 
which capacity, however, as he well knew, he was not recog- 
nized by the Greeks, and if he had been so recognized, the 
whole declaration would have been gratuitous. And similar 
reasoning will be applicable to the remaining examples, as well 
as to others which may present themselves to observation. It 
is true, indeed, that propositions may be found resembling that 
in question, supposing the reading to have been ὋὉ δεσπότης : 
and they deserve to be considered. Thus we read LXX. 
1 Kings xviii. 36. Κύριος αὐτός ἐστιν ‘O Θεός" in which 
words the people of Israel, convinced by a miracle, declare 
their faith in Jehovah. But how does this proposition differ 
from that in Aéschines? The difference is exactly such as, 
admitting the principles laid down, we should expect. The 
Greeks did not recognize any person as the universal soye- 
reign: but the people of Israel did admit the existence of a 
Supreme Being; and the only question had been, whether 
Jehovah or Baal were he. Their declaration, therefore, 
amounts to this: that the God of Elijah, and not Baal, was 
the proper object of adoration, or that God and Jehovah were 
the same: and thus the case reverts to that above, supposing 
‘O δεσπότης had been the reading. Had the Persian prince 
and some other been contending for the sovereignty of the 
world, and had the Greeks been accustomed to obey one of 
these, then might Xerxes have been represented as having 
styled himself “O δεσπότης πάσης τῆς γῆς. Such propositions 
are called reciprocating : they will be further noticed. For a 
similar reason we sometimes find that the Predicate after εἰμὲ 
has the Article, where the Bubjort is a Pronoun Personal or 
Demonstrative, ἐγώ, σύ, οὗτος, &c.* In such instances the 
existence is assumed, the purport of the proposition being to 
identify the Predicate with the subject : so in Plato, vol. x. 
Ῥ. 89. εἰ εἰσὶν AYTAI AI ἰδέαι τῶν ὄντων, where that there 
are ἰδέαι τῶν ὄντων is the basis of the inquiry; and the only 
doubt is, whether these be they. 


1 Thus Matt. xvi. 16. od εἶ ὁ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ" xxvii. 11, od εἴ ὁ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν 
᾿Ιουδαίων, H.J.R. 


ee ek ee ee : 


ὶ 
m4 
3 
£ 


11.} APPELLATIVES. 45 


§ 3. From the omission caused by Verbs Substantive and 


Nuncupative we pass by an easy transition to that, whichis ~~ 


observable after Verbs of appointing, choosing, creating, &c. 
where the Noun expressive of appointment, choice, &c. is 
always anarthrous. 


EXAMPLES. 


Demosth. de Cor. δ. ὅθ. ἩΓΕΜΩΝ καὶ ΚΥΡΙΟΣ ἩΡΕΘΗ 
Φίλιππος ἁπάντων. 

Asch. cont. Ctes. ὃ 41. καὶ ΣΤΡΑΤΗΓῸΝ EIAONTO 
Κόττυφον τὸν Φαρσάλιον. 

Ibid. ὃ 17. ΜΑΡΤΥΡΑΣ τῆς ἀπελευθερίας τοὺς “Ἕλληνας 
ποιούμενοι. 


Plat. Thezet. vol. i. p. 81. τῷ τὴν αἴσθησιν ἜΠΙΣΤΗΜΗΝ ° 


ΤΙΘΕΜΈΝΩΙ. 

Ibid. p. 97. οὔκ, εἰ τὸ ὁρᾷν γε ἜΠΙΣΤΑΣΘΑΙ OHSEIS. 

LXX. Esai. v. 90. οἱ TIOENTES τὸ σκότος ΦΩΣ καὶ τὸ 
φῶς ΣΚΟΤΟΣ. 

Idem, Exod. ii. 14. τίς σε ΚΑΤΈΣΤΗΣΕΝ ’APXONTA καὶ 
ΔΙΚΑΣΤῊΝ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν; 

The reason of the omission in all such examples is very plain. 

The Article could not be prefixed to any of these Nouns, 
because the existence of the appointment, &c. is not of a nature 
to be recognized, being now first declared: and hypothesis, as 
before, is out of the question. This case, indeed, is immediately 
resolvable into the former by means of εἶναι or γενέσθαι every- 
where understood; of which we find frequent traces : 

Thus LXX. Deut. xxvi. 17, 18. τὸν Θεὸν εἵλου σήμερον 
ΕΙΝΑΙ σου θεόν, καὶ Κύριος εἵλετό σε ΓΈΝΕΣΘΑΙ λαόν. 

The omission, then, in these several cases, however different 


they may appear, is one and the same, being a necessary conse- 


quence of the subintellection of the Participle of existence. 


§ 4. It seems to be from the same cause that, Nouns in 


tis 
GEpOTOr not explanatory . of the essence of the ἜΘ τὰν 


implied in it is affirmed. to be) subservient, are always ahar 
throus’. 


1 Where the Noun is explanatory of the essence, it usually has the Article, 
Winer, in Part i. says, always; but in Part ii. he gives us examples of the 


Se 


46 APPELLATIVES. [cuap. 


EXAMPLES. 


Demosth. de Cor. ὃ 69. AYNAMIN εἶχεν ἡ πόλις τοὺς 
νησιώτας. 

Thid. § 15. τῷ προδότῃ SYMBOYAQz χρῇται. 

Esch. Cont. Ctes. δ. 56. λαμβάνει AQPEAN τοὺς ὠνομασ- 
μένους Κήπους. In such examples, some case of ὥν, or else 
εἶναι οΥὁ ὥστε εἶναι, may always be supplied. | 

§ 5. Another remarkable omission, which I purpose to 
notice, depends on a principle somewhat, though not altoge- ᾿ 
ther, different from that, by which the former ones are ex- 
plained: I allude to the practice observable in exclusive Pro- 
positions. I mean those which are not merely negative, but | 
in which the negation is meant to extend to,every individual 
or to the whole species in question, so as to exclude universally. 
The following are ᾿ 


EXAMPLES. 


Demosth. de Cor. § 28. οὐ NAYS, οὐ TEIXH τῆς πόλεως 
τότε κεκτημένης. 

Ibid. § 31. οὐχ ἹΚΕΤΗΡΙΑΝ ἔθηκε Τριήραρχος οὐδεὶς, οὐ 
ΤΡΙΗΡῊΣ ἔξω καταληφθεῖσα ἀπώλετο τῇ πόλει. m8 

Asch. cont. Ctes. § 36. μήτε THN καρποὺς φέρειν, μήτε 
ΓΥΝΑΙΚΑΣ τέκνα τίκτειν, μήτε BOXKHMATA γονὰς ποι- 
εἴσθαι. αὐ ῖ 

Ibid. 8 17. ἀπαγορεύει μήτε OLKETHN ἀπελευθεροῦν, μήτε 
ἀναγορεύεσθαι ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΥΜΕΝΟΝ. 

Ibid. ὃ 15. οὐδὲν ἦν ἂν εὐδαιμονέστερον ΠΡΟΔΟΤΟΥ͂. 

Plat. Thezt. vol. ii. p. 62. STEPI®AIS μὲν οὖν ἄρα οὐκ 


ἔδωκε μαιεύεσθαι. 


contrary, Acts x. 32. Σίμων βυρσεύς. Luke ii. 36. Αννα προφῆτις. Acts 
xx. 4. Γάϊος Δερβαῖος, vii. 10. But in all these places, the word is not used as a 
description or definition by which every one will recognize the person; and should 
not be so translated. It is not Simon the Tanner, in opposition to Simon the 
Miller, but, as our version has it, one Simon a tanner ; i. 6. who is a tanner. So 
Luke, as writing for persons who would not know Anna, states the fact that she 
was a prophetess, and does not describe her as the prophetess whom all knew. 
H. J. R. 


μι. APPELLATIVES. 47 


Joseph. de Bell. Jud. lib. 1. 18. ἐπειδὴ μήτε ἽΠΠΟΙΣ μήτε 
"ANAPASIN ὑπελέλειπτο TPOPH *. 

The reader will observe, that in these examples the force of 
the negation will not be duly estimated, unless it be taken to 
exclude universally the several objects spoken of. Thus, in 
the first example, the orator wishes to be understood to deny 
that the city had any ships, or any walls whatever; and some- 
thing similar may be remarked of those which remain. In all 
of them the word any may in English be supplied before the 
several Nouns, or (which is the same thing) the negative must 
be rendered by zo, in order adequately to give the sense.—This 
omission, I have said, depends in some measure on the same 
principle, from which the former ones result: for if the city 
possessed no ships, &c. the orator could not consistently have 
said TAS ναῦς, TA τείχη, the Article by means of its Copula 
implying, as has been shown, an existence either recognized or 
conditionally admitted: both which are inconsistent with the 
nature of the proposition. But this is not all. There is in 
the Article, as has been remarked above (p. 59.) an inclusive or 
generic sense, which renders it wholly unfit to appear in pro- 
positions like the present: because a negation of a whole, con- 
sidered as a whole,is not co-extensive with a negation of all the 
parts. ‘Thus, in the passage from Aischines, an imprecation 
that THN γῆν, TAS γυναΐκας, TA βοσκήματα might not yield 
their respective produce, would apply only to the earth, to 
women, and to cattle in general: and, therefore, the fulfilment of 
such a curse would be found in the partial failure of each kind 
of produce: inasmuch as the whole earth, all women, &c. could 
not be said to yield their produce, if there existed a single in- 
stance of failure. But the imprecation, as it stands in Aischines, 
will not be accomplished, if there be a single instance of pro- 
duce ; i. e. it will be accomplished, if there be no single in- 
stance: it is, therefore, in the anarthrous form far more strong, 
since the force of it then is, that no portion of earth, no indivi- 
dual woman, no single beast, may produce, &c. It is as if the 


1 Q. Whether this does not extend to interrogations, where an exclusion is 
conveyed, though not in a direct form? Thus τίς μερὶς πιστῷ μετὰ ἀπίστου ; 
This in a different form would be—There is no portion for any believer. And, 
consequently, πιστῷ is anarthrous. If it had been τῷ πιστῷ, it would have been 
—There is no portion for believers generally, ἕο. H. J. R. 


48 APPELLATIVES. [cHAP. 


writer had said, μήτε (εἶναι) γῆν, οἵαν κι. p. μήτε (εἶναι) γυναῖκας, 
&c. in which view of the subject the Article would be omitted 
according to what is said above respecting propositions affirm- 
ing or denying existence. In this example, it is obvious that 
the Articles, if they were employed, would require to be con- 
sidered, not as marking, with the aid of their Predicates, a 
relation which must be recognized, but an assumption which 
may be admitted, according to the distinction already laid 
down: but in the proposition from Demosthenes, reading it 
TAS ναῦς and TA τείχη, the Articles, if they were used, 
would evidently serve to indicate known relations. In that 
instance, therefore, the objection to the Articles would assume 
a somewhat different form arising from their different use, 
though it would ultimately terminate in the same result as in 
the former case: for to say that the city did not possess its wonted 
or well-known ships and walls, would have fallen as far short of 
the speaker’s meaning, as would the imprecation, that the 
earth and women, generally speaking, might not yield produce, 
His argument requires him to deny that it possessed any ships 
or any walls whatever. And since in all propositions of this 
sort the object is to exclude altogether, the Article, to which- 
ever of its two ends it might be subservient, would frustrate 
the purpose of the speaker. 

§ 6. Another omission respects Nouns in regimen. It was 
remarked, that, according to Apollonius, the Article is s prefixed 


“ον to both the governing and the governed Nouns, \or else it is 


omitted before both. An omission will, therefore, frequently 
be observable, where the governing Noun might seem to 
require the definite form. The laxity of some modern tongues 
may appear to justify such a phrase as TO σκυμνίον λέοντος" 
but the accuracy of a philosophical language denies, that of 
λέοντος, which is indefinite, there can be any definite σκυμνίον. 


Gr. 


Exactly as the insertion of the Article before the governed 


Noun (see aboye, p. 52.) is made necessary by its insertion 
before the Noun which governs, so the indefiniteness of the 
governed will cause the governing Noun to assume the in- 
definite form. And this is true of the governing Nouns, if 
. there be more than one: in a series of Nouns in regimen, all 
‘will be anarthrous, if the last be indefinite. 


τα», .γ 


rift. | APPELLATIVES. 49 


EXAMPLES. 


Herod. lib. iv. p. 153. AEPMA δὲ ἀνθρώπου καὶ παχὺ καὶ 
λαμπρόν. 

Thucyd. lib. vy. § 111. τὸ αἰσχρὸν καλούμενον ὀνόματος ἔπα- 
γωγοῦ AYNAMEI ἐπεσπάσατο, &c. 

Aésch. cont. Ctes. § 80. πέντε νεῶν ταχυναυτουσῶν ΤΡΙΗΡ- 
ΑΡΧΟΥΣ ὑφηρημένος. 

Demosth. de Cor. § 79. οἰκέτου ΤΑΙΞΙΝ, οὐκ ἐλευθέρου παιδὸς 
ἔχων. 

Plat. vol. iv. p. 49. λόγου τινὸς ΑΡΧΗΝ λέγεις. 

Ibid. vol. ii. p. 57. μή τι ἄλλο φράζεις ἢ ἘΠΙΣΤΗΜΗΝ 
ὑποδημάτων ἜΡΓΑΣΙΑΣ ; 

Demosth. c. Timoc. vol. i. p. 799, πονηρῶν καὶ ἀχαρίστων 
οἰκετῶν TPOTIOYS. 

Nor is it merely where the governed Noun is indefinite in 
meaning, that this usage takes place: even where it is from its 
nature definite in sense, as in the case of proper names, &c., if 
it be indefinite in form, i. e. if it be anarthrous, the governing 
Noun is not unfrequently anarthrous also. 

Plut. Conviv. p. 99. Αἰσώπου AOTON. 

Ibid. τὰ κάλλιστα περαίνεται θεοῦ ΓΝΏΜΗΙ. 

Plut. de 1514. p. 277. τὸν ὠνούμενον BIBAIA Πλάτωνος". 


§ 7. The same principle of correlation will explain why, 
when the Noun governing is indefinite, the governed becomes 


anarthrous’”. 


1 Thus, 1 Cor. ii. 16. τίς ἔγνω νοῦν Κυρίου; H. J. R. 

2 Many examples will occur, which seem repugnant to this canon: the prin- 
ciple, however, requires that the governing Noun should be not merely anarthrous, 
but also indefinite in sense: for it may, though definite, have become anarthrous 
in conformity with some rule, which yet may not require that the governed Noun 
should become anarthrous also: and yet the governed Noun does not unfre- 
quently lose its Article, and thus fall into the form which Apollonius (see above, 
Sect. i. § 7.) has inadvertently asserted to be necessary: so Thucyd. lib. i. § 2. 
διὰ yap ἀρετὴν TH, where ἀρετὴν loses its Article by Chap. vi. ὃ 1. of this 
Essay.—[ The reader will find in Gersdorfs work above cited, a large number of 
examples from the New Testament, scattered through pages 314—334, where 
there is an anarthrous word after a Preposition, followed by a Genitive with the 
Article. There is a collection of examples also in Winer ii. 3.7. b. p. 39. See 
1 Cor. ii. 16. 1 Pet. iii, 12.20, Luke i. 5; xiii, 19. 1 Cor. x. 21. H.J. R.J 


E 


50 APPELLATIVES. [ CHAP. 


EXAMPLES. 


Plut. Conviv. p. 99. VYXH γὰρ ὄργανον τὸ σώμα. 
Plat. Lach. vol. v. p. 164. διδάσκαλον MOY SIKH. 
Lys. c. Andoe. vol. v. p. 206. δίκην ᾿ΑΣΕΒΕΤΑΣ. 

Xen. Econ. p. 480. τις ἐπιστήμη ΟἸΚΟΝΟΜΙΑΣ". 


SECTION IV. 
INSERTIONS AND OMISSIONS COMBINED. 


Having now considered the principal insertions and the prin- 
cipal omissions of the Article, occurring separately, I proceéd, 
as was proposed, to notice one or two cases of insertion and 
omission combined. 


§ 1. One case is that of the Subject and Predicate of pro- 


1 The only case of omission of the Article on which I cannot entirely satisfy 
myself, is that before the names of Arts, as ἱππικὴ, μουσικὴ, which has been 
remarked by Pors. ad Hec. 788. Elmsl. ad Aristoph. Ach. 499. Heindorf ad 
Plat. Soph. 442. Ast. ad Plat. Prot. p. 19. Schaefer. Melett. Critt. p. 4. and 
others. I find that the usage is any thing but uniform. Thus the Article is 
always used with μουσικὴ in Isocrates, (viz. 74. b. 199. a. 486. 286. in the two 
last cases after περί,) except in 189. a. which is a case of enumeration. So he 
uses ἱππικὴ; p. 148. c. and μαντικὴ, ». 385. c. with the Article even after Pre- 
positions. In Aschines again I find μουσικὴ, p. 86. 19. and p. 89. 1. and in 
Demosthenes, p. 1391. 9. with the Article. Schaefer seems to think that the 
addition of the Article is not Greek; as he says, (Melett. p. 4.) “ omnino haud 
exiguus est numerus nominum articulo fere carentium: velut μουσικὴ, quod 
statim sequitur, ubi si quis scribendum censeret τῆς μουσικῆς εὑρετὴς hel- 
lenismi parum se callidum proderet.” This might be true, doubtless, on a 


ground stated already. by Bishop Middleton; but Schaefer, I conceive, makes 


the omission of the Article before μουσικὴ independent on its omission before 
evpernc. Just below he «says, in speaking of Xen. Cyr. viii. 1. 34. “ Ex vera 
lingue Grece ratione, καὶ ἱππικῆς δὲ ἀληθεστάτην." IfI am right in my view 
of what he says, the instances already produced from the Greek orators over- 
turn his assertion. But undoubtedly the Article is very often omitted before 


these words. The inconstancy of the usage makes the difficulty of the case.. 


These words are, in fact, Adjectives used substantively by an ellipsis. If 
they are considered exclusively in this light, they appear to require the Article, 
and its omission is remarkable. If, on the other hand, they are considered as 
having become, in fact, substantives, they must follow the law of other substan- 
tives. Thus in Xen. Mem. prope init. we have μαντικῇ χρώμενος which is what 
one would expect, if μαντικὴ be a mere Substantive; and there is then nothing 
to notice. But neither use of these words seems wholly established. 

‘Elmsley (ubi supra) considers τραγῳδίαν ποιῶν as coming under this 
head. But the omission of the Article there belongs to ὃ 3. of this section. 


— 


ut.] APPELLATIVES. δὶ 


positions, in which, as has been often remarked, the subject is 
generally found with the Article, and the Predicate without it. 
Before we examine the cause of this usage, it may be right to 
give 
EXAMPLES. i | 

Aristot. Anal. Post. ii. 3., οὐ yap ἐστι TO ἐπίπεδον SXH- 
MA, οὐδὲ TO σχῆμα ἘΠΙΠΈΔΟΝ. 

Ibid. de wren e. ll. Ὁ ἄνθρωπός 2 ἐστιν ἴσως Kal viene 
καὶ AITIOYN καὶ ἭΜΕΡΟΝ. 

Plut. de Aud. Poet. p. 11. ΖΩΓΡΑΦΙΑΝ μὲν εἶναι φθεγγο- 
μένην THN ποίησιν, ΠΟΙΗΣΙΝ δὲ σιγῶσαν ΤῊΝ ζωγραφίαν. 

Burip. Fragm. ᾿ς. wait, 5 fehl 6. 

Τίς οἶδεν, εἰ TO ray μέν ἐστι KATOANEIN, 
TO κατθανεῖν δὲ ZHiN κάτω νομίζεται: 

Plat. Thezet. vol. ii. p. 157. οὐκ ἄν ποτε ἐδ σεῖν; ὡς Ὁ 
Θεαίτητός ἐστι ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ. ., δὲ 

LXX. Job xxviii. 28. ἰδοὺ Ἢ Θεοσέβειά ἐ ἐστι ΣΟΦΙΑ. 

Plat. vol. xi. p. 39. οὔτε Ὃ πατὴρ ὝΙΟΣ ἐστιν, οὔτε Ὃ υἱὸς 
ΠΑΤΗΡ. 

In these examples, the Noun having the Article is the Sub- 
ject of the proposition, and that without it the Predicate. The 
ground of this usage, the reader who has admitted the truth of 


‘the preceding observations, will probably in great measure 


anticipate: since propositions of this kind are in reality no 
other than combinations of the two cases of insertion for the 
Sake of hypothesis, and omission after Verbs Substantive. The 
point to be examined is, how comes it that this insertion and 
this omission should be necessary to the propositions them- 
selves. Now it is to be considered that these are conversant, 
not about particular, but about universal truths. But uni- 
versal truths can be declared only by making the subject of the 
declaration universal; and this, as we have seen, is effected by 


means of the Article in its hypothetical and inclusive use. 


Thus, in the first example from Aristotle, τὸ ἐπίπεδον signifies 
the thing (being) surface, i. e. every thing of which sina can 
be predicated, or surface universally: so also τὸ σχῆμα, in the 


£- second clause, is figure in its most comprehensive and extended 


' acceptation. But let us attend to σχῆμα without the Article, 


as it is found in the first clause. Is it there true, that the 


writer speaks of figure universally? Certainly not: for, to 
E2 


δῷ APPELLATIVES. [CHAP. 


say that surface, in its most comprehensive sense, was not 
jigure in its most comprehensive sense, would indeed be true, 
but it would fall very far short of the meaning of the proposi- 
tion. Aristotle plainly intends to say, that what is surface 
(τὸ ἐπίπεδον) is not figure at all; which is saying much more: 
for that which is not figure generally and abstractedly, may yet 
be figure particularly. Thus a triangle is a figure; but the 
definition of figure comprehends much more than the definition 
of triangle': consequently the proposition, that surface uni- 
versally is not figure universally, would comprehend much less 
than that which says, surface is not figure at all. The same 
reasoning will apply to the other part of the second clause: 
and something similar will explain the remaining examples. 


«. Thus ὁ ἄνθρωπος is man, the species: i. 6. according to the 


account of the Article given above, He (being, or who is) 
Man; or every male, of whom man can be predicated. But 
suppose we had read TO Zwov? It would mean either an 
animal standing in a relation which might be recognized, or 
else, that which may be assumed to be an animal, i. e. animal 
universally, in which form the proposition would assert, the 
former use of the Article being here inadmissible, that the 
species man and the genus animal are the same: which is 
absurd. In the next example, poetry in general is not 
asserted to be painting generally, but only speaking painting, 
a particular kind; and vice versdé in the second clause. In 
- the fragment of Euripides (first clause) TO ζῇν is life in the 
general acceptation: but κατθανεῖν is more limited, being used 
to signify not death in the extended acceptation (which in the 
next clause is called TO κατθανεῖν,) but something, of which 
death is now for the first. time predicated: to have said that 
life and death, each understood in the most general sense, were 
one and the same thing, would have been evidently false.—In 


the passage from Plato, Socrates means to say, that he could - 


never imagine that the person asswmed and admitted to be 
Thezetetus, was Theodorus.. The proposition from the LXX. 


A very competent judge assures me that this is liable to misconstruction ; 


for that the definition of figure contains less. The reader, then, will be pleased - 


to understand me, as speaking not of the terms and restrictions of the definition, 
but of the things which it comprehends and to which it is applicable: and these 
are evidently more in figure, than they are in triangle. 


ΠΥ ee ee 


te 


τι. APPELLATIVES. | 53 


asserts, that piety, however comprehensively understood and 
in all its forms, is wisdom: not wisdom, indeed, understood in 
the same latitude, because benevolence also is wisdom, so is 
temperance: but a species of wisdom, so that he is wise, in a 
certain way, | but not he alone, who is pious. 

It is evident, then, that the usage, which has here been ex- 
plained, is not arbitrary in its origin, but has its foundation in 
reason and in truth. Unless, however, we advert to the prin- 
ciple, we shall sometimes conclude that the rule is violated, 
where in reality it is strictly observed. Thus Fischer, in his 
Remarks on Weller’, has adduced as an exception Pind. Pyth. 
vii. 18. τὸ δ᾽ ἄχνυμαι, φθόνον ἀμειβόμενον TA wade 2 ἔργα. The 
Article is here used in its hypothetical or assumptive sense, and 
the meaning of the proposition is, that “ actions admitted to be 
honourable are followed by envy’*.” This example, therefore, 
is a confirmation of the principle, on which the rule depends; 
but writers who advert not to the reason, but only to the ap- 
pearance of things, frequently fall into such mistakes. It may 
be of use to add, that where propositions are not in their sim- 
plest form, i. e. where the Subject and Predicate are not joined 
by the Verb Substantive as a Copula, it will be necessary to 
resolve them, before any thing can be determined respecting 
the observance or violation of this usage; because the reason 
of the rule is applicable only to such propositions. With re- 
spect to φθόνον, in the passage adduced, I doubt not but that 
TON φθόνον, would have been equally good Greek. 

But let us next consider what will happen, supposing the 
Predicate, as well as the Subject, of such propositions to have 
the Article. The consequence, indeed, has been shown with 


respect to the propositions before us; excepting only that © 


from Plato. Let us, therefore, suppose the reading to have 
been Ὃ Θεόδωρος. Shall we say, that it would not have been 
Greek, and also good sense? This would, I think, be more 
than the case would justify. The meaning would then have 
been, ‘‘ Socrates could never imagine Theztetus and Theodorus 


“τ to be the same person.” But how will this meaning be de- 


duced? It will be evident, if we consider that the proposition 


1 Vol, i. p. 320. 
2. Similar to this is οὐ ῥ(διον TA καλὰ πράττειν ἀχορήγητον ὄντα. Arist. de 


Mor. Nic. i. 9. 


5A APPELLATIVES. [cuap. 


ὅτι Ὁ Θεαίτητός ἐστιν Ὃ Θεόδωρος is the substance condensed 
of the two propositions ὅτι 6 Θεαίτητός ἐστι Θεόδωρος, ἢ (in an 
affirmative proposition καὶ) ὅτι ὁ Θεόδωρός ἐστι Θεαίτητος" for 
to say that one would not take Theztetus to be Theodorus 
nor Theodorus to be Thezetetus, amounts plainly to this, that 
one would not take either for the other: which is exactly the 
same thing as to say, that one would not take them to be the 
same person. But this is more than the proposition asserts, as 
it stands in Plato, though not more than Socrates might have 
said with truth, had his purpose required him to introduce both 
propositions, to which that having the two Articles would be 
equivalent. It was enough, however, to say, that Thezetetus 
could not be taken for Theodorus. But suppose the case other- 
wise, and that his argument had been incomplete, unless he had 
maintained the converse also: he would then, if he consulted 
brevity, have employed the single proposition ὅτι ὁ Θεαίτητός 
ἐστιν ὁ Θεόδωρος, because it contains the substance of the two; 
for, whichever of the two be chosen, it comprehends not only 
that, but its converse. 

Hence we see the origin of convertible or reciprocating pro- 
positions’, which are such, that of either term taken as the 
Subject the other may be affirmed as a Predicate. Such pro- 
| positions, therefore, will have the Article prefixed to both 
terms alike, neither of them being the Subject 3 more than the 
other. The reader, who reflects on the nature of these pro- 
positions, will not expect to meet with many examples; since 
the things or attributes, which may thus be predicated either 
of the other, are in their nature few, and, even of these the 
identity may be affirmed, as we have seen, in two distinct pro- 
positions, such that the Subject of the first is made the Pre- 
dicate of the second. However, of the convertible form I 
have noticed the following 


EXAMPLES. 


Arist. Mor. Nicom., lib. 11. ο. 9. ἐστὶν Ἢ ἀρετὴ Ἢ ἠθικὴ 
μεσότης 5. 


__ ἦ On those cases where the proposition is composed of a pronoun personal or 
demonstrative, the Copula and a Predicate with the Article, see above, iii. 3. 2. 
p- 44.—H. J. R. 


* Ibid. lib. ii. c. 6. we find μεσότης ἐστὶν ἡ ἀρετή" to have said Ἢ μεσότης 
would not have been true. 


Se ee eh a a a ee 


111.} APPELLATIVES. 55 


Ibid. lib. iii. c. 6. τοῖς TO βουλητὸν Τ᾽ ἀγαθὸν λέγουσιν. 

Plutarch de Plac. Philos. lib. i. c. 3. ἔστε δὲ Ὃ Θεὸς Ὁ 
vouc'. 

But even where, as in the preceding instances, one proposi- 
tion is used, this is by no means the only form. Thus we find 
convertible propositions, in which the Article is wanting to 
both Subject and Predicate. 


EXAMPLE. 


Arist. de Interp. c. 6. KATA®ASIS ἐστιν “ATIAPANSI> 
τινος κατά τινος. 

The only difference is, that the affine tiont thus made in. 
one instance is obviously true “universally ; ; and, therefore, the 
method of induction being employed by the hearer, the sense 
will be exactly the same. 

But there is a third form, in which convertible propositions 
may be expressed: it is to join the two convertible Nouns. by: 
a Copulative, and to make them the Subject of a proposition 
of which the Predicate is ταυτό : for, to affirm identity of two 
things, is the same as to affirm that either may be predicated 


τ Winer, in considering propositions of this kind, contents himself with saying, 
that the Predicate also has the Article when it is thought of as something definite. 
This explanation is neither so comprehensive.as Bishop Middletons, nor so clear, 
when the Bishops is rightly understood. And in consequence, Winer, in. both 
his first and second parts, has fallen into constant confusion. - He seems to have 
no notion of, or no belief in, the hypothetic use of the Article, or its use in uni- 
versal propositions.. (See, however, his first part, 14. 8.) Consequently, he puts 
together, as similar, such propositions as ἡ δὲ πέτρα ἦν ὁ Χριστός (1 Cor. x. 4.) 
and ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία (1 John iii. 4.) although in the first case the first 
Article arises from renewed mention, and the second indicates the one Messiah; 
while, in the second, each shows the universality of the proposition. (See this 
place below). Again, he confounds οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τέκτων ; (Mark vi. 3.) with 
ἐκεῖνά ἐστι Ta κοινοῦντα, vii. 15; whereas, in the first case, the Article indicates 
a well known person; and in the second is hypothetical, the basis of the proposi- 
tion being, as Bishop Middleton observes of another instance of the same case 
above, that there are things which defile a man; and the object of it being to 
identify them with certain things under consideration. In all cases the learner 
must take care to observe the difference which Winer has confounded, and to re- 
member, that in the case both of Pronouns and Nouns generally, the fact that the 
Predicate has the Article, does not necessarily prove a reciprocating proposition, 
as it may serve the purpose of renewed mention, &c. &c. &c. Wherever Winers 
remarks seemed sound I have used them.—H. J. R. 


δ6 APPELLATIVES. [cHap: 


of the other; and the result will be the same, according to 
what has just now been observed, whether both the Nouns 
have the Article or both be without it. 


EXAMPLES. 


Arist. Top. lib. i. c. 5. ταυτόν ἐστιν AISOHSIS καὶ 


ἜἘΠΙΣΤΗΜΗ. 
Plat. Thezet. vol. ii. p. 69. ΦΑΝΤΑΣΙΑ καὶ ΑἸΣΘΗΣΙΣ 


ταυτόν. 

Ibid. p. ὅδ. ταυτὸν ἄρα ΣΟΦΙΑ καὶ ἘΠΙΣΤΗΜΗ. 

Arist. Eth. ad Eudem. lib. i. ο. 1. πολλοὶ γὰρ ταυτό φασιν 
εἶναι τὴν EYAAIMONIAN καὶ τὴν EYTYXIAN. 

From this digression on the nature of reciprocating pro- 
positions, into which, however, the doctrine of the Subject and 
Predicate has unavoidably led me, it will be right to proceed 
to the consideration of another remarkable insertion and omis- 
sion of the Article; to the investigation of which the hypo- 
thesis proposed appears to afford a proper clue: I allude to 
the usage, which has given birth to a theological controversy, 
and to which the public attention has recently been called by 
Mr. Sharp and Mr. Wordsworth. 


seo 


§ 2. When two or more Attributives * joined by a Copula- 


1 By Attributives Mr. Harris means Adjectives, Verbs, and Participles: (see 
Hermes, p. 87.) These, however, are not alike capable of being assumed, and 
are not, therefore, alike objects of the present canon. The Adjective is assumi- 
ble; thus ὁ ἀγαθὸς is ὁ ὮΝ ἀγαθός. The Participle also, as we have seen, is 
assumible : it even contains within itself the assumptive Copula. But the Verb 
is not assumible; it can only be asserted: the Verb, therefore, is not such an 
Attributive, as the canon supposes. But though the Verb must be excluded 
from our present consideration, there is, on the other hand, a large class of 
Nouns (so at least they are denominated) which are as truly assumible Attri- 
butives, as is the Adjective: I mean all those significant of character, relation, 
or dignity: these we find interchanged and associated both with Adjectives and 
with Participles: they are interchanged, as when ὁ βουλεύων is put for ὁ Bov- 
λευτὴς, and they are associated, as in ὁ περίεργος καὶ ΣΥΚΟΦΑΝΤΗῊΗΣ, τὸν 
TOHTA καὶ περιτετμηκότα. To these, therefore, the canon may be expected to 
apply.—The reader will recollect, that assumption is the basis of the whole: 
otherwise, the Article could not be employed. Thus in Plato, vol. xi. p. 4. 
ἡγουμένη (scil. ἐμὲ) AIKASTHN καὶ ᾽ΑΓΓΕΛΟΝ εἶναι, x. τ΄ dX. though one 
person only is spoken of, the attributes are not assumed of him, but are asserted : 
to have written, therefore, TON δικαστὴν would have involved an impropriety. . 


111. | APPELLATIVES. 57 


tive or Copulatives /are assumed of the same person or thing, 
before the first Attributive the Article is inserted; before the 
remaining ones it is omitted *. 


1 Jt will perhaps surprise some persons to find, that Winer, in his first part, 
coolly enounces his rule on the subject thus. If two or three definite Nouns in 
the same number and gender stand together, only the first of them has usually 
the Article. The instances which he subjoins are as remarkable as his thus set- 
ting aside, without notice, what is here said by Bishop Middleton. The instances 
are, Acts ix. 31. ὕλης τῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶ Ταλιλαίας καὶ Σαμαρείας. Matt. xxi. 
12. πάντας τοὺς πωλοῦντας καὶ ἀγοράζοντας. Juded4. τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ 
κύριον. The two first of these examples belong obviously to the classes noticed 
by Bishop Middleton at the end of this chapter, in which no mistake can arise, 
because the attributives in them cannot be predicated of the same subject without 
the most evident contradiction. The last is one in which Mr. Sharps rule is 
observed. 

But what follows is still more remarkable. ‘ Compare, however,’’ says Winer: 
“in contradiction to this, the following places.” John ii. 22. τῇ γραφῇ καὶ τῷ 
λόγῳ. Here Winers rule is not contradicted, as the words are not in the same 
gender. Matt. vii. 12. ὁ νόμος καὶ ot προφῆται. Here they are not in the same 
number. 1 Cor. xi. 3.6 θεὸς καὶ πατήρ. Here the two relate to the same per- 
son. Tit.i.4. Here there is no example at all. Rom. xii. 2. τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ 
εὐάρεστον καὶ τέλειον. Here all the words relate to the same thing. Luke xxii. 
2. οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ ot γραμματεῖς. Ib. 4. τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσι καὶ τοῖς στρατηγοῖς. 
In these two last examples Winer’s own rule is violated, and that which he so 
quietly sets aside confirmed. 

In his second part, he observes, that when the Nouns are of a different gender, 
the Article is repeated, as Acts xiii. 50. Col. ii. 13; iv. 1. Rom. viii. 2. with 
many other places, except Col. ii. 22, Luke i. 6. 23. 49; xiv. 23. Rev. v. 12. 
Compare Plato, Pol. viii. p. 557; ix. p. 586. But he adds, that if the Nouns are 
of the same gender, the Article is omitted, where they can be considered as form- 
ing part of one whole, as Mark xv. 1. where the Elders and Scribes are consi- 
dered as forming only one class. Col. ii, 8. 19. 2 Thess. iii. 2. 1 Pet. ii. 25; 
iii. 4. Rom. i. 20. Phil. ii. 17. 25. Eph. 11. 20. Tit. 1. 15. 1 Tim. iv. 3. 7. 
Heb. iii. 1. Luke xiv, 3. 21. Now among these examples, the 5th, 6th, 9th, 11th, 
12th, 13th, and 14th, are cases where the same person is referred to! The Ist, 
3d, 4th, 10th, 15th, and 16th, are plurals! and of the remainder, examples 
2d and 7th, are cases of abstract Nouns, and the only one left, viz. the 8th, is 
nearly the same! Next Winer says the Article is omitted, when, by καὶ, a clearer 
description is added. Col. iii. 17. 1 Pet.i. 3. 2 Pet. i. 11; ii. 20. Phil. iv. 20. 
Every one of these is a case of Mr. Sharps rule. Then the Article is omitted, 
says Winer, when between the first Substantive and its Article, a genitive, or 
other defining word, is added, which also applies to the second, as 1 Thess. ii. 12, 
τὴν ἑαυτοῦ βασιλείαν καὶ δόξαν ; iii. 7. Phil. i. 19. 25. Eph. iii. 5. Acts i. 25. 
(Winer is so careless, that he has given here three examples where the defining 
word is not between the Substantive and Article). Of these examples, Eph. iii. 
5. is a plural, and the others are cases of incompatible or abstract Nouns. Thus 
δέησις and ἐπιχορηγία could never be mistaken. I know not, however, whe- 
ther these may not be referred to another consideration entirely; whether, I 


δ APPELLATIVES. [cHaP. 


EXAMPLES. 


al we) (3 

Plut. Vit. Cic. Ed. Bast. Ρ. 68. 'Ῥώσκιος Ὁ υἱὸς KAI ἫΝ 
ρονόμος τοῦ τεθνηκότος ἠγανάκτει. 

Demosth. de Cor. § 27. τίς Ὁ τῇ πόλει λέγων KAI γράφων 
KAI πράττων ΚΑΤ ἑαυτὸν δούς, ὅζο. 

Ibid. 861. Ὁ σύμβουλος KAT ῥήτωρ ἐγώ. 

Plato, vol. ii. p. 91. Τῶι νεωτέρῳ τε ΚΑΤ ὑγροτέρῳ ὌΝΤΙ 
προσπαλαίειν. 

Ibid. p. 192. ΤῸΝ σιμόν τε ΚΑῚ ἐξόφθαλμον. 

ZEsch. cont. Ctes. ὃ 56. Ὃ περίεργος ΚΑΙ συκοφάντης 
Δημοσθένης. 

Ibid. § 71. TON γόητα KAI βαλαντιοτόμον KAI Sanat 
μηκότα τὴν πολιτείαν. 

Ibid. ὃ 90. ΤῸΝ γράψαντα μὲν πανυστάτην ἔξοδον, προ 
δόντα ΔΕ τούς, &e. 

Herod. lib. iii. Ee 133. ᾿Ατόσσῃ THe Κύρου μὲν θυγατρὶ, 
Δαρείου ΔῈ γυναικί. 

Aristoph. Equit. 247. 
παῖε, παῖε TON πανοῦργον ΚΑῚ ταραξιππόστρατον 
KAI τελώνην KAI φάραγγα KAI Χάρυβδιν ἁρπαγῆς. 
ΚΑΤ πανοῦργον ΚΑΤ πανοῦργον" πολλάκις γὰρ αὔτ᾽ ἐρῶ. 

Plut. de Is. et Osir. p. 263. TON γὰρ βασιλέα ΚΑῚ Ἀήριον, 
Ὄσιριν γράφουσιν. 

Philo. Jud. p. 309. Ed. 1640. Ὁ Κύριος ΚΑΤ θεὸς εὐεργέτης 
ἐστίν. 

Ibid. p. 658. ἐξέπεμπε πρὸς ΤΟΝ τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἀρχιερέα 
ΚΑῚ βασιλέα" Ὃ γὰρ ΑΥ̓ΤΟΣ ἦν. 

Suidas (voce Χριστὸς) Χριστὸς, Ὁ Κύριος KAI θεὸς 
ἡμῶν ᾿ἢ. 


mean, this is the case of the simple Article at all. Fourthly, the Article is 
omitted, says Winer, when the words connected are Adjectives and Participles. 
which are predicated of the same subject. See Acts iii. 14; ii. 20. Mark ix. 
25. John xxi. 24. Luke vi. 49. Phil. iii. 3. It will be observed, how nearly 
Winer approaches finally to Mr. Sharps rule. What is yet more singular, he 
goes on to notice the cases where the Article is added, which he describes as 
cases where Nouns are to be considered as independent, i. e. in short, cases fall- 
ing under Mr. Sharps rule, that the Article is added, when the Nouns relate to 
‘different things.—H. J. R. 

1 Mr. Winstanley has produced some quotations which he conceives to be 
violations of this rule. Let us look at them. ‘The first is a passage from Plato, 


ut. APPELLATIVES. 59 


In all these instances it will immediately be seen, that the 
several Attributives connected by Copulatives are meant to be 


(Ep. vi. T. iii. p. 323. D. ed. Serran. 1578,) quoted by Clemens Alexandrinus, 
p. 598. C. ed. Sylb. 1641, or T. ii. p. 710. ed. Potter, 1715. 

Τὸν πάντων θεὸν αἴτιον καὶ Tov ἡγεμόνος Kai αἰτίου πατέρα κύριον ἐπομ- 
γύντας. Here, says Mr. Winstanley, τοῦ ἡγ. x. ai. is an agreement with the rule, 
but τὸν πάντων θεὸν---καὶ πατέρα κύριον is in direct opposition to it. He goes 
on, however, to quote the same passage from Origen (c. Cels. vi. 8. T. i. p. 636. 
B. ed. Paris, 1733, or p. 288. ed. Heesch. 1605, or p. 280. ed. Spenc. 1677), who 
gives it thus: καὶ τὸν τῶν πάντων θεὸν, ἡγεμόνα τῶν τε ὄντων Kai τῶν μελλόν- 
των, τοῦ τε ἡγεμόνος καὶ αἰτίου πατέρα καὶ κύριον ἐπομνύντας. Where the 
differences of reading are so very considerable, I would put it to the candid 
reader, whether any appeal can be made to the passage. We may observe, that 
both an Article and a Copulative are omitted in one quotation and inserted in the 
other. 

The next passage is: τῷ θεῷ τῶν ὕλων προσέχετε Kai διδασκάλῳ τῶν περὲ 
αὐτοῦ μαθημάτων τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ. Orig. c. Cels. iii. p. 75. (T. i. p. 497. D. or p. 162. 
ed. Heesch. or p. 157. ed. Spencer.) 

The third is: τῷ δὲ θεῷ πατρὶ, καὶ vig τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ σὺν τῷ 
ἁγίῳ πνεύματι δόξα---α passage for which Mr. Winstanley refers to Burgh’s 
Inquiry, p. 359. 

Mr. Winstanley seems aware that the same objection may be taken to both 
of these passages, viz. that the Article is repeated. But he contends that, re- 
peated as it is in these passages, it is a mark of the identity of object of the Noun 
to which it is prefixed with the one immediately preceding it, and not of differ- 
ence from the foregoing one. 

To speak particularly of the last of these passages, I am at a loss to see how 
Mr. Winstanley can see any confirmation of his views in it. The corresponding 
words are θεὸς and κύριος, and these have, each of them, the Article. Πατρί in 
the first clause, and υἱῷ in the second, are not the leading words, but adjuncts to 
the leading word. Mr. Winstanleys criticism, I confess, I cannot understand. 
In speaking of this passage, he says, that ifthe Article be reckoned any thing 
more than a mark of identity with the Noun immediately preceding, Mr. Sharp 
must give up one of his passages, viz. τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου ’I. X. τοῦ μέλλοντος 
x. tT. A. What similarity exists between these passages I cannot see. The first 
has two clauses, in each of which there is a leading word and an adjunct; the 
other, if it has two clauses, has no adjunct to the leading word in the first; and in 
the second, the Article is affixed to the adjunct, whereas it is affixed to the lead- 
ing word in the first passage. Two passages less alike it would be difficult to 
find. 

Of the other three passages adduced by Mr. Winstanley, two are noticed 
elsewhere. The third is μεθ᾽ οὗ δόξα τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ καὶ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι. 
(Ep. Eccl. Smyrn. de Martyr. Polyc. ὃ 22.) Here there is no difficulty. The 
expression, ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ, for the Father, is familiar to every reader of the 
Fathers; and the distinction between the persons of the Trinity was, of course, 
deemed too clear for any confusion to arise. In short, the case is one of those 
which Bishop Middleton notices below, where the two Nouns cannot be pre- 
dicated of the same person without contradiction.—H. J. R. 


60 APPELLATIVES. [cHae. 


understood of the person or thing signified in the Article pre- 
ceding. The reason of this usage, if the nature of the Article 
has been rightly explained, it will not be difficult to discover. 
In the first example ‘0% is the subject of an assumptive ning a 
sition, of which vide καὶ κληρονόμος is the Predicate, ὧν 
being, as usual, understood; and the meaning is, that “ He 
(Roscius) being both son and heir of the deceased,” ὅς. But 
what will happen, supposing the Article prefixed to κληρονόμος 
also? We shall then have two assumptive propositions and 
two subjects coupled together by kai: i. 6. υἱὸς and κληρονόμος 
will then be assumed respectively of two distinct persons ; they 
cannot be assumed of one and the same, if the Article be a 
Pronoun, because two Articles coupled together, and yet 
having reference to the same person, involve the absurdity of 
. joining an individual to himself. So in the sixth instance, 
6 περίεργος καὶ συκοφάντης. But where two distinct persons 
are intended, we actually find the mele repeated. Thus in 
Demosth. de Cor. ὃ 56, we read ὁ γὰρ σύμβουλος καὶ Ὁ 
συκοφάντης . . ee ees διαφέρουσι. Here the second Ar- 
ticle could not have been omitted; because σύμβουλος and 
συκοφάντης would then both have been predicated of ὃ, and 
of course of one person: nor will the change of διαφέρουσι into 
διαφέρει restore the sense: the proposition will then be, that 
‘“‘he who is at once an adviser and a sycophant differs” from 
some other character not mentioned. These remarks explain 
the principle of Mr. Granville Sharp’s First Rule’, as the ex- 
amples above adduced are proofs, that the rule accords with 
the usage of the best Greek writers. 

But though the principle of the rule admit a very obvious 
solution, when the nature of the Article is once preperly un- 
derstood, its Amitations may still require to be considered. 

We find the rule applicable only to the case of the words, 
which I have denominated assumible Attributives. Hence | 
many Nouns are not subject to its operation, all being ex- 
cluded, except those which are significant of character. We 
are, therefore, to inquire what there is inherent in the ex- 


1 So also Aisch. c. Ctes. ὃ 58. ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἐπιτιμίοις mero δεῖν ἐνέχεσθαι 
ΤῸΝ ἀστράτευτον, καὶ ΤῸΝ λελοιπότα τὴν τάξιν, καὶ TON δειλόν. 
2. * Remarks on the Greek Article in the New Testament,” &c. 94 edit. p. 3. 


7 


ut.] APPELLATIVES. 61 


cluded Nouns to cause so remarkable a difference. Now these 
Nouns must be either names of substances considered as sub- 
stances, \pro ‘oper names, or names of abstract ideas: and the 
exceptions from the rule will be such as 

1. Ὁ λίθος KAT χρυσός. 

2. TON ᾿Αλέξανδρον KAI Φίλιππον. Ξε. cont. Ctes. 
§ 81. 

3. THN ἀπειρίαν KAI ἀπαιδευσίαν. Plato, vol. xi. p. 91", 

The first sort of Nouns are names of substances considered 
as substances: for names of substances may be considered 
otherwise; and the distinction is important. They are other- 
wise considered, so often as the name swpposes the substance, 
and expresses some attribute: so vide, ῥήτωρ, ἡγεμών, δοῦλος, 
δεσπότης, &c. are, indeed, so far names of substances, that they 
pre-suppose a substance, but their immediate use is to mark 
some attribute of the substance ἄνθρωπος, which is in all of 
them understood: for to be υἱός, ῥήτωρ, ἡγεμών, &c. is no 
more of the essence of ἄνθρωπος than it is to be wise, happy, 
rich, &c. Such Nouns, therefore, as was before hinted, differ 
little in their nature from Adjectives: they are Adjectives of in- 
variable application, being constantly used of ἄνθρωπος; whereas 
common Adjectives, ἀγαθός, μέλας, ὠκύς, &c. are applicable to 
substances of various kinds, and are not applied to any one in 
particular. It was, then, to be expected of attributive Substan- 
tives, that any number of them coupled together might be pre- 
dicated of an individual represented by a Pronoun; for it is to 
be remembered, that in such phrases as ὁ σύμβουλος καὶ ῥήτωρ, 
6 is no otherwise connected with σύμβουλος, than in τὸν σιμὸν 
καὶ ἐξόφθαλμον, τὸν is connected with σιμόν : in all cases, to 
which the rule applies, the Article is a Pronoun representing 
some substance, of which the Attributives, whether Nouns, 
Adjectives, or Participles, are predicated, and, consequently, is 
not the Article of the first Attributive, but of all collectively. 
This is sufficiently plain, where the Attributives are Adjec- 
tives or Participles, and will be equally plain in the remaining 
case, if the reader will advert to the nature of attributive Sub- 


1 ἡ ὄψις τε Kai akon. Plat. Pheed. p. 65. B. xv. 12. Wyttenb. This is cited 
by Dobree, Adv. p. 117. Of course all this applies still more strongly to the 
Plurals of such Nouns where they admit them; as Plat. Phed. 94. D. 61. fin. 
Wyttenb. ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις καὶ ὀργαῖς καὶ φόβοις.---Ἡ. J. R, 


-- 
5 ; 


62 APPELLATIVES. [onar. 


stantives rather than to their form. But suppose that, instead 
of these attributive Nouns, we introduce others, which express 
mere substances ; this consequence will follow, (if we attempt 
to apply the rule,) that substances in their nature distinct and 
thieompatible will be predicated of one individual: e. g. λίθος 
καὶ χρυσὸς will both be assumed of ὁ, the representative of 
some Noun understood: but this is evidently absurd; distinct 
real essences cannot be conceived to belong to the same thing ; 
nor can distinct nominal essences, without manifest contradic- 
tion, be affirmed of it. Hssence is single, peculiar and incom- 
municable; whereas the same attribute may belong to many 
objects, and the same object may possess divers attributes. 
We are, however, to be cautious in determining that any 
Noun is expressive simply of substance. There are many, 
which, though properly significant of substance, are yet fre- 
quently used to indicate the attribute or attributes, by which 
that substance is principally distinguished. Thus when Homer 
says, Il. N. 131. ἀσπὶς ἄρ᾽ ἀσπίδ᾽ ἔρειδε, κόρυς kopuv, ANEPA 
δ᾽ “ANHP, there can be no doubt that ἀνὴρ is as truly the 
name of a substance considered independently of all its attri- 
butes, as is ἀσπὶς or κόρυς : but when we read, I. Z. 112. 


ἌΝΕΡΕΣ ἐστὲ, φίλοι, μνήσασθε δὲ θούριδος ἀλκῆς, 


the same word ἀνὴρ is evidently used, not as a Noun signifi- 
cant merely of substance, but as an Attributive; and an Ad- 
jective, the purest species of Attributive, would have answered 
the speaker’s purpose: "ANAPEIOI ἐστὲ, φίλοι, &c. though 
less figurative and poetical, certainly conveys the idea. In 
this instance, therefore, ἀνέρες swpposes the substance, and 
expresses a distinguishing attribute, viz. valour. Now since 
things animated have almost always some prominent character, 
some attribute, the operation of which unavoidably attracts 
notice, it will follow, that almost every Noun expressive of an 
animated substance, may be employed as an Attributive, and 
consequently that two or more of such, when the attributes 
referred to are not in their nature incompatible and con- 
tradictory, may be made subservient to the principle of the 
rule’. 


1 Nouns expressive of inanimate substances seem to have this difference, that 
though they have attributes (and we have no idea of any thing which has not) 


111.} APPELLATIVES. 63 


The reason, why proper names are excepted, is evident at ᾿ 


once: for it is impossible that John and Thomas, the names of 
two distinct persons, should be predicated of an individual. It 
is obvious, therefore, that in the phrase τὸν ᾿Αλέξανδρον καὶ 
Φίλιππον, τὸν is the Article of ᾿Αλέξανδρον only, and not of 
both names; as would happen, were the principle of the rule 
intended to apply. 

_ Nouns, which are the names of abstract ideas, are also ex- 
cluded, and from a cause not wholly dissimilar: for, as Locke 


has well observed, ‘‘ Every distinct abstract idea is a distinct 


essence; and the names, that stand for such distinct ideas, are 
the names of things essentially different ’.” It would, there- 
fore, be as contradictory to assume that any quality repre- 
sented by Ἢ were at once ἀπειρία and ἀπαιδευσία, as that the 
same person were both Alexander and Philip: whence it is 
immediately evident, that such an assumption could not be 
intended’. Under this head we may class Verbs in the Infi- 
nitive Mood, which differ not in their nature from the names 
of the corresponding abstract ideas. ‘Thus we read in Plato, 
vol: xi. p. 43. Τῶι ἰδεῖν re KAI ἀκοῦσαι" in the next page we 
have TH: ὄψει τε KAI ἀκοῇ. ‘The two cases evidently require 
the same explanation. Infinitive Moods so coupled together 
are extremely common. 

Thus far it appears, then, that the limitations of the rule 
are not arbitrary, but necessary, and that the several kinds of 
excluded Nouns have one disqualifying property belonging to 
them all; which is, that no_two of any class are in their 
nature predicable of the same individual; whilst attrébutive 


yet those attributes, from their inertness and quiescence, make so little impres- 
sion on the observer, that he does not commonly abstract them from his idea of 
the substance, and still less does he lose sight of the substance, and use its name 
as expressive of the attribute. Add to this, that to characterize persons by the 
names of things would be violent and unnatural, especially when two or more 
things wholly different in their natures are to be associated for the purpose: and 
to characterize any thing by the names of other things would be ‘confusion 
worse confounded.” 
1 Essay, Book iii. chap. iii. § 14. 
2 Several of Mr. Winstanleys exceptions belong to this class; 
ἡ---ἀγαπητικὴ ἡμῶν διδασκαλία τε καὶ πολιτεία. Clem. Alex. 
τῆς τούτου θρασύτητος καὶ τόλμης. Lys. 
τῆς ἐκείνου γνώμης καὶ κακοδαιμονίας. Demosth. 
ἡ Μακεδονικὴ ἀρχὴ καὶ δύναμις. Demosth.—H. J. R. 


Lo) 


64 APPELLATIVES. foie 


Nouns are such, that several of them may be assumed of the 
same person without any contradiction or falsehood. 

But though, when attributives coupled together are assumed 
of the same subject, the first only has the Article prefixed, will 
it be true conversely, that when the Article is prefixed to the 
first only of such Attributives, they are always assumed of the 
same subject? This is a very necessary inquiry. That the 
Subject is the same in the examples above adduced, is suffi- 
ciently evident; and there is not, I am persuaded, any ancient 
writer of Greek prose, from whom a multitude of similar pas- 
sages might not be collected: still, however, if a sufficient 
number of unquestionable authorities could be produced, from 
which, the circumstances being precisely the same, a different 
conclusion might be drawn, that is, if in forms of expression 
exactly agreeing with Ὃ υἱὸς KAI κληρονόμος the Attribu- 
tives could be shown to be intended of different persons, then 
the rule, whatever may be said respecting its principle, would 
not be of safe application. 

Mr. Sharp, whose attention, however, appears to have been — 
confined to the New Testament, has remarked that the rule is 
not always applicable to Plurals; and yet, if the ground of the 
usage has been properly explained, it will certainly be sup- 
posed that in Plurals also the rule should uniformly hold. If 
υἱὸς KAT κληρονόμος must be understood of ὃ, then υἱοὶ KAT 
κληρονόμοι should, for any thing that appears, be also both 
understood of of, supposing οἱ referring to two Roscit to pre- 
cede; nor have I in such instances observed that the rule is 
ever infringed. Of its application to Plurals, the following 


are a few 


EXAMPLES. 


Herod. lib. i. ὃ 35. TA μὲν αἰσχρὰ ἀναγκαῖα AE ἐν ἀπο- 
κρύφῳ ἐστὶ ποιέειν χρειύν. 

Isocr. Paneg. ὃ 16. ΟἹ πρόγονοι τῶν νῦν ἐν Λακεδαίμονι 
βασιλευόντων ἔκγονοι A’ Ἡρακλέους κατῆλθον, &c. 

Ibid. § 92. ἐτίμων TOYS αὐτόχειρας KAI φονέας τῶν πολι- 
Των. 

Plutarch de diserim. Amici, &c. p. 35. οἱ ζωγράφοι TA 
φωτεινὰ KAI λαμπρὰ ΤΟΙ͂Σ σκιεροῖς KAI σκοτεινοῖς, &e. 


1. | APPELLATIVES. 65 


Xen. Mem. lib. ii. ο. 1. ΟἹ ἀνδρεῖοι KAI δυνατοὶ TOYS 
ἀνάνδρους KAI ἀδυνάτους, &c. 

From these instances it is plain that in Plurals as well as in 
Singulars the rule is frequently observed: but the question is, 
does this always happen? Are there no cases, in which, 
though the Article be wanting before the second Attributive, 
we are compelled to understand that Attributive of persons or 
things different from the Subjects of the first? In the course 
of a somewhat extensive examination, I have met with a very 
few instances like the following: Herod. lib. i. p. 51. ai 
εὔμορφοι TAS ἀμόρφους KAI ἐμπήρους ἐξεδίδοσαν᾽ where it 
may be said, that the ἔμπηροι must be supposed to be in 
general distinct from the ἄμορφοι, the one indicating an ad- 
ventitious, and the other a natural, defect; and that the 
author, though he has not prefixed the Article to the second 
Attributive, meant so to distinguish them. Granting, then, 
this to be the case, and that other less questionable instances 
may be found tending to corroborate the exception, what 
reason can be alleged, why the practice in Plural Attributives 
should differ from that in Singular ones? The circumstances 
are evidently dissimilar. A single individual may stand in 
various relations and act in divers capacities; and, conse~ 
quently, if two relations or characters, be connected by a Copu- 
lative, and the first be preceded by a Pronoun, the reader will 
reasonably understand them both of the person represented by 
that Pronoun, because such is the general usage, and the com- 
pliance with it will not involve any contradiction. But this 
does not happen in the same degree with respect to Plurals. 
Though one individual may act, and frequently does act, in 
several capacities, it is not likely that a multitude of individuals 
should all of them act in the same several capacities, and by 
the extreme improbability, that they should be represented as 
so acting, we may be forbidden to understand the second Plural 
Attributive of the persons designed in the Article prefixed to 
the first, however the usage in the Singular might seem to 
countenance the construction. My meaning may be illus- 
trated by a familiar example. An individual is at once a 
Member of Parliament and the Colonel of a Regiment. Speak- 
ing of such an one, and having occasion to advert to these two 
characters, we might say in Greek, Ὁ βουλευτὴς KAI λοχαγός, 

Ρ 


66 APPELLATIVES. [onap. 


and if by such a phrase we meant to indicate two different 
persons, we should speak in a manner not authorized by the 
Greek idiom. But suppose we should say, speaking of several 
persons, ‘OI βουλευταὶ KAI Aoxayot* the inference would be, 
either that the persons sitting in parliament and those com- 
manding regiments are usually the same, or else, knowing 
them not to be the same, we should understand the words as 
expressive of two distinct classes: and what is the alternative? 
If they be the same, the rule is strictly observed: if notoriously 
they are distinct, the rule, indeed, is violated, but in such a 
manner that no ambiguity can ensue; for though OI λοχαγοὶ 
would have been more accurate, our previous knowledge on 
the subject prevents the possibility of mistake. So in the 
passage from Herodotus our observation having taught us that 
the ἄμορφοι are not usually ἔμπηροι, and vice versd, we are 
not liable to understand these epithets of the same individuals, 
any more than if the second of them had the Article prefixed. 
It is obvious that in the Singular Number confusion might 
arise: that one person should be ἄμορφος and ἔμπηρος has 
nothing in it remarkable: and, consequently, if the second 
Article be omitted, the principle of the general rule will pre- 
vail. ‘“O ἄμορφος καὶ ἔμπηρος we inevitably be understood 
of the same individual *. | 


1 Τ have noticed one passage, which, as it presents a difficulty, it would be 
disingenuous to suppress. Herod. ed. Steph. lib. iv. p. 154. has these words: 
τῶν παλλακέων τε piny ἀποπνίξαντες θάπτουσι, Kai τὸν οἰνοχόον, καὶ μάγειρον, 
καὶ ἱπποκόμον, καὶ διηκόνον, καὶ ἀγγελιηφόρον, καὶ ἵππους, καὶ, κατ. A. Not 
having Wesseling at hand, I cannot ascertain whether this be the reading of the 
MSS. _ It is impossible, however, that all these various offices should have been 
united in the same person ; and this obvious impossibility may be the reason, that 
the writer has expressed himself so negligently. I once thought that μάγειρον» 
ἱπποκόμον, &c. might signify one of every kind: but then we should expect ἕνα 
τῶν μαγείρων, as in μίην τῶν παλλακέων. I do not recollect any similar ex- 
ample. 

It has subsequently occurred to me, that the several Nouns, μάγειρον, ἱππο- 
κόμον, &c. may be anarthrous by Part I. Chap. vi. ὃ 2*. 


* In the conclusion of his note, the learned Author refers the example in 
question to the case of Enumeration: it may, however, be reduced under the 
class of examples i in which the Article has the force of the Possessiye Pronoun. 
Taking τὸν οἰνοχόον as equivalent to τὸν οἰνοχόον αὐτοῦ, we should not have 
expected αὐτοῦ, if expressed with the first Substantive, to be repeated with all or 


a ee ἐοΥσυρυδλων ων μα τῷ 


τι. APPELLATIVES. 67 


Nor is this reasoning entirely hypothetical; since we find in 
very many instances, not only in the Plural, but even in the 
Singular Number, that where Attributives are in their nature 
absolutely incompatible, which is not the case in ἄμορφοι καὶ 
ἔμπηροι, i. 6. where the application of the rule would involve a 
contradiction in terms, there the first Attributive only has the 
Article, the perspicuity of the passage not requiring the rule to 
be accurately observed!. In the following examples, the se- 
cond Attributive cannot be understood of the persons or things 
referred to in the first. 


1 Mr, Winstanley has collected a list of five exceptions to the rule, of which 
four are comprised by this remark of Bp. Middleton. 

1. The case of national appellations. 

2. When one of the nouns is a plural. 

3. When one is impersonal, as τὸν ἐπίσκοπον Kai πρεσβυτέριον. 

4. When the signification renders farther personal distinction unnecessary, as 
6 ἀγαθὸς Kai κακός. 

The other is when one is a proper name, and on this Mr. W. brings two in- 
stances from Ignatius: (1.) τοῦ θεοῦ---καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, and (2.) τοῦ πατρὸς, 
καὶ "Incov Χριστοῦ. He thus tries to defeat the effect of Mr. Sharp’s rule, in 
one case, by a side blow. But these instances are not in point. That a Proper 
Name often drops the Article contrary to rule, as τὸν ἀνδρὰ Μαρίας, (Matt. i. 
16,) we know; but the question is, supposing Χριστὸς to be a mere proper name 
(as Mr. W. says), to stand first, and have the Article, whether a word following, 
joined to it by the Copulative, and not having the Article, can be understood of a 
different person. This, at least, is one question to which Mr. W.’s cases do not 
apply. It remains afterwards for consideration, whether ὁ Χριστὸς can be con- 
sidered entirely as a Proper Name. H. J. ΒΗ. . 


any of the subsequent ones: and on a similar principle we may dispense with the 
repetition of the Article. 

Having made this remark, however, I think it right to add, that I do not con- 
sider it necessary to the character of the Author, and the soundness of his hy- 
pothesis, that every single example should be clearly reducible to one or other of 
his rules. Those rules are grounded on the general practice of the best Greek 
authors; and if in their writings a very few cases be found which seem at first 
to be inconsistent with them, these may be left as matter of further investigation, 
or may be considered as unusual forms of expression, which the best writers are 
not always careful to avoid: at any rate, they must be much more numerous than 
at present they appear to be, and we must be very certain that they admit of no 
consistent solution, before we allow them to have much weight against the mass 
of evidence adduced on the other side. J. S, 


68 APPELLATIVES. [ctAP. 


EXAMPLES. 


Thucyd. lib. i. in init. τὸν πόλεμον τῶν ΠΕΛΟΠΟΝΝΗ- 
ΣΙΩΝ καὶ ᾿ΑΘΗΝΑΙΩΝ. 
Ibid. i. ὃ 10. τὰς (scil. ναῦς) ΜΕΓΊΣΤΑΣ καὶ ἜΛΑΧΙΣ- 


TAS. 
Isocr. Paneg. ὃ 42. τῶν μύθων τοῖς TPQIKOIS καὶ ΠΕΡ- 


ΣΙΚΟΙ͂Σ. 
Demosth. c. Lept. vol. 1. p. 476. τοῖς ΘΑΣΙΟΙΣ καὶ ΒΥ- 


ZANTIOIS ἐγράφη. 
Xen. CEcon. p. 481. rove TPATQ:AOYS re καὶ KOMQe- 


AOY='. 

We frequently find the same thing happening in Singular 
Attributives; but it is only in those which cannot be predi- 
cated of the same subject, without the most evident and direct 
contradiction. 

EXAMPLES. 


Avistot. Eth. ad Eudem. lib. i. c. 8. ἐν ὅσοις ahaha τὸ 
ΠΡΟΤΈΡΟΝ καὶ ὝΣΤΕΡΟΝ ἡ. 


1 So Dion. Hal. iv. p. 2246, 9. τὰς αὑτῶν γυναῖκας καὶ θυγατέρας. Pro- 
fessor Dobree (Advers. p. 116.) has given several examples of plurals from Thu- 
cydides, as i. 26. 45. τούς τε οἰκήτορας καὶ φρουρούς" ii. 50. med. τὰ ὄρνεα καὶ 
τετράποδα" iy. 11. τοὺς τριηράρχους καὶ κυβερνήτας" from Aristophanes, as Ran. 
784, Eq. 320. Eccl. 198. 699. 8. Pac. 555. Plut. 89. (though the last, and fourth 
and fifth, he marks as doubtful) ; from Plato, as Gorg. 498. C.—176. 12. Heind. ot 
ἀγαθοί τε Kai κακοὶ, where, too, as Professor Scholefield observes, Bekker reads, 
ot κακοί. Alcib. i. p. 117. A.—22. Stallb. περὶ τῶν δικαίων καὶ ἀδίκων καὶ καλῶν 
καὶ αἰσχρῶν καὶ κακῶν καὶ ἀγαθῶν; καὶ συμφερόντων καὶ μή. Ἡ. J. R. 

2 Thue. v. 47. τῷ μὲν ὁπλίτῃ καὶ ψίλῳ καὶ τοξότῃ. 
Soph. El. 265. λαβεῖν θ᾽ ὁμοίως καὶ τὸ τητᾶσθαι. 
Thue. ii. 49. τό τε πλέον καὶ ἔλασσον ποτόν. 

Mr. Winstanley has collected many instances from Aristotles Ethics, in p. 17. 
ὁ ἐγκρατὴς καὶ ἀκρατῆς.---ὁ ἀγαθὸς καὶ κακός. And to this class belong others 
which he adduces as exceptions to Mr. S.s rule (p. 40.) τοῖς σφετεροῖς τέκνοις 
καὶ φίλοις. Arist. τοῦ βελτίονος ἀεὶ Kai μορίου καὶ ἀνθρώπου. Professor Do- 
bree (ubi supra) quotes the two places of Thucydides above, and iv. 63. τὸν εὖ 
καὶ κακῶς δρῶντα, and Plat. Phed. 75. C.=31. Antep. Wytt. τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ καὶ 
δικαίου kai doiov. But it is only due to that great scholar to observe, that Mr. 
Kidd mentions, from remembrance of a conversation, that he had afterwards 
withdrawn the instance from Thucydides, τό re πλέον καὶ ἔλασσον, and also one 
from Plato Gorg. p. 259. D.—43. 18. Heindorf. καὶ τὸ αἰσχρὸν καὶ τὸ καλὸν Kai 
ἀγαθὸν καὶ κακόν, which, in truth, hardly seems to afford an instance of excep- 
tion. Professor Dobree notices also the example from the Gorgias which Bishop 


EE ae ti ieee 


111. | APPELLATIVES. 69 


Aristot. de Interp. cap. 12. περὶ τοῦ "AAYNATOY τε καὶ 
"“ANATKAIOY. 

Plato, Thezet. vol. ii. p. 134. gucdtx ἃ τοῦ ΠΟΙΟΥ͂ΝΤΟΣ τε 
καὶ ΠΑΣΧΟΝΤΟΣ. 

Ibid. p. 142. τὸ TAYTON καὶ ἝΤΕΡΟΝ. 

Idem, Gorg. vol. iv. p. θῶ, τοῦ -APTIOY καὶ ILEPITTOY, 
τοῦ AIKAIOY καὶ "AAIKOY *. 

The Attributives here coupled together are in their nature 
plainly incompatible; and we cannot wonder, if, in such in- 
stances, the principle of the rule has been sacrificed to negli- 
gence, or even to studied brevity, where misconception was 
impossible. The second Article ( should, in strictness, have 
been expressed: but’ jin such cases the writers knew that it 
might safely be understood.: 

_ Having thus investigated the canon, and having explained 
the ground of its limitations and exceptions, I may be per- 
mitted to add, that Mr. Sharp’s application of it to the New 
Testament, is in strict conformity with the usage of Greek 
writers, and with the Syntax of the Greek Tongue; and that 
few of the passages which he has corrected in our common 
version, can be defended without doing violence to the obvious 
and undisputed meaning of the plainest sentences which pro- 
fane writers supply. If, for example, Eph. v. 5, we are with 
our common version to translate ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ TOY Χριστοῦ 
KAI Θεοῦ, δ in the kingdom of Christ and of God;” or Tit. i. 
13. TOY “μεγάλου Θεοῦ ΚΑΙ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 
““ οὗ the Great God and (of) our Saviour Jesus Christ,” we 


M. cites last, and again, Gorg. 488. C. 7.—140. Antep. Heind. ὡς τὸ κρεῖττον 
καὶ ἰσχυρότερον καὶ βέλτιον ταυτὸν ὄν, which is an excellent example. It ought 
to be added, that, except for Mr. Kidds observation, there would be no reason to 
suppose that Professor Dobree cited these examples as exceptions to Mr. Sharps 
rule. He makes no remark on the rule, either in its favour or against it. He 
had observed these examples in the course of his reading, and noted them as 
bearing on the matter. H. J. R. 

1 To these may be added two of Mr. Winstanleys favourite instances (p. 20 
and 21). Clement of Alexandria, (p. 76. ed. Sylburg. Paris, 1641), speaking of 
the relation of a pious Christian to God, says, γίνεται τὰ πάντα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ὅτι 
τὰ πάντα τοῦ Θεοῦ" Kai κοινὰ ἀμφοῖν τοῖν φίλοιν τὰ πάντα, τοῦ Θεοῦ Kai ἀνθρώ- 
που. Νὸ confusion could arise from such an omission of the Article, just as in 
the cases above cited. And the same remark applies to the next instance aH 
Proverbs xxiv. 21. 

φοβοῦ τὸν Θεόν, υἱέ, kai Baoréa. H. J. R. 


— 


70 APPELLATIVES. [cHAP. 


must in consistency translate also from Plutarch’, ‘‘ Roscius 
the son, and another person heir to the deceased ;” though a 
Singular Verb follows: from Demosthenes, ‘‘ the adviser and 1 
an orator :” and so on in an endless series of absurdities: for 


Θεός, σωτήρ, &c., the Nouns in question, are as truly what I 


have denominated Attributive Nouns, as any which can be 
found; and they are so far from being in their nature incom- 
patible, that some of them are even of kindred import. We 
are, therefore, in the instances from the New Testament, 
to complete the ellipsis according to the principles already 
established; viz. τοῦ (ὄντος) Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ, of him being, 
or who is, &c. τοῦ (ὄντος) μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν" 
and so in most of the disputed texts: why I do not affirm in 
all of them, will appear hereafter. ‘That the Fathers under- 
stood such passages in the manner in which Mr. Sharp would 
translate them, and as, without doubt, they will be translated 
at some future period, has been fully ascertained by the re- 
searches of Mr. Wordsworth: and whatever may be thought 
of the Fathers in some other respects, it may surely be pre- 
sumed that they knew the use of one of the commonest forms 
of expression in their native tongue. But more of this in the 
SECOND Part. 


1 See above, p. 58. 


ry. | - PROPER NAMES, 71 


CHAPTER IV. 


PROPER NAMES. 


TuoveH much has been said respecting the insertions and 
omissions of the Article, it will have been perceived, and, 
indeed, it was hinted, that Proper Names, and the Names of 
Abstract Ideas, are not always subject to these general laws. 
The case of Proper Names shall be first considered. 

_ On what occasions the Greeks prefixed the Article to Pro- 
per Names, is among the most curious inquiries connected 
with Greek literature: the observations which I have been 
able to make on this subject, if they do not present an un- 
deviating uniformity of practice, at least bear evidence to the 
truth of the principles, on which the doctrine of this Essay is 
founded. 

Apollonius has said that ““ Proper Names, on account of 
their inherent peculiarity, require not the Article so much as 
do Nouns, which express only common ideas’ :” and, indeed, if. 
they had originally taken the Article to define and limit their 
meaning, it might well be urged, that they needed not such 
assistance. Harris appears to have felt the force of this objec- 
tion ; which could not but occur to him, since he supposes the 
Article to be’ something distinct from the Pronoun, and that 
its use is only to define. ‘‘ Upon these principles,” (says 
Harris *) ‘‘ we see the reason why it is absurd to say ὃ ἐγώ, ὃ 
σύ, because nothing can make these Pronouns more definite 
than they are’: the same may be asserted of Proper Names ; 
and though the Greeks say 6 Σωκράτης, ἡ ᾿Ξανθίππη, and the 


1 Ta κύρια διὰ τὴν ἐν αὐτοῖς ἰδιότητα. οὐχ οὕτως sage τοῦ ἄρϑρου, 
καϑάπερ τὰ κοινὴν ἔννοιαν ἔχοντα. Ῥ. 75. ᾿ 

2 Hermes, p. 225. 

3 The reason why such expressions do not occur, is rather because ὁ is a Pro- 
noun of the third person, and of course cannot have a Predicate either of the jirst 
or second, without manifest contradiction. He cannot be 7 nor you. 


72 PROPER NAMES. [cuar. 


like, yet the Article is a mere pleonasm, unless perhaps it 
serve to distinguish sexes.” 'This conjecture, to which, how- 
ever, the writer was driven by his notion that the Article is 
naturally a definitive, is surely altogether unfounded’. Gene- 
rally speaking, the termination of names in the Greek lan- 
guage clearly marks the Gender: or if this were insufficient, 
and to remedy the defect the Article were required, it would 
be prefixed, if not always to each name, at least to each on its 
Jirst occurrence ; the very contrary of which, as we shall see 


hereafter, is the prevailing usage. But to understand how 


the Article came to be associated so frequently with Proper 
Names, we shall do well to go back as far as we can, to the 
origin of the practice, by attending to what is observable in 


Homer. 'This inquiry has, indeed, been in part anticipated; ἢ 


we are now to enter into it more particularly. 

That there is no essential difference between the Pronoun 6 
of Homer and the Article 6 of later writers has, I think, been 
abundantly demonstrated: I shall, therefore, consider them as 
being one and the same thing. Now it is a common practice 
with Homer, when he has occasion to attribute any act to his 


gods or heroes, to defer the mention of their names to the con- 


clusion of the sentence, and first to ascribe such act to persons 
obscurely referred to in the corresponding Article placed at the 
beginning. ‘Thus Iliad, A. 488. 


1 It reminds us of the scene in Aristophanes, Nub. 677. 


ΣΩΚ. 
εἶτ᾽ ἔτι γε περὶ τῶν ΟΝΟΜΑΤῺΝ pasty σε δεῖ, 
ἅττ᾽ ᾿ΑΡΡΕΝ᾽ ἐστίν, ἅττα δ᾽ αὐτῶν ΘΉΛΕΑ. 


, =TPEY. 
ἀλλ᾽ οἵδ᾽ ἔγωγ᾽, ἃ ϑήλε᾽ ἐστίν. 
ΣΩΚ. 
εἰπὲ δή. 
=TPEY. 
Λύσιλλα, Φίλιννα, Κλειταγόρα, Δημητρία. 
SOK. 
ἄῤῥενα δὲ ποῖα τῶν ὀνομάτων; 
ΣΤΡΕΨ. 
μυρία" 
Φιλόξενος, Μελησίας, ᾿Αμυνίας. 


τῶν 


ὧϑ 


ιν. PROPER NAMES. 


“.7 


Αὐτὰρ ‘O (μήνιε νηυσὶ παρήμενος ὠκυπόροισι) 
Διογενὴς Πηλέως υἱὸς πόδας ὠκὺς ᾿Αχιλλεύς. 
E. 759. ΟἹ δὲ (ἕκηλοι 
Τέρπονται) Κύπρις τε καὶ ἀργυρότοξος ᾿Απόλλων ᾽, 
Δ. 90. AI δ᾽ (ἐπέμυξαν) ᾿Αθηναίη τε καὶ “Ἥρη. 


If the reader would see more examples he may turn to 
B. 402. Γ΄. 81. 118. E. 17. 449. 508. 655. ὅς. In all these it 
is observable that the writer is in no haste to declare the name 
of the person, whom he has in view, but that his mind is intent 
rather on the act to be attributed to him, of whom the Article 
at the beginning of the sentence is the temporary representa- 
tive. It is the swllen anger of Achilles, the secret delight of 
Venus and Apollo, and the stifled murmurs of Minerva and 
Juno, which the speaker, having pronounced the Article by 
which these persons are obscurely designated, is most eager to 
notice. Their names, indeed, in many cases scarcely need to 
be added: the acts attributed and the context of the narration 
leave little doubt respecting the persons meant. Those, how- 
ever, of whom we are about to affirm or deny an action, are of 
necessity uppermost in our minds: and, therefore, however the 
speaker may defer the explanation, which a strict regard to 
perspicuity may in the end require, it is highly natural at the 
outset of the proposition to employ some symbol significant of 
the person, about whom the thoughts are occupied: accord- 
ingly, I have remarked that in all such instances the Article is 
placed at the beginning of the sentence, or as nearly so as the 
circumstances will allow. 

Such examples seem to illustrate the origin of the practice 
in question: but let us try, whether Homer’s writings will not 
assist us in tracing it downwards nearer to the usage of suc- 
ceeding writers. In the class of instances adduced above, 
some act is attributed to the person signified by the Article, 
before the name is announced: but examples occur, in which 
the Article and the Proper Name are brought nearer to each 


1 In this example the Article, which refers to Κύπρις ἀπά ᾿Απόλλων, is in the 
worthier Gender ; and the meaning is‘H Κύπρις kai ‘0’ Απόλλων, as is plain from 
the instance subjoined, where at is equivalent to Ἢ καὶ Ἡ. 


74 PROPER NAMES. Cu 


other, being separated only by some word of inferior import: 


thus, Iliad, B. 105, 6, 7. 


Αὐτὰρ Ὁ (αὖτε) Πέλοψ δῶκ᾽ ᾿Ατρέϊ, ποιμένι dav’ 
. ᾿Ατρεὺς δὲ θνήσκων ἔλιπε πολύαρνι Θυέστῃ" 
Αὐτὰρ ‘O (αὖτε) Θυέστ᾽ ᾿Αγαμέμνονι λεῖπε φορῆναι. 


In these instances we find the writer using the Article with 
less appearance of utility than in the former examples; be- 
cause here we have merely a Particle’, by which the mind is 
kept in. little or no suspense: and, unquestionably, if he had 
written simply Πέλοψ, as in the next line he has written 
᾿Ατρεύς, the sense would have been sufficiently clear, though 
that the Pelops here spoken of was the same with the one just 
mentioned, would not have been marked with equal distinct- 
ness. Or if the Pronoun be employed, the Proper Name 
might be more safely omitted than in most of the preceding 
examples, since ὁ would be supposed to refer to Πέλοπι in the 
foregoing verse, and the addition of the name is an exercise 
of that extreme caution, instances of which have been 
already noticed. Here, therefore, we are getting nearer to 


the usage of succeeding times. But it may be asked, does 


Homer ever place the Article immediately before a Proper 
Name; and in this case, what are the circumstances? On the 


celebrated passage, Il. A. 11. οὕνεκα TON Χρύσην ἠτίμησ᾽ 


ἀρητῆρα, Heyne*, after observing that the Article, especially 


as prefixed to Proper Names, was confessedly unknown to 


Homer, and after giving some conjectural emendations of pre= 


ceding critics, concludes, “ nthil expediri potest :” whilst Wolf* 


declares, “ nihil dubito quin τὸν Χρύσην Poeta dixerit, ut per- 
sonam fama celebrem et auditoribus jam tum, quum primum 
ejus nomen audirent, notissimam.” It is certainly a difficulty, 


1 Valckenaér ad Pheenissas, y. 147. has said that the Tragic Poets never prefix 


the Article to Proper Names; but Professor Porson, with that nice discrimination 


to which Greek literature is so deeply indebted, corrects the assertion of Valcke- 


naér: his words are “ rank, nisi propter emphasin quandam, aut initio sententia, 
ubi particula inseritur.” In the two instances, which he adduces in proof of the 
last mentioned usage, Thebes and Argos strongly interest the feelings of the re- 
spective speakers. See Eurip. Phen. 522. and Suppl. 129. 

3 Hom. II. vol. iv. p. 13. 

3 Ad Reizium de Prosod. Gr. p. 74. 


ee διε" ὦ. νὰ Κ᾿ 


1γ.} PROPER NAMES. 75 


that Chryses is now for the first time mentioned; but whether 
this difficulty be so great, that we must introduce δὴ or rot’ 
into the place of τὸν without any authority from Editt. or 
MSS., deserves, not merely for the sake of this passage, to be 
earefully considered. Between prefixing the Article to the 
name of a person then first mentioned, and making it the tem- 
porary representative of one, who, though already mentioned, 
has not been spoken of for some time past, the difference appears 
not to be great; and yet of the latter usage unquestionable 
instances abound. In Il. N. 765, 6. we have 


TON δὲ τάχ᾽ εὗρε μάχης ἐπ᾽ βραστερὰ δακρυοέσσης 
Δῖον ᾿Αλέξανδρον᾽ 


where, till ᾿Αλέξανδρον is pronounced, the hearer can form no 
tolerable conjecture who is the person meant: for the last. 
mention of Paris is in v. 660, and even there no circumstance 
is alluded to, which could in this place assist the hearer’s 
apprehension. That τὸν has reference to Χρύσην, might as 
easily be inferred in the one case, as that it related to ᾿Αλέξαν- 
door in the other: in neither, however, would such an infer- 
ence be drawn. It is plain, therefore, that we are to consider 
what passes in the mind of the speaker ; and the hearer is to 
be satisfied, if, when the sentence is completed, he can then 
account for the introduction of the Article, however obscure 
till then its reference might be. Now we have seen that in the 
eagerness to attribute an act, it is not unusual to employ a 
symbol of the person intended, and to defer the actual mention 
of his name: but if the person, though not hitherto men- 
tioned, be already well known, and therefore of easy recogni- 
tion, it seems scarcely less allowable that the speaker should 
first allude to him, even though the allusion may require to be 
explained immediately afterwards: it is as if the speaker 
should say, ‘* you know whom I mean;” not, indeed, that we 
do or can know so much with certainty, till the name has been 
declared; but that we shall then perceive the reason of the 
anticipation. In the case before us, the speaker felt that 
Chryses was known by all who had heard of the pestilence just 


1 See Heyne ad loc. If conjecture were the only resource, I should prefer 
τοῦ depending on ἀρητῆρα, to any of the emendations proposed. 
7 


76 PROPER NAMES. [ CHAP. 


described, to have been the author of it; and though it be 
necessary to mention his name, yet the circumstance of his 
notoriety might at the same time be noticed. That Homer 
has a method of marking the notoriety of facts which, how- 
ever, require to be mentioned, is known to all who have at- . 
tended to the uses of the Particle pa. In such passages as Il. 
B. 76, 77. 
τοῖσι © ἀνέστη 
Νέστωρ, ὅς ῬΑ Πύλοιο ἄναξ ἣν ἠμαθόεντος, 


and B. 36. 
Τὰ φρονέοντ᾽ ava θυμὸν, & “P’ οὐ τελέεσθαι ἔμελλεν, 


it is evident that this expletive, as some hastily denominate it, 
has the force of the words, as is well known, or as the reader is 
aware; and in the disputed passage, had the reading been 
οὕνεκα ῬΑ Χρύσην, &c., the Particle would have required to 
be so explained, and conjecture would not have been at- 
tempted: with the Article, as the verse now stands, the only 
difference seems to be, that the notoriety of the person princi- 
pally concerned, and not of the fact with which he is con- 
cerned, is the subject of indirect notice. At the same time, 
the act and the actor are so closely connected, that of which- 
ever of the two the recognition is presupposed, the result will 
be much the same. 

I am inclined, then, to regard this as an instance in ilieits 
Homer has placed the Article immediately before a Proper 
Name, and that too of a person who had not hitherto been 
mentioned: and the solution given by Wolf will be the true 
one, if understood with some modifications. ‘That Homer 
meant to intimate that Chryses was well known, is of itself 
too vague an assertion: Chryses was not, independently of the 
circumstances ‘which precede the mention of his name, better © 
known than most of the persons spoken of in the poem: but 
as having caused the pestilence just mentioned, he must have 
occupied the thoughts of the speaker, and his notoriety in that 
particular view the hearer would readily recognize. There is 
another passage, 0. 532, which in some measure confirms this 
reasoning. In his address to the Trojans, Hector says, Εἴσο- 
μαι αἴκε μ᾽ Ὃ Τυδείδης, &c. Though Diomede had frequently 


1Υ.} PROPER NAMES. 77 


been mentioned in the course of the poem, his name now 
occurs for the first time in the speech, which is the thing to be 
considered : and the force of the Article seems to be explicable, 
not so much on the ground that Diomede was a well-known 
personage, as that he was well known in the character of the 
antagonist of Hector: it was, therefore, not unnatural that 
Hector should, when speaking of an approaching battle, have 
the idea of Diomede uppermost in his mind; and the hearers, 
though they could not previously conjecture to whom the 
Article would refer, would afterwards, connecting it with the 
Proper Name, perceive its force and propriety. ‘O Τυδείδης 
- occurs again, A. 659, where the presence of the Article may be 
accounted for in a similar manner. 

On the whole, I am disposed to think that the practice of 
introducing Proper Names by means of the Article, merely on 
the ground of notoriety, was of later date than the period 
under review: else we should have found in the Iliad many 
and unquestionable examples of this usage, since the heroes 
of Homer were all of them traditional personages, whose names 
and exploits must have been familiarly known to his, readers 
from their earliest childhood. 

From this examination, then, of the usage in Homer, we 
may at least deduce the origin of the practice of placing the 
Article before Proper Names, though it does not furnish us 
with any thing like a general rule on the subject. Nothing can 
be more certain than that the Article, so far from ever being 
intended to define the name, as most writers take for granted, 
is rather defined by the Name. All the perplexity, in which 
the question has been enveloped, has arisen from not consider- 
ing that the Article is a genuine Pronoun; and that Pronouns 
of the third person, being applicable to a multitude of indivi- 
duals, frequently require the speaker, if he would avoid ambi- 
guity, to add the Name of the individual meant. In the first 
and second persons no such obscurity can exist; but in passing 
to the third we sometimes experience, eyen in our own lan- 
guage, a species of difficulty analogous to that, which, if I mis- 
take not, first occasioned (not the Article to be placed before 
the Proper Name, but) the Proper Name to be added to the 
Article. In writing a letter I speak of myself in the first 
person, and address my correspondent in the second: here no 


78 PROPER NAMES. [ CHAP. 


ambiguity can occur: but in the very same letter let every J 
and you be turned into he, by some person, who narrates the 
contents: or, to quit hypothesis, let any one turn to a news- 
paper containing Parliamentary Debates; in the report of 
speeches he will meet with He (Mr. A.), Him (Mr. B.) con- 
tinually. Every such instance illustrates the practice in ques- 
tion. In both cases we first obscurely intimate the person 
whom we have in mind, and declare his name afterwards, in 
order to prevent mistake. 

It is, however, admitted, that Homer's writings do not 
enable us to lay down rules, by which we can know uni- 
versally, when the Articles should be inserted or omitted 
before Proper Names. Nor can this create surprise. It is of 
the character and essence of poetry to disregard minute rela- 
tions and dependencies; and in proportion as it departs from 
the style of narration and indulges in lofty flights, it is negli- 
gent of perspicuity: for which reason, in Pindar and in the 
Chorusses of the Tragedians, the Article more rarely occurs *. 
Homer’s style, it is true, is less artificial, and approaches 
nearer to the narrative kind; but even in Homer it was not to 
be expected that the Article should be regularly employed on 
every occasion, in which writers of prose would deem it neces- 
sary. ΤῸ omit the Article, where in strictness it should be 
inserted, is an admissible poetic licence’: to insert it, where it 
should be omitted, is not so; the reason of which is plain: in 
the one case perspicuity is not promoted so far as it might be; 
but in the other the reader is positively misled: the difference 
is that of withholding information, which would be true, and 
of giving that which is false. It will happen, therefore, that 
though Homer never uses the Article before a Proper Name 
without reason, he commonly omits it without scruple: and, 
consequently, the instances, in which it immediately precedes 
the name, being so very few, nothing like a rule on the subject. 
can be deducible from his practice. 

It might seem, then, that we should look to the prose 


1 Heyne, I recollect, has remarked this of Pindar: and Porson ad es 

v. 984. says, “‘ Articulos vitandos in choricis censeo.” 

2 Apollonius (p. 79.) observes, that the very first word of the Iliad would in a 
Prose writer have taken the Article; which is, probably, true. 


ιν. PROPER NAMES.. 79 


writers, if we would detect the laws by which the Article, as 
it respects Proper Names, is inserted or omitted; since in 
general their style is not of the elevated kind, which disdains 
minutiz, nor were they subject to the restraint, which metre 
in some degree imposes on the poet. If, indeed, we could be 
certain that the copies, which we possess, of Xenophon and 
Demosthenes were absolutely correct, and that in no instances 
had Articles been added or omitted through the carelessness 
of transcribers or the ignorance of editors and critics, to the 
prose writers alone we should at once appeal for the decision 
of the question: but this is by no means the case. On con- 
sulting different MSS. of the same Greek prose writer, we find 
on this very subject of the Article, especially where Proper 
Names and the Names of Attributes occur, more disagreement 
than on any other point whatever. Exactly in proportion as 
the writer of prose is free from restraint, so also is his tran- 
seriber and editor: and where the principle had been little 
examined, or at least where no principle had been generally 
admitted, it was to be expected that critics would sometimes 
venture on readings, the legitimacy of which it was not easy to 
controyert. It is even supposed, that the Article was not un- 
frequently written over Proper names by the teachers of Greek, 
in order to assist the learner, and thus improperly gained ad- 
mittance into the text’. On the whole, therefore, though the 
usage of the prose writers be ultimately the object of our in- 
quiry, we cannot with safety consult them on this head, unless 
we carry with us some previous knowledge on the subject. 
The writer, then, from whom such knowledge will be best 
obtained, will be, if such exist, one who having written in 
verse is little exposed to wanton interpolations, and whose 
style and matter are at the same time little or not at all re- 


1 Valekenaér ad Pheen. v. 147. has said, that this sometimes has happened 
even to the poets. ‘“ Articulus scilicet a poetis neglectus, ubi videbatur in usu 
communi requiri, versibus poetarum in puerorum commodum a literatoribus 
superscribi solebat, atque hinc sepenumero sedem non suam occupat.” And 
Rudolph (Comm. Soc. Phil. Lips. vol. iv. Part I. p. 80.) remarks, ‘* Homerum 
certe sexcentis Articulis auctiorem haberemus, nisi metrum obstitisset, quomi- 
nus in textum reciperetur, ubi Grammatici eum addendum in scholiis putarunt: 
ac in ipso Platone tanta est etiam in Articulis addendis inconstantia ac passim in 
omittendis constantia, ut sepius mihi a Grammaticis additus quam a Librariis 
omissus videatur.”’ 


80 PROPER NAMES. (cmap. 


moved from those of ordinary discourse. Just such a writer 
is Aristophanes. Except in his Chorusses, his language is 
most simple and unaffected; whilst his metres have generally 
protected him from the critics, and his indelicacy has completely 
excluded him from schools. "We may, therefore, regard Aris- 
tophanes as the author, from whom, if we learn not all which 
we want, much may be learned well. 

In this writer, then, we may observe, that the Proper 
Names of men never have the Article, except, 

1. When the same person has been recently mentioned : or 

2, When the person is from some cause or other of such 
notoriety, that even without previous mention he may be re- 
cognized by the hearer. 

Of the former kind we may instance 

Lysist. 796. TOY Medaviwvoc, and 807. TQ« MedXaviwve 
this person had been spoken of, v. 785. ἦν νεανίσκος Μελανίων 
ri¢.—Nub. 30. μετὰ TON Πασίαν᾽ he is the person, whom 
Strepsiades had mentioned, v. 21. δώδεκα μνᾶς Πασίᾳ.---Τ0 14, 
146, 147. we have TOY Χαιρεφώντος . . . TOY Σωκράτους" 
but in v. 144. we, find ἀνήρετ᾽ ἄρτι Χαιρεφῶντα Σωκράτης.--- 
Ay. 970. we read ἠνίξαθ᾽ Ὃ Βάκις τοῦτο πρὸς τὸν ἀέρα" but 
the same Bacis had, v. 962. been mentioned by the speaker. 
More examples might easily be found. 

Under the second head, i. e. of Names not hitherto men- 
tioned, we may produce Acharn. 10. and Av. 807. κατὰ TON 
AicxtdAov.— Ay. 910. κατὰ TON “Opnpov.—Nub. 1188. Ὁ 
LdérAwv.—Ibid. 1055. TON Néoropa.—These must imme- 
diately be recognized from their pre-eminence. But we find 
also very many examples, in which the notoriety is that pro- 
ceeding from vice or folly. In this case we may observe that 
Aristophanes uses the Article more constantly than he does 
in the former; thus presuming of those, whom he would 
satirize, that they are already objects of general indignation. 
In the Plutus, 174, 175. we have the first mention of Pamphi- 
lus and Belonopoles: 

O Πάμφιλος δ᾽ οὐχὶ, k. τ. X. 

‘O Βελονοπώλης, xk. τ. λ. the one ἃ peculator and the other 
his parasite—So also Av. 513. TON Λυσικράτη, a corrupt 
General.—Ibid. 168. Ὃ Τελέας, who, as the Scholiast informs 
us, was a common subject of ridicule-—Rane, 422. TON 


ry. | PROPER NAMES. 81 


Κλεισθένη, well known on account of his effeminacy.— We find 
also, Acharn. 243. ‘O Ξανθίας, recognized by the hearers as 
the servant employed for the purpose in question.—These, so 
far as I recollect, are the only occasions, on which the Names 
of Men have the Article prefixed by Aristophanes, unless in- 
deed when the person is called to, in which use the Article is 
not confined to Proper Names; as 

Rane, 608. Ὃ Διτύλας, ΧὩ Σκεβλίας, ΧὩ Παρδόκας, 

Χωρεῖτε δευρί. 

. Ibid. 521, Ὁ παῖς ἀκολούθει δεῦρο. 
or when not the person himself is meant, but the Drama, 
which is named from him: as, Ran. 863. 


TON Πηλέα τε καὶ TON Αἴολον 
καὶ ΤῸΝ Μελέαγρον, κἄτι μάλα TON Τήλεφον. 


All these are plays of Euripides; and in such instances the 
Article is never omitted. 

The names of Deities and Heroes have also very frequently 
the Article prefixed: thus, Ran. 671. Ἢ Heooéparra.—lbid. 
1045. ΤῊΣ ’Agoodirne.—Plut. 727. ΤΩι Πλούτωνι.---ΝῸ. 
1067. THN Θέτιν. . . . Ὁ Tnveée.—lbid. 257. TON 
’"APauav?.—After μὰ and vf, the name of the deity or person 
invoked takes the Article, as, Ran. 42. μὰ THN Δήμητρα.--- 
Ibid. 51. νὴ TON ’Arod\Aw.—Ibid. 183. νὴ TON Ποσειδώ.--- 
Vesp. 1438. vat TAN Kopav.—Acharn. 867. vat TON ᾿Ιόλαον. 
—Nub. 814. μὰ THN Ὁμίχλην.---Απὰ Ay. 521. we have “Op- 
vuew TON yijva.—Ran. 1374. we find the Article even where 
the name is suppressed, na TON ἐγώ, ἅς. The only excep- 
tion, which I have noticed, is in the name of Jupiter. It 
might have been expected, that in swearing by the chief of 
the Gods more than usual solemnity would have been ob- 
served: the frequent and colloquial use of this oath seems, 
however, to haye rendered it less solemn than the others; and 
we find τὸν Δία and Δία indiscriminately. Thus, Ran. 305. 


ΔΙΟΝΥΣ. κατόμοσον. 
ΞΙΑΝΘ. νὴ τὸν Δία. 
AIONY®. καὖθις κατόμοσον. 
ΞΙΑΝΘ. νὴ Al. 
AIONYS. ὄμοσον. 
ΑΝΘ. νὴ Δία. 
G 


82 PROPER NAMES. [cuar. 


Lastly, the Proper Names of Places, whether countries, 
cities, mountains, &c. commonly, but not always, take the 
Article, as Acharn. 653. THN Atywav.—Av. 710. ἐς THN 
ArBinv.—lbid. 191. TON Aewpedv.—Nub. 72. ἐς TOY Φελ- 
Aéwe.—Ibid. 193. TON Taorapov.—lbid. 320. πρὸς THN 
Πάρνηθ᾽, &c. In all these instances, and many more which the 
reader may collect, the Article is found prefixed to a name, of 
which there had been no previous mention *. 


1 Winer observes, that in the New Testament the names of countries and 
rivers are seldom without the Article, (except Αἴγυπτος, and sometimes Μακε- 
Sovia,) those of cities occasionally. But he says afterwards, that these latter want _ 
it usually when following Prepositions. I find {παι "Ἔφεσος has the Article when 
not following a Preposition, (viz. Acts xix. 17; xx. 16.) except in Acts xix. 26. 
and there some MSS. insert ἕως. So Δάμασκος, Acts ix. 3; xxii. 6. has the 
Article. In every other case it follows a Preposition; and although Winer may 
refer the Article to renewed mention in both these cases, yet he has then no in- 
stance to rely on. Ἱεροσόλυμα occurs only thrice, except after a Preposition. In 
Matt. ii. 3. (on which see Bishop Middleton) and iii. 5. there is doubt as to the 
reading; and in iv. 25. the omission is to be referred to enumeration. In 
St. John it has the Article thrice after the Preposition, v. 2. (which may be called 
renewed mention); x. 22; xi. 13. With Ἱερουσαλήμ" we find the Article 
omitted from enumeration in Luke v. 17. and vi. 17; from its being in regimen 
in Luke xxiii. 28. The Article is omitted without cause in Luke xxi. 24. and 
thrice after κατοικέω in Acts i. 19; ii. 14; iv. 16; again, Acts xxi. 81. (See 
Bishop Middleton on Matt. ii. 3.) Twice the word occurs in the Vocative, viz. 
Matt. xxiii. 3.7. Luke xiii. 34. In Luke xxi. 20. Acts v.28. Heb. xii. 22. 
Rev. 111, 12; xxi. 2. 10. it has the Article. In every other case it follows a Pre- 
position. Καπερναοὺμ never occurs but after a Preposition, except twice in the 
Vocative. Tapoog never, except after a Preposition. ᾿Αντιόχεια never, except 
after a Preposition. One of the cases is remarkable, viz. Acts xiv. 21. εἰς τὴν 
Λύστραν, kai ᾿ἸΙκόνιον, καὶ ᾿Αντιόχειαν, which reminds us of τὸν ᾿Αλέξανδρον καὶ 
Φίλιππον. See p. 83 above. These are the places mentioned by Winer; and 
this examination will show how far his remark is true. He observes, finally, that 
when a place has once been mentioned, (and without the Article,) on its renewed 
mention the Article is added. Thus ἕως ᾿Αθηνῶν, in Acts xvii. 15; then 
xvii. 16. and xviii. 1. with Article; εἰς Βέροιαν, Acts xvii. 10; with Article in 
verse 13; εἰς Μακεδονίαν, Acts xvi. 9; and then six times with the Article, 
(which is, however, omitted in xx. 3.); εἰς Μίλητον, Acts xx. 15. and with Article 
in verse 17.—H. J. R. 


* I might have noticed this word (in commenting on Schleiermachers theory) 
as another peculiarity in St. Luke. It occurs only once in St. Matthew and St. 
Mark, not at allin St. John; twenty-seven times in St. Luke, (of which five are in 
chapter ii.) ; forty-one times in the Acts; seven or eight times in St. Paul; three 
times in Revelations, and no where else.—H. J. R. 


Iv. |} PROPER NAMES. Se 


It is obvious that the Proper Names of deities, &c. and of 
places, have the Article, on the ground of notoriety; and this 
case is similar to that of the names of pre-eminent men, such 
as Homer, Aischylus, &c.: consequently, there are but two 
occasions, on which, if we may rely on Aristophanes, who 
wrote in the best zra of the language, Proper Names of any 
kind can have the Article prefixed: indeed, even these two 
are in strictness reducible to one, the only difference lying in 
the origin of the notoriety, which is common to both. In the 
one case it is the result of. previous mention, whilst in the 
other such mention is superfluous. 

Having thus considered the practice of Aristophanes, it may 
be right to turn to one or two of the writers of prose, and to 
inquire how far their usage and his correspond. Herodotus, 
on various accounts, deserves at least a brief notice. Without 
haying examined the whole of his work with a view to the 
present subject, I may be allowed to state the result of a 
careful perusal of the fourth Book, confirmed as it is by a 
cursory inspection of seyeral other parts of his History. In 
the case of previous and recent mention, the instances, in which 
he prefixes the Article to the Proper Names of men, are almost 
innumerable’. Thus, P. 140. Δαρείου. . . . Ὁ Δαρεῖος.--- 
P. 142. ᾿Αγάθυρσον ..... Tedwvdv .... TON τε 
᾿Αγάθυρσον καὶ TON Γελωνόν.---Ρ. 148. Σατάσπης ..- - 
TOY Σατάσπεος.---Ρ. 1δὔ. ᾿Ανάχαρσις . . . . Ὁ ᾿Ανάχαρσις. 
—P. 156. Ὀκταμασάδην . . . . Ὁ Ὀκταμασάδης.---Ρ. 159. 
Ζάμολξιν.. .. TON Ζάμολξιν, ἅς. ἅς. Sometimes he 
adds οὗτος . . . . thus, p. 159. τὸν Ζάμολξιν τοῦτον.---Ρ. 3. 
οὗτος ὁ KavéatAnce.—lbid. τούτῳ τῷ Γύγῃ, &c. which form , 
abundantly explains the Article in all cases of renewed men- 
tion, where the Article alone is employed. Without previous 
mention he does not, so far as I have observed, ever prefix the 
Article to the name of any person’, however illustrious and 


1 1 use the Edition of H. Stephens, Paris, 1570. 

2 I have, indeed, met with instances both in Herodotus and Demosthenes, 
which are exceptions from the letter, though not, I think, from the spirit of this 
remark. ‘Thus Herod. lib. iv. p. 147. φασὶ δὲ ot αὐτοὶ καὶ THN "Apywy τε καὶ 
THN Ὥπιν, &c.—Lib. vii. p. 283. λέγεται λόγος ὡς ᾿Αθηναῖοι TON Βορῆν, &c. 
—Demosth. vol. ii. p. 1050. πρότερον ἀγῶνες ἐγένοντο ἡμῖν ... περὶ τοῦ κλή- 
ρου TOY ‘Ayviov.—P. 1311. καὶ γὰρ ἃ περὶ ΤΟΝ Κλεινίαν αἰτιᾶται.----Ν οῦν all 

G2 


84. PROPER NAMES. [ CHAP, 


well known. Thus we find the names of Homer, Hesiod, 
Pythagoras, Ajax, Jason, Cadmus, Europa, Gidipus, &e. all 
introduced without that intimation of notoriety, by which in 
after times they were generally accompanied. In this respect, 
therefore, as well as in the dialect and diction, we may observe 
some. resemblance between Homer and Herodotus.—In the 
name of deities the case is somewhat different: they are often, 
but by no means so often as was afterwards the practice, first 
mentioned with the Article prefixed: thus, B. iv. p. 178. τῇ 
᾿Αθηναίῃ . . .. τῷ Τρίτωνι... . τῷ Ποσειδέωνι. More 
frequently, however, is it omitted.—The names of places seem 
in this writer to take the Article very much in the same man- 
ner, as in succeeding ages. The same latitude appears already 
to have been authorized; and if there were any limitations, 
they are such that I am unable to detect them. τ 

From Herodotus we will pass to Demosthenes. The Oration 
against Leptines furnishes not a single instance of a Proper 
Name of a man having the Article prefixed on the first mention, 
excepting those only of Solon (vol. i. p. 484.) and Draco, p. 505, 
names familiar to an Athenian audience’. Instances in which 
the Article is used, when the name is repeated, are very com- 
mon: thus, p. 466. ‘O Λεύκων.---Ρ, 470. Ὃ "Emixéodne.— 
P. 476. Τῶι Φιλίππῳ.---Ρ, 478. TQ: Kévwn.—P. 497. Ὁ 
Avxtéac’ all of whom had first been introduced without the 
Article: and the same thing is obvious in the other Orations. 
The names of deities in Demosthenes commonly have the 
Article.—Vol. i. p. 437. Ὁ Zebe.—Ibid. ‘H Awyn—Vol. Ἡ. 
p- 949. ΤΗΣ ᾿Αθηνᾶς.---Ῥ. 1068. TH: “Hog.—P. 1818. TQe 
. Ἡρακλεῖ.---Ρ, 1969. TQ« Atoviow.—The Proper Names of 
places, those at least of great celebrity, take or reject the Ar- 


these instances have one common character; which is, that though the persons 
be in themselves obscure and had not previously been mentioned, yet it is evident. 
from the context that they might be recognized; those spoken of by Herodotus 
being represented to have been the subjects of rumour or tradition, and those men- 
tioned by Demosthenes, either of Zawswits or of accusation. They were, therefore, 
liable to recognition, which is all that the spirit of the rule requires.—With respect 
to Ὁ Μοιριάδης (vol. ii. p. 822.) I have no doubt that his name had occurred in 
the Testimony, which had just been read. 

1 At p. 457. we find τοῦ Χαβρίου, first mentioned; but I take τοῦ to be an 
ellipsis of rod παιδός" though, if it be otherwise, there will be no tet con-- 
sidering how eminent was the person in question. 


Iv. } PROPER NAMES. 85 


ticle, without any other apparent reason than the pleasure of 
the writer. National appellations, as ᾿Αθηναῖοι, Θηβαῖοι, &c. 
partake of the same uncertainty.—I need not trouble the 
reader with the particulars of my researches into other prose 
authors, the general result being the same. From all of them 
it is plain, that the Article, as applied to Proper Names, as 
well as to Appellatives, is a Pronoun of obscure reference, and 
that conjointly with its Predicate it recalls an idea, which has 
already had a place in the hearer’s mind'. Its hypothetical use 
(see above, p. 39.) is evidently, by er nature of the Sea 
cluded. 

But though the Article cannot be inserted before Bibede 
Names, unless they have been previously mentioned, or at 
least are previously known, how happens it, that before such 
names the Article is so frequently omitted? In the answer to 
this question the reader will be reminded of what was said 
above respecting the almost constant omission of the Article 
in poetry, even before Appellatives in strictness requiring its 
insertion. To say Ὁ Καλλίας, Ὃ Λύκων, when Callias and 
Lycon are now for the first time heard of, would involve both 
falsehood and absurdity; for it would amount to a declaration, 
that the hearer knows, or ought to know, whom Imean. But 
in the other case, i. 6. if Lycon or Callias being already known 
be spoken of without the Article, the same inconvenience will 
not ensue: the hearer, indeed, will-not be assisted so far as he 
might be, in perceiving that the same Lycon, or the well-known 
Lycon, ismeant; but he will conclude, with the strongest pro- 
bability, that no other is intended, since few individuals are 
called by that name, and still fewer to whom the particular 
circumstances will apply. The difference, therefore, between 
the two cases, is that of asserting what is false, and of neglect- 


1 Instances, indeed, will now and then occur, which appear to contradict the 
conclusion here laid down: but where various readings have been collected, some 
one, by which the rule is supported, will generally be found; and even where no 
such reading is preserved, unless the number of collated MSS. be very great, and 
some of them, at least, of very high authority, it is surely more reasonable to 
trust to a rule, of which the principle can be shown, and which is almost inva- 
riably observed, than implicitly to believe in the infallibility of copyists: and we 
may adopt the opinion, if not the very words, of Professor Porson, expressed on 
some other occasion, (I cannot find the passage), “ hujusmodi exempia aut 
emendata aut emendanda sunt.” 


86 PROPER NAMES. [cHAP. 


ing to assert what is true; and the omission is a venial licence, 
because it can hardly lead to error. This, notwithstanding the 
poetic practice, is more than can be affirmed of the omission 
before Appellatives. Poetry, indeed, for the reason before 
alleged, may be expected to be anarthrous; and the reader 
becomes habituated to its peculiar style: but if in prose we 
should meet with ἵππος, meaning the same horse* who had 
just before been mentioned, mistake would be almost in- 
evitable; and the reason is plain: an Appellative is a name 


common to every individual of a whole species; and conse- - 


quently, if there be nothing which identifies this horse with 
that before spoken of, it may reasonably be concluded that a 
different one is meant: but Proper Names are in their nature 
very much, though not entirely, restricted to given individuals ; 
and therefore, on the renewed mention of Callias, or Lycon, 
we shall infer the identity, even though it be not expressed.— 
On the same ground, the names of deities and places may, or 
may not, have the Article. ‘Their notoriety, even when not 
asserted, will occur to the hearer’s mind. 

And now we perceive why such phrases exist as τὸν ᾿Αλέξ- 
ανδρον kat Φίλιππον, above noticed (p. 63.) The writer pre- 
fixes the Article to the first name, for one of the two reasons 
already alleged, and omits it before the second, either because 
it is not admissible, or because though admissible, it may, not 
only by the general licence, but equally, I think, from the 
particular circumstances, fairly be neglected. In the instance 
TON ᾿Αλέξανδρον καὶ Φίλιππον, the latter name certainly ad- 
mits, and even requires, the Article as much as does the 
former: but the mention of the well-known Alexander de- 
termines Philip to be no other than Alexander’s father.— 
Again we have in Herodotus, B. iv. p. 147. ΤΗΣ "πιός τε καὶ 
"Apywoc. The females had recently been mentioned together : 
"Aoyoc, therefore, though admitting the Article as much as 
"Qrrioc, will be understood as having it.—In Demosth. vol. ii, 
p- 1048. we meet with TOY Αἰαντίδου καὶ Θεοτελοῦς" the latter 
had not been mentioned, and therefore here no licence is used. 
—Vol. i. p. 476. THN Πύδναν καὶ Ποτίδαιαν" cities which are 


' It must at the same time be observed, that a case so strong as that here 
supposed, is rarely found, even in poetry, 


oo ae 


ἫΝ οὶ ὍΝ δ. 


ab: PROPER NAMES. 87 


generally spoken of together, from their having shared, about 
the same period, the same fate. 

_ Further, as the Article cannot in ordinary cases be placed 
before Proper Names ad libitum, so, ἃ fortiori, it is not in- 
serted where particular rules, arising out of its nature, require 
its omission. . Of these rules, as will be evident on turning to 
them, two only are applicable to the present question: I mean, 
that respecting Verbs Substantive and Nuncupative, and that 
which relates to propositions asserting or denying existence. 
So in Herod. B. iv. p. 142. σφι οὐνόματα θέσθαι, τῷ μὲν ᾿ΑΓΑ- 
ΘΥΡΣΟΝ αὐτέων, τῷ δ᾽ ἐπομένῳ TEAQNON.—P. 165. οὐνό- 
ματα κέεται rad? ΛΎΚΟΣ, ὌὍΑΡΟΣ, ΤΑΝΑ͂ΙΣ, ΣΥΡΓῚΣ-.----Ρ. 
144. τὸ καλέεται KPHMNOI.—Demosth. vol. i. p. 666. OEP- 
ΣΑΓΟΡΑΣ ὄνομα αὐτῶν θατέρῳ, τῷ δ᾽ “EZHKESTOS.—That 
the Article cannot be inserted before Proper Names in Pro- 
positions affirming or denying eaistence, may, I think, be col- 
lected from some passages in the Clouds of Aristophanes. In 
ν. 365. (edit. Hermann, 1799), Strepsiades says, 


Ὁ ΖΕΥΣ δ᾽ ἡμῖν, φέρε, πρὸς τῆς γῆς, ἱοὐλύμπιος οὐ θεός 
ἐστιν; 


To which Socrates replies, | 
Ποῖος Ζεύς; οὐ μὴ ληρήσεις OYA’ ἜΣΤΙ ΖΕΥΣ. 


And afterwards, when Strepsiades has become a thorough con- 
vert to the same doctrine, he also adopts the same form of 
expression: vy. 824, OYK ἜΣΤΙΝ, ὦ Φειδιππίδη, ΖΕΥ͂Σ. I 
say, however, when he is entirely converted; for in v. 379. 
while he is yet wavering in his faith, he says, τουτὶ μ᾽ ἐλελήθη 
“O ΖΕΥΣ οὐκ dv** which may appear to be an objection to 
the rule, but is not so, when considered as coming from a half 
convert: there is, indeed, a contradiction.in the terms, but 
then a contradiction is intended; as if we should say in En- 
glish, “ that Jupiter is not Jupiter, is more than I sus- 
pected.” He who should so express himself, would evidently 
betray that his mind fluctuated between the two opinions *. 


1 Hermann reads this sentence interrogatively: I follow Brunck. 

2 There is another passage which may require vindication: v. 815. we have rij¢ 
μωρίας! TON AIA νομίζειν, spoken by Strepsiades. LErnesti felt some doubt 
respecting TON in this place, and Hermann has substituted τό, contending that 


88 PROPER NAMES. CoHap. 


On the whole, the irregularity observable with respect to 
Proper Names does not in the least affect the general doctrine 
of the Article ; and it was partly with a view to this conclusion, 
that I have entered so fully into the subject. 


the Greeks said νομίζειν, ἡγεῖσθαι OEOYE, never TOYS Θεούς" the former is, 
unquestionably, the prevailing usage, but the latter form sometimes occurs, as 
Hermann (ad Eurip. Hee. 781.) has since admitted. The reason of this yari- 
ation, however, seems to be somewhat different from that which he adduces, The 
original expression is evidently νομίζειν Θεοὺς EIN AI, where the Article would 
be superfluous, So Herod. B. iv. p. 159, ἄλλον θεὸν νομίζοντες EINAI but 
in after times the origin of the phrase was gradually disregarded, and εἶναι no 
longer being expressed, νομίζειν Θεούς, came to be used in a looser signification, 
meaning, not so much to believe in the existence of gods, as to reverence the gods, 
supposing them to exist; and in this sense of the phrase the Article was not 
improperly admitted. The passage which Hermann quotes in illustration, Soph. 
Antig. 190. 


Tove φίλους ποιούμεθα, 


is not entirely apposite, though it has an apparent difficulty, which deserves to be 
noticed: for if τοὺς φίλους mean friends, whose existence is assumed, how can 
we be said, ποιεῖσθαι, to make them? The meaning is, “ the friends whom we 
make, we make in the manner specified.’”’ So Homer, Il. Δ, 399. (which Heyne, 
after objecting to the Article, thinks similar to 1]. A. 11.) 


ἀλλὰ TON υἱὸν 
Γείνατο sio χέρεια μάχῃ, 


the son whom Tydeus begat, he begat inferior to himself, &c.—Aristoph. Av. 820. 
καλὸν σύ γ᾽ ἀτεχνῶς Kai μέγ᾽ εὗρες TOYNOMA’ the name which you haye 
invented, you have invented (or is) fine and sounding. See also Acharn. 1095. 
THN Γοργόνα. Inlike manner, Plat. Gorg. vol. iv. p. 87. εἰ χρυσῆν ἔχων ἐτύγ- 
xavoy THN ψυχήν, &c. Similar instances abound. 


ν.]} ABSTRACT NOUNS. 89 


CHAPTER V. 


-. ABSTRACT NOUNS. 


SECTION I. 
INSERTIONS. 


I come now to the consideration of the use of the Article be- 
fore Abstract Nouns, or the Names of Attributes and Qualities ; 
a subject of greater difficulty than any other which belongs to 
this Preliminary Inquiry. On its first appearance, indeed, it 
presents a degree of perplexity, which seems to defy arrange- 
ment: but on a nearer view we shall discover, that certain 
laws are for the most part observed, though some licence be 
allowed; and that those laws are explicable from the nature 
of the Article, as it has already been illustrated. 

It is to be premised, that Nouns of this class are capable of 
being employed in two different ways: though they always 
express abstract ideas, they may be used either in a more or in 
a less abstract sense. ᾿Αδικία, for example, will signify in- 
justice generally, whatever be its kind or degree: but it will 
also express every particular act of injustice, by the contem- 
plation of which we form the more abstract idea: and in this 
latter use these Nouns in Greek admit the Plural Number, or, 
which is equivalent, they are in the Singular capable of being 
joined with words indicating their possible plurality. Thus in 
sAristot. de Mor. Nic. lib. v. c. 10. we have ἝΚΑ ΣΤΗΝ ἀδι- 
xlav’ and plurally in the same work, lib. vi. c. 7. πολλαὶ ἔσον- 
ται SOPIAI. Demosth. vol. i. p. 1099. KOAAKEITAIS. 
Ibid. p. 1452. "“ANAPIAI καὶ OPALTYTHTES, &c. Ibid. p. 
875. “AAHOEIAIS. It is true that instances of this kind do 


» 
i 


90 ABSTRACT NOUNS. [cuap. 


not very frequently occur: but their occurrence, however rare, 
sufficiently proves, that the Names of Attributes and Qualhties 
may be of particular, as well as of general application; and 
consequently that an expedient, by which they may be known 
to be employed in their most general meaning, is not without 
its use. This, if I mistake not, is the force of the Article in 
very many passages, in which a superficial observer might re- 
gard it as being merely an expletive: and we shall further 
perceive, that where the sense of these Nouns is meant to be 
limited, the Article is invariably omitted. This remark may 
be of use to the reader, before we proceed to deduce rules from 
the practice of the best writers. 

It will be expected that we begin, as in former instances, 
with Homer: but the assistance to be derived from this quarter 
is here of little or no value. It is a remarkable fact, that Homer 
rarely makes use of abstract terms, and still more rarely, if 
ever, does he employ them in their most abstract and general 
sense. Some persons, perhaps, who have read the Iliad, will be 
surprised to learn, that ὀργή, αἰσχύνη, φύσις, ἐλευθερία, παιδεία, 
εὐδαιμονία, δικαιοσύνη, ὑγίεια, ἐπιστήμη, and many others of the 
same kind, are words, which do not once occur in the whole 
Poem’. Σιγῇ, σιωπῇ, τύχῃ, δίκῃ, τέχνῃ, &c. are found only 
in the Dative, indicating merely the manner in which some act 
is performed: this may be denominated the adverbial use of 
Abstract Nouns, and in this use of them, they are always, as 
we shall afterwards have occasion to remark, anarthrous. In 
the passage, Z. 999, (which, indeed, is elsewhere repeated, and 
was probably a proverbial saying at the time) νίκη δ᾽ ἐπαμεί- 
βεται ἄνδρας, I think we may consider νίκη as a personifica- 
tion: but whether we so understand it, or choose to regard it 
as used in the most abstract sense, it is without the Article, 
and so are these Nouns elsewhere in Homer, whatever be the 
manner in which they are employed’. 


1 I have observed that Nouns of this description are more common in the 
Odyssey than in the Iliad. 

? We find, indeed, in the Odyssey, B. 206. Etvera τῆς ἀρετῆς ἐριδαίνομεν, 
which Damm, the excellent Lexicographer, renders by “ propter talem prestan- 
_ tiam,” explaining τῆς by ταύτης or τοίης. Yet Apollonius, p. 112. classes this 
example with ὡς ἡ ῥίμφα θέουσα" his interpretation, therefore, supposes τῆς to 


ν. INSERTIONS. 91 


Since, then, the Article is often found in later writers pre- 
fixed to the Names of Attributes, it is in these writers only 
that we can investigate the rules of its insertion; and these 
rules are reducible to four: the Article is inserted, 

1. When the Noun is used in its most abstract sense. 

2. When the Attribute, &c. is personified. 

3. When the Article is employed in the sense of a Pos- 
sessive Pronoun. 

4, When there is reference either retrospective or antici- 
pative. 


§ 1. Of the first rule the following may serve as 


EXAMPLES. 


Plat. vol. iv. p. 68. “H ἀδικία καὶ Ἢ ἀκολασία μέγιστον τῶν 
ὄντων κακόν ἐστι. 

Thid. p. 70. ἰατρικὴ γίγνεται πονηρίας Ἢ δίκη. 

Aristot. de Mor. Nic. lib. i. ο. 19, ἔστιν Ἣ εὐδαιμονία 
ψυχῆς ἐνέργειά τις. 

Ibid. lib. v. c. 10. ἀλλότριον εἶναί φασιν ἀγαθὸν ΤῊΝ 
δικαιοσύνην. 

Ibid. lib. vi. ς. 6. ἐπεὶ δ᾽ Η ἐπιστήμη περὶ τῶν καθόλου ἐστὶν 
ὑπόληψις, kK. τ. λ. : 

Thid. lib. vi. c. 10. ἔστι δὲ εὐστοχία τις Η ἀγχίνοια. 

Demosth. vol. i. p. 796. Ἢ νεότης ΤΩι γήρᾳ, kT. λ. 

Ibid. p 777. Ἢ εὐταξία τῶν αἰσχρῶν περίεστι, k. T: A. 

It will immediately be seen, that there is a close analogy 
between this use of the Article when prefixed to abstract — 
Nouns, and the hypothetical use of it already mentioned in 
the case of Appellatives. In the same manner as OI ἄδικοι 
will signify all who are unjust, so Ἢ ἀδικία will mean every 
act, of which injustice can be assumed. We may also remark, 
that in Appellatives both the uses of the Article are of frequent 
occurrence; whilst in Proper Names it is almost exclusively 
employed to recall some former idea, and in abstract Nouns, it 


be, not in concord with ἀρετῆς, but dependent on it: and this is conformable 
with the context. On τῆς ἀρετῆς in the Iliad, A. 762. Bentley has conjectured 
ἧς with the Digamma. 


99 ABSTRACT NOUNS. [cuap. 


is, on the contrary, chiefly, though not entirely, subservient to 
Hypothesis. 


§ 2. The Article, however, is frequently used before these 
Nouns, where they are personified. 


EXAMPLES. 


Aristoph. Av. 1536. 


Καὶ THN Βασιλείαν σοι γυναΐκ᾽ ἔχειν διδῷ. 
Tle ἐστιν Ἣ Βασιλεία; 


Rane 95. ἅπαξ προσουρήσαντα TH: Τραγῳδίᾳ. 

Xenoph. Mem. lib. ii. ¢. 1. ΝΗ Κακία ὑπολαβοῦσα εἶπεν. 

Ibid. ibid. καὶ “H ᾿Αρετὴ εἶπεν. 

Demosth. vol. i. p. 788, οἱ τὰ ἀκρωτήρια ΤῊΣ Νίκης περι- 
κόψαντες ἀπώλοντο. 

Plat. vol. iv. p. 77. ἀλλὰ ΤῊΝ bilecdélaw, τὰ ἐμὰ παιδικά, 
παῦσον ταῦτα λέγουσαν. 

The reason of this practice seems to be founded in the 
notoriety (see above on Proper Names) of these imaginary 
persons; and it may further be explained from .the perfect 
abstractedness, with which Attributes must be regarded, before 
they admit personification. The mind cannot form the idea of 
Ἢ ᾿Αρετή, @ person, till it has learnt to comprise under one 
general notion all the various acts, which can be denominated 
virtuous. At the same time it must be confessed, that the 
usage here is not constant: but in this irregularity there is 
nothing, which the nature of the case might not lead us to ex- 
pect. As in Proper Names neither notoriety nor even recent 
mention absolutely enforces the insertion of the Article, so in 
abstract Nouns personified, which are analogous to Proper 
Names, the Article is sometimes omitted. ‘Thus in Plat. vol. 
iv. p. 76. we read ᾿Αλκιβιάδου τε τοῦ Κλεινίου καὶ PIAOZO- 
PIA. Here Alcibiades and Philosophy must be regarded as 
two persons: Φιλοσοφίας does not need the Article more 
than ᾿Αλκιβιάδου : accordingly, before both it is omitted. It 
will, however, be remembered, that there is a wide difference 
between omitting the Article, where it might have been in- 
serted, and inserting it, where it would have no meaning: this 


ν.] INSERTIONS. 93 


distinction is of primary importance, and it is therefore here 
repeated. 


§ 3. A third case, in which the names of Attributes take the 
Article, is when that Article has the meaning of a Homenniye 
Pronoun. 


EXAMPLES. 


Aristoph. Ran. 45. ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ οἷός τ᾽ εἴμ᾽ ἀποσοβῆσαι TON 
γέλων, my laughter. | 

Ibid. Equit. 837. ζηλῶ oe ΤῊΣ εὐγλωττίας, your, ὅτε. 

Demosth. vol. i. p. 74. THN ὀργὴν ἀφιέντας, their, &e. 


§ 4. Lastly, these Nouns take the Article where they have 
reference of any kind. 


EXAMPLES. 


Demosth. vol. i. p. 17. Ἢ τῶν πραγμάτων αἰσχύνη. } 

Plat. vol. iv. p. 31. ἐὰν μὴ προειδῇ περὶ τούτων ΤῊΝ ἀλή- 
θειαν. 

Ibid. p. 34. THN μακρολογίαν, ἡ SNERE a ἐπεχείρησας 
χρῆσθαι. 

It will hardly be necessary to remind the reader, that in the 
two last cases these Nouns follow the:common rules for Appel- 
latives. 


1 The whole passage in Reiske’s Oratores Greci. stands thus: καὶ πρόσεσϑ᾽ ἡ 
ὕβρις, Kai ἔτι ἡ THY πραγμάτων αἰσχύνη" but these are various readings: “ ἡ 
primum abest a Parisinis primo et octavo; item ab Harley: et Aug. primi supple- 
mento; posterioris ἡ loco dant Ald. et Taylor, γε: See Reiske’s Note. Now 
unless πραγμάτων depend on ὕβρις as well as on αἰσχύνη, which does not appear 
to be the case, the second Article is absolutely necessary: Reiske, indeed, as is 
evident from the comma placed after ὕβρις, supposes it to have no connection with 
πραγμάτων, but then he has done wrong in writing ‘H ὕβρες, which is altogether 
without meaning. The Article, in such cases, cannot be inserted, and the MSS, 
which reject it, are right. Somewhat similar to πρόσεσϑ᾽ ὕβρις is Plat. vol. i. 
p. 45. χάριν πρὸσειδέναι" where THN yx. 7. would be unexampled. It has 
already been observed, that the MSS. frequently vary with respect to the inser- 
tion or omission of the Article before Proper Names, and still more before abstract 
Nouns. The MSS. of Demosthenes abundantly confirm this remark; and his 
editor, in several instances, has adopted a wrong reading with respect to the 
Article, where MSS. supply the right one. 


94. ABSTRACT NOUNS. [ CHAP. 


SECTION II. 


OMISSIONS. 


Thus much for the /nsertion of the Article before Abstract 
Nouns: respecting the Omission little will be said, because for 
the most part, it is observable only in cases which have already 
been considered and explained. 


§ 1. Thus, where Abstract Nouns are the Predicates of 
Propositions not intended to be reciprocating, the Article is 
omitted. Arist. Mor. Nic. lib. vi. c. 5. οὐκ ἂν εἴη ἡ φρόνησις 
ἘΠΙΣΤΉΜΗ οὐδὲ ΤΈΧΝΗ. In Propositions which merely 
assert or deny existence: Arist. Mor. Nic. lib. v. c. 10. ἐν οἷς 
τὸ ἀδικεῖν, ov πᾶσιν AAIKIA. Ibid. lib. vii. ο. 1. τρία ἐστὶν 
εἴδη, KAKIA, “AKPASIA, ΘΗΡΙΟΤΗΣ᾽ which will explain 
many cases of Nouns in Apposition. Demosth. vol. i. p. 97. 
ἔστω IIAPPHSIA. Arist. de Mor. ad Nic. lib. vii. ο. 8. δεινὸν 
yao, ἘΠΙΣΤΉΜΗΣ évotdone.—After Verbs Nuncupative, where 
the Noun in question is the Name by which any thing is said 
to be called: Plat. iv. p. 37. καλώ δὲ τὸ κεφάλαιον KOAA- 
KEIAN. In Exclusive Propositions: Demosth. vol. 1. p. 529. 
οὐδὲν ‘YBPEQ® ἀφορητότερον, 1. 6. than any kind of insult. 
Had the Article been used in this place, the meaning would 
have been, that nothing is more intolerable than a// insult. 
See above on Appellatives—And in general, as was before 
intimated, these Nouns are without the Article whenever they 


are used in a limited sense, that is to say, in any manner in» 


which they cannot be taken in the most abstract acceptation. 
This will easily account for the anarthrous use after Verbs of 
having, obtaining, fulness, &c. and the Adjectives allied to the 
last: for it would be absurd to affirm that any one has, obtains, 
is full of, &c. any attribute or quality so exclusively, that the 
attribute cannot be ascribed to any other: and in this respect 
attributes differ from things which may in their nature belong 
solely to certain individuals. Hence we read 

Plat. vol. iv. p. 70. 6 μὴ ἔχων KAKIAN., 

Ibid. 6 ἔχων᾽ ᾿ΑΔΙΚΙΑΝ. 

Ibid. p. 57. ao’ ἂν τυγχάνῃ ΔΙΚΗΣ τε καὶ ΤΙΜΩΡΙΑΣ; 


γα να ον!’ ee 


τρις τω 


ee δον 


ν.] OMISSIONS. 95 


Demosth. vol. i. p. 142. ταῦτ᾽ ᾿ΑΠΙΣΤΙΑΝ, ταῦτ᾽ ὈΡΓῊΝ 
EXEL. 

Ibid. vol. ii. p. 1232. av δὲ ληφθώσι, ΣΥΓΓΝΩΜΗΣ τυ- 
χεῖν. 

.Plut. Conviv. p. 98. ἀνεπλήσθη τὸ πρόσωπον ἘΡΥΘΗΜΑ- 
ΤΟΣ. 

Demosth. vol. i. p. 151. KOAAKEIA® καὶ BAABH2 καὶ 
ἌΠΑΤΗΣ λόγος μεστός. 

The same usage prevails where the Nouns are names of sub- 
stances. 

Verbs of partaking do also, for the most part, though not 

invariably, follow the same rule: the reason of the uncertainty 
seems to be, that usually they are employed merely in the 
sense of having, though if they were used strictly in the sense 
of having or dividing with others, the Abstract Nouns sub- 
joined to them might take the Article; for though attributes 
and qualities are wholes which no single individual can claim 
to the exclusion of every other, yet of these wholes he may be 
a partaker, and in truth is so of every attribute which can be 
ascribed to him even in the smallest degree: however, it was 
to be expected, for the reason alleged, that the anarthrous use 
would be by far the more common, 
- On the same principle it is, that in the common phrases, 
ἄνοιαν, αἰσχύνην, ἅτ. ὀφλισκάνειν, δίκην διδόναι, ἡσυχίαν 
ἄγειν, and many more, the Article is mvariably omitted*. Since 
in many of these phrases two words are employed to convey 
the meaning of one, and in all of them a single Verb may be 
imagined, which would express the meaning, I shall consider 
this as a Hendiadys, and shall hereafter refer to what is here 
said of all such phrases under that appellation. 

§ 2. In the same manner we may account for the anarthrous 
use of Abstract Nouns, when they are employed in the Dative © 
Case adverbially. In this sense they are of very common 
occurrence, and are sometimes so joined with real Adverbs, 
that their import cannot be mistaken: thus in the first and 
fourth of the following 


1 Yet we find THN εἰρήνην, THN σύμβασιν, TAS ἀνοχὰς ποιεῖσθαι. In 
such phrases, however, there is, probably, a reference to the war, the termination 
or suspension of which is in question. 


90 ABSTRACT NOUNS. [cHap. 


EXAMPLES. 


Eurip. Orest. p. 191. ATK A: μέν, guhibe δ᾽ οὔ. 

Arist. de Mor. Nie. lib. vi. c. 8. ὝΠΟΛΗΨΕΙ καὶ ΔΟΙΞΗ͂ι 
ἐνδέχεται διαψεύδεσθαι. 

Demosth, vol. i. p. 41, ®YSEI δ' br eens τοῖς παροῦσι τὰ 
τῶν ἀπόντων. 

Thucyd, lib. v. ὃ 70. ἐντόνως καὶ ὈΡΓῊ. χωροῦντες. 

Plato, vol. iv. p. 89. οὔτε ΣΟΦΙΑΣ ἜΝΔΕΙΤΙΑΙ οὔτ᾽ πῶς 
NH> ΠΕΡΙΟΥΣΊΙΑΙι, 


In these Examples, it is to be observed, that the manner in 
which any thing is said to happen or be done, is not spoken of 
with reference to any particular subject to which such manner 
is more especially attributable. But the case may be other- 
wise: the manner may be adverted to as being the attribute 
more especially of the subject in question: and then the Article 


will be prefixed, and will, as in the instances already men- - 


tioned, have the force of a Possessive Pronoun. 


EXAMPLES. 


Arist. Rhet. lib. ii. cap. 15. ζῶσι THe μνήμῃ μᾶλλον ἢ THe 
ἐλπίδι. 

Thucyd. lib. v. § 72. THe ἐμπειρίᾳ Λακεδαιμόνιοι ἰλασσω- 
θέντες τότε, THe ἀνδρείᾳ ἔδειξαν οὐχ ἧσσον περιγενόμενοι. 


On the whole, it appears that Abstract Nouns, for the most 
part, refuse the Article, never taking it, excepting in the four 
cases before exemplified. The only caution requisite respects 
the more or less abstract sense in which these Nouns may be. 
used. Many instances will occur in which they are anarthrous, 
where, had they been used in the more abstract sense, the pro- 
position would still have been true. Such passages are not to 


~ 


1 In this passage, it may be supposed that both ἐμπειρίᾳ and dvdpeig should, 
according to what has been advanced above, be anarthrous. Baver, however, in 
his excellent edition of Thucydides, Lips. 1790, has shown, that τῇ ἐμπειρίᾳ must 

be rendered per artem HostiuM: and by ry ἀνδρείᾳ we must plainly understand 

“‘ by the bravery of the Spartans.” The Articles, therefore, are necessary, the 
Nouns not being employed in the adverbial sense, but with reference to particular 
subjects. 


ha ah einen Nps (Δι 


ee a a ee 


an ἢ 


v.] OMISSIONS. 97 


be subjected to the rashness of conjectural emendation. It 
was sufficient for the writer, if his assertion were likely to gain 
assent in its limited form; and it was better to affirm in part, 
without the danger of contradiction, even where the proposi- 
tion might have been couched in the most general and un- 
limited terms, than to risk an extreme latitude of assertion 
where it was not needed. ‘This remark may contribute to 
account for the frequent absence of the Article where, un- 
questionably, it might have been employed by the first of the 
four canons. 


98 ANOMALIES. [emar. 


CHAPTER VI. 


ANOMALIES. 


Ir has thus far been my endeavour to investigate the nature of 
the Article, and to show that its principal insertions and omis- 
sions before the several classes of Nouns are explicable on the 
proposed hypothesis. It was not, however, to be expected, in 
a case of this sort, that we should meet with no anomalies ; 
and it will not be deemed injurious to that hypothesis, if cer- 
tain usages occasionally prevail, of which it pretends not to 
assign the cause. It is sufficient, if they furnish no evidence 
of its futility : and it is to be observed, that they are omissions 
of the Article where it might have been inserted, not inser- 
tions irreconcileable with its alleged nature. 


§ 1. It has been shown that the Article is commonly pre- 


fixed to Nouns, which are employed κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, and in some 
similar cases noticed above: but I am not aware that any 
philologist * has remarked how frequently such Nouns become 
anarthrous after Prepositions. 


EXAMPLES. 


Plat. Thezet. sub init. κατὰ ΠΟΛΙΝ, the city (Athens). 
Ibid. κατ᾽ "ATOPAN, the Forum. 


1 Locella (ad Xen. Eph. p. 223. 242.) observes, that in the case of names of 
countries and towns, the Article is more frequently omitted than inserted after a 
Preposition; and Winer says that this applies to the New Testament. But 
Winer, when he occasionally alludes to the omission of the Article after the Pre- 
position, has no idea of the extent of this irregularity. We find him not only 
mentioning Matt. v. 10. and Acts x. 35. as similar instances of an abstract Noun 
used without an Article, though the one is after a Preposition, and the other not ; 

_ but in a long list of such words, and of another class, like ἥλιος, γῆ, οὐρανός, &c. 
we find exactly the same want of discrimination of cases. (Pt. ii. pp. 35—38.) 
—H. J. R. 


= νὰν οὐ ΝΝ 


Oe δὰ “ὦ δν.«ἀνὰ 


νι. ANOMALIES. 99 


Ibid. cic AIMENA, the Pireeus, . 

Ibid. μέχρι 7EPINEOY Θεαίτητον προὔπεμψα, to the well- 
known wild fig-tree. 

Aristot. Hist. An. lib. vi. c. 15. ἃ ἐξηραίνετο ὑπὸ KYNA, 
the dog-star. 

Aristot. Anal. Post. lib. ii. c. 2. στέρησις φωτὸς ἀπὸ ΣΕ- 
AHNH3S. 

Xen. Cyrop. lib. vii. p. 106. πλησίον ΘΑΛΑΣΣΗΣ. 

Thucyd. lib. v. § 75. τοὺς ἔξω ἸΣΘΜΟΥ͂ ξυμμάχους ἀπέτρι- 
wav. 

Herod. lib. ix. p. 327. πρὸς ἭΛΙΟΥ δύνοντος. 

Dion. Hal. vol. iv. p. 2003. ἐντὸς TEIXOYS. 

Hence it is evident, that the absence of the Article in such 
instances affords no presumption, that the Nouns are used in- 
definitely. Their definiteness or indefiniteness, when they 
are governed by Prepositions, must be determined on other 
grounds. 


§ 2. Another irregularity may be observed, where several 
Nouns are coupled together by Conjunctions, or where (which 
is equivalent) the Conjunctions are omitted by the figure 
Asyndeton. 'Though the Nouns would, if they stood singly, 
require the Article, yet when thus brought together, they very 
frequently reject it. This anomaly I shall hereafter speak of 
by the name of Enumeration; since it is only in the detail of 
particulars, that it seems to take place. 


EXAMPLES. 


isch. c. Ctes. ὃ 38. καὶ ΧΕΙΡῚ καὶ TIOAI καὶ PQNHE καὶ 
πᾶσιν οἷς δύναμαι. — 

Ibid. § 43. καὶ γὰρ NAYTIKH καὶ ΠΕΖΗ STPATEIA καὶ 
ΠΟΛΕῚΣ ἄρδην εἰσὶν ἀνηρπασμέναι. 

Demosth. de Cor. ὃ 34. τῆς δὲ ἀναγορεύσεως ἐπιμεληθῆναι 
ΘΕΣΜΌΘΕΤΑΣ, ΠΡΥΤΑΝΕΙ͂Σ,  ᾿ΑΓΩΝΟΘΕΤΑΣ. 

Arist. Eth. Eudem. lib. i. ο. 2. θέσθαι τινὰ σκόπον τοῦ καλῶς 
ζῇν, ἤτοι ΤΙΜΗΝ, ἢ AOZAN, ἢ ΠΛΟΥΤΟΝ, ἢ ΠΑΙΔΕΙΑΝ. 

Plat. vol. iv. p. 46. οὐκοῦν λέγεις εἶναι ἀγαθὸν μέν, ΣΟΦΙΑΝ 
τε καὶ ὙΓΙΕΙΑΝ καὶ ΠΛΟΥ͂ΤΟΝ καὶ τἄλλα. 

But the most striking instance, which I remember to have 
met with, is in the Cratylus of Plato, vol. iii. p. 281. et seqq. 

H2 


100 ANOMALIES. [cHap. 


περὶ δὲ τῶν τοιῶνδε τί σε κωλύει διελθεῖν, οἷον HAIOY τε καὶ 


ΣΕΛΗΝΗΣ καὶ ΑΣΤΡΩΝ καὶ ΓῊΣ καὶ AIGEPOS καὶ. 


"AEPO®S καὶ ΠΥ͂ΡΟΣ καὶ ὝΔΑΤΟΣ καὶ ὭΡΩΝ καὶ ἜΝΙΑΥ- 
TOY; where it is observable, that each of these, when spoken 
of separately in the course of the discussion, is found with the 
Article; as in the answer given by Socrates, Τί δὲ οὖν βούλει 
πρῶτον; ἤ, ὥσπερ εἶπες, TON ἥλιον διέλθωμεν ; and so of the 
rest. 

Nor is it merely, where three or more Nouns are so con- 
nected, that this usage prevails: where there are only two, it 
is not uncommon. 

Demosth. de Cor. ὃ 34. γνώμῃ BOYAHS καὶ ΔΉΜΟΥ. 

Xen. Hiero. p. 533. οὕτως καὶ ΝΎΚΤΑ καὶ ‘HMEPAN 
διάγει. 

Plato, vol. ii. Ῥ. 143. "ANO@PQTIOIS τε καὶ ΘΗΡΊΟΙΣ. 

Thucyd. lib. i. § 108, ἐξῆλθον δὲ αὐτοί, καὶ ΠΑΙΔῈΣ καὶ 
ΓΥΝΑΙΚΕΣ. 


§ 3. It might be supposed, that Ordinals would uniformly 
be preceded by the Article, inasmuch as the Nouns, with 
which they are joined, do, from this very circumstance, become 
Monadic. In aseries of things of the same class only one can 
be first, one second, &c. Ordinals, however, for the most part, 
whether the Nouns, with which they agree, be expressed or 
understood, are anarthrous ’*. 


EXAMPLES. 


Thucyd. lib. v. ὃ 19. ᾿Αρτεμισίου μηνὸς TETAPTH: φθίνον- 
Toc. 

Ibid. ὃ 39. καὶ “ENAEKATON ἔτος τῷ πολέμῳ ἐτελεύτα. 

Demosth. de Cor. § 17, ᾿Ελαφηβολιῶνος ἝΚΤΗΙ ἱσταμέ- 


VOU. 


Aisch. c. Ctes. ὃ 29. ἝΒΔΟΜΗΝ δ᾽ ἡμέραν τῆς θυγατρὸς 


αὐτῷ τετελευτηκυίας. 


7 


1 It is not meant, that this practice, any more than the preceding, is without 
exception: Ordinals not unfrequently take the Article. The reason of the irre- 
gularity seems to be, that while their natural definiteness gives them a right to 
the Article, it at the same time renders the Article unnecessary. ; 


EEE EEE 


Sa es 


vt] ANOMALIES. 101 


Plut. de Is. et Osir. p. 262. ΠΡΩΤΟΥ δὲ μηνὸς ἜΝΝΑΤΗΙ. 
Thueyd. lib. vii. § 2. μιᾷ νηὶ TEAEYTAIO® ὁρμηθείς. 


§ 4. Superlatives have so close an affinity to the Ordinals 
signifying first and last, that they also sometimes reject the 
Article. ve 


EXAMPLES. 
Dion. Hal. vol. i. p. 5. τις αὐτῶν ἀρχήν τε ΜΕΓΊΣΤΗΝ 
ἐκτήσατο. ; 
Xen. Hell. lib. ii. p. 278. τῶν πάντων ΑἸΣΧΙΣΤΟΝ τε καὶ 


> , ’ 
χαλεπώτατον καὶ ἀνοσιώτατον πόλεμον. 


109 THE USE OF THE ARTICLE [ CHAP. 


CHAPTER VII. 


THE USE OF THE ARTICLE WITH CERTAIN WORDS. 


Ir may be right to notice the construction of the Article with 
ΠΑ͂Σ, ὍΛΟΣ, OYTO, &c. At the same time it should be 
remarked, that the usages, to which I here allude, cannot be 
considered as anomalous, because in given circumstances they 
are found to be invariable, and because they admit explana- 
tion. 


ITA. 


§ 1. When πᾶς or ἅπας in the Singular Number is used to 
signify that the whole of the thing implied by the Substantive, 
with which it is joined, is intended, the Substantive has the 
Article; but when it is employed to denote that every indivi- 
dual of that species is spoken of, then the Substantive is 
anarthrous ’. 

Of the former use we may instance, 

Aésch. c. Timarch. vol. iii. p. 84. εἰς πᾶσαν THN πόλιν. 

Herod. lib. ix. p. 828. ‘H ἵππος ἅπασα. 

Xen. Hell. lib. iii. p. 292. ἅπαν TO στράτευμα. 

Thucyd. lib. ii. ὃ 57. THN γῆν πᾶσαν ἔτεμον. 

Demosth. de Cor. ὃ 59. πάντα TON aiwva διετετέλεκε, his 
whole life. 

Isocr. Pan. ὃ 48. ὑπὲρ παντὸς TOY πολέμου. 

Sometimes, indeed, we find the Article prefixed to πᾶς, and 
not to the Substantive; thus, 

Herod. lib. ix. p. 336. τῷ ἅπαντι στρατοπέδῳ νικᾷν. 

Thid. ibid. p. 340. 6 πᾶς ὅμιλος. 

Demosth. c. Timoe. vol. i. p. 763. ἡ πᾶσα ἐξουσίαι For the 
anarthrous usage we may adduce 


1 That these are the two meanings of πᾶς, is plain from Hesychius, though he 
says nothing about the Article: πᾶς" ὅλος, ἕκαστος. 


a τ ασι 


mm: 
οι. 


vit. ] WITH CERTAIN WORDS. 103 


Xen. de Rep. Ath. p. 403. ἔστιν ἐν πάσῃ γῇ τὸ βέλτιστον 
ἐναντίον τῇ δημοκρατίᾳ. 

Xen. Cyrop. lib. vii. p. 108, εἰς πάντα εἰνδάνον ἦλθον. 
Anab. lib. iii. p..178. διὰ παντὸς πολέμου αὐτοῖς ἰέναι. 

Plut. Conviv. p. 94. πάσης τέχνης καὶ δυνάμεως ἀνθρωπίνης. 

Demosth. c. Timoc. vol. i. p. 721. δοκεῖ πᾶν ἂν ἑτοίμως 
ἔργον ποιῆσαι. 

Plat. Lach. vol. v. p. 198, οὐκ ἂν πᾶσα be γνοίη. 

The reason why in the one case the Article is used, whilst 
in the other it is omitted, is obvious: when we speak of the 
whole of any thing, that thing must be assumed to be known; 
but in the other sense of πᾶς no particular individual can by 
the nature of the case be meant. 

To settle the usage with respect to πᾶς in the Plural is not 
so easy: for though it may seem that where the Substantive is 
without reference, the Article should be omitted, yet since 
Plurals, where they are not limited in number or extent, re- 
present whole classes of things, it will often happen, where 
there is no reference, that the Article will be used hypotheti- 
cally. In such cases, indeed, it would always be inserted, were 
it not that πάντες, πᾶσαι, &c. do of themselves, when joined 
with a Substantive, indicate that the whole class is meant. 


§ 2. Hence, where there is not reference, the usage ἰδ. 
variable: where there is reference, the Article is, of course, 
inserted ’*. 


1 In the New Testament, Gersdorf and Winer observe that the Article is al- 
ways used; that the exceptions, at least, are very few, and almost all doubtful on 
critical grounds. The only ones which appear sufficiently established are, Luke 
xiii. 4. Acts xvii. 21; xix. 17; xxii. 15. Rom. v. 12. 18. 1 Thess, ii. 15. 
1 Tim. ii. 4. Tit. iii. 2.—The reader will observe, that in all these cases, except 
Acts xvii. 21. and xix. 17., the word without the Article is avO@pwrot. Bishop 
Middletons watchful eye had already observed the irregularity of a similar kind, 
with this word, in the case of Partitives. See above, Chap. II. Sect. i. 8. 

The additional instances which I have observed relate also, almost all, to the 
same word. See Acts iii. 21. Rom. xii. 18. 1 Cor. vii. 7; x. 1. (πατέρες); 
xv. 19. 2 Cor. iii. 2. 1 Thess. ν. 26. (ἀδελφοί). 1 Tim, iv. 10. Tit. ii. 11. 
Heb. i. 6. (ἄγγελοι). 1 Pet. ii. 1. (καταλαλιάς). All these instances, except 
where I have cited the words, apply to ἄνθρωποι; and I may observe, that 1 Tim. 
iv. 10. and 1 Pet. ii. 10. are doubtful cases, some MSS. omitting ἀνθρώπων in 
the first, and πάσας in the second. In Acts iii, 21. the Article is omitted in 
consequence of its omission before στόματος. (iii. 3.7.) In two cases, Rom. xii. 18. 


13 


104 THE USE OF THE ARTICLE [cHaP. 


Of the former kind we have 

Demosth. c. Timoc. vol. i. p. 741. ὥστε πάντας ἀνθρώπους 
εἰδέναι. 

Ibid. p. 760. κατὰ πάσας τὰς πόλεις. 

Plat. Lach. vol. v. p. 199. τὰ παιδία πάντα. 

Xen. Anab. lib. vi. p. 224. καὶ ὄσπρια πάντα. 

Ibid. Gkcon. p. 482. πασών τῶν τεχνῶν. 

Arist. Rhet. lib. 11. c. 6. οὐ γὰρ πάντα τὰ κακὰ φοβεῖται. 

Of the second may be instanced, 

Arist. Rhet. lib. 11. ο. 9. καὶ wept ἁπάσας TAS κατηγορίας 
σκεπτέον, the well-known fen. 

Demosth. c. Timoc. vol. i. p. 706. παρὰ πάντας TOYS 
νόμους. ᾿ 

Ibid. p. 7ὅ9. ἐπὶ πᾶσι ΤΟΙ͂Σ πολίταις. 

In the Plural also of πᾶς, as well as in the Singular, we 
sometimes find the Article prefixed to it, and not to the Sub- 
stantive: the Substantive, indeed, is frequently understood. 


EXAMPLES. 


Lys. c. Agorat. vol. v. p. 514, τοῖς πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις δόξετε 
δίκαια ψηφίσασθαι. 

Xen. Cyrop. lib. vii. p. 111. οὐδ᾽ ἂν οἱ πάντες σφενδονῆται 
μείνειαν πάνυ ὀλίγους. 

Arist. Rhet. lib. ii. cap. 2. τοῖς πᾶσιν ὀργίζεται. 

Xen. Cyrop. lib. viii. p. 132. σωφροσύνην τοῖς πᾶσιν ἐμποιεῖ. 


and 2 Cor. iii. 2. the omission is after a Preposition; and Heb. i. 6. is a quota- 
tion from the LXX. See the Bishops observation on this point, at the end of 
chap. ix. 

It may, perhaps, be useful to notice the following cases where the position of 
πᾶς, in the plural, is after the Article and Substantive, viz. Matt. xxv. 29.. John 
xvii. 10. Acts vi. 26; viii. 40. 1 Cor. vii. 17; xiii. 2; xv. 7. 2Cor.% 1; xiii. 


2.12. Phil. i. 13. 2 Tim. iv. 21. ‘Rev. viii. 3. In ninety-nine cases out of 


one hundred, the position of πᾶς (plural) is before the Article and Substantive. 
I have not observed, in the New Testament, this word between the Article and 
Substantive in the plural, except in Acts xix. 7. In the singular, I have only 
observed this position in Acts xx. 18. and 1 Tim. i. 16. 

In conclusion I must observe, how rarely the Article is added to πᾶς (plural) 
when that word stands by itself. The instances which I have collected are, 1 Cor. 
x. 17; xi. 12; xii. 19; xv. 27, 28. 2 Cor. νυ. 15.17, 18. Gal. iii. 22. Eph. i. 10, 
Phil. iii. 8. 21. Col. i, 16, 17. 20; iii, 11. .- 1 Tim. vi. 13. Heb. ii. 8. (twice) 
10. H: J. R. 


— EOE ἀν ΝΝΝΝΝ 


νῶν 
ον. 


vit.] > WITH CERTAIN WORDS. 105 


I do not perceive that this position of the Article implies any 
difference in the sense, or that any could be expected. 


§ 3. Lastly, Abstract Nouns joined with πᾶς want the 
Article where there is not reference, and have it where there 
is reference. ‘Thus, 

Esch. ec. Timarch. vol. iii. p. 89. ὀλιγώρως ἔχοντας πρὸς 
ἅπασαν αἰσχύνην. 

Ibid. c. Ctes. vol. iii. p. 449. ἐπὶ πάσῃ ἀεργίᾳ. 

Plat. Lach. vol. v. p. 182. λόγων καλῶν καὶ πάσης παῤῥη- 
σίας. 

Ibid. p. 189. οὐ πᾶσά γε καρτερία ἀνδρία σοι φαίνεται. 

Arist. Rhet. lib. ii. cap. 2. πᾶσῃ ὀργῇ ἕπεσθαι. 

Plut. Conviv. p. 96. ἡδονῆς πάσης ἀπέχεσθαι ἀλογιστόν 
ἐστιν. 

Demosth. vol. i. p. 151. ἐν ἀδοξίᾳ πάσῃ καθεστάναι. 

Xen. Hell. lib. vi. p. 343. ἐν πάσῃ δὴ ἀθυμίᾳ ἦσαν ". 
Where there is reference, the Article is inserted. 

Esch. c. Ctes. vol. iii. p. 551. πάσῃ τῇ δυνάμει Δαρεῖος κατ- 
εβεβήκει, with all hes force. 

Plat. Apol. vol. i. p. 40, ὑμεῖς δέ μου ἀκούσεσθε πᾶσαν τὴν 
ἀλήθειαν, οἵ the-matter before the court. 

Demosth. c. Boeot. vol. ii. p. 995. πᾶσα εἰρήσεται ἡ ἀλήθεια, 
similar to the preceding instance. 

Sometimes the Article is placed before πᾶς. 

sch. de fals. leg. vol. iii. p. 224. τῆς πάσης κακοηθείας. 

Demosth. c. Timoc. vol. i. p. 763. ἡ πᾶσα ἐξουσία. 

This word has been examined the more minutely from its 
being of some importance in the New Testament ’*. 


ὍΛΟΣ. 


§ 4. The construction of ὅλος. resembles that of πᾶς. The 
Substantive being without reference, wants the Article; and 
the contrary. 


1 This is the true reading, and is given in H. Stephens’s edit. of 1581: some 
subsequent editors have admitted τῇ for δή. 

2 Ἕκαστος, says Winer, after Orelli ad Isoc. Antid. p. 255. sq. does not admit 
the Article. See Luke vi. 44. John xix. 23. Heb. iii. 13. It is, indeed, not 
frequently used as an Adjective in the New Testament. H. J. R. 


106 THE USE OF THE ARTICLE [eHAP. 


EXAMPLES. 


Demosth. c. Timoe. vol. i. p. 762. ἐνιαυτὸν ὅλον. 

Ibid. ibid. p. 709. ὅλην THN πόλιν. 

Aristot. Rhet. lib. ii. cap. 4. περὶ ὅλον TON βίον, their, &c. 

Ausch. de fals. leg. vol. iii. p. 199. κατέτριψε THN ἡμέραν 
ὅλην. 

Xen. Cyrop. lib. ii. p. 26. ὅλαις ΤΑΙ͂Σ τάξεσι. 

When ὅλος is used in the sense of wholly or altogether, its 
Substantive is anarthrous. ‘Thus, 

Xen. Hell. lib. v. p. 328. μὴ γνώμῃ προσφέρεσθαι ὅλον ἁμάρ- 
τημα. 

‘Deak ce. Steph. vol. ii. p. 1110. πλάσμα ὅλον ἐστὶν ἡ 
διαθήκη. 

Aristoph. Av. 430. τρίμμα, παιπάλημ᾽ ὅλον. 


OYTOS. 


§ 5. The Noun which is joined with the Pronoun οὗτος, 
always has the Article prefixed *. 


EXAMPLES. 


Herod. lib. ix. p. 327. TON πόνον τοῦτον. 

Ibid. p. 339. αὕτη Ἢ μάχη. 

Thucyd. lib. v. ὃ 20. αὗται AI σπονδαί. 

Plat. Lach. vol. v. p. 199. ταῦτα TA θηρία... 

Lysias, c. Andoc. vol. v. p. 199. ἕνεκα ταύτης THE ἑορτῆς. 

Demosth. c. Timoc. vol. i. p. 744. τοῦτον TON ἕνα. 

This usage, though it be uniform in the best prose writers, 
was unknown to Homer; in both of whose poems οὗτος ἀνὴρ, 
and similar phrases, are sufficiently common*. ‘The Article, 


1 Gersdorf observes, that in St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. Paul, 
οὗτος comes before, and in St. John after, the Substantive. The exceptions are 
few and doubtful. (P. 434.) ᾿Ἐκεῖνος, on the other hand, is usually after the 
Substantive, and before it only where a Preposition occurs. H. J. R. 

? In Pindar also the same form is common. Even Sophocles, an Attic writer, 
has, (ἃ. Tyr. 831. Ed. Brunck. ταύτην ἡμέραν. So also schylus. 


vil. ] WITH CERTAIN WORDS. 107 


therefore, in this instance, as in some others, was not originally 
deemed necessary. It is, however, not difficult to account for 
its insertion at a period when all Nouns employed definitely 
came to have the Article prefixed to them: for they are never 
more restricted in sense than they unavoidably must be, when- 
ever they are joined with οὗτος. 

Proper Names, though for the most part they take the Ar- 
ticle with οὗτος, are yet subject to uncertainty, on the prin- 
ciple already stated. See on Proper Names. 

It is only, however, where the identity of the Pronoun and 
Noun is assumed, that the foregoing usage takes place: where 
it is asserted, the Noun (unless there be some reason to the 
contrary unconnected with the present consideration) is anar- 
throus. Hence, if the Proposition be “ He is a man,” ovroc 
ἀνήρ (ἐστι) will be the true form. In the subjoined passage of 
Xen. Cécon. p. 490, the two cases are clearly distinguished : 
ἔστι μὲν yao ILENIA αὕτη σαφής, τὸ δεόμενόν τινος μὴ ἔχειν 
χρῆσθαι ἀλυποτέρα δὲ αὕτη Ἢ ἔνδεια τὸ μή, &c. In the former 
clause, πενία σαφὴς is intended, not to be taken with αὕτη, but 
to follow ἐστί. 


‘OAE. 


§ 6. What has been said respecting οὗτος will, for the most 
part, apply to ὅδε. Thus, 

Plat. vol. v. p. 166. τῆσδε ΤῊΣ ἡμέρας. 

Demosth. c. Timoe. vol. i. p. 714. TON νόμον τόνδε. 

There are, however, instances, in which the Article is 
omitted, when the Noun precedes, especially if it be a Proper 
Name. 

Herod. lib. v. p. 192. ἔχεται δὲ τούτων γῆ ἥδε. 

Plato, vol. v. p. 172. Σωκράτη τόνδε. 

Ibid. vol. x. p. 90. ᾿Αριστοτέλει τῷδε. 


ἜΚΕΙΝΟΣ. 


§ 7. Nouns joined with this word have the Article in both 
Numbers, for the reason alleged in οὗτος. 


108 THE USE OF THE ARTICLE, &c. [cHAP. 


EXAMPLES. 


Herod. lib. ix. p. 336. κείνην THN ἡμέρην. 

Plat. vol. v. p. 182. ἐκείνης ΤῊΣ ἡμέρας. 

Demosth. ec. Timoc. vol. i. p. 705. ἐκείνοις ΤΟΙ͂Σ χρόνοις. 

Lysias, c. Agorat. vol. v. p. 512. ἐκεῖνοι ΟἹ ἄνδρες ἐτελεύ- 
τησαν. 

When this word is associated with a Proper Name, we some- 
times find that the Article, at least where the Proper Name 


precedes, is omitted’. 


EXAMPLES. 


Demosth. vol. i. p. 731. ἐκείνου TOY Θρασυβούλον. 
Ibid. p. 301. Καλλίστρατος ἐκεῖνος. 


1 But see Thucyd. ili. 59. Author’s MS. The passage referred to is, ἡμέρας τε 
ἀναμιμνήσκομεν ἐκείνης. The object of the reference is to intimate, that with 
other Nouns, as well as Proper Names, when they precede ἐκεῖνος, the Article 


is omitted. J. 5. 


β 


bala. ooh 


vill. | _ POSITION IN CONCORD. 109 


CHAPTER VIII. 


POSITION IN CONCORD. 


To this account of the uses of the Article I will subjoin a few 


remarks on its positzon in the concord of the Substantive and 


the Adjective. 

The Article, as every one knows, is found very commonly 
prefixed to Adjectives; but Adjectives are not, strictly speak- 
ing, the Predicates of the Assumptive Propositions, of which 
the Articles are the subjects. In 6 δίκαιος ἀνὴρ the construc- 
tion is ὁ (ὧν) δίκαιος ἀνήρ᾽ and in ὃ δίκαιος alone, there is no 
other difference than that ἀνὴρ is understood. This is suf- 
ficiently evident from what has been already shown. The 
Predicate, therefore, in such cases, is always the Substantive 
(expressed or understood) conjointly with its Adjective, the two 
together being considered as forming one whole. Of these two, 
however, the Substantive is the more important; since it-may 
alone be the Predicate of the Article, which the Adjective can- 
not. In the Adjective, some Substantive, if not expressed, 
will be understood: and what is here said respecting Adjec- 
tives, will apply equally to Participles. On these grounds, we 
may account for the position which the Greek usage has pre- 
scribed to the Article in immediate concord, where one Article 
only is employed, and also for the order of the Substantive and 
the Adjective, where the Article is repeated. 

Apollonius (p. 86) has remarked, that ἐμὸς ὃ πατὴρ is not 
equivalent to ὁ ἐμὸς πατήρ᾽ the difference is, that in the former 
position of the Article, the Verb ἐστὶ is to be supplied between 
ἐμὸς and 6 πατήρ, and the sense is, “ mine is the father ;” whilst 
in the latter, something is to be affirmed or denied of one who 
is already assumed to be my father: e. g. ὁ ἐμὸς πατὴρ ᾽ΑΠΕ- 
ΘΑΝΕ. Care, therefore, must be taken to distinguish the two 
kinds of Concord which Substantives and Adjectives admit: 
for they may agree, as in the former case, though an assertive 


110 POSITION IN CONCORD. [cHaP. 


Copula intervene; and they may agree, as in the latter, where 
they are not so separated. The second kind of concord is that 
with which alone we are here concerned. 


§ 1. In Concord, then, where the attribute is assumed of the 
substance, supposing one Article only to be employed, it must 
be placed immediately before the Adjective. 


EXAMPLES. 


Herod. lib. ix. p. 324. δουρυαλώτου ἐούσης THE “ATTI- 
KH χώρης. 

Xen. de Redit. p. 5387. εἰ δὲ πρὸς ΤΟΙΣ AYTO®YESIN 
ἀγαθοῖς πρῶτον μέν, &e. 

Ibid. p. 966, ἐβουλεύσαντο περὶ TON ἜΝΕΣΤΗΚΟΤΩ 
πραγμάτων. ᾿ 

Isocr. Pan. ὃ 24. περὶ ΤῊΣ ΚΟΙΝῊΗΣ σωτηρίας ὅμονο- 
οὔντες. 

Plat. vol. ix. p. 236. THN ᾿ΑΝΘΡΩΠΙΝΗΝ ἕξιν φαμέν, 
&e, 

Demosth. de Cor. ὃ 55. ὅσα προσῆκε TON “AT'AOON πολί- 
την, ὅτε. 

The reason of this position is plain. If, for example, we 
had read ἐούσης τῆς χώρης, the sense would have been com- 
plete; the mind of the reader would be satisfied; the Article 
would have a sufficient Predicate in χώρης, and we should 
look no further’. When ᾿Αττικῆς precedes χώρης, this does 
not happen: χώρης or γῆς; or something similar, is expected *. 


1 Tf, however, explanation or limitation be necessary, something more will be 
requisite than the addition merely of the Adjective; as we shall see hereafter. 

2 I ought to have acknowledged, that though such is the invariable usage in 
Prose writers, Homer here, as in some other instances, affords exceptions: thus, 
ἢ, Φ, 317. τὰ τεύχεα καλά. And Od. P. 10. τὸν ξεῖνον δύστηνον. See 
Valckenaér, Adnot. Crit. p. 338 *. 


* Nearly resembling the latter of these examples is Soph. Trach. 938. κἀν- 
ταῦϑ'᾽ ὁ παῖς δύστηνος" in which, however, it is clear that the Predicate of the 
Article is παῖς; and not δύστηνος at all. Itis not the Poet’s object to define the 
unhappy Boy in contradistinction from other Boys; but the Boy being already 
defined, as in v. 934. the Adjective refers only to the cireumstances of his pre- 
sent condition—«nhappy as he was. 1 spoke foolishly in my note on Pheeniss. 536. 


vitt. } POSITION IN CONCORD. 111 


The condition, however, of the canon just laid down was, 
that the attribute should be asswmed: where this does not 
happen, the position will be different. 


Of non-assumption we may instance such passages as 


Isocr. Pan. δ᾽. 90. κοινῆς ΤΗΣ ΠΑΤΡΙΔΟΣ οὔσης. 

Xen. Symp. p. ὅθ9. ΤῊΝ ®QNHN πρᾳοτέραν ποιοῦνται. 

Ibid. Cyrop. lib. i. p.. 8. ΤΟΙ͂Σ μὲν ΛΟΓΟΙ͂Σ βραχυτέροις 
ἐχρῆτο καὶ ΤΗ͂ι ΦΏΩΝΗΙι ἡσυχαιτέρᾳ. 

Ibid.; Hellen. lib. ii, ps 911. ἐκέλευσε. φανερὰν φέρειν ΤῊΝ 
WH®ON: together with all those which are similar to. Homer’s 
ἀλλὰ τὸν υἱὸν Γείνατο cio χέρεια μάχῃ" (see Note, p. 115). 
Such, for instance, is Soph. Aj..1121..0d γὰρ. βάναυσον τὴν 
τέχνην ἐκτησάμην" where the meaning is, ‘ the art, which I 
haye acquired, is no mean one.” See also Elect. 1500. and 
Eurip. Suppl. 494. Hd. Beek. In all such instances we may, 
before the Adjective, supply ὥστε εἶναι. 


δ 2. We are next to consider what will happen, where both 
the Substantive and the Adjective have the Article; and there 
the rule invariably’ is, that the Substantive, with its Article, 
shall be placed first. 


1 1 do not recollect any deviation from this rule, except one in Sophocles. In 
the Trachinians, v. 445. we read, ὥστ᾽ εἴ τι τῷ ᾿μῷ τ᾽ ἀνδρί, κ. τ. A. which Brunck 
after his predecessors has published without remark. On looking, however, into 
the new Sophocles by Erfurdt, I observe that the false arrangement has at length 
been noticed: Erfurdt conjectures wor’ εἴ re triode γ᾽ ἀνδρὶ, κ. τ. XK. and sup- 
poses τῷ ᾿μῷ to have been-a marginal annotation explanatory of τῆσδε. This 


when I threw out even a distant hint of altering the text. The other passages 
there quoted by Matthie are easily explained, as not coming within the Bishop’s 
rule of “ concord, where the attribute is assumed of the substance.” The same 
remark applies to many other examples which apparently, and only apparently, 
violate the rule. Ex. gr. isch. Agam. 520. διπλᾶ δ᾽ ἔτισαν Iprapidar θαμάρτια 
(i. 6. τὰ dpdpria), the price which they paid was double. Soph. Philoct. 1248-9. 
τὴν ἁμαρτίαν αἰσχρὰν ἁμαρτών---Νοῖ, having committed the foul offence, but, 
since the offence which I have committed is foul. In such. cases it is to be observed, 
that in the closer translation the English idiom would require us to express τὴν 
by a: having committed a foul offence.—But see the rule accurately guarded by the 
Bishop himself in the limitation which follows. J. 5. 


112 POSITION IN CONCORD. [cHAP. 


EXAMPLES. 


Lys. vol. v. p. 199. ἐλθὼν ἐπὶ τὴν οἰκίαν τὴν ἐμήν. 

Isocr. Pan. ὃ 1. τῆς ταραχῆς τῆς παρούσης. 

Ibid. ὃ 6. πρὸς τοὺς προγόνους τοὺς ἡμετέρους. 

Xen. Cyrop. lib. v. p. 86. ἐπὶ τῷ ἀγαθῷ τῷ σῷ πεποιημένα. 

Ibid. Hell. lib. ii. p. 280. τοῖς νόμοις τοῖς ἀρχαίοις χρῆσθαι. 

Plato, vol. iv. 61. οἷον τὰ σώματα τὰ καλά. 

Apollonius has adverted to this usage. He says that we 
must write 6 ἄνθρωπος 6 ὁ ἀγαθός, and not ὃ ἀγαθὸς ὁ ἄνθρω- 
πος ὃ δοῦλος 6 ἐμός, and not 6 ἐμὸς 6 δοῦλος" ὃ παῖς 6 γρά- 
ψας, and not ὁ γράψας 6 παῖς" and the reason assigned by him 
accords in substance with the principles which I have attempted 
to establish’. In the legitimate arrangement, the addition of 
ὃ ἀγαθὸς in apposition to 6 ἄνθρωπος is admissible, because it 
says something more than was said in ὁ ἄνθρωπος : to assume 
of any one that he is a man, is less than to assume that he is a 
good man: but in the transposed order the reverse happens; 
for when we have said ὁ ἀγαθός, (i. 6. 6 ὧν ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος), 
the addition of ὁ ἄνθρωπος will be wholly without meaning. 
And so of all similar instances. 

Hence we perceive that in cases of explanation or limitation 
something more is requisite, as was before hinted, than the 


emendation is not improbable; it is certain that Sophocles has elsewhere at- 
tended to both the rules here laid down: thus in a single sentence, 

ὦ θρέμμ᾽ ἀναιδές, ἢ σ᾽ ἐγὼ καὶ T AM’ ἜΠΗ 

καὶ T’"APT'A T’’AMA πόλλ᾽ ἄγαν λέγειν ποιεῖ, 


Elect..622. Ed. Brunck *. 
1 P. 87. ἐπεὶ τὰ ἐπιθετικώτερον ἀκουόμενα φέρεται ἐπὶ τὰ ὑποκείμενα" οὐ μὴν 


τὰ ὑποκείμενα πάντως ἐπὶ τὰ ἐπιθετικά' εἴγε τὸ ἄνθρωπος οὐκ ἐπιζητεῖ τὸ 
λόγιος, τό γε μὴν λόγιος τὸ ἄνθρωπος. 


* But without having recourse to emendation, (“the worst argument a man 
can use; So let it be the last,”) Seidler has explained the construction with great 
felicity : τ᾽ ἀνδρὶ ἰδ not τῷ ἀνδρὶ, as had been hastily supposed, but re, to which 
ἢ answers in the next line but one. There are in fact two constructions com- 
bined: if I blame both my husband and this woman; and, if I blame either my 
hushand or this woman.—J. 8. 


vit] POSITION IN CONCORD. 113 


addition merely of the Adjective: in explanation of τῆς χώρης 
we must add ΤῊΣ ᾿Αττικῆς : for in τῆς χώρης, as was shown, 
the Article has already a sufficient Predicate, and no other can 
be admitted: if, therefore, we have more to assume of the sub- 
ject τῆς, that subject must be repeated: otherwise ᾿Αττικῆς will 
be predicated of nothing. 

Lastly, it is to be observed, that though this order is never 
violated, yet instances will occur, in which the former Article 
is omitted: thus, 

Herod. lib. ix. p. 327. κατιππάσατο ΧΏΡΗΝ τὴν Μεγαρίδα. 

Herod. lib. ix. p. 329. TPOTQz τῷ σφετέρῳ ἐτίμων Μασίοσ- 
τιον ἦ. 

Xen. Cyrop. lib. v. p. 86. εἴ τις ΓΎΝΑΙΚΑ τὴν σήν, x. τ. X. 

It is plain that this ellipsis does not affect the meaning, 
since the Article prefixed to the Adjective is alone sufficient 
to correct the indefiniteness of the Substantive. The use of 
both Articles is, however, the more common: and in general 
it may be observed, that 6 ἀγαθὸς πολίτης and 6 πολίτης ὁ 
ἀγαθὸς are, in respect of the order of the several words, the 
forms which prevail where the Substantive and Adjective are 
to be taken in immediate concord. The apparent violation 
of the former order is no other than the ellipsis, which is some- 
times observable in the latter. 

Still, however, it may be asked, whether between the two 
complete forms there be any difference in respect of the sense. 
A most acute critic makes 6 ἀγαθὸς πολίτης to be the suitable 
expression, where goodness is the idea with which chiefly the 
mind is occupied; while 6 πολίτης ὃ ἀγαθὸς implies, that the 
principal stress is to be laid on eztezen*. ‘That instances may 
be found which seem to favour this distinction, I will not 
deny: but to affirm that such a distinction is usually observ- 
able, would, I think, be an erroneous conclusion. ‘O péyac 
βασιλεὺς and ὁ βασιλεὺς ὃ μέγας are, I believe, strictly equiva- 


1 This form is of very frequent occurrence in Herodotus. 

2 Quum oi οἰκτροὶ παῖδες dicimus, primarium est οἰκτροί: quum ot παῖδες ot 
οἰκτροί, potius est maidec.—Hermann, Hym. Homer. p. 4. 

The same critic (on Soph. Trach. 736.) says, that ὁ ἐμὸς πατὴρ denotes, “ my 
father, and the father of no other person; while ἐμὸς πατὴρ is simply “ the 
person who is my father, and may be father of others ;” and πατὴρ ὁ ἐμὸς is 
nearly the same, though somewhat more accurate.—H. J. R. 

I 


114 POSITION IN CONCORD. [cHap. 


lent: so also are τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα and τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον in 
the New Testament: nor would it be easy from the passage 
of the Electra of Sophocles, cited above in the note on p. 112, 
to establish the proposed rule. I do not, however, mean that 
it is a matter of indifference, in all cases, which of the two 
forms be used: the former, as it is the more simple and 
natural, is in all the Greek writers by far the more common: 
in the latter, in which the Adjective is placed last, we may 
generally, I think, observe one of these two things; viz. either 
that the Substantive might of itself reasonably be presumed to 
signify the particular person or thing intended, though by the 
addition of the Adjective the Substantive is absolutely re- 
stricted to the object meant; in which case, the addition is a 
kind of after-thought: or else, that the Adjective has been 
purposely reserved by the speaker to mark an emphasis or 
opposition. ‘Thus, in the former case, τὸ Πνεῦμα cannot easily 
be misapplied; yet the addition of τὸ ἅγιον absolutely limits 
the sense. Justin Martyr, ed. 1636. p. 479. has the expres- 
sion τοῦ Πνεύματός, ΦΗΜΙ, τοῦ ἁγίου, which seems to indicate 
very clearly what is the force of the addition in that and in all 
similar instances.—The other case may be illustrated by the 
following examples: Aristot. de Cura Rei Fam. lib. i. (Opera, 
vol. ii. p. 387.) says, ἀνδρός τε καὶ γυναικὸς ὁμόνοιαν ἐπαινεῖ 
ὁ ποιήτης, οὐ Thy γε μὴν" ἀμφὶ τὰς θεραπείας TAS ΜΟΧΘΗ- 
PAX, ἀλλὰ τὴν νῷ τε καὶ φρονήσει δικαίως συνηλλαγμένην" 
where μοχθηρὰς is opposed to what is implied in νῷ τε καὶ φρο- 
vhost. Demosth. (de Cor. ὃ 27.) exulting in having saved the 
Chersonesus and Byzantium, exclaims emphatically, these suc- 
cesses ἡ προαίρεσις ‘H "EMH διεπράξατο" and our Saviour has 
said, John x. 11. ἐγώ εἰμι ὃ ποιμὴν Ὁ KAAOS, as opposed to 
him who is μισθωτός. I am, therefore, of opinion that 6 πολί- 
της ὃ ἀγαθὸς would not, in all cases, be admissible: I should 
expect to find it only where a good citizen had recently been © 
mentioned, and where, consequently, ὁ πολίτης alone might in 
some measure be understood of the same citizen; or else, where 
the good citizen was to be opposed to another of a different 
character: though, in the latter case, the other form is not 
unfrequently employed. 


1x. ] HOW FAR CLASSICAL RULES, &c, 115 


CHAPTER IX. 


HOW FAR CLASSICAL RULES RESPECTING THE ARTICLE APPLY 
TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


Tue foregoing Inquiry having been instituted in order that the 
result might be applied to the language of the New Testament, 
it may be expected, before I conclude this part of my work, 
that I should vindicate the application of rules founded on 
classical usage to the diction of the Sacred Writers. The 
sequel, indeed, will show, that from the Evangelists and Apos- 
tles, no less than from Xenophon and Demosthenes, those 
rules may be exemplified and confirmed: and it was principally 
with a view to the proof of this agreement, that in passages pre- 
senting no difficulty I shall be found frequently, though briefly, 
to refer the reader to the canons previously established; that 
thus in other passages, where the sense or the reading is dis- 
putable, recourse may be had to the same canons, as being of 
acknowledged authority even in the New Testament. Still, 
however, it may be right in this place to offer a few remarks on 
the style of the Sacred Volume, so far only as it may be sup- 
posed to affect my plan. 

It may be asked, Is it likely that writers, who were confess- 
edly untaught, and whose Greek style is far removed from 
classical purity, should pay regard to circumstances so minute, 
as are the uses of the Greek Article? In the recent contro- 
versy the negative of this question has been assumed, I will 
venture to affirm, without any right founded on fair reasoning, 
or on the nature of the case. It will not, indeed, be imme- 
diately conceded, that al/ the writers of the New ‘Testament 
were illiterate persons. To St. Paul some have ascribed a 
considerable degree of learning; much more, probably, than 
he really possessed : and if the acquirements of St. Luke were 
not pre-eminent, his style gives us no reason to believe, that 
his education, any more than his condition in life, was mean, 

12 


we 


: ra sf 7 ᾿ ΕΣ ized ; 
YA ὦ =. bia’ ia Prt +e e a Ἢ 7" A. 
y 


ζῶ ψὲς ΑΓ. bee 
: ‘ y di Ἱ βυυδβχτω, =~ 7 
> - - ’ - ΚΑ. ζ f Ζ 7 Ma 
/ er, ἐν δι: ys -m & 447? 


ZL 
# ᾽ 


116 HOW FAR CLASSICAL RULES RESPECTING [cHap. 
te. FF Uvenfult, yb 


If, therefore; it be costes eee ba ὁ a ‘portion of the 
Sacred Volume was written by these two, and that S¢. Paul 
is the writer, from whom, principally, the controverted texts 
are drawn, it may well be doubted whether the known sim- 
plicity of some of the Apostles could afford any argument to 
Mr. Sharp’s antagonists. My own concern, however, is with 
the New Testament generally: I shall, therefore, consider the 
writers under one general character, as being, if the reader so 
please to call them, illiterate men: to admit that they were 
illiterate is not to concede, that they were a be tently 
skilled in the use of the Greek Tongue. 0 1. ὅτ. ἡΖίκω) 
The objectors argue, as if they sciatcadl fies the Sacred 
Writers encountered the same difficulties in acquiring Greek, 
which our own peasants and mechanics would meet with in 
their attempt to learn French or Italian: but the cases are 
plainly dissimilar. The greater part of Englishmen pass 
through life without having ever heard a conversation in any 
other language than their own: and even of those, who have 
acquired some knowledge of the continental tongues, there are 
but few, who made the acquisition in their childhood by re- 
siding in the countries where those languages are respectively 
used. But this is not applicable to the writers of the New 
Testament. Neither were they natives of a country where 
Greek was rarely spoken; nor is it probable that any of them 
made the acquisition late in life. ‘The victories of Alexander, 
and the consequent establishment of the Seleucide, produced 
a revolution in the language of Syria and Palestine. The 
Aramzan dialects still, indeed, continued to be in use: but 
the language of literature and of commerce, and in a great 
degree, even of the ordinary intercourse of life, was the Greek: 
without a knowledge of this it was impossible to have any ex- 
tensive communication. ‘ Greek,” says Michaelis’, “‘ was the 
current language in all the cities to the west of the Euphrates:” 
and Josephus expressly declares, that he had written in his 
vernacular idiom a work on the Jewish war, of which the Greek 
work, still preserved, is a translation, “in order that Parthians, 
Babylonians, Arabians, and the Jews who dwelt beyond the 


* Introduction by Marsh, vol. ii. p. 39. - 


re hen 


sal: ee «og eg Ae ΤΣ 


ΠΡ... of 


᾿ ‘ -- 7 , ᾿ " 
ο Σ ,»ἤ J + Ἶ ‘ ef 
rH gr, v hee ν, νιν we weet «ἡ ὑγνυν.: Cttte nat { Aath 


ine { Via } 
᾿ , 2: oe 7 Ὁ SP να a 
᾿ ᾿ ᾿ ζ΄, i, » of Γ th ts -* 42 Cw . 
tw Ph Fin. ζν ΨΥ bf phy A” bwty Prk 7. τὰ Ἶ 8 ὥς αι al oS 


eo ? 


x.] THE ARTICLE APPLY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 117 


Euphrates, might be informed of what had happened*.” It is, 
then, manifest, that westward of the Euphrates, a knowledge 
of Greek was not an accomplishment confined exclusively to 
the learned and polite, but that it was generally understood, 
and commonly used by people of all ranks, and must have been 
acquired in their childhood. | 

In this state of things, therefore, what were we to expect a 


priori from the writers of the New Testament? I speak not ., , 
of St. Luke and St. Paul, of whom Greek was the native lan-" ΠῚ. ὁ. 


guage, but of the other Evangelists and Apostles. It was not, 
indeed, to be expected, if we reflect on their circumstances and 


habits of life, and on the remoteness of Palestine, that they 


should write with the elegance of learned Athenians: but I 
know not of any reasonable presumption against their writing 
with perspicuity and with grammatical correctness; and it is 
against these, and not against elegance, that the improper use 
of the Article would offend’: to insert it gratuitously will in 
most instances alter, and in many destroy, the sense: to omit 
it, indeed, is, as we have seen, not unfrequently the licence of 
poetry; but no one will suspect that the style of St. John was 
corrupted by a too familiar acquaintance with Pindar and the 
Tragic Chorusses, especially when such writers as Xenophon 
and Plato escaped the contamination. In most cases also the 
improper insertion or omission of the Article would be a breach 


of grammatical correctness; since, as has been demonstrated, ~ 


the uses are not arbitrary, but are subject to rules, the reasons 
of which are apparent. It is not true, therefore, however pre- 
valent may be the opinion, that the uses of the Greek Article 
do, for the most part, deserve to be considered as minutie ; 
unless it be deemed minute in writing to adhere to the ordi- 
nary construction of the language, and to employ, in Nouns 
the Case, and in Verbs the Mood and Tense, which the writer’s 
meaning may require. That there are, indeed, minutie in all 
idioms, at least in all polished ones, will be readily conceded. 
Of this class in Greek is the Attic use of many of the Parti- 


1 See Michaelis’s Introd. vol. i. p. 102, and Josephus, ed. Hudson, vol. ii. 
Ῥ. 954. 

2 To put a question from analogy: Would the most unlettered person in our 
own country say Shut ὦ door, when his meaning was, Shut the door ?—J. 5, 


118 HOW FAR CLASSICAL RULES RESPECTING _ [cuap. 


cles; which, without being indispensable to the sense, contri- 
bute to mark the feelings of the speaker and the latent opera- 
tions of his mind; as doubt, conviction, limitation, concession, 
earnestness. They conduce, therefore, to elegance: they be- 
long to the colouring of discourse: they give it richness and 
effect: and it is to the very frequent use of them in Plato, 
that we may impute, in great measure, the spirit and vivacity, 
which enable his writings, as conversation-pieces, to defy all 
competition. Now in this particular the Sacred Penmen differ 
from the Philosophers and Orators of Athens: the former in- 
troduce the Particles more sparingly; not so frequently in 
combination; and sometimes in a manner which the classical 
practice will hardly justify. But this cannot excite surprise: 
had the style of St. John’s Gospel differed not even in minutie 
from that of Plato, the authenticity of such a writing could not 
easily have been credited. 

The objection, however, has been urged in a somewhat dif- 
ferent form, so as not to suppose the writers of the New Testa- 
ment to be altogether zgnorant of the Greek idiom, but to 
question the probability that they should studiously attend to 
it: their minds, we have been told, were occupied with matters 
of greater moment. Iam not certain, that in this form the 
objection deserves notice: however, it shall not be entirely 
overlooked, μὴ δόξωμεν ἔρημον ἀφεικέναι τὸν ἀγῶνα᾽. It is 
true, then, that they were occupied with matters of greater 
importance; so is every man, who either in writing or in 
speaking has any thing interesting to communicate: so were 
the several Writers, from whose works I have selected the ex- 
amples, by which the rules are illustrated: but does such occu- 
pation of the mind commonly lead men to express themselves 
in an unauthorized and unnatural manner? to renounce modes 
of speech, to which they have long been habituated? to un- 
learn at once all which they have been taught? and to adopt a 
phraseology, which is not to be understood according to the 
obvious import? The fact is directly the reverse: men never 
speak with less ambiguity, nor with less deviation from the 
usual mode, than when they are least studious of their diction. 


1 Dion. Hal. De Comp. Verborum. Ed. Reiske, vol. y. p. 207. on an occasion 
not very dissimilar, 


χ.}] THE ARTICLE APPLY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 119 


It is not true, therefore, that any particular attention is sup- 
posed by the advocates of grammatical interpretation: the 
assumption is only, that the Evangelists and Apostles wrote as 
plain men commonly do write, that is, as habit and the ear 
. direct: they are not supposed, as has been alleged, to have 
~ been Grammarians and Philologists. But this is a disingenu- 
ous attempt to substitute ridicule for reasoning: nor is it a 
very defensible kind of criticism, which would put upon an 
author any construction in preference to that which the genius 
of the language and his usual practice sanction. 

In short, the only tolerable presumption against the correct- 
ness with which the Sacred Writers may have used the Greek 
Article, is founded on their familiar acquaintance with certain 
Oriental idioms: whence it may be supposed that they have 
sometimes adopted the Hebrew or Aramzan usage rather than 
the Greek. Now where languages have a very close affinity, 
it is conceivable that some such confusion may arise: but it so 
happens, that between the language of Greece and the dialects 
of Palestine, the difference was so great in regard to the 
Article, that the supposed corruption was scarcely possible. 
The Syriac and Chaldee have, indeed, no Article, but express 
emphasis by a change in the termination of Nouns: and the 
Hebrew 77, though it corresponds in some of its uses with the 
Ὁ of the Greeks, is yet, on the whole, so dissimilar, that he 
who should translate a portion of the Hebrew Scriptures into 
Greek, inserting the Greek Article where he found the He- 
brew one, and no where else, would write a language almost as 
unlike Greek as is the Hebrew itself: not to insist that He- 
brew, properly so called, had, in the time of the Apostles, 


become nearly obsolete. If any danger were to be appre- 


hended as to the particular of which we are treating, it is 


| rather that the Syriac or Chaldee should have been corrupted 


from the Greek, than the converse: since it is far more natural 
that men, who had the use of two languages, should enrich 
the poorer, than that they should impoverish the richer: and 


' this we find to have been actually the case. ‘There is not any 


example in the whole New Testament, in which the writer has 
endeavoured to give to a Noun the forma emphatica of the 
Syriac and Chaldee: yet in the Peshito there is at least one 
instance (John vy. 7.) in which the Syriac Pronoun Demon- 


ently 


4 
J) w 4 


190 HOW FAR CLASSICAL RULES, ἃς. [ CHAP. IX. 


strative represents the Article of the Greeks; and afterwards, 
as is well known, this practice became common. It is less to 
our purpose, yet it is worthy of remark, that for one Syriac 
word adopted into the Greek, there are at least fifty Greek 
words transferred into the Syriac: nor is the irregularity no- 
ticed in Philo (see above, p. 38) to be explained as a —— 
it being directly contrary to the Hebrew usage. 


I have, however, been considering the New Testament as. 


consisting of original compositions: and I am persuaded, that 
where the Writers speak immediately from themselves, their use 
of the Article will be found to be purely Greek. But what 
has been here adduced will not apply with equal force to trans- 
lations ; since he who translates, rarely writes with the same 
ease and correctness, as when he is left entirely to himself. 
Hence it has happened, that in Quotations from the LXX., in 
some parts of the Apocalypse, (see Apoc. x. 7. ) and in passages 
rendered from the Hebrew, some licence may be observed. 
The ΤΙ ΙΧ Χ, notwithstanding the occasional disagreement of 
the πα δος δὲ and the Hebrew copies still extant,) appear to 
have been servile translators: in respect of the Article, they 
have every where kept as close to the original as the Greek 
idiom would admit: and if they have not in any instance 
violated the rules, they have at least, in conformity with the 
Hebrew, availed themselves of all the latitude which the rules 
allow: it is for this reason that I have made so little use of 
the Septuagint in the preceding investigation. The same may 
be said of a few passages of the New Testament not derived 
from the LX X., but translated by the Evangelist or Apostle, 
in whose nities they occur: such instances will be noticed 
in the sequel: they will be found to be extremely rare: and 
with these exceptions, the style of the New Testament has 
not, in the view in which we are considering it, any pecu- 
liarity. If the Notes, which consist merely of references to 
Part I., and which serve as illustrations of the rules, be ob- 
served to occur more sparingly as the reader advances in the 
volume, he must impute their absence to my unwillingness to 


—— him with proofs of that which he could not any longer 
oubt 


7, 9 αι eo oe Ὁ 


PART THE SECOND. 


eT 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


ἢ 
" 
4 
Ἂ 
ν 


Tue Editions of the Greek Testament which have been consulted 
in the course of the following Annotations are, 


Nuts l vols fol. sc ewer dc neasce aves es EON: οτος 
Bengel’s, 1 vol. 4t0. seveecsss ceeereee Lubinge, 1734, 
Wetstein’s, 2 vols. fol..ceccccee sees eeeeAmstel. 1751. 
Griesbach’s, 2 vols. 8vo. «e+» Hale, Sax. 1796 & 1806. 
Matthiii’s, 12 vols. 8vo. ......- .++.. «. Rige, 1782, &c. 
Alters, 2 πὶ ΠῚ saab Sante as he Vienne, 1787. 
Birch’s Quatuor Evangelia, 1 vol. fol. ....Havnie, 1788. 


The Text which I have adopted is that of Wetsrz1n. The mark 
+ denotes the insertion of a word or passage, and — the omission. 


PART II. 


NOTES 


ON THE 


NEW TESTAMENT. 


ST. MATTHEW. 


CHAP. I. 


/) a4 es: . --- ΖΦ > t 
“νύξ wwe re poly 


Ver. 1. γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, υἱοῦ, &c. Both Campbell 
and Wakefield translate “a son of David, a son of Abraham ;” 
and the former remarks ‘the modesty and simplicity” with 
which the historian introduces his subject. However ready 
the reader may be to acquiesce in this commendation, it will 
be prudent to pause, till he shall have taken into the account 
some subsequent applications of the same principle of criticism. 
In this very Chapter the Angel says, Ἰωσὴφ υἱὸς Δαβίδ, not 
Ὁ υἱός, where “modesty and simplicity” are out of the ques- 
tion: and indeed it has been shown (Part I. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. 
§ 6.) that the Greek usage will readily admit υἱοῦ to be anar- 
throus. Or if we are to consider the passage as a translation 
from a Hebrew original, υἱοῦ without the Article will be an 
accurate version: for it is well known, that the Hebrew in the 
status constructus does not usually admit the emphatic 7: and 
thus we find υἱὸς used by the LX X. Num.i. 5,6, 7. e¢ passim. 
—In the German translation by Michaelis (Gottingen, 1790) 
we find what is equivalent to the son, as in the English Version. 
—The want of the Article before γενέσεως may also be ex- 
plained by Part I. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 6. Βίβλος γενέσεως 
is, however, exactly rendered from the Hebrew NTN Wo. 
used Gen. v. 1. for what we should call a pedigree. 
7 


194. ST. MATTHEW, 


V. 2. et segg. Throughout the whole of this genealogy 
there is an use of the Article, which is wholly foreign from the 
Greek practice, and which in some degree favours the historical 
account of the Hebrew original of St. Matthew's Gospel. The 
Greek usage would require ᾿Αβραὰμ ἐγέννησεν Ἰσαάκ" Ὁ δὲ 
᾿Ισαὰκ ἐγέννησεν Ἰακώβ᾽ Ὁ δὲ ᾿Ιακώβ, &c. (See Part I. Chap. iy.) 
thus introducing the Article on the repetition of each Proper 
Name: the very reverse of which here takes place. The Article, 
therefore, in this genealogy represents the Hebrew ΠΝ or the 
Chaldee M1’, and it is thus that the LX-X. render the Particle 
marking the objective case. Compare LXX. with the He- 
brew of Ruth iv. 18. 1 Chron. vi. 4. e¢ passim.—tIn the _, 7 
genealogy by St. Luke the use of the Article is strictly Greek, — 
τοῦ being every where an ellipsis of τοῦ υἱοῦ. 

V. 16. ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός. Not Ὁ Xp. (Part I. Chap. 

iii. Sect. iii. § 2.) and yet the Coptic Translator read Ὁ 
Χριστός: (See Alter’s N. T. vol. i. p. 752.) unless, indeed, 

which I suspect to be the truth, he attended to the sense 

of the passage, where, no doubt, Χριστὸς is equivalent to 

‘O Xp.,)rather than to the exigency of the Greek idiom. « Κ΄ a 
It is certain, that in many other places, in which in” )'¢ 7 
the Greek MSS. the Article is wanting before the name » ’% 
Christ, the Coptic has prefixed its Article: as John iv. 25. 
Romans viii. 10. 1 Cor. xv. 3. and elsewhere. That inatten- 

tion to the difference of idiom has been a fruitful source of 
alleged various readings in the MSS. used by the Oriental 
Translators, has been proved by D. C. B. Michaelis, the χ 
father of the late Professor at Gottingen, in the valuable 

Tract de Variis Lectionibus N. T. Hale, Magd. 1749, and 

more fully by Bode in his Pseudocritica Millo-Bengeliana, 

Hale, Magd. 1767. 

V.17. A few MSS. want ai. It should be inserted. See 
Part I. Chap. vii. § 2. The mistake probably arose from the — 
uncertain use of πᾶς in the Plural, where there is not refer- 
ence. 

V. 18, ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου. Wakefield, both in his St. 
Matthew, and in his New Testament, 1795, translates “a holy 
Spirit.” There is reason to believe that he laid some stress on 
the absence of the Article; for I have observed that he gene- 
rally in such cases adheres to the letter of the original: whence 


ae 


CHAPTER I. 125 


it is plain, that he did not advert to the anomaly noticed in 
the Preliminary Inquiry, Chap. vi. § 1. In whatever manner 
we are to render this passage, it is certain that the absence of 
the Article after a Preposition does not affect the definiteness 
of the sense. Since, however, the phrases πνεῦμα and πνεῦμα 
ἅγιον, both with and without the Article, are of frequent 
occurrence in the New Testament, it may not be amiss in this 
place to inquire generally into the meanings which they bear, 
and especially on what occasions the Article is taken or re- 
jected. Mvtw - me 
I. The primitive signification of πνεῦμα is breath or wind: 

in which senses, however, it is not often found in the New 


Testament. In the sense of breath πνεῦμα takes or rejects the - 


Article, as the circumstances may require. Thus, Matt. xxvii. 
ὅθ. ἀφῆκε TO πνεῦμα, his breath or life: (Part I. Chap. iii. 


Sect. 1. § 4.) but Apoc. xii. 15. we have δοῦναι πνεῦμα, ἰο΄- 


give life, where 76 would be inconsistent with the sense: for 
that, which was possessed already, could not now first be 


given. In the meaning of wind we find, John ii. 8. τὸ πνεῦμα * - 


πνεῖ, ὅπου θέλει: where the Article is requisite by Part I. 
Chap. ur. Sect. 1. ὃ 5. 

Il. Hence we pass by an easy transition to πνεῦμα, the in- 
tellectual or spiritual part of man, as opposed to his carnal 
part. Thus, πνεῦμα is frequently contradistinguished from 
σάρξ. In this sense also it may~be used either definitely or 
indefinitely : examples of each will be noticed in the sequel. 

III. A third meaning arises by abstracting the spiritual 
principle from body or matter, with which in man it is asso- 
ciated: hence is deduced the idea of the immaterial agents, 
whom we denominate Spirits. Thus, Luke xxiv. 39. πνεῦμα 
σάρκα καὶ ὀστέα οὐκ ἔχει. John iv. 24. πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός. Acts 
Xxill. 9. πνεῦμα ἢ ἄγγελος. ‘The πνεύματα also of the Demo- 
niacs are to be classed under this head. It is evident that the 
word, in this acceptation, must admit both a definite and an 
indefinite sense. 


IV. But the word πνεῦμα is used in a sense not differing - "ἢ 


from the former, except that it is here employed κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν 
to denote the Great and Pre-eminent Spirit, the Third Person 
in the Trinity: and in this acceptation, it is worthy of remark, 
that πνεῦμα or πνεῦμα ἅγιον is never anarthrous; except, in- 


126 ST. MATTHEW, 


deed, in cases where other terms, confessedly the most definite, 
lose the Article, from some cause alleged in the Preliminary 
Inquiry. It will be shown in the following pages, as the pas- 
sages occur, that such is the practice of the Sacred Writers.— 
The addition of τὸ ἅγιον serves only to ascertain to what class 
of Spirits, whether good or evil, this pre-eminent Spirit is 
affirmed to belong.—It may here be briefly noticed, that in 
the passages which, from their ascribing personal acts to the 
πνεῦμα ἅγιον, are usually adduced to prove the Personality of 
the Blessed Spirit, the words πνεῦμα and ἅγιον invariably 
have the Article. See particularly Mark i. 10. Luke iii. 22. 
John i. 32. Acts i. 16. and xx. 28. Enphes. iv. 30. Mark 
xiii. 11. Acts x. 19. and xxviii. 25. 1 Tim. iv. 1. Heb. iii. 
7. &c.—The reason of this is obvious; for there being but one 
Holy Spirit, he could not be spoken of indefinitely. In Matt. 
also xxviii. 19. where the Holy Spirit is associated with the 
Father and the Son, the reading is τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος. 

V. The fifth sense of πνεῦμα is easily deducible from the 
fourth; being here not the Person of the Holy Spirit, but his 
influence or operation: the addition of ἅγιον is explicable as 
before. And in this meaning a remarkable difference may be 
observed with respect to the Article. Though the Holy Spirit 


himself be but one, his influences and operations may be | 


many: hence πνεῦμα and πνεῦμα ἅγιον are, in this sense, 
always anarthrous, the case of renewed mention or other refer- 
ence being of course excepted. The expressions of being 
* filled with the Holy Ghost,” “ receiving the Holy Ghost,” 
** the Holy Ghost being upon one,” &c. justify this observa- 
tion. 

VI. The last meaning, or rather class of meanings, for they 
are several,) comprises whatever is deducible from the last 
acceptation, being not the influences of the Spirit, but the 
effects of them: under which head we may range πνεῦμα in 
the senses of disposition, character, faith, virtue, religion, &e. 
and also whenever it is used to signify evi/ propensities or 
desires; with this difference only, that these latter must be 
supposed to arise from the influence of the Evil Spirit. In all 
these senses the Article is inserted or omitted according to the 
circumstances. 


Now if we put together the consequences of what has been 


- rm hha. — ἐκ. 


CHAPTER I. 127 


shown under the fourth and fifth heads, we shall perceive the 
futility of pretending that the Holy Spirit is, as some aver, 
merely an influence: the Sacred Writers have clearly, and in 
strict conformity with the analogy of language, distinguished 
the influence from the Person of the Spirit. In like manner, 
the Personality of the Holy Spirit is deducible by comparing 
.. the third and fourth heads: for if πνεῦμα, in the passages ad- 
duced under the third, mean a spiritual agent, τὸ πνεῦμα, in 
;.the places referred to under the fourth, where there is no 
renewed mention, nor any other possible interpretation of the 
Article, but the use of it, κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν," can mean only the one 
spiritual agent of acknowledged and pre-eminent dignity. But 
the personality of πνεῦμα, under the third head, cannot be 
disputed, unless by those who would controvert the personality 
of 6 Θεός : the personality, therefore, of τὸ πνεῦμα used κατ᾽ 
ἐξοχὴν must be conceded. 

I have thus, at some length, examined the senses of the word 
πνεῦμα in the first passage in which it occurs, in order to ex- 
hibit the result of my observation at a single view; so that in 
the sequel I need only to refer to what has been here ad- 
vanced.— With respect to the place in St. Matthew which has 
given rise to this note, it is impossible to prove incontestibly 
that the Holy Spirit, in the personal acceptation, is here meant, 
inasmuch as the Preposition (see Part I. Chap. vi. § 1.) may 
have occasioned the omission of the Articles; and this hap- 
pens, in some other places also, from the same cause. How- 
ever, Mr. Wakefield’s translation, which implies a plurality of 
Holy Spirits, the ordinary Ministers of Almighty Providence, | 
is irreconcileable with the phraseology of the New Testament, , 
in which πνεύματα ἅγια are not once mentioned. Rosenmiiller’s 
(see Scholia in N. 'T. 1789.) ‘ per omnipotentiam divinam” is 
less liable to objection. 

V. 20. Κύριος, in the sense of The Almighty, takes or re- 
jects the Article indifferently; and nearly the same is true of 
Θεός: but see on Luke 1. 15. 

V. 21. Ἰησοῦν: not τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν. Part I. Chap. ii. Sect. 
ill. § 2. 

V. 23. ἡ παρθένος. The Article in this place, as in many 
others, appeared to our English Translators to be without 
meaning: accordingly they render ‘‘a virgin.” ‘That the 


128 ST, MATTHEW, 


Article is never without meaning in the Greek, though it may 
not always be possible in a Version adequately to express its 
force, has already been demonstrated. ‘The passage, however; 
is quoted accurately from the LXX. who have as accurately 
translated the Hebrew. ‘The force of the Article, therefore, 
in this place (See Part I. Chap. ix.) can be sought only from 
the Hebrew of Isaiah vii. 14. That the LX X. did well in ex- 
pressing the Article, may be inferred from its having been 
retained in the subsequent Versions of Aquila, Symmachus, 
and ‘Theodotion, notwithstanding the readiness, of the two 
former at least, on most occasions to differ from the LXX. 
Here, indeed, they all three render ἡ NEANI3, Aquila haying 
set the example: on which Montfaucon remarks, (Prelim. in 
Hexapla, vol. i. p.111. ed. Bahrdt) ‘‘ 4n autem ut locum detor- 
queret Aquila, sic versionem suam concinnaverit, nescio. Veri- 
simile tamen est, eum a voce παρθένος consulto declinasse, quia 
hac maxime prophetia utebantur Christiani pro sua tuenda 
jide. Imo, nec vocem ἀπόκρυφος, quam ALIBI pro Hebraica 
may exprimenda adhibet, hic usurpare voluit: quia forte 
hec interpretatio puellam, que virorum adspectui occulta 
manserat, atque ideo virginem, exprimebat.” 'The same 
Translator, instead of Χριστὸς, commonly has ἠλειμμένος. 

An excellent Dissertation on the Prophecy in Isaiah and on 
its application by St. Matthew may be found in the Βίβλος 
Καταλλαγῆς of Surenhusius, Amstel. 1713. 

V. 24. ἀπὸ TOY ὕπνονυ᾽ in reference to ὄναρ above, ver. 20. 
So also in Acts xx. 9. 


CHAP. II. 


V. 3. πᾶσα Ἱεροσόλυμα. The want of the Article in this 
place may appear to contradict what has been advanced, Part I. 
Chap. vii. § 1. Two MSS. indeed, viz. 7 of Matthai and Vat. 
360. of Birch, insert ἡ. These were probably the corrections 
of persons who had attended to the more usual construction of 
mac. 1 am of opinion, however, with Rosenmiiller, that 
πόλις is understood, Ἱεροσόλυμα being always Neuter in the 
New Testament, unless we are to except this place; on the 
sole authority of which, so far as I can discover, Schleusner (in 
Lex.) makes it to be Feminine in the Singular. Kypke (Obss. 


CHAPTER ΠῚ 129 


Sacr. ad loc.) says, that in the Feminine it is very uncommon, 


yet he adduces two passages from Josephus, in which he sup- Loe 


poses it to be so used. One of these is a citation from Clear- 
chus, the scholar of Aristotle, in which Clearchus says; that 
‘the city has ὄνομα σκόλιον, TEPOSOAYMHN γὰρ αὐτὴν 
καλοῦσιν." But a Greek would hardly have called such a name 
σκόλιον : and on turning to Josephus I find the true reading 
to be ‘IIEPOYSAAHM: the same passage is so cited by Euse- 
bius.—The force of Kypke’s other passage depends on ἁλοῦσα, 
which is nade to refer to Ἱεροσόλυμα preceding: but there the 
reference may be πρὸς τὸ σημαινόμενον, as is usual even in the 
best Greek Writers. If, however, the word be Feminine in 
this place, the Article may still be omitted because of the 
Proper Name, to which the reason of the rule will not neces- 
sarily apply. We find, indeed, in the next Chapter, ver. 5. 
πᾶσα Ἢ ᾿Ιουδαία : but Ἰουδαία is an Adjective: compare Mark 
i. 5. 

V. 5. διὰ τοῦ προφήτου, viz. Micah v. 2. ὁ ἰνίον ἣν wri ARK at! 

V. 11. δώρα, by way of presents. Part I. Chap. iii. Sect. 
iti. § 4. 

V. 23. Ναζωραῖος. Eng. Version, “a Nazarene:” I would 
rather translate, He shall be called “the Nazarene.” The 
Article could not be inserted in ihe Greek. Part I. Chap. iii. 
Sect. iii. ὃ 2. 


4 


CHAP. 111. 


V. 3. φωνὴ βοῶντος. Eng. Version, “ The voice,” &c. 
Quoted from LXX. Isaiah xl. 3. It serves, however, to 
illustrate Part I. Chap. ii. Sect. 11. ὃ 6. Mr. Wakefield, not 
aware of this usage, translates, ‘‘.4 voice of one crying,” &c. 
For the same reason in the next verse it could not have been 
ΤΩΝ τριχῶν. 

V. ὅ. Ἱεροσόλυμα. 1 Bodl. prefixes πᾶσα ἡ. The r of 
Matthai has only ἡ. See above, Chap. ii. ver. 3. 

V. 8. τῆς μετανοίας. D alone wants τῆς, which is not a bad 
reading after ἄξιος : but the uncertainty respecting abstract 
Nouns has been remarked in Part I. 

V.9. πατέρα. Part I. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 4. 

V. 11. ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί. Mr. Wakefield in his 

Κ 


180 ST. MATTHEW, 


New Testament here translates, ‘with a holy wind and with 
a fire.” Heylin had already. given a similar Version, urging in 
behalf of it, that where the Holy Spirit is meant, the Article 
is generally prefixed; and also that the verse following, which 
he considers as an illustration of the present, requires such an 


interpretation. ‘See Campbell ad loc. whose remark on» the ' 


Article is, indeed, of no great value, but) whose opinion, that 
the present verse represents the manner in which Christ will 
admit his Disciples, the next, that in which he will yudge them 
at the end of the world, appears to be extremely just. In con- 
firmation of the manner of admission, see Acts ii. 86, The 
words, indeed, καὶ πυρί, are wanting in so many of the MSS. 
that if they were not found in a few of the older MSS. and 
Versions, they might be deemed spurious. They have, how- 
ever, probably, been rejected, because they are wanting in 
Mark: see Adler's Verss. Syriace, p. 159.—Mr. W. in sup- 
port of his Translation refers us to his own Szlva Critica, Part 
ii. § 83. where, however, his arguments are nearly the same 
with those of Heylin. 'This he seems not to have known, as 
appears from his expression of ‘‘ guod primus moneo:” and 
even Heylin’s Version, according to Campbell, was not entirely 
new. 

The meaning of ayiw πνεύματι, as the reaflas will have per- 
ceived, (See above, Matt. i. 18.) cannot here be inferred from 
the doctrine of the Article. There can, however, be little 


’ doubt, that the fifth sense there deduced is here the true ones “2 


because πνεῦμα joined with ἅγιον has only two senses; and the 
Holy Spirit in his personal acceptation cannot well be asso- 
ciated with fire. In the connection of fire with the influence 
of the Spirit there is nothing unnatural or violent. 

V. 12. εἰς τὴν ἀποθήκην. ‘His garner.” Many MSS. 


with the Syriac add αὐτοῦ. The Article alone has in such — 


instances the force of the Possessive Pronoun; (See Part i, 
Chap. iii. Sect. i. § 4.) but the Syriac, as the genius of the 
language requires, generally has the addition of the Pronoun. 
Its insertion or omission in passages of this kind is a fruitful 
source of various readings: to have noticed them once may be 
deemed sufficient. 
V.16. τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ. Rosenmiiller doesnot understand 
these words in the personal sense of the Holy Spirit, but ex- 


CHAPTER IV. ; 131 


plains the whole to signify no more than a strong emotion in 
the mind of our Saviour entering on his Ministry. It is ob- 
servable, however, that Mark and John use precisely the same 
expression, whilst Luke, speaking of the same event, Chap. iii. 


22. says, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, σωματικῷ εἴδει, which appears to “~~ 


give the personal sense of πνεῦμα in the most unequivocal 
terms.—I have remarked, that the other two Evangelists have 
also τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ" because, if I mistake not, that phrase 
is to be distinguished from πνεῦμα Θεοῦ, which is also of fre- 
quent occurrence in the New Testament, but which signifies 
no more than ‘a divine influence:” notice of which will be 
taken im its place. It is worthy of mention, that though 
πνεῦμα Θεοῦ and πνεῦμα Κυρίου are very common in the 
LXX. τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ does not once occur: for which I 
have no better reason to assign, than that the Translators 
attended to the idiom of their original, in which TM must be 
anarthrous. Rosenmiiller’s objection, that change of place 
eannot be ascribed to an-Omnipresent Being is evidently falla- 
cious, unless it could be proved, that a Being, who is also 
Omnipotent, could not assume a visible form. Such a Being, 
though present every where, may yet be visible only in a given 


place. 
CHAP. IV. 


~ ΝΑῚ, εἰς τὴν ἔρημον. On these words I will translate the 
Note of Michaelis (See Anmerkungen zu seiner Uebersetzung; 
&c. 4to. 1790.) ““ Not into a desert, but into the desert; a 
phrase, which must suggest to the mind of the reader the 
Great Desert of Arabia, in which the Israelites wandered so 
many years, and in which Mount Sinai is situate: and this 
notion, if not elsewhere contradicted by the historian, will 
appear the more probable, when in reading of a miraculous 
fast of forty days, we recollect a similar fast of Moses and 
Elias on Mount Sinai, or on the way to that mountain. See 
Exod. xxxiv. 28. 1 Kings xix. 8. The instant we imagine 
ourselves in this Desert, the whole history, including both the 
artifices of Satan and the answer of our Lord, receives extra- 
ordinary light. 

** The people of Palestine show the wilderness, in which 

K 2 


132 ST. MATTHEW, 


Jesus is supposed to have been tempted, and from the forty 
days it has acquired the name of Quarantaria: it is an ex- 
tremely rugged and wild ridge of mountains, to the north of 
the road which leads from Jerusalem by the Mount of Olives 
to Jericho. Its aspect is most hideous: but it can hardly be 
the Desert of the Temptation; and the assertion of those, who 
for 1600 years past have been paid by travellers for showing 
the Holy Places of Palestine, is utterly destitute of weight. 
Not to insist, that no writer of common sense would call this 
merely the Desert without a more particular description, its 
situation is at variance with the whole history: no man could 
there be in danger of perishing with hunger: for in whatever 
part of that desert he might happen to be, he need travel only 
for a few hours to reach a place where provisions might be 
had, viz. Ephraim, Bethel, Jericho, or elsewhere: if any one 
were there so unreasonable as to say to a famished worker of 
miracles, ‘Command that these stones be made bread,’ the 
proper answer would be, ‘Shall God, then, work a miracle 
merely in aid of our sloth? Let us go and buy bread.’ The 
Angels, also, on this supposition were superfluously employed 
in bringing food to Jesus. Again, our Saviour could not 
here have been altogether in solitude, nor as Mark (i. 13.) 
says, among wild beasts or serpents, but among men, possibly 
among robbers, who then infested this Desert, and made it 
dangerous to travel from Jerusalem to Jericho. According to 
Luke too, (iv. 1, 2.) Jesus, who was baptized beyond the Jor- 
'dan, proceeds from the Jordan, (not over it back again,) a 
journey of forty days to the Wilderness: can this be any other 
than the Wilderness of Sinai? Certainly it cannot be the 
Desert of Quarantaria; for to get to it he must have crossed 
the Jordan, on this side of which it lies: and the journey 
could not have occupied at the utmost more than a couple of 
days.” . 

The reasoning of this Note is for the most part satisfactory ; 
but the argument last adduced from Luke iy. 1, 2. may admit 
a doubt. The words ἡμέρας τεσσαράκοντα are usually under- 
stood to denote the length of the Temptation, and not the 
time employed in reaching the Wilderness; and it ought to be 
observed, that the reading of Wetstein’s D and L, and Birch’s 
1209 (the Vat.) is ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, which, if admitted, confirms 


ν. ἢν 


rf 
Cake 


CHAPTER IV. 133 


the usual acceptation. However, it is true, on the other hand, 
that the Syr. and Vulg. favour the contrary exposition. 

Same ν. ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος. By the Holy Spirit. So all 

commentators now understand it: there is no ground, either 
from the expression, or from the context, to interpret it of the 
Devil. 
_ V. 8. εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ Θεοῦ. In this place both Campbel/ and 
Wakefield translate *‘ a Son of God,” and the former enters at 
some length into the reasons of this innovation: they are founded 
principally on the absence of the Article before υἱός, together 
with the implied degradation of our Saviour’s character arising 
** either from the ignorance of Satan, as not knowing the dig- 
nity of the person, whom-he accosted, or from his malignity, 
as being averse to suppose in Christ more than an equality 
with other good men.” 

Now that the Tempter should be ignorant of our Saviour’s 
character is highly improbable: ignorance is no where in 
Scripture ascribed to the Evil Spirit, but the reverse; and the 
expression, 7f thow be, can be understood only as a sneer at our 
Saviour’s known pretensions. Besides, we shall find, that 
even the Demoniacs knew, if any stress is here to be laid on 
the Article, (See Mark ui. 11. and Luke iv. 41.) that Christ 
was, in the highest sense, the Son of God. Neither can 
malignity be well assigned as the cause, why Satan should 
designedly suppress any part of the title, which he knew that 
Christ claimed: malignity would surely have prompted Satan 
rather to exaggerate those pretensions at the moment, when 
he was endeavouring to show their futility. 

It is plain, therefore, that the degradation, which is sup- 
posed to be implied by the absence of the Article, has no 
foundation in the tenor of the argument: I think it has as 
little in the expression of the Evangelist: but as doubts have 
arisen on the various forms of the phrase in question, I shall 
briefly notice them. 

The phrase υἱοὶ Θεοῦ in the Plural, is sometimes used to 
signify Saints or Holy Men: but in the Singular, when it is 
spoken of Christ, there is no reason to infer that such is ever 
the meaning in the New Testament. 

It is evident, that there can be only four combinations 
arising from the insertion or omission of the Article before 


134 ST. MATTHEW, 


υἱὸς and Θεοῦ. Ὁ υἱὸς Θεοῦ is never found, and it would 
scarcely have been Greek: 6 υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ is common, but is “~~ «τό 63, 
allowed to be meant in’ the highest acceptation: we need, 
therefore, consider only υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ and υἱὸς Θεοῦ. Now 
there are instances, besides that which has given birth to this 
discussion, which prove incontestably, that υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ was 
never meant to be taken in an inferior sense: 1: 6, on the sup- 
position that Christ was ever declared to be the Son of God in 
the usual acceptation; which Campbell does not dispute. Thus, 
- Mark i. 1. υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ is ‘spoken by the Evangelist himself 

- of Jesus. John x. 36. the same phrase i is employed by Christ 

. himself of himself: and Matt. xxvii. 40. it is used by those, 
who well knew Christ’s pretensions... Stronger proofs derived 
from the circumstances cannot be expected: for if Christ be 
admitted ever to be called the Son of God, we cannot believe 
that less would be affirmed of him in any of these examples. 

Neither is υἱὸς Θεοῦ, without either of the Articles, to be 
taken in an inferior sense: for not to examine all the places, 
in which it occurs, we haye Matt. xxvil. 43. the crime laid to 
Christ, that he said, ‘I am the Son of God:” which the: bier 
Priests would hardly palliate: In Luke i. 35. th e same,p 
is affirmed of Christ by an Angel; and Ri 4. of Baa ἌΦΩ 
the Apostle Paul. It is plain from these proofs, that the ὩΣ 
sence or the absence of the Article does not determine the 
phrase to be used in a higher or lower sense. 

Is it, then, to be concluded, that the Article may inane 
be used at pleasure? This is the very hypothesis which I 
would combat: but in this particular phrase there is a licence 
arising out of the nature of the word Θεός, (See on Luke i. 15.) 
and hence it will be allowable (See Part i. p. 36.) to write 
either 6 vide τοῦ Θεοῦ or vide Θεοῦ indifferently: the former, 
however, is the more common. The reason why we meet with © 
both σὺ εἶ Ὃ vide τοῦ Θεοῦ and od εἶ vide τοῦ Θεοῦ, is that 
here two principles interfere: after Verbs Substantive the 
first Article should be omitted; yet where σὺ precedes, it is 
not unfrequently inserted: see Part i. p. 44.—The reason for 
adopting a particular form, where any reason can be assigned, 
will be noticed as the places occur. For example, in Luke 
i. 35. the phrase could not be ὃ vide τοῦ Θεοῦ, because of the 
Verb Nuncupatiy e, after which the rule is strictly observed. 


CHAPTER IV. 135 


V. 4. ἄνθρωπος. Wetstein’s C. D. E. &c. prefix the 
Article, and in the parallel passage, Luke iv. 4. the Article 
is found in the majority of MSS. As this is an exclusive 
Proposition (See Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. ii. § 5.) the Article 
would regularly be omitted. The passage, however, is quoted 
from the LX X. Deut. viii. 3. who have ὃ ἄνθρωπος, and on 
turning to the Heb. I found, as I expected, DINIT. 

V. 5. ἐπὶ τὸ πτερύγιον. There is no word, on the meaning 
of which the Commentators are more at variance, than wrepd- 
γίον in this and the parallel place in St. Luke. One thing, 
: however, appears certain, viz. that the Article shows πεερύγιον 
5s to be something Monadic.: had there been several πτερύγια, 
i we should probably have read TI πτερύγιον : it cannot, there- 
fore, be ‘a pinnacle,” as the English Version renders it. To 
determine what is really meant is, perhaps, impossible; since 
no instance can be found in any author, in which πτερύγιον is 
applied to a building. It is probable, however, from the 
meaning of the cognate term πτερόν, that. a ridged or pointed 
roof is intended: for, from some of the passages collected by 
Wetstein, it is evident that πτερὸν is synonymous with ἀετὸς 
or ἀέτωμα, a term appropriated to the roofs of temples. . See 
) Aristoph. Aves 1110, and his Scholiast; Dion. Hal. Antiq. 
_.. . Rom. Edit. Reiske, vol. ii. p. 789; Josephus, vol. i. p. 109. 
ΠΣ ἐξ \edit. Huds. in which last place it is Bickein of the Tabernacle, 
and so applied, as it should seem, on account of the figure, 

which the transverse section of a pointed roof, or the gable, 
presents. Now if this be πτερόν, analogy would lead us to 
infer, that πτερύγιον was the same thing, only of smaller dimen- 
sions: and therefore, if the pointed δ of the Temple be πτε- © 
ρόν, πτερύγιον may be the same kind of roof of the Great 
Eastern Porch: and this is the spot fixed upon by Lightfoot. 
The height of this roof was 385 feet, and therefore it is not 
ill adapted to the circumstances of the narration. However, 
Wetstein and Michaelis (Anmerk. ad.loc.) understand it of the 
Royal Porch, which overlooked the precipice to the east and 
south of the Temple. This situation is, perhaps, even better - 
suited to the history: but the difficulty is to account how the 
roof of this detached building could be called τὸ πτέρύγιον τοῦ 
ἱεροῦ. Michaelis, indeed, in his Introduction (vol. i. p. 144. 
edit. Marsh) supposes πτερύγιον to have been a kind of side- 


136 ST. MATTHEW, 


wall inclosing the Temple: but then there were several such 
porches or colonnades, each of which might thus be called 
πτερύγιον: but the πτερύγιον, as was shown, could be only 
one. On the whole, I have nothing more plausible to offer, 
than what has been suggested above. ‘The extreme difficulty 
‘of the question is admitted by Mr. Herbert Marsh on the Άτεῖ 
part of Michaelis, vol. i. p. 420. 

V. 15. ὁδὸν θαλάσσης. ‘ This expression,” says Campbell, 
‘is rather indefinite and obscure.” He appears, notwithstand- 
ing, to have given its true meaning; “ near the sea.” By this 
sea is plainly meant the sea of Gennesareth. But how happens 
it, if a particular sea be meant, that θαλάσσης has not the 
Article? The words are copied literally from the LX X. who 
have thus translated OW ‘J7, Isaiah ix. 1. The LXX. ap- 
pear to have omitted the Article before θαλάσσης, from consi- 
dering ὁδὸν in the light of a Preposition. Of J17 in the 
sense of versus examples may be found in Noldius. 

V. 16. ἐν χώρᾳ καὶ σκιᾷ θανάτου, is also a quotation, though 
not an exact one; but the want of the Articles may be very 
well defended. See Part i, Chap. vi. § 1. aiid Chap. ii. 
Sect. iii. 9 7. 

V. 20. τὰ δίκτυα, their nets: a few MSS. with Syr. have ᾿ 
αὐτῶν. See above, iii. 12. 

V. 21. ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ. This may mean, in their boat: but 
as there are instances, in which the Article before πλοῖον 
cannot be so explained, the word will be examined hekaiey 
xiii. 2, 


CHAP, V 


V. 1. ἀνέβη εἰς τὸ ὄρος. This is the reading of all the 
MSS. Eng. Version and Campbell “a mountain.” Wake- 
field says, “a particular mountain, well known in the neigh- 
bourhood of Capernaum.” Wetstein and Rosenmiiller make 
it definite: the former says, “7d ὄρος significat certum et 
notum montem, Taborem intelligo.” W offius remarks, “ iz 
certum quendam montem, ut Acts xvii. 1. ἡ συναγωγὴ τῶν 
Ἰουδαίων," which, however, is not parallel : but see the place. 
Schleusner has only “ montem ascendit,” which of course deter- 
mines nothing. As no mountain has recently been mentioned, 


CHAPTER Υ. 137 


this passage is one among others, which are adduced to prove 
that the Greek Article is often without meaning. Abp. 
Newcombe, in his Revision of the English Version, 2 vols. 8vo. 
Dublin, 1796, observes on this place, “ In the N. T. the Greek 
Article is often used without its proper force:” and he refers 


us to Matt. i. 23. v. 15. viii. 23. ix. 28. Mark xiv. 69. John i.’ 


21. iii. 10. vii. 40. xviii. 3. and to Dr. Scott on Matt. i. 23. 
v. 15. viii. 4. To Dr. Scott’s work I have not access: all 
these texts, however, shall be examined as they present them- 
selves. In the present instance the Article admits a very 
certain explanation. 

* Judei in Talmude,” says Reland, Palest. vol. i. p. 306. 
*‘ terram suam in tria dividunt respectu MONTIUM, val- 
lium et camporum.” Τὸ ὄρος, then, will signify the mountain 
district, as distinguished from the other two. The LXX. 
have so employed the term. ‘To mention only the following 
instance: in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, cities 
of the plain, the Angels say to Lot, Gen. xix. 17. εἰς TO 
ὄρος σώζου, where no mountain has been mentioned, and 
none in particular can be meant. And that the LXX. in- 
tended to express ‘the mountain district,” may be inferred 
from Joshua ii. 22, 23. where it is said of the spies, whom 
Rahab protected, ἦλθον εἰς τὴν ὀρεινήν, and of the same per- 
sons in the next verse, that after _staying till the danger was 
over, κατέβησαν ἐκ TOY ὄρους. The Article, therefore, in 
this place is neither without meaning, nor does it necessarily 
direct us to Mount Tabor: indeed, I am persuaded that 
Mount Tabor was not the scene of our Saviour’s first preach- 
ing. Ifit be admitted that τὸ ὄρος may signify the mountain 
district, and if we attend to the topography of Galilee, it is 


highly probable that the sermon on the mount was delivered +..¢ 1 « 


farther to the north. The whole of Palestine is intersected 
by a ridge of mountains running nearly in the direction of 
north and south. Now, if our Saviour’s object was, as may 
reasonably be supposed, to lead his disciples into the nearest 
place of retirement, he would not conduct them to. Mount 
Tabor, because the part of the ridge nearest to Capernaum 
was at a much less distance. Besides, had Tabor been meant, 
its name would surely have been mentioned, “in primis,” as 
Reland says on a different occasion, “‘ guum Scriptores sacri 


198 ST. MATTHEW, 


aded diligenter nomina locorum notent, in quibus aliquid me- 
morabile ἃ Christo patratum est.” On the whole, 1 am of 
opinion, that this mountain has been fixed on merely from its 
celebrity, that thus the force of the Article might’ be most 
easily explained. 

V. 3. τῷ πνεύματι. D—r¢ a pr. manu. The Article should 
be retained, if τὸ πνεῦμα here mean, as the best Commentators 
suppose, the sentient and thinking principle in man. So 
Acts xviii. 25. ζέων Τῶι πνεύματι. So also in the —_— 
Chapter, v. 8. καθαροὶ TH: καρδίᾳ, in their heart. 3 

V.9: of εἰρηνοποιοί. The Article is wanting in two Mss. 
It is requisite. Part i. Chap. il. Sect. i. § 2. 

V. 15. ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον, τὴν λυχνίαν. ᾿ς Campbell vindicates 
the Article in this place by considering the bushel and the 
candlestick to be what I have denominated Monadic Nouns; 
one only of each would probably be found in a house: but his 
concession, that the Article is in some cases redundant, is 
more liberal than just. 

V. 17. τὸν νόμον here clearly means the law of Moses, and 
this is the import of the term in the four Evangelists and the 
Acts: but on this word see below, Romans ii. 13. 

V. 20. τῶν γραμματέων καὶ Φαρισαίων. That combinations 
of this kind do not interfere with the principle of the rule con- 
tended for by Mr. Granville Sharp will be evident from Part 
i. Chap. 111. Sect. iv. § 2. 

V. 21. ἔνοχος τῇ κρίσει. Eng. Version, “ to the jndgnisohist 
which to the unlearned may seem to signify the punishment of 
a future state. Campbell says, ‘‘ to the judges.” There can 
be no doubt that by ἡ κρίσις is meant some Court of Judica- 
ture, but not the Sanhedrim. Schlewsner makes it to be the 
Court of Seven established in every principal town to decide 
petty causes. Wetstein understands it of the Court of Twenty- 
three. Between these two opinions there is probably no vend 
difference. See Lewis's Heb. Antig. vol, i. p. 67. 

V. 22. τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός. The second Article is re- 
quisite by Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. i. ὃ 7. 

ΟΟΥ͂, 25. ὃ ἀντίδικος, ὁ κριτής, ὃ ὑπηρέτης, persons well-known 
in the courts of law. 


V. 382. παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας. Part i. Chap. vi. § 1. aa 
Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 7. 


CHAPTER VI. 139 


Same v. ἀπολελυμένην. Not “her that is divorced” or dis- 
missed, but any one that is divorced’. This distinction may 
appear frivolous, but the principle of the distinction is. im- 
portant. The force of the precept is, indeed, here the same ; 
but that will. not always happen. Piscator (See Bowyer’s 
Conjectures) supposed τὴν to be wanting. 

V. 34. ὅτι θρόνος ἐστὶ Θεοῦ. Here θρόνος is the Predicate, 
and οὐρανὸς understood the Subject; and so in the verses fol- 
lowing. And yet nothing can be more definite than both θρόνος 
and Θεοῦ. Part i, Chap. iii. Sect. iv. § 1. and Chap. iii. 
Sect. i. ὃ. 7. ned 

V. 37. ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ. The Article here determines 
nothing, as has been supposed, respecting the question whe- 
ther the meaning of these words be “ of evil,” or ‘from the 
Eyil One:” the decision, however, appears to be easy, if the 
opinion of the Syr. Translator be admitted as satisfactory evi- 
dence. The word which he has used in this place is las5, 
the same which he has employed for ὃ πονηρός, Matt. xiii. 19. 
and its undoubted cases, wherever they occur; and also for 
τοῦ διαβόλου, Acts x. 38. with which, therefore, τοῦ πονηροῦ 
in the verse ‘before us is made to be synonymous, But τὸ 
πονηρόν, which is found only Rom. xii. 9. he has translated 
by {Aas>, evil things; as in the same verse τῷ ἀγαθῷ is ren- 
dered “ to good things.” It is manifest, therefore, that in the 


judgment of the Syr. Translator the passage in question, as | 


well as ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ in the Lord’s Prayer and elsewhere, 
is to be interpreted of the Evil Spirit. And so, in the Lord’s 
Prayer at least, the Fathers almost unanimously understood 
it. See Suicer’s Thes. Eccles. vol. i. p. 808. edit. 1728; a 
work, which I venture to recommend to the student in theo- 
logy, as containing an immense fund of information on the 
subject of Christian Antiquities. 


CHAP. VI. 


V.1. τὴν ἐλεημοσύνην ὑμῶν. Rosenm. says “ Articulus τὴν 
et pronomen ὑμῶν adduntur, qua CERTA QUADAM 
GENERA virtutis significantur, in quibus colendis et exer- 


1 Would not the correct translation rather be, ‘‘ when she is divorced?” 4. 5, 


i 


140 ST. MATTHEW, 


ecendis Christiani fugere ostentationem debent.” The Article 
and Pronoun appear not to me to indicate any thing so recon- 
dite; but only to imply in our Saviour a presupposition, that 
his hearers did alms in some way or other; and his precept is, 
therefore, limited to the manner of doing them. ‘The libe- 
rality which you and all men occasionally exercise, must be 
free from ostentation.” This presupposition having once been 
signified, the phrase afterwards, v. 2, 3. falls into the more 
general form of the Hendiadys. Part i. Chap. v. Sect. ἢ. 
§ 1. , | | 
Same vy. ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων. Men generally. Part i. 
Chap. iii. Sect. ii. § 2. 3 

Same v. ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. Ὁ. 1. and a few of Matthai 
want τοῖς. This also is a copious source of various readings 
arising from the anomaly noticed, Part i. Chap. vi. ὃ 1. 

V. 2. τὸν μισθὸν αὐτών. Mr. Wakefield (on St. Matt.) 
concludes his Note on this passage with a remark, of which 1 
do not perceive the force. He observes, that ‘the Article 
prefixed to μισθὸν by the Evangelist, the or this reward, proves, 
in his opinion, that human applause, ὅπως δοξασθώσιν, was in- 
tended.” But the Article in this place is not to be rendered by 
the or this: it is used because of αὐτῶν following; for where a 
᾿ Pronoun depends on a Noun, the Article of that Noun is gene- 
rally inserted. Of these insertions the N. T. will furnish, pro- 
bably, a thousand examples: in the Lord’s Prayer alone siz 
occur. Such fanciful interpretations do much harm to the 
cause of criticism: from a professed scholar like Mr. W. they 
were not to be expected; arid yet I shall have occasion to 
show in several instances, that his notion of the uses of the 
Greek Article was not derived from attention to the Greek 
Writers. 

V. 6. τῷ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ. Wetstein’s D. 1. and Birch’s Vind. » 
Lamb. 31. and Esc. 11. want the first τῷ. The difference is, 
that the common reading makes the Father to be in secret; 
whilst the omission of the Article ascribes secrecy to the wor- 
shipper. Hither reading affords good sense; but the received 
one appears to be preferable. 

V.10. ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. Origen de Oratione, Birch’s 1209. or 
Vat. and one or two others want τῆς: probably, says Wetstein, 
because “ οὐρανῷ Articulo caret.” After Prepositions, as has 


CHAPTER VII. 141 


been shown, the usage is anomalous: I think, however, that 
where Nouns are connected, as in this passage, the general 
practice is in favour of uniformity. 

V. 19. σὴς καὶ βρῶσις. This will illustrate Part i. Chap. 
vi. ὃ 9, In the next verse the Proposition is exclusive: no 
moth, &e. 

VY. 22. This verse affords an instance of a convertible Pro- 
position. See Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iv. § 1. 

V. 24. ἢ ἑνὸς ἀνθέξεται. Mr. Markland (See Bowyer’s 
Conjectures, 3d edit.) says, ‘‘ Perhaps TOY ἑνός, as Luke vii. 
41. xvii. 34, 35, 36. xviii. 10. and yet the Article is wanting, 
Luke xvi. 13.” A single MS. of Matthai, but of. inferior 
value, has rov. The omission of the Article, therefore, must 
be considered as the true reading: but why should it be 
omitted before ἑνός, when in the preceding clause it was in- 


serted before va? The answer seems to be, that εἷς opposed «i; © “τές: 


to 6 ἕτερος usually takes the Article, where εἷς has not re- 
cently been mentioned: but if this practice were to be re- 
tained, where εἷς has recently occurred, the Article might be 
supposed to indicate recent mention; a purpose to which in 
6 εἷς it is frequently subservient. Now this objection does 
not apply to the passages, which Mr. Markland has quoted in 
support of his conjecture, but does apply to Luke xvi. 13. which 
he admits to be against him. This word, however, I shall 
have occasion to examine more fully hereafter. See 1 John 
v. 8. | 
V. 28. τὰ κρίνα τοῦ ἀγροῦ. Supposed by Michaelis (An- 
merk.) to be the Crown Imperial, a plant common in the 
meadows of the Kast. 
ΟὟ, 84. τὰ ἑαυτῆς Many MSS. among which is Birch’s 
1209. or Vat. omit ra: but μεριμνᾷν elsewhere in the N. T. 
governs an Accusative, as 1 Cor. vii. 32, 33, 34, Phil. iv. 6. 


CHAP. VII. 


V. 6. τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσί. This passage illustrates Part i. 
Chap. iii. Sect. ii. both §. | 

V.17. τὸ δὲ σαπρὸν δένδρον. Eng. Version, ‘fa corrupt 
tree.” This is the sense: yet the Article here is not without 
meaning in the Greek, but is equivalent to wav in the pre- 


142 ST. MATTHEW, 


ceding clause.. The Version might have been “ every corrupt 
tree,” as is evident from what was said of the hypothetical use 
of the Article, Part i. In the next verse neither πᾶν ΠΟΥ͂ τὸ 15 
used, because the Proposition is there exclusive. 

V. 24. ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν. Eng. Version and Newcome “ on a 
rock.” Campbell and Wakefield, “on the rock,” but without 
any remark. Schleusner says, “‘ fundamento ex lapidibus jacto.” 
According to the first and last of these-interpretations it will 
be difficult to account for the presence of the Article. Schleus- 
ner, however, seems not in this instance to have given the 
meaning with his usual success: for in the parallel passage, 
Luke vi. 48. it is said, ἔθηκε θεμέλιον ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν" where 
ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν must certainly have a different meaning from 
that, which Schleusner assigns it in the present verse ; since 
no writer could speak of laying a foundation on a foundation of 
stones. But it is well known, and Schleusner admits, that in 
the parable of the Sower, Luke viii. 6. ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν signifies 
‘on the rocky or stony ground, and he himself explains it by 
ἐπὶ τὸ πετρῶδες, Mark iv. ὅ. It can, therefore, hardly be 


doubted that in this place also the words have a similar mean= | 


ing, especially when we consider that the foolish man is’said 
to build ἐπὶ τὴν ἄμμον. In St. Luke, though the moral is the 
same, the illustration is somewhat different. There the wise 
man builds his house, first laying a foundation on the rock: 
the foolish man builds ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν, and that too χωρὶς θεμε- 
Afov.—In these passages at least it is plain that θεμέλιον has 
not the meaning assigned to it, Apoc. xxi. 19. by Mr. King, 
in his most valuable Munimenta Antiqua, vol. ii. p. 9. 

V. 25. ἡ βροχή, of ποταμοί, &c. Part i, Chap. iii. Sect. i. 
§ 5. Bengel (in his Gnomon) observes, “ Articulus significat 
pluviam non defuturam.” When such a man could indulge in 
this fantastic criticism, it is surely time that the uses of. the 
Article should be examined. Of this, indeed, he himself 
seems to have been sensible: he says, on Matt. xviii. 17. 
speaking of this very subject, “‘ Digna materies, que ἃ Philo- 
logis curatiis eigenen. τ 

ΟΥ͂, 39. ἐξουσίαν ἔχων. Hendiadys. Part i. Chap..v. Sect. 
ii. $1. (Page 95.) 


CHAPTER VIII. 143 


- CHAP, VIII. 


V. 1. ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄρους. See above, v. 1. 

. V.4. τῷ ἱερεῖ. To the officiating priest, not to the Aigh 
priest, as supposed by Wolfius. The Syr. has, “ to the priest.” 
I cannot conceive why Dr. Scott (See above on y. 1.) should 
think the Article in this place superfluous. 

V.6. ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ. In my house, or at home. 

V. 12. εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον. See below, xxv. 30. 

Same v. ἐκεῖ ἔσται 6 κλαυθμὸς καὶ 6 βουγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων. 
This is another of the passages, which might induce an English 
reader, but superficially acquainted with the Greék language, 
to suppose that its Article may be inserted ad libitum. The 
expression occurs in the N. 'T. seven times, and always in the 
same form: the usage, therefore, cannot be supposed to be 
arbitrary: and the reason why the Articles are inserted 15 
_ plain. The weeping and gnashing of teeth spoken of is that 
of the persons last mentioned; and the sense is, ‘‘ there shall 
they weep and gnash their teeth.” Without the Articles the 
Proposition would have asserted only that some persons should 
there weep; which falls short of the real meaning. Our Eng- 
lish Translations, however, in general say nothing more. The 
Complut. omits the first Article, probably, because it had been 
observed that in Propositions, which merely affirm or deny ex- 
istence, the Noun is commonly anarthrous. Part i. Chap. iii. 
Sect. ili. §1. Here, however, the case is different: the affirma- 
tion terminates not in ἔσται, but in ἐκεῖ. Bengel observes, 
* Articulus insignis: in hac vité dolor nondum est dolor.” 'This 
is not much better than a remark of the same Critic quoted 
above, vil. 25. 

V. 16. ὀψίας δὲ γενομένης. αἰ being evening. The Article 
could not here be used. Parti. Chap, ii. Sect. in. $1. 

V. 90. ai ἀλώπεκες. Part i. Chap. iii. Sect, ii. § 2. 

Same vy. ὃ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. See John vy. 27. 

V. 23. tuBavre εἰς τὸ πλοῖον. Wetstein’s C. 1. Birch’s 
Vat. 1209. and Vind, Lamb. 31. and three of Matthai’s MSS. 
—76: but see below on xiii. 2. In this place, indeed, it may 
be the vessel implied above, ver. 18. in the order given to cross 
the Lake, which I find to have been the opinion of Bengel: and 


144. ST. MATTHEW, 


it is remarkable that one good MS. of Matthii places this very 
verse immediately after ver. 18. Were this arrangement ad- 
missible, the reference of the Article would here be sufficiently 
plain. 

V. 26. τοῖς ἀνέμοις καὶ τῇ θαλώσομ Natural objects. 
Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. i. $5. 

V. 28. ἐκ τῶν μνημείων. These μνημεῖα were in the wildest 
and most unfrequented situations, amid rocks and mountains. 


Some idea of their form and arrangement may be gained from - 


the νεκροπόλεις, as described and represented by Denon in his 
Travels in Egypt. | ; 

V. 29. πρὸ καιροῦ. Part i. Chap. vi. § 1. 

V. 33. εἰς τὴν πόλιν. .The obvious use of the Article 
in this place is to direct the mind to the city of the Ger- 
gesenes, Gerasenes, or Gadarenes, (whichever be the true 
reading) in whose territory Christ then was. Michaelis, 
indeed, (Anmerk. ad loc.) maintains, * that the city here 
meant is not that of Gadara or Gerasa, (Gergesa being only 
a conjecture of Origen’s) because they both lie some miles 


distant from the sea: but that the town spoken of was the ὁ 


first which presented itself to our Saviour at his landing; 


the name of which, however, is not given by his Historians, 


probably, because they knew it not, having all of them been 
indebted for their information to others.” This objection ap- 
pears to me to have little or no support. In the 28th verse 
Γαδαρηνῶν is the reading which Michaelis and most critics 
prefer. Now the distance of Gadara from the border of the 
Lake was not so great as to authorize us to depart from the 
common interpretation. According to Josephus, as quoted by 
Lightfoot and Reland, from Gadara to Tiberias, which lay on 
the opposite side of the Lake, was a distance of sixty stadia: 
the width of the Lake was, on the same authority, forty stadia: 
the difference, therefore, or the distance of Gadara from the 
water side, will be less than two and a half English miles; or, 
supposing the Lake to be here below its average width, we may 
state the distance at three, or at most at four, English miles: 

and where is the improbability, that the persons who tended 
the swine, should carry the tidings of so extraordinary an event 
to a city, which was at no greater distance ὃ especially, when 
it is considered, that Gadara was the capital of Perea, and, 


er eee eee 


a” ὡνὼλ κὐλ ee ὧν 


CHAPTER IX. 146 


therefore, a place of some importance. Thus far with respect 
to the circumstances of the case: but, further, I am persuaded 
that had any other city been meant, than the metropolis of the 
Gadarenes, the expression would not have been εἰς τὴν πόλιν. 
Of this indefinite use of so definite a phrase the N. T. furnishes 
no example. To pass over instances, in which Jerusalem is 
evidently meant, we find in John iv. 8. ἡ πόλις in reference to 
Sychar recently mentioned: Acts ix. 6. to Damascus: x. 9. 
to Joppa: xiv. 19. to Lystra: xvi. 13. to Philippi: and xvii. 5. 
to Thessalonica. On the contrary, where some city unknown 
or undeclared is spoken of, we read εἰς πόλιν and ἔν τινι πόλει, 
as in Luke i. 39. and xviii. 2. On the supposition, therefore, 
of Michaelis, it is probable that one of these latter forms would — 
have been adopted in the passage under review. 

It may be added in behalf of the reading Γαδαρηνῶν, which 
Michaelis states to be found only in the Syr. that. it appears 
also in Birch’s Vat. 1209. and in two MSS. of Matthiai: these 
readings, however, might be unknown to Michaelis, having 
been published only in the same year, in which his own work 
appeared. 

V. 34. πᾶσα ἡ πόλις. Part i. Chap. vii. § 1. 


CHAP. IX. 


V.1. εἰς τὸ πλοῖον. Wetstein’s L. 1. and six others, with 
Origen, omit τό. So also five MSS. of Birch including Vat. 
1209, and also some of Matthii’s. The vessel, however, may 
be the same with that already mentioned, waiting to carry 
' Christ back again. But see on πλοῖον below, xiii. 2. 

V. 5. σοὶ ai ἁμαρτίαι. For σοὶ many MSS. have σοῦ, which 
Wetstein would admit into the Text. To me σοῦ appears to 
have been originally the correction of some one, who knew not 
that ai ἁμαρτίαι might signify ‘‘ your sins:” and this conjer: 
ture is strengthened by the addition of σοῦ after ἁμαρτίαι in a 
few MSS., in both Syr. Versions, in the Aithiopic, Coptic, 
Origen, Sa. 

V. 15. ἐλεύσονται ἡμέραι. D. and two others ai ἡμέραι. 
This is an instance, in which, as in Propositions asserting ex- 
istence, the Predicate is contained in the Verb. It is probable, 
therefore, that the common reading is the true one: at the 

L 


146 ST. MATTHEW. 


same time it must be admitted, that there may be a reference 
anticipative of ὅταν following. In the parallel places the MSS. 
are without the Article. 

V. 28. εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν. Abp. Newcome (see above on y. 1.) 
did not perceive that the Article in this place had any mean- 
ing. It is rightly explained by Rosenmiiller, who says, “ eam 
nimirum domum, in qua Capernaumi consueverat cunarvens 
-Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. 1. ὃ 4. 

V. 33. τοῦ δαιμονίου. In reference to δαιμόνιον implied i in 
δαιμονιζομένου in the verse preceding. Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. 


i 81. 
CHAP. X. 


V. 1. πνευμάτων ἀκαθάρτων. Over them generally: but 
the Article is wanting by Part i. Chap. i. Sect. iii. ὃ 7. 

V. 2. πρῶτος Σίμων ὃ λεγόμενος Πέτρος. The word πρῶ- 
τος, though found in all the MSS. and also in the Syriac, &c. 
has been supposed to be interpolated by some zealot, who 
wished to establish the Pope’s primacy. The Papists, how- 
ever, must be allowed the advantages, if there be any, arising 
from the undoubted authenticity of the reading: but, proba-’ 
bly, more stress would have been laid on it, had it been pre- 
ceded by the Article, to which their writers have ascribed con- 
siderable importance, though they have not always understood | 
its use. (See on Matt. xxvi. 26. and on 2 Thessal. ii. 8.) 
Πρῶτος, however, being an ordinal is not the less definite by 
being anarthrous; Part i. Chap. vi. § 3. and hence Campbell 
needed not to have apologized for rendering it ‘*the first.” 
Still there is nothing in this text to support the pretensions of 
the Prelates of Rome. It is a sufficient explanation of πρῶτος, 
that Peter was the Apostle first called to the ministry. Προτίθησι, 
dé, says Theophylact, as quoted by Swicer, Πέτρον καὶ ᾿Ανδρέαν, 
διότι καὶ πρωτόκλητοι. The same interpretation will apply 
also to the assurance, that Peter should be the rock on which 
Christ would found his church; especially if we recollect that 
the same Apostle was destined to preach to that people, to 
whom the Covenant of Salvation was first to be proposed. 

V.4. 6 Ἰσκαριώτης. Many MSS., especially of Matthéi, 
omit 6, and it is observable, that almost wherever the word 


CHAPTER X. 147 


occurs in the N. T. there is either a variation in the MSS. or 
the Article is wholly omitted. The meaning and origin of 
᾿Ισκαριώτης no Commentator, whom I have seen, pretends 
satisfactorily to determine. The majority, among whom is 
Schleusner, suppose that it has reference to the town of 
Kerioth, mentioned in the O. T. I think, however, that the 
frequent absence of the Article authorizes a suspicion that the 
word is a surname, and not an epithet significant of a place of 
birth or residence; because in that case the Article should be 
prefixed, as in Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνή. Mark, indeed, (xv. 21.) 
has τινὰ Σίμωνα Κυρηναῖον" but this is only ’on the first men- 
tion, besides that τινὰ would make TON Κυρηναῖον absurd. I 
am not certain whether the same inference is not strengthened 
by the compound ἐπικαλούμενον, which we find used of the 
name Iscariot, Luke xxii. 3. and which, so far as I have ob- 
served, is confined, as in strictness it ought to be, to surnames: 
thus in the present verse ἐπικληθεὶς Oaddatoc.— Acts i. 23. 
ὃς ἐπεκλήθη lovoroc.—x. 5. ὃς ἐπικαλεῖται Πέτρος.---χί!. 12. 
τοῦ ἐπικαλουμένου Μάρκου. If this notion be well founded, 
the Article in this verse and in every other, in which Ἰούδας 
precedes Ἰσκαριώτης, ought to be omitted. Some curious con- 
jectures on the word may be seen in the works of the most 
learned heghifoot, vol. ii. p. 176. 

V. 5. εἰς ὁδὸν ἐθνῶν. Part i, Chap. vi. § 1, and Chap. lil. 
Sect. iii. § 7. | 

V.8. ἀσθενοῦντας, λεπρούς, &e. without the Article, for 
not al/ the sick were healed, nor ald lepers cleansed. 

V. 15. ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως. Mr. Wakefield (on St. Matt.) 
translates these words “in a day of judgment ;” and he assures 
us in his N. T. that “ this phrase has not the least reference 
to the day of general judgment.” But it may be asked, what 
other judgment could at that time await Sodom and Gomorrha? 
These cities with their inhabitants had long since been exter- 
minated, and were, therefore, no longer subject to temporal 
visitations. He quotes, indeed, in support of his opinion ἐν 
τῇ κρίσει, Luke x. 14. where, however, the expression is too 
plainly definite to admit any doubt, and where also the argu- 
ment already adduced will apply with nearly equal propriety, 
Tyre and Sidon being then in ruins.—Since Mr. W., as ap- 
pears from other parts of his Version, acknowledges a day of 

L2 


148 ST. MATTHEW. 


general retribution, all proofs of that doctrine would, so far as 
he is concerned, be superfluous. A late writer, however, who 
is said to have devoted forty years to the study of the Bible, 
could not discover, that the usually received doctrine of a day 
appointed for the judgment of a// mankind by Christ in the 
presence of Angels, had any foundation in Scripture. See 
Cappe’s Remarks, vol. 11. p. 278. How, then, are we to ex- 
plain John v. 28, 29. Rom. ii. 16. and, not to instance other 
passages to the same purport, the circumstantial description 
beginning at Matt. xxv. 31? ἐν ἢ 

V. 16. Here we have ὡς πρόβατα, but ὡς ΟἹ ὄφεις. It is 
not without reason, that even this apparently minute distine- 
tion is observed. 4// sheep are not supposed to be in the 
midst of wolves; but all serpents are assumed to be prudent. 

V.17. ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων. Mr. Markland (See Bowyer's 
Conjectures) is of opinion, “ that some particular men are in- 
tended; and accordingly τῶν ἀνθρώπων can possibly signify 
no other than che men, i.e. the Jews, as the reasoning requires: 
OI ἄνθρωποι, the Jews, as plainly appears from what follows: 
ἄνθρωποι, the Heathen, frequently in the three first Evangel- 
ists; not so in some parts of John, the Acts and the Epistles, 
because the distinction had ceased before the writing of those 
pieces. So xvii. 22. παραδίδοσθαι εἰς χεῖρας ἀνθρώπων, of the 
heathen, not TQN ἀνθρώπων, which would have been of the 
Jews, and false: see Mark ix. 31. Luke ix. 44.” I have given 
this Note at length, because the work from which it is taken 
is now somewhat scarce. It is not true, however, that in εἰς 
χεῖρας ἀνθρώπων any thing can be inferred from the absence 
of τών. (See Part i, Chap. vi. § 1. and Chap. iii. Sect. iii. ὃ 7.) 
Nor can the learned Critic have been aware of the difficulties 
which would arise, if we should adopt his proposed distinction 
between ἄνθρωποι and of ἄνθρωποι, even in the three first _ 
Evangelists. To go no further than to St. Matt. vi. 14. “if 
ye forgive men their trespasses:” vii. 12. “whatever ye wish 
that men should do unto you:” xiii, 25. “whilst men slept.” 
In these places men must thus be understood to signify the 
Jews, to the exclusion of the Heathen: on the other hand, 
xv. 9. “ teaching for doctrines the commandments of men ;” 
xix. 26. ‘with men this is impossible ;” men must here be 
taken exclusively to signify the Heathen: than which nothing 

7 


CHAPTER X. 149 


can be more absurd.— With respect, however, to the passage 
in question, it is true, that τῶν ἀνθρώπων is more especially 
applicable to the Jews: but then this appears merely from the 
context, and not from any emphasis in the original, as Mr. 
Wakefield (St. Matt.) as well as Markland maintains’. In this 

-yery Chapter, v. 32. we read of the consequences of denying 
Christ ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, where there is the same sup- 
posed energy of expression, but where the meaning of οἱ av- 
θρωποι is adequately conveyed in our English phrase the world, 
as opposed to God, who is mentioned in the same verse. And 
generally, I think, the word ἄνθρωποι takes the Article, even 
where ‘‘ no particular men” are meant, but only men indiscri- 
minately, unless some of the alleged causes interfere*. The 
inclusive use of the Article has been noticed, Part I. Chap. iii. 
Sect. ii. § 2. 

V. 98. sie τὴν ἄλλην. The Article here serves to mark the 
opposition between οὗτος and ἄλλος, two cities only being sup- 
posed, and is, therefore, not without meaning in the Greek. 

V. 24. οὐκ ἔστι μαθητής. No disciple. Part I, Chap. iii. 
Sect. i. ὃ 5. 

V. 28. καὶ ψυχὴν καὶ σῶμα. Many MSS. of Wetstein and 
some of Matthii and Birch have THN ψυχὴν καὶ TO σώμα, a 
reading, which doubtless originated from ignorance of the 
usage noticed, Part I. Chap. vi..§ 2. The transcribers, not 
adverting to this, altered the reading from the preceding part 
of the verse. 

V. 29. ἀσσαρίου. D. ἃ pr. manu and Origen (Griesb. 
Symb. Crit. vol. i.) have τοῦ. This reading, though so feebly 
supported, is not altogether improbable, as there is a correlation 
between the δύο στρουθία and the ἀσσάριον, for which they 
are sold. The use of the Article in this sense is perfectly 


- 1 It may be worth mentioning that ot ἄνθρωποι is often used for “the ene- 
mies,’’ in classical: Greek. See Xen. An, IV. 2 7. VII. 3. 43. and 47, 
H. J. ΒΕ. 

- 2 In Xen. An. I. 7. 6. Kriiger edit. ot ἄνθρωποι, Poppo and Bornemann omit 
the art. after several MSS. the sense being men generally (“where men cannot 
live for the heat.”) On this omission see Bomem. and Xen. Symp, 11. 24. 
Buttman. Gr. Gramm. Maj. ὃ 110. not. 8. Thiersch. ὃ 306.9. Stallbaum (on 
Plat. Protag. p. 355. A.) cites from p. 322. C. ἐρωτᾷ οὖν Ἑρμῆς Δία, riva 
οὖν τρόπον δοίη δίκην, καὶ αἰδῶ ἀνθρώποις, and within three or four lines, δίκην 
δὴ καὶ αἰδῶ οὕτῳ θῷ ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις. H. J. R. 


150 ST. MATTHEW. 


classical. Thus. Demosth. de Cor. § 30. τοὺς τριηράρχους 
αἱρεῖσθαι ἐπὶ THN τριήρη συνεκκαίδεκα. ᾿ 

V. 32. τῶν ἀνθρώπων. See above, ver. 17. 

V. 36. ἐχθροὶ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. Eng. Version has ‘a man’s 
foes.” If this be the whole meaning of τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, the 
force of the Article is not apparent. Schleusner explains τοῦ 
ἀνθρώπου by οἰκοδεσπότης. This, indeed, would be sufficiently 
definite; for the master of a family, when we are speaking of 
his domestics, is a pre-eminent person: with this, however, I 
am not satisfied, and that for the following reason. The pas- 
sage before us is taken from Micah vii. 6. where the Hebrew 
is 2 WIN WN DN. Here by WN Schleusner would, 1 
suppose, understand οἰκοδεσπότης : but how did the LXX. 
interpret Micah? Their words are ἐχθροὶ πάντες ἀνδρὸς of 
ἄνδρες οἱ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ, “ though some MSS.” says Breit- 
inger in Proleg. vol. iii. ‘‘ have ἐχθροὶ ἀνδρὸς πάντες οἱ ἄνδρες, 
&e. gue genuina videtur lectio et Hebreo plané consona, nisi 
quod vox πᾶντες sit adjecta que tamen in Feteri Vers. τῶν O, 
INIMICI HOMINIS VIRI DOMESTICI EJUS,. non 
comparet.” Now though “vox πάντες sit adjecta,” it is not 
difficult to infer what was the reading, which it has supplanted. 
The reader of this work will not, I hope, discover in it any 
rage for conjectural emendation: yet I cannot doubt, when I 
observe πάντες and compare the Hebrew, that the LXX. 
wrote, by the alteration of a single letter, παντὸς ἀνδρός : the 
Omicron and Epsilon of the Uncial MSS. are not dissimilar; 
and I thought it probable, when this Note was first written, 
that the late Dean of Winchester, Dr. Holmes, had Providence 
permitted him to advance so far in his most important under- 
taking, would have found this emendation confirmed. The 
passage of Micah is not contained in the remains of the 
Hexapla. 

If this, then, be the true reading, it is “‘ Hebre@o plané con- 
sona,” without any “ nist quéd” whatever: WN, it is well 
known, commonly means wnusquisque ; the rendering, there- 
fore, could not be closer than by παντὸς ἀνδρός. It is true, 
indeed, that the Vet. Vers. τῶν O discovers no very evident 
vestige even of παντός : yet it should be remembered that 
hominis is much nearer to παντὸς ἀνδρός, than is viri to πάν- 
τες οἱ ἄνδρες : in the one case the sense loses little or nothing; 


ΡΜ, 


CHAPTER XI. 151 


in the other a great deal. Supposing, then, this conjecture to 
be admitted, what is the use to be made of it in the passage 
under review? It was reasonable to expect that the quotation 
in St. Matt. would bear a close resemblance to the Hebrew of 
Micah and to the Greek of the LX X.; and that the latter of 
these, if it did not exhibit the Article as we find it in St. Matt. 
would at least have something equivalent. This equivalent, I 
think, is παντός: and τοῦ ἀνθρώπου will then mean every man, 
or men generally, according to the hypothetic use of the Article 
so often noticed. In confirmation of this conclusion, the reader 
may turn to John ii. 24, 25. where he will find that our Saviour 
is said γινώσκειν πάντας, a truth which immediately afterwards 
is expressed by ἐγίνωσκε τί ἦν EN ΤΩι ANOPQTIQu’. 

V. 37. πατέρα ἢ untéoa. Without Articles. Part I. Chap. 
vi. ὃ 2. 

V. 41. μισθὸν προφήτου, not TON μισθόν. Part I. Chap. 
11, Sect. ii. § 6. 


CHAP, XI. 


5 


ΟΥ,8. ὁ ἐρχόμενος. ‘The person confessedly expected. 

V. 5. τυφλοί, χωλοί, λεπροί. See last Chap. ver. 8. 

Υ. 8. οἱ τὰ μαλακὰ φοροῦντες. It is remarkable, that so 
accurate a Greek scholar as Mr. Toup (See Bowyer’s Conjec- 
tures) should here wish to expunge τά, not perceiving that the 
passages, which he adduces in support of his conjecture, have 
no bearing on the present question. ‘That λευκὰ φορεῖν, 
ἀνθινὰ φορεῖν, &c. are the legitimate phrases in ordinary cases, 
nobody will dispute: but supposing that λευκὰ ἱμάτια had re- 
cently been spoken of, the phrase in such case would certainly 
be of TA λευκὰ φοροῦντες" for the asswmption respects not 
merely the act of wearing, but also the colour of the gar- 
ments. 

V. 11. ἐν γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν. ΤῸ. alone ἃ pr. manu has ἐν 
τοῖς γεννητοῖς τῶν γυναικῶν. This is evidently wrong, the 
Proposition being exclusive; any offspring of any. women. 


1 Stallbaum (ad Plat. Protag. p. 355. A.) says that ἄνθρωπος is one of those 
words which, when used of the genus universally, may be without the article. 
It is so in that place, while in p. 322. A. we have ἐπειδὴ δὲ ὁ wih 9g it θείας 
μετέσχε μοίρας. 


152 ST. MATTHEW. 


For the same reason we have in this v. μείζων, any one greater. 
Part I. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 5. An Unknown Writer, who, 
in a pamphlet entitled “ Sia more Letters,” has attacked 
Messrs. Sharp and Wordsworth on their respective publica- 
tions, and whose petulance is scarcely surpassed by his pro- 
found ignorance of the subject, gravely challenges his readers 
(at p. 24) to assign a reason why the Article was here omitted 
before γεννητοῖς. That the reason will be satisfactory, to him 
at least, is more than 1 dare hope: it is, that the Writer, or 
rather Translator, of St. Matthew’s Gospel, understood Greek 
somewhat better than does the Author of the Six more Letters. 
See Part I. p. 36, 87. I shall take occasion to adduce other 
proofs of the Unknown Writer’s extraordinary erudition: the 
tone of confidence and even of triumph, with which his re- 
marks are delivered, gives them a claim to some considera- 
tion. ᾿ εὐ tes 

V. 12. βιασταί. 1). alone (if we except a reading of Clem. 
Alex. in Griesb. Symb. Crit. vol. ii.) has OI βιασταί. Re- 
specting the sense of this passage the Commentators are pretty 
equally divided. The two interpretations are these: βιασταί, 
says one party, are those who strive with all diligence to enter 
into the kingdom of Heaven, “‘ who,” says Whitby, ‘ by their 
continual attendance on the doctrine of the Gospel preached 
to them, their care to understand it, and readiness to receive it, 
show their ardent desires to be made partakers of it.” The 
other party contends, that by βιασταὶ are meant “ publicani 
et milites, qui concussionibus et rapind prids vixerant.” Wet- 
stein ad loc. The difference between these two opinions is 
sufficiently striking: but it has not been remarked, that the 
difference is precisely that which arises from the insertion or 
the omission of the Article: ΟἹ βιασταὶ will include a whole 
species or class, as was shewn in Part I. whilst βιασταὶ will 
denote only some individuals of a class: so μάγοι, Matt. ii. 1. 
ἄγγελοι, iv. 11. and so Isocr. Panegyr. ὃ 33. ἐν 7 KATATION- 
TIXZTAI τὴν θάλατταν κατέχουσιν. The question, therefore, 
is only, which of the two interpretations is more favoured by 
the omission of the Article. On the first supposition, then, 
i. e. if βιαστὴς be one, who is earnest in the pursuit of ever- 
lasting happiness, surely the whole class of such must be 
affirmed ἁρπάζειν τὴν βασιλείαν, and that too whether ἁρπάζειν 


CHAPTER ΧΙ. 153 


refer to the attempt or to the result: the attempt, indeed, is 
implied in βιαστής, and the result cannot be doubted, when 
we know, that to them, who knock, it shall be opened. Ac- 
cording, therefore, to the first interpretation, we should expect 
OI βιασταί, or the whole class, and even then the assertion 
would not amount to much. . 

But supposing the other interpretation to be right, what 
should we then expect? Not that αὐ plunderers and extor- 
tioners should find their way. into the kingdom of Heaven: 
that any such should be admitted therein might at first be 
matter of surprise: at any rate we should expect the proposi- 
tion to be limited, i. 6. that the reading would be simply βιασ- 
rai. Since, therefore, this is the reading of the MSS. with the 
exceptions above stated, and since the Article, if it were found 
in more MSS. would not admit a very easy explanation, we 
must conclude that βιασταί, meaning persons hitherto of irre- 
gular lives, came from the Evangelist.—It is remarkable, that 
Schleusner, who adopts the other explanation, has twice quoted 
the passage (viz. under βιαστὴς and ἁρπάζω) OI βιασταί, whe- 
ther from accident, or whether he adopted the various reading, 
I know not. Michaelis (in his Anmerkungen) understands the 
place as I do; provided, he adds, that no mistake has been 
committed by the Greek Translator of Matthew's Hebrew 
original. His suspicion arises from a trifling discrepancy 
between this and the parallel passage in St. Luke xvi. 16. 
where, however, the word βιαστὴς does not occur, being in the 
N. T. ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. It is once found in Philo. 

V.19. ἡ copia. For the personification of Abstract Nouns, 
see Part 1. Chap. v. Sect. i. ὃ 2. 

V. 22. ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως. See above, x. 15. 

V. 23. ἕως τοῦ οὐρανοῦ . . . . . « - ἕως ddov. A very few 
MSS. omit τοῦ before οὐρανοῦ, probably with a view to uni- 
formity with what follows. There is, however, this difference, 
that οὐρανὸς in the N. T. is used equally in all its cases, 
whilst ἅδης occurs chiefly in the Oblique cases after Preposi- 
tions, which may have caused the Article to be omitted. 

V. 25. νηπίοις. Without the Article. In the inclusive 
form the affirmation would not have been true. 

V. 29. τῇ καρδίᾳ, in my heart. Part I. Chap. iti. Sect. i. 
§ 4, 


154 ST. MATTHEW. 


CHAP. XII. 


V. 1. τοῖς σάββασι. 10. alone of all the Μ55.--πτοῖς. This 
word usually takes the Article, unless where there is an espe- 
cial reason for dispensing with it. : 

V.7. rove ἀναιτίους. Without the Article the Proposition 
would have been exclusive, and would thus have denied more 
than the circumstances required. ‘The guiltless persons meant 
are only Christ and his Apostles. 

V. 10. ἦν τὴν χεῖρα. C. Vers. Copt. and Birch’s Vat. 1209. 
—nv τήν: avery probable reading, though the received one 
has nothing objectionable; Ais hand, as elsewhere. 

V. 12. ἄνθρωπος srpbi atc D, which is so often ial 
with respect to the Article, has τοῦ προβάτου. This must be 
wrong: for though πρόβατον has been mentioned before, there 
is no reference to it: the assertion is of any man and any 
sheep. 
V. 20. τὴν κρίσιν. It is now generally agreed, that κρίσις; 
which in the Hebrew is ΘΙ (See Isaiah xlii. 3.) is here used, 
like that word, to signify a divine law or rule of life: and it has 
been well shown by Raphel, vol. i. ad loc. from Polybius and 
Plato’s Epistles, that ἐκβάλλειν εἰς νῖκος may mean to render 
victorious: whence the whole will signify, Till he make his 
Gospel triumphant. I affix this meaning to the Article, 
observing, that one MSS. of Wetstein, seven of Matthii, one 
of Griesbach (Symb. Crit.) and Philox-Syr. according to Birch, 
add αὐτοῦ, which, though unnecessary, shows in what sense 
the Article was here understood. Part I. Chap. iii. Sect. i. 
§ 4, | εἶ 
V. 24. τὰ δαιμόνια... Not all Demons; but those whom 
he does cast out, he casts out through the aid of Beelzebub. 

V. 28. ἐν πνεύματι Θεοῦ. This may signify no more than 
by divine co-operation: and if so, πνεῦμα is here used ΜῊΝ 
fifth of the senses assigned it on Matt. i. 18. 

V. 29. εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ. Mr. Wakefield in his St. 
Matt. observes “the strong person, not ἰσχυροῦ simply with- 
out the Article, because it has a more particular reference to 
Satan mentioned above.” And in his N..T. published subse- 
quently, he says “ τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ, i.e. Satan.” According. to 


CHAPTER XII. 155 


Wolfius, Vitringa (on Isaiah) entertained the same opinion. A 
comparison, however, of the parallel place, Luke xi. 21, 22. 
will show that Satan is not here meant: for there we find men- 
tion of 6 ἰσχυρότερος, which destroys the notion that ὁ ἰσχυρὸς 
was meant κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν : neither am I aware that 1) is ever so 
employed in the O. T. The Article need not create any diffi- 
culty: Rosenm. indeed says, that it here has “ significationem 
indefinitam ;” and Schleusner has something similar: but its 
true use in this place is no other than that which I have deno- 
minated the Aypothetic, and which I have shown to be, like 
most other uses of the Article, as old as the age of Homer. 
Part I. p. 41°. : 

V. 32. κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου. 10. alone a pr. manu 
—second τοῦ. ‘This is evidently wrong: for not only does it 
contradict what was shown, Part I. Chap. viii. ὃ 1. but is also 
foreign from the practice of the whole N. T. The meaning of 
πνεῦμα ἅγιον in this place is not absolutely determined by the 
Article, though it is evidently used either in the personal or 
fourth meaning, deduced Matt. i, 18. or else according to the 
fifth sense, to signify the Holy Influence. The context, how- 
ever, determines at once in favour of the former of these, as is 
plain from τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον being used in opposition to ὃ 
υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ in the preceding part of the verse: for an anti- 
thesis between a person and an influence would be unnatural. 
To πνεῦμα, therefore, in the last verse was also used in the per- 
sonal sense. 

V.35. ὃ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος. D. alone ἂ pr. manu—6é. The 
Article is here employed hypothetically. 

Same v. ra ἀγαθὰ, followed by πονηρὰ without the Article. 
This difference has occasioned some critical discussion. Mark- 
land (see Bowyer) says, “‘ perhaps τὰ πονηρά: but adds, re- 
ferring to Casaubon’s. Notes on the N. T. ‘such is the differ- 
ence of the use of the Article in the Greek tongue, good things 
with the Article, evi/ things without it.” The name of Casau- 
bon must ever command respect; and the reader, who other- 
wise might smile at this whimsical distinction, will probably 
forbear, supposing that Casaubon has authorized the remark. 
He has, indeed, said, *‘ notetur diversitas Articuli adjecti et 


1 Winer adopts this as usual without acknowledgment. H. J. R. 


156 ST. MATTHEW. 


omissi,” but he has not shown wherein lies the diversity of 
meaning. aphel, however, (ad loc.) explains it to be, that 
the mind of the one person must be understood to be wholly 
bad, whilst that of the other has only some admixture of evil; 
wherefore care is to be taken, that those things alone, which 
are good, be brought forth, and that the evil things be kept 
back. That this was Casaubon’s meaning is more than 1 can 
readily believe: but supposing it to be so, still I cannot per- 
ceive that the distinction is well founded: and Raphel’s illus- 
trations, though often of great value, here illustrate nothing. I 
am persuaded, however, that no such difference, as that which 
our received Text now exhibits, originally existed; that either 
both ἀγαθὰ and. πονηρὰ had the Article, or that both were 
without it: and of these the latter is by far the more probable; 
for the assumption, that the things brought forth, were good, 
is scarcely allowable, this being the very thing to be asserted. 
The MSS. though some few have τὰ πονηρά, are much more 
strongly in favour of my supposition: no less than twenty- 
seven of Wetstein, ten of Birch, including Vat. 1209, and fif- 
teen of Matthii, among which are several of his best, omitting 
τὰ before ἀγαθά. In the parallel passage, Luke vi. 45. we 
have τὸ ἀγαθὸν and ro πονηρόν : but Adjectives in the Neuter 
Singular, used in the abstract sense, require the Article. See 
Part I. Chap. ii. Sect. i. §6.. Raphel, however, would account 
for τὸ πονηρὸν by supposing the persons spoken of in one 
Kyangelist to be less worthless and abandoned than those — 
mentioned in the other. Both solutions are plainly ejusdem 
farine. 

V. 41. ἄνδρες Nwevira. Men of Nineveh: οἱ ἄνδρες οἱ 
would not have been true’. 

Same v. ἐν τῇ κρίσει. Not the day of general judgment, 
says Wakefield: but see above, on x. 15. 3 
V.42. βασίλισσα νότου. English Version, * The Queen 
of the South.” This translation would lead the reader to look 
for something more definite in the original: yet the original is 
more natural than our Version. ‘A Queen of Arabia,” says 
our Saviour, “a mere barbarian, shall rise up in judgment 
against this generation, whose calls to repentance, though in- 


1 This is a mistake. See on Luke xi, 30. 


CHAPTER ΧΙ. 157 


effectual, have been so much more urgent.” The allusion, it 
is true, is to the Princess recorded in 1 Kings x. 1. but the 
reference was not necessary, especially when the event alluded 
to had happened so many centuries before. Indeed the inser- 
tion of the Article would rather have directed the mind of the 
hearer to some Queen then living; whilst the omission would 
leave him at liberty to make the intended application. Thus I 
might speak of it as an historical fact, that a Roman Emperor 
had died at York. I should evidently allude to Severus’ ; but I 
should not think of giving my expressien a more definite form. 
—Noéroc in N. T. is always ayarthrous, being considered as a 
Proper Name. 

Same v. Σολομῶντος. D. has τοῦ, which is neither neces- 
sary nor very usual in the regimen of Proper Names. Part I. 
p. 51. kal pitied 

V.43. ὅταν δὲ τὸ ἀκάθαρτον πνεῦμα ἐξέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀν- 
θρώπου. Mr. Wakefield, deviating from our Eng. Version, 
has, “when the unclean Spirit is gone out from the man,” 
which certainly is close to the original, but is perhaps scarcely 
compatible with the idiom of our language. Be this as it may, 
the case before us is analogous to that of regimen, in which τὸ 
ἀκάθαρτον πνεῦμα ἀνθρώπου would scarcely, for the reasons 
already assigned, be allowable in Greek. But, it may be 
asked, might not both the Articles have been omitted in the 
place in question? No doubt, they might: and the only dif- 
ference would have been, that what is now affirmed universally, 
would then have been asserted only in a single instance; which 
instance, however, not being particularly selected, would leave 
the mind to infer, that in other instances also the same will be 
true, ‘This process is well known to Logicians by the name of 
Induction. I have observed, however, that the genius of the 
Greek language, is, in this respect, unlike our own: it usually 
precludes the necessity of induction, by asserting all, which 
could be thus inferred; whilst our own tongue loves to assert 
the proposed truth only of a single example, and leaves it to 
the hearer to form the general conclusion. Accordingly Camp- 


1 No. Constantius also died at York. Author’s MS. But the grammatical 
principle contended for in the text is easily intelligible, notwithstanding this 
slight historical error in the hypothesis. J. S. 


158 ST. MATTHEW. 


bell has, I think, in strict conformity with the idiom of our 
language, rendered this place, ‘‘ a unclean spirit, when he is 
gone out of aman.” Of the Greek form the N. T. has other 
examples: thus, Matt. xv. 11. οὐ ro εἰσερχόμενον εἰς τὸ στόμα 
κοινοῖ TON ἄνθρωπον, and so also Mark vii. 15. ἔξωθεν TOY 
ἀνθρώπου." 

V. 50.. ἀδελφὸς καὶ ἀδελφὴ καὶ μήτηρ. This does not con- 
tradict what was said above on vi. 3: the Article before ἀδελ- 
φὸς is rightly omitted, because of ἐστί: Part 1, Chap. iii. 
Sect. iti. § 2. Instances similar to the present will be ad- 
duced on John viii. 44. second Note. 


CHAP. XIII. 


V. 1. ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκίας. From his house. The meaning can 
be no other than the house, in which our Saviour dwelt at 
Capernaum. See on ix. 28. | 

V. 2. εἰς τὸ πλοῖον. In this and in some other places of 


the Evangelists we have πλοῖον with the Article; the force, _ 


however, of which is not immediately obvious. In the present 
instance, English Version, Newcome and Campbell understand 
τὸ πλοῖον indefinitely; but that any ship, without reference, 
can be meant by this phrase is grammatically impossible. 
Many Philologists, indeed, have adduced this passage among 
others, to show that the Article is sometimes without mean- 
ing: but this proves only that its meaning was sometimes 
unknown to them. Accordingly, Rosenm. says, “ Navem 
aliquam ; nam Articulus ro hic indefinite sumitur :’ and 
Schleusner is of the same opinion. There is not, however, as 
has been shown in this work, any such thing as an indefinite 
sense of the Article; that, which has sometimes been so deno- 
minated, being no other than its hypothetic use, explained 
Part I. Chap. iii. Sect. ii. which is wholly inapplicable to the 
present case. Mr. Wakefield observes in his N. Τὶ ‘A par- 
ticular vessel is uniformly specified. It seems to have been 
kept on the Lake for the use of Jesus and the Apostles. It 
probably belonged to some of the fishermen (see iv. 22.) who, I 
should think, occasionally, at least, continued to follow their 
former occupation: see John xxi. 3.” Thus far Mr. W. whose 
solution carried with it an air of strong probability: and when 


“αι 7% 


CHAPTER XIII. 159 


we look at Mark iii. 9. which appears to have escaped him, his 
conjecture becomes absolute certainty; for there our Saviour 
is said to have directed, that a small vessel should constantly be 
in waiting for Him, προσκαρτερῇ αὐτῷ. Moreover, I think we 
may discover to whom the vessel belonged. In one Evangelist, 
Luke v. 3. we find a ship used by our Saviour for the very 
purpose here mentioned, declared expressly to be Simon’s: 


and afterwards in the same Evangelist, vill. 22. we have to ~ 


πλοῖον definitely, as if it were intended, that the reader should 
‘understand it of the ship already spoken of. It is, therefore, 
not improbable that in the other Evangelists also, the vessel 
so frequently used by our Saviour was that belonging to Peter 
and Andrew.—It is observable, that in most of the passages, 
in which the received Text has ro πλοῖον, some MSS. want 
the Article. In the present. instance Wetstein’s important 
MSS. C. 1. with six of Matthai, and two of Griesbach, (Symb. 
Crit.)—76. This omission can be accounted for only by sup- 
posing it to have been originally the emendation of some one, 
to whom the force of the Article was not apparent.—I observe 
that Bengel (in Gnom.) has remarked, “‘ Articulus navem innuit 
abi haberi solitam.” 

V.3. ὁ σπείρων. English Version, “A Sower.” Campbell, 
**'The Sower.” And the latter observes, ‘‘ The Article here 
is, In my opinion, not without design, as it suggests that the 
application is eminently to one individual.” Schleusner and 
Rosenmiiller make it synonymous with ric, “ answering,” says 
Rosenm. “ to the Hebrew 77 prefixed to Verbs and Participles; 
for the poverty of their language compelled the Hebrews to 
use participles in the place of Verbal Nouns.” Amid. this 
diversity of opinion, one thing at least is certain, that the 
Article is placed here, not without design, since three of the 
Evangelists, i. e. all who have the Parable, make use of the 
same expression. That the Hebrews employ the Participle 
Benoni in place of a Substantive, as mentioned by Rosen- 
miiller, is well known; but it is not true, that the Participles, 
so used as Substantives, necessarily have the 7 prefixed: in 
proof of which, if the reader have any doubt, he may consult 
Psalm cxxix. 7. and Prov. xxii. 8. where the Participles ΝΡ 
and YI are both without 7. It cannot, therefore, be in- 
ferred, that in 6 σπείρων the Article is inserted in compliance 


᾿ 
ΟΣ 


ἍΥΡΕΎ 


160 ST. MATTHEW. 


with the Hebrew usage: and when we observe, that in» both 
the cited passages the LX X. thought the Article necessary in 
their Version, (for they have Ὁ θερίζων and σπείρων) though 
they found it not in their original, surely we should say that 
the idiom is Greek, rather than that it is Hebrew: and I take 
this to be the truth; for σπείρων without the Article in the 
sense of σπορεύς, a word unknown to the LXX. as well as to 
the Writers of the N. Τὶ would certainly not be warranted. 
The Article, therefore, in this place is not, as has been con- 


tended, without its use, since it serves to give σπείρων the 


force and nature of a Substantive, as Campbell supposes, if I 
rightly understand him: for without doubt σπορεύς τις, had 
the word been used, would have accurately conveyed the mean 
ing. ad 

V. 6. ἡλίου δὲ ἀνατείλαντος. D. alone has τοῦ δὲ ἡλίου. 
There are several instances, even in the classical Writers, in 
which ἥλιος wants the Article; and the reasoh seems to be, 
that it is one of those Nouns, which, as Taylor on Aischines 
somewhere observes, inter nomina Propria et Appellativa equa- 
liter ibrantur. In the N. T. it sometimes wants the Article, 
not only after Prepositions and in anarthrous regimen, but 
also in some Genitives absolute; in which, as in the present 
instance, the case differs little from Propositions asserting only 
existence. ‘The same remark will hold of most of the Proposi- 
tions, which express merely the time, when an event is said to 
happen: so Acts xvi. 35. ἡμέρας δὲ γενομένης. Matt. xiv. 6. 
yeveciwy ἀγομένων. Luke xxiii. 54. σάββατον ἐπέφωσκε. 
See on John y. 1°. 

V. 14. ἡ προφητεία "Hoaiov ἡ λέγουσα. D alone has τοῦ 
"Ho. λέγουσα. Nothing, however, is more common than the 


* Kriiger (en Xen. Anab. II, 10. 15.) observes that the article is usually 
omitted when the word, as in that place, is joined with δύομαι. But he might 
have spoken more generally. Indeed of the six other instances which he ad- 
duces from the Anabasis, one is ἡλίου δύνοντος (II. 2, 3.), one is ἥλιος ἣν ἐπὶ 
δυσμαῖς (VII. 3. 34.), and the others are ἅμα ἡλίῳ δύνοντι (11. 11. 13.); 
ἀνίσχοντι (II. 1. 3.), ἀνατέλλοντι (11. 3. 1.), περὶ ἡλίου δυσμὰς (VI. 3. 32.). 
I observe ἡμέρα ἐγένετο, Xen. An. 11. 2.13. When the reader sees assertions 
in modern critics that the art, is omitted with many nouns (as in Ast. ad Plat. 
Prot. p. 19.), he will find on examination that most or all of them admit of ex- 
planations, as in these cases. See prefatory remarks. H,J. R. 


- CHAPTER XIII. 161 


omission of the Article before Proper Names, even when they 
are governed by Nouns, which have the Article prefixed. 
Aéyovea is anarthrous also in two MSS. of Matthai; which, 
however, is probably wrong, because the writer would natu- 
rally assume that the Prophecy was known to contain the 
words in question. 

V.16. οἱ ὀφθαλμοί, ra Gra. Here D wants οἱ and ra, and 
that without the support of any other MS. It is but rarely 
that Nouns governing Pronouns in the Genitive are anar- 
throus. See above on vi. 3. 

V. 23. 6 ἀκούων καὶ συνιών. Spoken of the same person. 
Part I. Chap. iii. Sect. iv. § 2. 

V. 25. ἐν τῷ καθεύδειν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους. Wakefield (St. 
Matt.) observes, ‘‘ the servants, whose business it was to take 
care of the field; or the phraseology may be after the Hebrew 
manner, and mean in general, during the time.of sleep.” The 
expression is certainly in the inclusive form, marked by the 
Article prefixed; but the phraseology is not more that of 
the Hebrew language, than it is of every other. The Author 
of the Night Thoughts in a celebrated passage has employed 
the same mode of speech, without regard to the correctness, 
which philosophy exacts: 


** Night, sable Goddess! from her ebon throne, 
In rayless majesty, now stretches forth 
Her leaden sceptre o’er a slumb’ring world. 
Nor eye, nor list’ning ear, an object finds; 
Creation sleeps.” ᾿ ΝΙΊΘΗΤ I. 


V. 27. ἔχει τὰ ζιζάνια. A great many MSS. of Wetstein 
and Matthdi, and some of the best of Birch, omit ra. This is 
probably right : the servants would express their surprise rather 
at there being any tares (darnel) at all, than at the particular 
tares in question: Wetstein, therefore, and Griesbach, would 
properly omit the Article’, 
~V~. 80. ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τοῦ θερισμοῦ. Here also very many 
MSS. including several of the best, omit τῷ, and Wetstein ap- 
proves the omission: but in this place I think the omission 
wrong, because of TOY θερισμοῦ following: for the reader will 
observe, that governing Nouns haging become anarthrous on 


1 It may be observed, however, that the Article may either be inserted or omitted 
with perfect correctness; not because there is any laxity in the use of it, but because 
a different form of expression is used accordingly as it is used or omitted, H, J. ἢ. 


M 


id 


162 ST. MATTHEW, 


aecount of preceding Prepositions, usually * impart the same 
form to those which they govern: had we read ἐν καιρῷ θερισ- 
μοῦ, there could have been no doubt. See below, ver. 35. 

V. 32. πάντων τῶν σπερμάτων. D and Vind. Lamb. 81. 
-- τῶν. See Part i. Chap. vii. § 2. 

V. 35. ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου. Part I. Chap. vi. § 1. and 
Chap. iii. Sect. 11, ὃ 7. 

Υ. 38. 6 da ἀγρός ἐστιν ὃ κόσμος. This is a μα νον. Ῥτο- 
position ; and yet in the next verse συντέλεια and ἄγγελοι want 


the Article: we find, indeed, in eight of Matthai’s MSS. Ἡ 


συντέλεια, which is not an improbable reading, though in 4d- 
stract Nouns, as has been shown, the Article is less necessary 
than in others: but in ἄγγελοι the same licence is not allowed; 
and we certainly ought to render, “ the reapers are angels,” 
notwithstanding that in other places, asin ver. 49. of this Chap. 
and in xxv. 31. the task here spoken of is assigned to the 
angels generally. 

Same v. τοῦ πονηροῦ. Satan. See above on ver. 37. 

V. 42. 6 βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων. See on viii. 12. 

V. 44. ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ. Some MSS. principally seventeen of 
Matthii’s,—7. It is wanting also in Chrysostom, probante 
Bengelio. The Article seems to have been originally inserted 
from the frequent use of Ὁ ἀγρὸς in the sense of ** the coun- 
try,” and not from its being necessary in this place: here it 
must signify an estate or farm, as is evident from τὸν ἀγρὸν 
ἐκεῖνον following. It may not be amiss to remark, that Mat- 
ἐμὰς MSS. are very important in restoring the true readings 
of the Article, as might be expected, from their being princi- 
pally of Greek origin, or of the Byzantine edition®. And 
conversely, if we had known nothing of the Writers of these 
MSS. it might have been inferred, that for the most part they 


were natives of countries where Greek was well understood, 


from their frequent correctness in the use of the Article where 
the MSS. of other editions are faulty. It is true that the 
Codex Beze is among the MSS. which have ἐν ἀγρῷ: but of 
that MS. more will be said in an AppENDIx. 


1 See note on p. 49. H. J. R. 
2 I have here asserted that Matthii’s MSS. are of the Byzantine edition. I 
did this on the authority of Michaelis, Introd. Vol. II. p- 117. This, however, 


Matthai himself, on Matt. xxi, 4. positively denies: the dispute is not hujusce 
loci nee temporis. 


~a> 


— T= 


CHAPTER XIV. 163 


CHAP. XIV. 


V. 2. διὰ τοῦτο ai δυνάμεις ἐνεργοῦσιν ἐν αὐτῷ. English 
Version has, “ therefore mighty works do show forth them- 
selves in him.” Newcome adopts the marginal reading, ‘ are 
wrought by him.” Wakefield, (N. T.) “ these powers are 
active in him.” The German of Michaelis signifies, * and 
therefore he works miracles.” So also Beausobre : and Schleus- 
ner is nearly to the same effect. If, however, it be the object 
of the Proposition to declare that miracles are wrought by 
John, it is rather unnatural that their existence should be 
assumed. I think, therefore, that the Article in this place, 
combined with other circumstances, directs us to further 
inquiry. 

First, there is something remarkable in the sense, which the 
Commentators, with the exception of Wakefield, (whose Ver- 
sion, however, I had not seen when this note was first written), 
ascribe to ἐνεργοῦσιν. Our own Version of the passage seems 
to be founded on a /ectio singularis a pr. manu of 1), viz. évap- 
γοῦσιν, a word, indeed, which wants authority, but which, if it 
existed, would be deducible from évapyf¢: and when we con- 
sider that the Codex Bezze was presented to the University of 
Cambridge only about twenty-six years before our present 
Version was made, it is not altogether improbable that this 
reading might have been thought of great importance’. The 
other Translators (Wakefield excepted) appear to take ἐνεργεῖν 
passively; whereas it is every where in the N. T. used in a 
transitive or an absolute sense; where the passive is required, 
we have ἐνεργεῖσθαι. But further, not only is the sense either 
transitive or at least absolute, but the action is usually referred 
to some being of extraordinary power; either to God, as 1 Cor. 
xii. 6.; Gal. 11. 8. iii. 5.; Ephes. 1. 11. 20.; Philipp. 11. 13.; 
or to the Holy Spirit, as 1 Cor. x. 11.; or to the Devil, as 
Ephes. ii. 2.; and these are thé only instances in which the 
active Verb occurs, except indeed that in Philipp. i. 13. we 
have τὸ θέλειν καὶ τὸ ἐνεργεῖν applied to men. The parallel 


1 ἢ a better acquaintance with the Codex Bezz, I think it probable that évap- 
γοῦσιν is not a various reading, but is to be ascribed solely to the copyist’s mode 
of spelling: still, however, our translators might consider it as a distinct reading. 


M2 


164 ST. MATTHEW, 


passage in Mark is, of course, out of the question. Hence we 
are led to infer, that in the place also under piped ἐνεῤγοῦσῳ 
is used ἴῃ an absolute sense, and that, 

Secondly, ai δυνάμεις must be some kind of Agents: and 
that spiritual Agents were so denominated, there can be no 
doubt. In a curious, but somewhat neglected passage of 
Eusebius Prep. Evang. vii. 15. where he speaks of a Jewish 
Trinity, he tells us that “all the Hebrew Theologians next to 
God, who is over all, and Wisdom his First-born, ascribe 
Divinity to (ἀποθειάζουσιν) τὴν τρίτην Kat ἁγίαν ΔΎΝΑΜΙΝ, 
whom they call The Holy Spirit, and by whom the inspired 
men of old were illumined.” And again, Demonst. Evang. iv. 
9. he says, “" AYNAMEXI χθονίαις καὶ πονηροῖς πνεύμασιν ὃ 
πᾶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων βίος katededobAwro.” And several others 
of the Fathers employ the word in the’same sense. It is plain, 
therefore, that δύναμις may be a Spirit either good or bad: 
and in this manner it is used in the N. T. Compare Ephes. 
vi. 12. where, indeed, δύναμις does not occur, with Ephes. i. 
21. where δύναμις is associated with some of the words in the 
first-mentioned passage, and with others of similar import, and 
where Schleusner admits, though his own opinion seems not 
to be decided, that δυνάμεις is there generally understood of 
Angels. Such also is probably the meaning of the word, Rom, 
vill. 38. 

It can hardly be doubted, then, that the passage under 
review, and consequently the parallel one, Mark vi. 14. should 
be rendered, ‘‘ the Powers or Spirits ate active in him.” Mr. 
Wakefield, by rendering “ these Powers,” has shown that he 
understood the passage somewhat differently from the manner 
here proposed.—We are to consider that Herod was a Sad- 
ducee, and that he had hitherto believed neither in a resurrec- 
tion nor in the agency of Spirits. His remorse, however, and 
his fears, for the moment at least, shake his infidelity; and he 
involuntarily renounces the two great principles of his sect. 

In this way of understanding the passage, the Article may 
be accounted for as in of ἄγγελοι. 

V. 6. γενεσίων ἀγομένων τοῦ Ἡρώδου. This is another 
instance coming under the head of Propositions of Existence. 
Part 1. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 1. 

ΤΥ, 11. ἐπὶ πίνακι. D and 1, have ἐπὶ τῷ πίνακι, which in 


CHAPTER XIV. 165 


D at least is remarkable, because that MS. at ver. 8, to which 
τῷ would have reference, wants the words ἐπὶ πίνακι: but the 
Cod. Beze sets Criticism at defiance. 

ΟὟ. 15. ὀψίας γενομένης. Part I. Chap. iii. Sect. iii, § 1. 
So also below, ver. 23. 

V. 22. εἰς τὸ πλοῖον. A-few MSS. including Vat. 1209— 
τό. See above, xiii. 2. 

V. 23. εἰς τὸ ὄρος. See above, v. 1. 

V. 25. τετάρτῃ δὲ φυλακῇ.. See on Ordinals, Part I. Chap. 
vi. ὃ 3. 

Υ. 30. τὸν ἄνεμον ἰσχυρόν. This 15: not an objection to 
what was advanced, Part I. Chap. viii. § 1. Similar instances 
were adduced, p. 144. 

V. 33. ἀληθῶς Θεοῦ vide εἶ. Several Translators and Critics 
understand this to signify only, ‘‘ Thou art a son of God.” 
That the want of the Articles affords no ground for such an 
interpretation, has been generally proved above, on iv. 3.; but 
it may not be amiss briefly to notice the particular circum- 
stances of this passage. It is conjectured by some Commen- 
tators, that the mariners who made this declaration were 
Pagans; for which supposition, however, I find not the least 
support: and Wetstein, who favours this conjecture, adds, that 
there is no reason to believe that even the Apostles did as yet 
recognize the Divinity of Christ.. By way of parallelism he 
adduces. the common Heathen phrase προσκυνεῖν ὡς ΘΕΟΝ: 
he should have quoted some instances of ὡς υἱὸν Θεοῦ, or 
rather of υἱὸς εἶ Θεοῦ, as an expression of vulgar admiration: 
for ὡς Θεὸν is no parallelism at all; and his not having pro- 
duced any such instance, affords a tolerable presumption, con- 
sidering his immense range of reading, and his eagerness to 
correct extravagant conceptions of the dignity of Christ, that 
no such instance exists. ‘The inscription adduced by him (on 
John i. 1.) αὐτοκράτωρ Καίσαρ, ΘΕΟΥ͂ ᾿Αδριανοῦ YIOL, OEOY 
Τραϊανοῦ YIQNO®, κ. τ. A. proves only what every one knows, 
that the Roman Emperors were after death called Divi; and 
that frequently they had sons, grandsons, &c. like other men. 
Admitting, then, that the mariners were Pagans, it is not easy 
to understand how, if they spake merely in conformity with 
their own notions, and according to their own phraseology, they 
came to use the expression, But they were the companions 


166 ST. MATTHEW, 


of the Disciples: might they not, therefore, use a phrase which 
they had borrowed from others? Against this it is urged, that 
the Disciples themselves were not yet acquainted with our 
Saviour’s Divinity; a position which, though true on the whole, 
is yet received with too little restriction. That the expected 
Messiah was to be the Son of God, was a Jewish doctrine. 
See Allix’s Jewish Testimonies, Chap. xvii. If, therefore, they 
had believed our Saviour to be the Christ, they must also have 
regarded him as the Son of God. But allowing their faith to 
have been unsettled, or that, generally speaking, they rejected 
the notion that Jesus was the Christ; still it was extremely 
natural, whenever his extraordinary works induced a momen- 
tary acquiescence in his mission, to apply to him the title by 
which, had their conviction been uniform, they would uni- 
formly have distinguished him; and it is not too much to add, 
that knowing the pretensions of Christ, they would hardly, 
whatever were their own opinion, if we recollect how extra- 
ordinary and singular these pretensions were, conceal them 
from their companions and friends. To have heard Christ 
declare, as they often must have done in their intercourse with 
Him, that He was the Son of God, and yet not once to men- 
tion such a declaration to their familiar associates, would not 
be explicable on the common principles of human conduct. 
Even on the supposition, therefore, that the Mariners were 
Pagans, their exclamation, that Jesus was the Son of God, I 
mean in the highest sense, admits an easy solution; much 
easier, indeed, than that which would make υἱὸς εἶ Θεοῦ, with- 
out any proof, to be a term commonly significant of Pagan 
admiration. It was not thus that the Heathens of Lystra, 
Acts xiv. 11. expressed their astonishment at the works of 
Barnabas and Paul: their language is ΟἹ ΘΕΟῚ ὁμοιωθέντες 
ἀνθρώποις κατέβησαν πρὸς ἡμᾶς. So also the people of ὅς. - 
sarea, Acts xii. 22. struck with the eloquence of Herod, ex- 
claim, ΘΕΟΥ͂ φωνή, οὐκ ἀνθρώπου. Josephus, recording the 
same transaction, says, Antiq. lib. xix. cap. viii. § 2. ἀνεβόων, 
ΘΕΟΝ προσαγορεύοντες. 

Campbell, indeed, does not insist that the Mariners were 
Heathens; and he contends that they might mean only to say, 
that Christ was a Prophet, for that such are denominated sons 
of God. He has not, however, adduced any instance in which 


CHAPTER XV. 167 


υἱὸς Θεοῦ is so used; nor does my memory supply the defect. 
On the whole, whether the Mariners were Pagans or not, I 
understand the declaration to signify, that Christ was really 
what he had professed to be: ἀληθῶς expresses both their 
former doubt and their present conviction. At the same time, 
I ought not to suppress that the great Casaubon, 


O DOCTIORUM QUICQUID EST, ASSURGITE 
Hvuic TAM COLENDO NOMINI! 


distinguished -between ὃ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ and υἱὸς Θεοῦ, in his 
extremely rare and learned work Ewercitt. ad Baronium, p. 
326. He rests wholly on the authority of Theophylact: of 
my own opinion I have no other vindication to offer than that 
which is contained in the Note above, on iv. 3. 


CHAP. XV. 


V1. οἱ ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύμων Γραμματεῖς. A few MSS. in- 
cluding Vat. 1209.—oi. The difference will be, that with the 
Article we must understand the principal part of the Scribes 
and Pharisees of Jerusalem; without it, that some Scribes and 
Pharisees came from Jerusalem. The latter is the more pro- 
bable; and this is the sense of the Syr. Version, and apparently 
of the Vulg. See also Mark vii. 1. 

V. 5. πατέρα ἢ μητέρα. Parti. Chap. vi. § 2. 

V. 9. διδασκαλίας. By way of, §c. Part i, Chap, iii. Sect. 

V. 11. τὸν ἄνθρωπον. The Article is here necessary, be- 
cause, as in the case of Regimen, the definiteness of a part 
supposes the definiteness of the whole: τὸ στόμα ἀνθρώπου 
would not be Greek, nor in this place ἄνθρωπον. In the 
same manner must we explain 1 Cor. vi. 16. ὁ κολλώμενος 
TH: πόρνῃ. 

V.12. τὸν λόγον. This word always in the N. T. except 
where particular rules interfere, takes the Article, when used 
in the sense of 6 λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, or τοῦ Κυρίου. 


V. 24. οἴκου Ἰσραήλ. And so also above, x. 6. The * 


Greek form would have been τοῦ οἴκου : the Hebrew would 
reject the Article. The writers of the N. T. waver between — 
the two; for in Heb. viii. 8. 10. we have τὸν οἶκον ᾿Ισραήλ. " 


The same diversity is observable in the LXX. and probably 


168 _ ST. MATTHEW, 


from the same cause: οἶκος Ἰσραὴλ may be regarded as a 
single Noun, and that a Proper Name’. The Syr. Translator, 
at Acts iv. 8. has rendered Ἰσραὴλ by House of Israel. 

V. 26. τοῖς κυναρίοις. To those of the family. 

V. 29. εἰς τὸ ὄρος. See on v. 1. It may be remarked, 
that what was there said of the contiguity of the mountain 
district to Capernaum, derives confirmation from the mention 
in this place of παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν τῆς Γαλιλαίας. 

V. 80. χωλούς, τυφλούς, κωφούς, κ. τ. A. Some individuals 
of each class; as elsewhere. 7 

V. 39. εἰς τὸ πλοῖον. Here only two MSS.—ré. See on 
xiii. 2. | 

CHAP. XVI. 


Υ. 1. οἱ Φαρισαῖοι. A few MSS. with Origen—oi. This 
omission is not necessary, since the Article may imply only the 
greater part of those who resided in the neighbourhood. 

V. 13. τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. There is a difference of 
opinion (see Bowyer’s Conjectures) respecting the construction 
of this passage. The one rendering is that of our Eng. Ver- 
sion, ““ Whom do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” the 
other, “Whom do men say that I am? The Son of Man?” 
This is one of the very many new senses which the Writers in 
Bowyer’s Collection would derive from a new punctuation; a 
kind of conjectural criticism, which has experienced unusual 
indulgence, merely because, as is alleged, it alters nothing of 
the original Text; but which, if generally allowed, would cor- 
rupt the sense of ancient Writers no less effectually than do 
the rashest and most unauthorized substitutions. It is not 
true, however, that the most ancient MSS. are without points: 
that points are found in the A. B. C. D. of Wetstein, i. e. the 
Cod. Alexand. the Vatican, though rarely, the Cod. Ephrem, 
and the Cod. Bezz, has been shown by Mr. Herb. Marsh, 
(Notes on Michaelis, Vol. II. p. 892.): and the supposition 
made in the Preface to Bowyer’s Conjectures, third edit. p. 6. 
“that the Apostles inserted no points themselves,” is very 
questionable. We are informed by Montfaucon, as quoted by 
the same learned Critic, p. 889, that the first person who dis- 


? Winer tacitly adopts this explanation.on Acts ii. 38 Η. J. R. 
» 
‘ 


CHAPTER XVI. 169 


tinguished the several parts of a period in Greek writing by 
the introduction of a point, was Aristophanes of Byzantium, 
who flourished about two hundred years before the Christian 
era, and that points have been found in inscriptions written 
two hundred years earlier. Admitting, however, that the 
Evangelists and Apostles did not adopt a contrivance which 
must in their time have been growing into common use, they 
may be supposed at least to have availed themselves of the 
same means of becoming intelligible, to which Writers, before 
the use of points, ordinarily had recourse: and that was ar- 
rangement. ‘The ancients generally complain of the eernty 
of Heraclitus: the Epigram says, 


Μὴ ταχὺς Ἡρακλείτου ἐπ ᾿ ὀμφαλὸν εἵλυε Βίβλον 
τ ᾿ουφεσίου" μάλα τοι δύσβατος ἀτραπιτός" 
ὄρφνη καὶ σκότος ἐστὶν ἀλάμπετον. 


This obscurity, however, was caused not entirely by the close- 
ness of his reasoning or the depth of his researches: he was 
confused in his arrangement: his words were so ingeniously 
disposed (for according to Cicero de Nat. Deor. lib. 111. cap. 14, 
he wished not to be understood) that to have pointed his writ- 
ings would have been a laborious task. Aristotle observes, 
(Rhet. lib. iii. cap. v. ὃ 2. ed. 1728.) τὰ yao Ἡρακλείτου διασ- 
τίξαι, ἔργον, διὰ τὸ ἄδηλον εἶναι ποτέρῳ πρόσκειται, τῷ ὕστερον 
ἢ τῷ πρότερον. Hence it is evident that the position of the 
words, before the actual use of points, in great measure sup- 
plied the defect: and, indeed, otherwise the same sentence 
would often admit two or three distinct meanings, or might be 
destitute of all meaning whatever. I cannot, therefore, agree 
with those who would rashly disturb the established punctua- 
tion: new senses may, indeed, be thus deduced ad infinitum : 
but unless great caution be employed, and the difference occa- 
sioned in the relative position can be well defended, unnatural 
and even absurd constructions will be the inevitable conse- 
quence. Ifthe reader wish to feel the effect of this kind of 
criticism when applied to our own language, he may turn to 
the Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act v. Se. 1. 

But to return: though the Sacred Writers are by no means 
remarkable for elegance of style, their perspicuity, so far at 
least as their language is concerned, is not to be called in ques- 


170 ST. MATTHEW, 


tion. Neither do I believe, that had the passage been intended 
to convey the sense supposed, it would have stood in its pre- 
sent form; for I do not recollect any instance of an interroga- 
tion so abrupt as τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, some interrogative 
particle, such as μὴ or μήτι, being always prefixed. 

I am concerned with this dispute only as D omits τόν ; an 
omission which, had it been sufficiently supported, would have 
favoured the conjecture, but which, resting on a single au- 
thority, like so many of the readings, which respect the Article; 
in the Cod. Beze, must be deemed of little or no importance. 
On the other hand, Birch’s Vat. 1209, and the Hieros-Syr. 
with scme other Versions, omit ye, and thus strengthen the 
common interpretation.. Adlerin his Versiones Syriace, p. 164. 
very well conjectures that the received reading was made up of 
two, viz. τίνα με λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἶναι (which is the read- 
ing of Mark and Luke) and of τίνα λέγουσιν of ἄνθρωποι εἶναι 
τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, which is the supposed true reading of 
St. Matthew.—At any rate, the new punctuation gives a most 
improbable meaning. Had Christ inquired whether He were 
commonly regarded as the Son of God, the case would have 
been different: this would have been to ask, whether men 
regarded Him as the Christ, the promised Redeemer: (John 
xi. 27.) but the Son of Man was a name which, though fre- 
quently assumed of Himself by himself, as in the present 
instance, was not applied to Him by others till after His 
Ascension. 

Same v. oi ἄνθρωποι. Men generally. See on x. 17. 

V. 18. πύλαι ἅδου. On these words, and on the promise of 
which they form a part, much has been written, which I shall 
not attempt even to abridge. It may, however, be observed, 
that in explaining ἐπὶ τῇ πέτρᾳ preceding, the Protestants have 
betrayed unnecessary fears, and have referred πέτρᾳ not to 
Peter, to whose name it evidently alludes, but to his recent 
confession that Jesus was the Christ: nor is it easy to see what 
advantage would be gained, unless they could evade the mean- 
ing of δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖς, which follows. But there is no 
occasion to have recourse to violence. ‘ The Christian Church 
in matters of doctrine,” says Michaelis, “ rests on the testi- 
mony of the Apostles, of whom Simon Peter was one of the 
most distinguished, in order the first, and who only, in company 


CHAPTER XVII. 171 


with James and John, was eye-witness of many important facts.” 
Anmerk. ad loc. It may be added, that Peter was the first 
Apostle who preached to the Jews and also to the Gentiles. 
See Acts ii. and x. By πύλαι ἅδου one class of Critics under- 
stand simply death or destruction ; so that the meaning will be, 
The Christian Church shall never be destroyed: whilst others 
contend that πύλαι refers to the Oriental custom of meeting 
and deliberating at the gates of palaces and cities; of which 
usage there are several vestiges both in the Old Testament and 
in the writings of modern Travellers; and the name Ottoman 
Porte is deduced from this practice. According to this accep- 
tation, the meaning will be, that the power and the machina- 
tions of Hell itself shall not be able to subvert the Church of 
Christ. This latter opinion is plausible, and it is espoused 
by Casaub. Exercitt. p. 356. and also by Michaelis ad loc. : 
but the objection is, that πύλαι ἔδου is no other than NW “YU 
of the Old Test. which is used only to signify death, or the 
entrance into a new state of being: and the πύλαι ἄδου of the 
Classical Writers has no other meaning. Πύλαι in this place 
wants the Article, by Parti. Chap. ui. Sect. i. § 6. 

V. 28. τινὲς τῶν ὧδε ἑστηκότων. Several MSS.—réyv, which 
can hardly be right, Parti. Chap. iii. Sect. i. § 8.: but the 
true reading is probably ἑστῶτες, which Wetstein adopts. 


CHAP. XVII. 


V.2. ὡς τὸ φώς. Td φώς σελήνης is the conjecture of 
J. S. Bernardus ap. Wetstein. It has no foundation, and 
would, without the second Article, be false Greek.. Bowyer 
treats it with deserved contempt: he calls it a moonshine emen- 
dation: and yet his Collection has many others, which are not 
at all more luminous. 

V.15. εἰς τὸ πῦρ. Bengel (in Gnom.) has here a Note 
which I do not understand: he says, “" Articulus UNIVERSE 
innuit naturam horum elementorum, quod lunaticus apud ignem 
et aquam proclivior sit in paroxysmum :” and he bids us ob- 
serve, that the Article is omitted in the parallel passage, 
Mark ix. 22. It may very well be omitted by Part i. Chap. vi. 
δ 1. | 
V. 24. τὰ δίδραχμα. Here Piscator (see Bowyer) for ra 


172 ST. MATTHEW, 


would read τό, alleging that δίδραχμα is a single piece of 
money. The singular, however, is δίδραχμον, and though 
only one was to be paid by one individual in one year, the © 
reference is to the practice of paying annually. 


CHAP. XVIII. 


V.3. ὡς τὰ παιδία. Children generally. Part i. Chap. iii: 
Sect. ii. § 2. Not, however, the general character of children. 
“‘ We must not,” says Michaelis (Anmerk.) “ bring together, 
in illustration of these words, all the properties of children, 
which may be either good or bad, as is sometimes done in the 
pulpit-effusions of well-disposed men: the meaning of the pre-. 
cept, if we attend to the occasion which gave rise to it, can be 
only, that he who would enter into the kingdom of Heaven, 
fust no more pretend to merit, than a child with any show of 
justice; I purposely say, can with any appearance of justice ; 
for not seldom are children presumptuous, and entertain high 
opinions of their own deserts.” This solution relieves us from 
a considerable difficulty. Our own language contains a multi- 
tude of Sermons, the writers of which seem to have thought 
themselves bounden to shut their eyes to all the early mani- 
festations of the corruption of human nature; and we have 
delineations of childhood in which the hearer or reader per- 
ceives as little of reality and truth, as in the wildest fictions of 
Romance. ‘The Copt. Version reads τὸ παιδίον τοῦτο, and six 
of the Moscow MSS. but those the least valuable, have the 
same reading. wl 

V.7. τῶν σκανδάλων. In these words I think there is 
reference, not, indeed, to any thing which has been men- 
tioned, but to what had previously occupied the mind of 
Christ. The σκάνδαλα alluded to are the calamities and perse- 
cutions which threatened the Christian Church. Such is the 
opinion of Noesselt, approved by Schleusner. These, though 
future, might be present to the mind of Christ, and might, 
therefore, being uppermost in his thoughts, be made the sub- 
jects of reference. Lord Bacon, as quoted by Archbishop 
Newcome on our Lord’s conduct, 8vo. p. 117. has a most 
masterly remark, viz. that our Saviour, knowing the minds of 
men, often replies to the thoughts of his hearers, rather than to 


CHAPTER XIX. 178 


their actual questions. I am of opinion, that in like manner 
He sometimes refers to what has recently been the subject of 
his own meditation, though it may not have been the subject of 
discourse; and it is not impossible that the present instance 
may be of this kind: the calamities which threatened the 
rising Church we know, from other places, strongly moved the 
compassion of our Saviour; and though the Article in this pas- 
sage may be otherwise explained, as is done by Wakefield, yet 
his solution will not hold in Luke xvii. 1. which, however, he 
has not noticed. My opinion that the reference is anticipative, 
is in some degree strengthened by the Version of Michaelis. 
After ** offences” he inserts, ** which the world will take at 
the Gospel ;” without which addition he thinks the passage 
obscure. 

V. 14. οὐκ ἔστι θέλημα. There is no wish. Parti. Chap. iii. 
Sect. ii. § 5. 

V.17. τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ. Collegio presbyterorum, says Schleus- 
ner. 

Same v. ὃ ἐθνικὸς καὶ ὃ τελώνης. Hypothetically. Here 
two distinct persons are meant; the second Article, therefore, 
is inserted; and so it is in all similar instances throughout the 


δι ag χ' See Part i. p. 60. 


CHAP, XIX. 


V. 3. οἱ Φαρισαῖοι. Those of the neighbouring district. 
Many good MSS. omit oi. 

V. 10. τοῦ ἀνθρώπου μετὰ τῆς γυναικός. Both have the 
Article, being Correlatives. , 

V. 12. ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός. Part i. Chap. vi. § 1. and Chap. 
iii. Sect. iii. §. 7. 

Same v. τῶν ἀνθρώπων. This is another instance, in which 
it is evident that of ἄνθρωποι does not mean exclusively the 
Jews. See on x. 17. 

V. 21. δός πτωχοῖς. Here D and Vat. 1209. have τοῖς 
πτωχοῖς, and in many other places in which the same phrase 
occurs, there is the same variety; but the discrepancy is of no 
importance, being no other than that of giving to the poor, or 
to poor persons. 

V. 28. ἐν τῇ παλιγγενεσίᾳς Lightfoot understands this of a 


174 ST. MATTHEW, 


regeneration, or a renewing of manners and doctrine: but 
Schleusner has well observed that the Syr. has what is equiva- 
lent to in seculo novo, which in the Oriental idioms expresses 
a future state of being. It is plain, therefore, that with Camp- 
bell we should join ἐν τῇ παλιγγενεσίᾳ with καθίσεσθε: about 
which there have been doubts. Kypke has a good Note on 
this passage, which he understands as it is here explained. 

V. 80. πρώτοι ἔσχατοι καὶ x. τ. A. Markland (ap. Bowyer) 
infers from what is. said in the next Chap. ver. 16. that we 
should read οἱ πρῶτοι ἔσχατοι Kal οἱ ἔσχατοι πρώτοι" but the 
cases are not similar; for though we may say with strict pro- 
priety of πρώτοι ἔσχατοι, yet after πολλοὶ the Article’ is not 
wanted: πολλοὶ πρῶτοι is similar to πολλοὶ σοφοί, &c. 1 Cor. 
i. 26. nor does any MS. here read πολλοὶ OI πρῶτοι, or there 
πολλοὶ OI σοφοί, πολλοὶ ΟἹ δυνατοί. A few MSS. indeed, 
with the Complut. read the latter clause οἱ ἔσχατοι πρώτοι" but 
then this must have been on the supposition that the πολλοὶ of 
the preceding clause was not here to be understood. 


CHAP. XX. 


V. 2. τὴν ἡμέραν. Each day, in reference to each Denarius. 
See above, x. 29%. 

V. 3. περὶ τὴν τρίτην ὥραν. Very many MSS. want τήν, 
an omission which Wetstein approves: in other places the same 
variety is observable, on which see Part i. Chap. vi. § 3. 

ΟΥ͂, 12. οὗτοι οἱ ἔσχατοι. C—oi. This is wrong. See 
Part i. Chap. vii. § 5. 

V.16. οἱ ἔσχατοι πρῶτοι. L. Origen—oi. Article requi- 
site by Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iv. § 1. | — 
ΟὟ, 22. τὸ ποτήριον. Definite on account of ὃ following. 


CHAP. XXI. 


V. 12. τὰς περιστεράς. Particular doves are alluded to, viz. 
the accustomed offering of the poor. . 

V. 13. οἶκος προσευχῆς. Our own Version is justifiable in 
translating definitely “the house of prayer,” since after the 
Verb Nuncupative the Articles could not have been employed. 


? See Note, p. 41. 


CHAPTER XXII. 175 


Campbell and. Wakefield are, therefore, more literal than the 
case required. | | 

V. 18. πρωΐας is definite in sense, but the Article is omitted 
on account of γενομένης understood. Lor ORG H 

V. 42. εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας. Our Translation has “ the 
head-stone of the corner,” but it is not very plain what this 
head-stone was. It may be inferred, however, first, to have 
been such, that it might be added when the building was 
otherwise complete; as appears from the present verse. Se- 
condly, that it was so placed, that the passenger might fall 
against it, and also that it might fall upon him, as is evident 
from ver. 44. Now nothing which otherwise corresponds with 
the term can be conceived to answer these conditions, except 
an upright stone. or column added to a building to strengthen 
and protect it at the corner, which was most exposed to ex- 
ternal violence. The Greek expression is equivalent to the 
Hebrew 725 JA8 or 735 WN: but every rectangular building 
would have necessarily four 35, and we find these four spoken 
of, Job i. 19.; but such a protection placed at each of the four 
corners could hardly be the subject of allusion in this place; 
for Christ, who is the sole bulwark of the Christian Fabric, 
could not aptly be compared with any thing which admits 
plurality, and in which, indeed, plurality is necessarily implied. 
Besides, the κεφαλὴ γωνίας is allowed to be the same with the 
λίθος ἀκρογωνιαῖος, Ephes. ii. 20. where the Apostles and Pro- 
phets are said to be the foundation, but Christ the λίθος ἀκρο- 
γωνιαῖος, which must therefore be something pre-eminent; 
for else it would not be a fit illustration: and indeed we find 
725 JAN; Job xxxviii. 6. spoken of as being stmgle in a build- 
ing, though nothing can thence be inferred with respect to its 
form or height. ‘The common interpretations appear to be 
objectionable in not answering the conditions mentioned at 
the beginning of this Note. No inference that the κεφαλὴ 
γωνίας is more than one in one Fabric, can be drawn from the 
absence of the Articles. See Part I. Chap. vi. § 1. and Chap. 
11, Sect. 11, ὃ 7. 


CHAP, XXII. 


V. 10. ἀνακειμένων. D and three others would prefix τῶν. 
This is not usual after words significant of fulness. 


176 ST. MATTHEW, 


V. 14. κλητοί. A few MSS. have OI κλητοί. Either read- 
ing may be right. The called are many, or, there be many 
called. | | 

V. 23. of λέγοντες. Several MSS. including Vat. 1209. 
would omit the Article. This can hardly be right: for the 
meaning seems not to be, that as they came they made this 
assertion, but only that the dogma subjoined was notoriously 
maintained by them. 

V. 28. τίνος ἔσται γυνή. A very few MSS. have Ἢ youn, 
and in the parallel place, Mark xii. 23. this is the reading of 
A Dapr. manu. In this instance, as in many others, either 
reading may be tolerated, the difference being only, Whose 
wife shall she be? or, Whose shall the woman be? . 

V. 30. we ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ. Some MSS. both of Matthai 
and Birch,—rov. This is extremely probable, ἄγγελοι not 
having the Article. . 

Υ. 38. αὕτη ἐστὶ πρώτη καὶ μεγάλη ἐντολή. . For Ordinals 
and Superlatives (for μεγάλη is here equivalent to μεγίστη) see 
Part i. Chap. vi. ὃ 3 and 4. Wetstein’s L, however, would 
read ἡ μεγάλη καὶ ἡ πρώτη: and Vat. 1209, with Vind. Lamb. 
31. Hieros.-Syr. and a few others, ἡ μεγάλη καὶ πρώτη. Where 
μεγάλη precedes, either of these readings may be tolerated. 
Μεγάλη, used as a Superlative, is merely a Hebraism; and yet 
D alone has μεγάλη καὶ πρώτη. In the next verse we have 
δευτέρα without the Article, being an Ordinal. 


CHAP. XXIII. 


- V. 9. καὶ πατέρα μὴ καλέσητε ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. It is 
curious that Markland (ap. Bowyer) has observed on this pas- 
sage, ‘it would have been much more agreeable to the Greek 
Tongue, had the Article τὸν been expressed, TON πατέρα μὴ 

καλέσητε ὑμῶν TON ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. Each of these insertions 
would, if admitted, be not only a corruption of the Sacred 
Text, but a violation of the Greek idiom. The first Article is 
contrary to the uniform usage noticed Part 1. Chap. iii. Sect. 
iii. § 2. and the second, TON ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, would signify some 
definite person, whereas the Proposition is exclusive, and the 
meaning is, as our Version has it, “" Call mo man,” &c. a mean- 
ing which the absence of the Article authorizes, but: which 


CHAPTER XXIV. 177 


its presence would destroy. See Part i. Chap. 11. Sect. iii. 
§ 5. } 
Υ. 1ὅ. υἱὸν γεέννης. Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. ili. ᾧ 3. 

V. 23. τὸ ἡδύοσμον καὶ τὸ ἄνηθον, &c. The species so 
called. 

V. 24. of διυλίζοντες. D ἃ pr. manu and Vat. 1209.—oi: 
but the meaning is, Ye are foolish on the assumption, that 
διυλίζετε. The same remark will apply to ver. 16. where D 
would omit oi. | 

Same v. τὸν κώνωπα, τὴν κάμηλον. In proverbial allusions 
like this, it is usual in most languages to make the subject of 
the remark definite: and this is perfectly natural; for allusions 
suppose the thing alluded to to be known; and no allusions 
are more readily apprehended, than those which are made to 
Proverbs and Fables. Perhaps, therefore, the spirit of the 
original would have been best preserved by translating “ the 
gnat, the camel.” Of this form, in our own language, Ray's 
Proverbs will supply a multitude of examples. 


CHAP. XXIV. 


V.9. ὑπὸ πάντων ἐθνῶν. Several MSS. read τῶν ἐθνῶν, 
which Wetstein approves: in this instance it is safe to go with 
the multitude, since either reading is alike admissible. See 
Part i. Chap. vii. ὃ 2. 

V. 15. ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ. Eng. Version, “in the holy place.” 
Campbell, “on holy ground.” The latter of these interpreta- 
tions is that of Grotius, and also of Spanheim in his most 
learned work de Prestant. et Usu Numismatum, vol. i. p. 669: 
and it is but fair to apprise the Reader, that a great majority 
of the Translators and Commentators are of the same opinion: 
but it will be right to state the nature of that opinion, as well 
as the foundation on which it rests. The point contended for 
is, that τόπος ἅγιος here means, * the district lying within a 
certain distance of the Temple, and which even the enemies of 
the Jews had, at different periods, agreed to regard as sacred ;” 
and Spanheim has shown that the Temples of the Pagans fre- 
quently possessed similar immunities. This, however, is rather 
an illustration than an argument: but Grotius contends, that 
if by τόπος ἅγιος we should understand the Temple itself, the 

N 


178 ST. MATTHEW, 


event described would not be an indication of approaching 
calamity, but the very calamity itself. To this, I think we 
may answer from the following verse, that the admonition is 
here given not to the inhabitants of the city, te whom no 
opportunity of escape would then be left, but to the people of 
Judea, οἱ ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ: and immediately afterwards we find 
ὁ ἐν τῷ ayow. Grotius, however, aware of this objection, ob- 
serves further, that Ἰουδαία frequently signifies no more than 
tractus Hierosolymitanus: yet of this use I find no example, 
nor has Schleusner given any. But, in the next-place, what is 
the usual meaning of the phrase ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ In the N. T. 
it occurs (except in the present passage) only Acts vi. 13. and 
xxi. 28.: in neither of which can it be otherwise understood 
than of some part of the Temple. In the LX X. it is very 
common, and there it is always meant of the Temple, and 
generally of the Holy Place properly so called. We haye, 
therefore, no authority from the Sacred Writers to understand 
τόπος ἅγιος otherwise than of the Temple.—But, lastly, we 
are to consider that the passage before us is τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ Aa- 
νιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου" now the passage itself in so many words is 
not found in Daniel; neither does τὸ ῥηθὲν or its equivalent 
ἽΝ in the Talmud, if we may rely on Surenhusius in his 
Βίβλος καταλλαγῆς, authorize such an expectation. In such 
cases we are to look only for the sense conveyed in the passage 
quoted, and that too, perhaps, dispersed through various places. 
The places, then, in Daniel, to which our Saviour is here sup- 
posed to allude, are ix. 27. xi. 31. xii. 11: and the first of 
these, in the Version of the LXX. is not very remote from 
the words of St. Matt. The LXX. there have καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν 
βδέλυγμα τῶν ἐρημωσέων ἔσται, and both the Vulg. and Arab. 
are similar. If, therefore, the matter rested here, the ques- 


tion would at once be decided: but it so happens, that the 


LXX. differ from the Hebrew: in the Hebrew, however, we 
find 93 5y, and it is observable that 29 is the word by which 
the Syr. Translator has rendered πτερύγιον, Matthew iv. 5. 
where some part of the Temple (see above) is unquestionably 
meant, There is, therefore, a strong presumption that the 
MSS. which the Greek Translator used, (whether the transla- 
tion be of the LX X. or, as Jerome asserts in his Preface to 
Daniel, of Theodotion,) gave the whole sentence in such a 


i  ὉΎΥΎ Ψ ΦΨ  ΨΎΥ. 


CHAPTER XXIV. 179 


manner as to justify the Greek and other Versions: the great 
objection at present is, that the reading of the Hebrew MSS. 
is ΝΡ, whereas the proposed construction would require 
the omission of the final Mem. It is, however, to be observed, 
that one of Kennicott’s MSS. gives a reading which, even if it 
be not authentic, still tends to show in what sense 433 is to be 
understood. His Cod. 313. preserves the remarkable variation 
52712 (See Bibl. Hebraica Dissert. Gen. p- 95.) which is ex- 
actly ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερόν, and which, by the way, is one among 
several testimonies, which one or other of the Hebrew MSS. 
affords in favour of the LX X. or at least of the old Transla- 
tions. The value of the LXX. as preserving readings which 
are no longer visible in our Hebrew Text, is not even at the 
present day sufficiently understood. Without, however, wish- 
ing to assume the authenticity of the reading in question, I 
may be permitted to suppose, that the accidental substitution 
of a synonym is more easily to be accounted for, than is the 
introduction of a reading which gives a totally different sense. 
It is, then, on the whole, probable, that the Greek Translator 
has given the true meaning of Daniel, though the vestiges of 
that meaning be in our present Hebrew Copies so much ob- 
secured: and if ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν be admitted in Daniel to be a true 
rendering of the Hebrew, we can hardly doubt that the Temple 
is the spot intended by our Saviour in St. Matthew. Nor is 
the admirable history of the completion of the Prophecy ad- 
verse to this exposition. The desolation of abomination was 
seen to stand in the Temple. “Ῥωμαῖοι d&........ κομίσαν- 
τες τὰς σημαίας EIS TO ‘IEPON, καὶ θέμενοι τῆς ἀνατολικῆς 
_ πύλης ἀντικρύς, ἔθυσάν τε αὐτοῖς αὐτόθι, καὶ τὸν Τῖτον μετὰ 
μεγίστων εὐφημιῶν ἀπέφῃναν αὐτοκράτορα. Joseph. de Bell. 
Jud. lib. vi. ο. vii—In the parallel place, St. Mark xii. 14. we 
have, instead of ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ, the words ὅπου οὐ δεῖ. This 
expression is, indeed, so indefinite, that it may admit different 
interpretations: it appears, however, to be an Euphemism, to 
which the violation of no place less sacred than the Temple 
could have given rise. 

If the Reader wish to know the other expositions of Daniel 
ix. 27. he may consult the Thes. Theol. Philol. vol. i. p. 929, to 
which, though I have differed from the Writer, I am indebted 
for some information on the subject. It there appears, that 

| N 2 


180 ST. MATTHEW, 


the reading found in Kennicott’s MS. 313. had been long since 
conjectured by Cappellus and other Critics: this is a curious 
fact. 

I observe that Campbeli and, perhaps, other Translators have 
preferred the more indefinite sense of this passage, because the 
words were anarthrous. This objection, however, is of no. 
weight. See Part i. Chap. vi. § 1. 

V.17. ἄραι τὶ ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας. Here W etstein, | on the au- 
thority of a great many MSS. would read dpa τά. However, 
several of Birch’s best MSS. including Vat. 1209, have τι: and 
this is a preferable, because a more exclusive, reading. - : 

V. 27. τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. For this phrase see on John 
v. 21. 
V. 31. ἕως ἄκρων. Birch’s Vat. 1209, and Wetstein’s i. 69. 
have τῶν ἄκρων. This reading would suppose τὸ ἄκρον to be 
here used substantively: which, however, after ἄκρων preced- 
ing, is very improbable. — - 

V. 32. τὰ φύλλα ἐκφύῃ. The Article shows plainly that ra 
φύλλα is the Nominative to ἐκφύῃ, and not the Accusative 
after it, as the English Version, Campbell, and the French of 
Beausobre make it: but Wakefield, Schleusner,and the German 
of Michaelis, understand it in the former manner. The Reader 
will hardly nese to be reminded, that ἐκφύω may be used in a 
neuter sense ' 

V. 36. τῆς ὥρας. A great many MSS. omit τῆς. Gries- 
bach would reject it, but, I think, improperly: for ἐκείνης, 
which is understood, would require the Article. . 

V. 40. ὁ εἷς παραλαμβάνεται καὶ ὁ εἷς, &c. A few MSS. 
including Vat. 1209. omit both Articles. Probably. they 
should be retained, ὁ εἷς being gence used to ae one of 
two. See on 1 John v. 7. 


CHAP. XXV. 


V. 2. πέντε μωραί. Several Editors, says Birch, as Wet- 
stein, Griesbach, &c. omit ai, though found in plerisque Codi- 
cibus. Griesbach, however, in his last edition, admits it into the 


? There seems, however, no objection to retaining the common Version, and 


rendering the words “ it’s leaves.” See the parallel passage in Luke xxi. 30. 
—J. Ss. 


CHAPTER ΧΧΥ. 181] 


Text, though with great hesitation. I have little doubt of its 
being authentic: the omission may have arisen from the want 
of the Article before the former πέντε: the first five, however, 
are not definite, whilst the latter are so, being those which 
remain of the ten. 

V. 30. εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον. This phrase occurs in 
two other places, viz. in this Evangelist, viii. 12. and xxii. 18. 
It is not of very easy interpretation. The opinion generally 
entertained by the Commentators may be expressed in the 
words of Wetstein: ““ Manet in imagine convivii: coenaculum 
erebris luminibus per noctem collucebat: expulsus ceenaculo at- 
que domo in tenebris versatur, quoque longits removetur, ed 
crassiores tenebre ipsi offunduntur.’ It seems not, however, 
to have been observed, that the “ imago convivit” does not-per- 
vade all the three passages in which the phrase occurs. In the 
first, we have the word ἀνακλιθήσονται, which in some mea- 
sure favours the common interpretation: in the second, the 
subject is a marriage-feast, which is directly to the purpose: 
but in the present instance, the Parable of the Talents, there 
is not any the most remote allusion to banqueting; and, con- 
sequently, the received interpretation can scarcely in this in- 
stance be right. Besides, the person who is here said to be 
cast εἰς τὸ σκότος, is a slave, who would hardly have been 
admitted to a feast. It is, however,to be presumed, that the 
phrase has in all the three places the same meaning, whatever 
that meaning be, to discover which we should endeavour to 
detect the idea which pervades the three passages ; ‘and this, it 
is evident, is the future punishment of perverseness and dis- 
obedience. It might, therefore, be expected, even before 
inquiry, that τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον was the Greek rendering 
of a Jewish phrase generally understood of the place of punish- 
ment after death, not an allusion or metaphor requiring to be 
explained by the context: and with this the strong expression 
ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδοντῶν, which every where is added, agrees. 
Windet, in his curious and learned De vita functorum statu, 
has some passages which favour the supposition. He says, 
p- 114. that “ both the Paradise and the Gehenna of the He- 
brews were subdivided into seven mansions: that the six higher 
regions of Hell formed the ὯΝ D273, whence Spirits after 
purgation are supposed to return; whilst the seventh is the 


182 ST. MATTHEW, 


dungeon, where the wicked shall abide for ever.” And in an- 
other place, p. 246. he makes this very phrase τὸ σκότος τὸ 
ἐξώτερον to be equivalent to the Tartarus of the Heathen 
Mythology. I have to wish only that this writer had adhered, 
in the present instance, to his usual practice of noting authori- 
ties. Schleusner has not adverted to the work of Windet, but 
he appears to understand the words in nearly the same sense; 
and he refers to ζόφος τοῦ σκότους, 2 Peter ii. 17. as a parallel 
expression. ᾿ 

Υ. 32. ὁ ποιμήν. Hypothetically. Part i. Chap. ii. Sects 
i. § 1. 


CHAP. XXVI. 


V. 26. τὸν ἄρτον. Several of the most important MSS.— 
τόν. ‘The parallel passages are, Mark xiv. 22. and Luke xxiiv 
19. in the former of which a very few MSS. only have TON 
ἄρτον; and in the latter, so far as I have observed, not one. 
The majority, therefore, of the MSS. of St. Matt. is at vari- 
ance with those of the other two Evangelists: and the fair 
inference will be, if we assume the intended agreement of the 
three Historians, that the received Text of St. Matt. must 
yield to the combined force of its own various readings, and of 
the almost uniform reading of the other two Evangelists. 
Campbell, however, ad loc. observes as follows: ‘‘ Had it been 
ἄρτον without the Article, it might have been rendered either 
bread or ὦ loaf: but as it has the Article, we must, if we 
would fully express the sense, say, the loaf. Probably, on 
such occasions, one loaf larger or smaller, according to the 
company, was part of the accustomed preparation. This prac- 
tice, at least in the Apostolic age, seems to have been adopted 
in the church in commemorating Christ’s death. To this it is: 
very probable the Apostle alludes, 1 Cor. x. 17. ὅτι εἷς ἄρτος, 
ἕν σῶμα, k. τ. A.” On this Note we may remark three things: 
first, that it is not certain, as Campbell supposes, that the Ar- 
ticle in this place is really not wanting. Secondly, that it does 
not appear to be the fact, that only one loaf was part of the 
accustomed preparation. And, thirdly, that the practice of 
the Apostolic age might possibly differ from the Paschal cere- 
mony of the Jews. 

|. The first point admits no other decision than that which 


CHAPTER XXVI. 183 


is founded on strong presumption. This, however, is a case in 
which we may suppose that uniformity was intended by the 
three Evangelists: had any one of them meant to have ex- 
pressed his belief, that our Lord celebrated the Paschal supper 
in a manner different from that usually observed, that Evange- 
list would assuredly have noticed the deviation in unequivocal 
terms. This not having been done, the majority of voices will 
be decisive of the question: and two sets of witnesses, ] mean 
the MSS. of St. Mark and St. Luke, must be admitted to be 
more credible than is one, even if that one consist of individuals 
who agree among themselves: which, however, is here by no 
means the case. There is, therefore, a strong presumption 
against the common reading. 

2. The accounts which have reached us of the mode of cele- 
brating the Passover, uniformly speak of two loaves of unlea- 
vened bread. Maimonides and the Talmudists, as quoted by 
Lightfoot, tell us, ““ Then (the person officiating) washing his. 
hands and taking fwo loaves, breaks one, and lays the broken 
upon the whole one, and blesseth it, saying, Blessed be he, 
who causeth bread to grow out of the earth.” These loaves, 
indeed, were in truth cakes cut nearly through, probably by 
the instrument on which they were baked, into squares or 
other figures, so that they might afterwards be broken into 
pieces with perfect ease. See Rohr's Pictor Errans in the 
valuable collection, the Thesaurus Theol. Philol. vol. ii.: whence 
it may be observed, obiter, that our own mode of dividing the. 
sacramental bread approaches to the decency of the original 
ordinance, more nearly, perhaps, than is generally imagined. 
The round loaf, which appears in-paintings of the Consecration 
of the Elements, is, like many other cae of the same sort, a 
violation of historical truth. 

3. But though two cakes were used in the celebration of 
Christ’s last Passover, it is not improbable, that one only was 
from the first introduced in the Eucharist. The passage ad-: 
duced by Campbell from 1 Cor. might alone prove the Christian 
practice.. Indeed, though there are many passages in the Fa- 
thers, which rather tend to confirm this statement, I do not 
recollect any one, which is so pointedly to the purpose. Nor 
are we to wonder at this deviation from the actual usage of the 
superseded institution. Of the two cakes usually introduced. 


184 ST. MATTHEW, 


at the Passover, only one is recorded to have been broken by 
Christ, and to have been declared to be the symbol of his 
body: it was, therefore, natural that his followers, in com- 
memorating the Lord’s Supper, should discontinue so much 
of the Jewish ordinance, as was foreign from the newly esta- 
blished rite. Thus, at no distant period, the bread employed 
was not necessarily wrleavened : for though unleavened bread 
was actually used by Christ, it was not studiously chosen, but 
was such as the Passover unavoidably presented: yet the Greek 
and Latin Churches in a subsequent age disputed this mc 
point. 

On the whole, I think, we may fairly infer, that a loaf or 
cake indefinitely was here meant by the Evangelist: but how 
the Article found its way into the great majority of the MSS. 
of St. Matthew, it may not be easy to determine. To say 
that it was understood by the Translator to represent the 
status emphaticus of the Syro-Chaldaic original, and that the 
other two Evangelists want it, not being translations, would 
be a bold and perhaps a gratuitous conjecture, since some of 
the oldest MSS. of St. Matthew, such as B. C, Ὁ. L. are 
without τόν. I am, therefore, somewhat surprised that Gries- 
bach has not prefixed to it the mark of possible spuriousness. 

Same v. τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σῶμά pov. It may amuse the 
Reader to be informed, that the Article in this place was once 
supposed to prove the doctrine of Transubstantiation: ‘ guasé 
Articulus vim habeat propositionem contrahendi ad proprium 
sensum, et tropicum non permittat.” This is, indeed, most 
ridiculous, but is yet not incredible: I learn the fact, however, 
from the testimony of a Reformer. See Petri Martyris Opera, 
p- 869, edit. 1583. . 

V.27. τὸ ποτήριον. Here a very few MSS. among which 
is the Vat.—ré. In the parallel place, Mark xiv. 298. 50 many 
of the MSS. want the Article, that Griesbach is inclined to 
reject it: of Matthdi’s MSS. however, only three are without 
it, and those three are of the lowest order. In St. Luke xxii. 
20. the MSS. agree in giving the Article. In this instance, 
as well as in a preceding one (see first Note on this Chapter) 
it may be presumed that uniformity was intended by the seve- 
ral Evangelists: the evidence of the MSS. is, however, here 
more nearly balanced, and to determine the true reading it 


CHAPTER XXVI. 185 


becomes indispensable to attend to the circumstances of the 
ease.— It does not appear, so far as I can discover, that more 
than one vessel was employed on these occasions; for though 
four cups full of dilated wine were to be emptied by the party 
celebrating the feast, yet as these were not to be placed on the 
table at once, but were to be used at different periods of the 
ceremony according to stated forms, a single cup four times 
filled was all, which: the occasion required. Which of these 
four cups was that, which our Saviour declared to be the 
symbol of His blood, is not quite decided. It is usually un- 
derstood to have been the third or the Cup of Blessing, so 
called because over this the company implored the blessing of 
God on the food which they had eaten; and this Cup was re- 
garded as the most important of the four. Michaelis, indeed, 
(in his Anmerkungen) infers that the Cup consecrated by our 
Saviour was the fowrth and last, because of the expression in 
St. Luke, μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι: this, however, is by no means 
decisive, since it was the thérd or the Cup of Blessing, which 
immediately followed the eating of the Lamb; and this was 
the last thing eaten.—The Cup used at the Passover is stated 
by the Rabbinical Writers to have contained one-fourth of an 
Italian Quart. Of its form nothing can now be known, though 
Ven, Bede relates, that in his time the Cup used by our Saviour 
was still preserved at Jerusalem ; a tale, which the Reader will 
probably with Casaubon (Exercitt. Baron. p. 518.) be disposed 
to question. Much curious information, respecting the man- 
ner of celebrating the Eucharist in the primitive ages may be 
found in Swicer voce, ᾿Αγάπη, ἘΕὐχαριστία, and especially 
Σύναξις. On the Passover the Student may consult Saubert’s 
Dissertation de Ultimo Christi Paschate in 'Thesaur. Theol. 
Philol. vol. ii. and the Pascha Judeorum abrogatum in Meus- 
chen’s N. 7. e Talmude illustratum, 4to. Lips. 1736. p. 897. 
V. 84. πρὶν ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι. This Noun is every where 
anarthrous in the N. T. unless indeed in Luke xxii. 60. where, 
however, on the authority of a multitude of MSS. Griesbach 
has rejected the Article. Wakefield, I observe, in his first 
Translation renders ‘‘a cock.” To English ears this might 
sound oddly; and we should naturally inquire, whence arises 
the difference of the usage in the two languages. It appears 
from a passage in the Talmud, referred to by Lightfoot and 


186 ST. MATTHEW, 


Schoettgen, that cocks were not allowed to be kept within the 
walls of Jerusalem, for the reason that ““ animalia immunda 
eruerent ;” and on the same plea the Priests were forbidden to 
keep them throughout the whole Jewish territory. To recon- 
cile the Talmud with the Scripture, Reland published a Trea- 
tise, the substance of which is detailed in Schoettgen’s Hore 
Hebr. and which proves by sufficient arguments, that the two 
accounts are not necessarily at variance: for example, the 
_crowing of a cock without the walls might easily, in the still- 
ness of the night, be heard at the house of Caiaphas, from 
which the walls were at no great distance. The authority of 
the Talmud may, however, be disputable: but one thing, I 
think, is manifest from the uniform indefiniteness of the ex- 
pression, viz. that cocks, if at all tolerated in Jerusalem, were 
much less common than domestic fowls are with us: for the 
screaming of an eagle could not have been spoken of in a more 
indefinite manner. Wakefield’s Version, therefore, though 
apparently unnatural, is perhaps not ill adapted to the actual 
circumstances ; and it is not clear that ie ought to have altered. 
it in his eevee work. . 
V.41. τὸ μὲν πνεῦμα. See on i. 18. under the second head. 
The Article is requisite by Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. i. ὃ 9. 
V.75. τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. Griesbach on the authority of very many 
MSS. absolutely rejects τοῦ. “Proper Names in the Genitive, 
as has been shown, deviate from the common rule. 


CHAP. XXVII. 


V. 8. ἀγρὸς αἵματος. Part. i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. ¢ 2. 

V. 15. κατὰ δὲ ἑορτήν. Here D alone, as in other instances, 
has τήν. ‘Though the Passover ἡ ἑορτὴ be meant, the Article — 
is omitted by Part i. Chap. vi. § 1. 

V. 50. τὸ πνεῦμα. His spirit, See on i. 18. under the first 
head. 

V. 54, Θεοῦ υἱός. Here Campbell renders “a son of God,” 
and defends his Version at considerable length. ‘Bishop Lowth 
in his English Grammar had proposed the same translation. 
Having very fully considered the phrase above, iv. 3. and xiv. 
33. 1 have nothing new to add. The Centurion could scarcely 
fail to know the alleged blasphemy, for which Christ suffered ; 


CHAPTER XXVIII. 187 


and had he intended in Heathen phraseology to express his 
admiration of our Saviour’s conduct, he would not have called 
our Saviour Θεοῦ υἱός. But these points have been already 
discussed. See as above. 

V. 60. Rosenmiiller remarks, “ Articulus ἐν τῇ πέτρᾳ osten- 
dit, ex und rupe sive petrd excisum et excavatum fuisse monu- 
mentum.” I understand the phrase in the same manner as 
above, vii. 24. 


CHAP, XXVIII. 


V.1. Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαλήνη. On v. 56. of the preceding 
Chapter, Campbell well observes, that the meaning is Mary of 
Magdala or the Magdalene, and that custom only has made 
the word a Proper Name: and yet in the present verse, D.— 
ἡ ἃ pr. manu. 

V.18. πᾶσα ἐξουσία. This must be understood in the most 
unlimited sense. See Part i. Chap. vii. § 3. It is not, 
therefore, without reason, that Vitringa Obss. Sac. (as quoted 
by Wolfius) “per ἐξουσίαν hie regnum Providentie universalis 
innut contendit.” 


188 ST. MARK, 


ST. MARK. 


CHAP. I. 


V. 1. υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ. . Here Markland conjectures that we 
should read TOY υἱοῦ, and he thinks that the Article has been 
lost by the homaoteleuton of Χριστοῦ preceding. ‘Titles, how- 
ever, in apposition frequently want the Article. It is to the 
full as probable, that τοῦ before Θεοῦ ought to be omitted, as 
in the Vat. 1209". 

V. 12. τὸ πνεῦμα the Holy Spirit, See Matt. i. 18. D 
alone adds ro ἅγιον. 

V. 13. οἱ ἄγγελοι. The Alex. MS. with a few others—oi. 
Matthii calls it arguta correctio. Supposing it, indeed, to be 
a correction, it may possibly deserve the epithet: but in similar 
instances, as well as in the parallel place of St. Matthew, Nouns 
are generally anarthrous. 

V. 15. πεπλήρωται 6 καιρός. The definiteness of this ex- 
pression proves incontestably the then prevailing expectation 


of the Messiah. 


CHAP. II. 


V. 26. ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιάθαρ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως. A great deal of learn- 
ing and ingenuity has been employed on these words, in order 
to remove a difficulty, which in reality does not exist. It has 
been observed, that the fact here referred to happened, no¢ in 
the High Priesthood of Abiathar, but in that of Ahimelech his 
father. See 1 Sam. xxi. and hence it was’ thought necessary — 
to vindicate the expression in the best manner possible. Dr. 
Owen (see Bowyer’s Conject.) thought ἐπὶ might mean about, 


1 V. 7. ὁ ἰσχυρότερός pov. Winer observes, that this distinctly points to the 
Messiah. That one who is stronger than I is coming.—H. J. R. 


CHAPTER IL. 189 


or a little before the time that: Wetstein imagines it to signify, 
in the presence of : Michaelis believes that it is a Jewish mode 
of citing Scripture, as if any one should say, In the Chapter of, 
&c.; an interpretation which Rosenmiiller and Mr. Herb. 
Marsh (Introd. vol. 1. p. 403.) would have thought not im- 
probable, if Mark had added γέγραπται, or λέγει ἡ γραφή, as 
Rom. xi. 9. Some have supposed that Ahimelech and Abia- 
thar, the father and the son, were called by either name indis- 
criminately: and Lightfoot understands Abiathar to mean the 
Urim and Thummim. All this has arisen from imagining that 
the words of St. Mark, explained in the obvious way, would 
mean, in the Priesthood of Abiathar; and, indeed, even the 
accurate Schleusner (voce it) renders the words sub pontificatu 
Abiatharis ; a sense which they will not bear. The error con- 
sists in having confounded ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιάθαρ TOY ἀρχιερέως with 
the same words, omitting the Article: for though several 
recently collated MSS. including the far greater part of Alter’s 
and Matthii’s, do, indeed, omit the Article; yet none of the 
solutions which I have noticed, appear to have originated in 
the belief that such was the true reading. That reading, how- 
ever, would indeed mean, that Abiathar was actually High 
Priest at the period in question: thus in Demosth. vol. i. p. 
250. edit. Reiske, ἐπὶ NixoxAéove”APXONTO®S: and Thucyd. 
lib. ii. sub init. ἐπὶ Χρυσίδος ἐν Ἄργει ἹΕΡΩΜΈΝΗΣ, καὶ 
Αἰνησίου ἜΦΟΡΟΥ ἐν Σπάρτῃ, καὶ Πυθοδώρου ἔτι δύο μῆνας 
ἌΡΧΟΝΤΟΣ ᾿Αθηναίοις" where the insertion of the Article 
would imply only, that these persons were subsequently dis- 
tinguished by their respective offices from others of the same 
name. | 

But we find the very form of expression in the LXX. 
1 Mace. xiii. 42. ἐπὶ Σίμωνος ἀρχιερέως, and in the N. T. 
Luke iii. 2. we have ἐπ᾽ ἀρχιερέων Αννα καὶ Καιάφα, examples 
which sufficiently prove that the received reading will not 
admit the received construction. Of the other form, viz. that 
which has the Article, I find only Luke iv. 27. ἐπὶ ᾿Ελισσαίου 
τοῦ προφήτου, by which phrase, however, is plainly meant, 
** In the days of Elisha the Prophet,” without any reference to 
his actual exercise of the prophetic office at the period men- 
tioned. Indeed the different import of the two readings of 
this passage might be theoretically proved, as it has been prac- 


190 ST. MARK, 


tically illustrated.—The only question is, therefore, whether 
Abiathar was a High Priest of distinguished name, so as to 
justify the use of the Article: and the answer must be obvious 
to every person acquainted with the Jewish History. Besides, 
it is not improbable that there might have been other persons 
of the same name and of some celebrity among the Jews, though 
no account of them has descended to the present time. The 
name itself was certainly not uncommon: and this circumstance 
alone might render the addition of τοῦ ἀρχιερέως natural, if 
not absolutely necessary. One writer (see Bowyer) has ob- 
served, that the expression, Matt. i. 6. Δαβὶδ τὸν βασιλέα is 
similar to the present; and this is perfectly true: it may be 
added, that any event which had happened during the early 
part of David’s life, might have been said to have taken place ἐπὶ 
Δαβὶδ TOY βασιλέως" and had this phrase occurred, solutions 
similar to those before us would probably have been hazarded. 
See also John xi. 2. ἡ ἀλείψασα, though the act of anointing 
was subsequent. I observe that Griesbach, in his N. 'T. has 
prefixed the mark of possible spuriousness to the Article, 
though the omission of the Article can alone make the passage 
really difficult. For this, however, he is not to be blamed, if 
he thought that the evidence in favour of that reading prepon- 
derated. The Oriental Versions appear to have understood 
the passages, as if the Article were omitted. D and some of 
the old Latin Versions omit the clause altogether. See on 
xii. 26. | 


CHAP. III. 


Υ. 8. οἱ περὶ Τύρον. A very few MSS. of great note—oi. 
This reading, however, would make Tyre and Sidon to be the 
scene of action; which is contradicted by the very next verse. 

V.13. εἰς τὸ ὄρος. See on Matthew νυ. 1. 

V. 19. εἰς οἶκον. Two MSS. of little account have εἰς TON 
οἶκον. Mr. Wakefield, in his N. T. lays some stress on the 
absence of the Article, and understands οἶκον of the first house 
which presented itself; adding, ‘‘ None but those who are igno- 
rant of the Greek language, and are acquainted with xo lan- 
guage, will treat as pedantic a proper attention to the Article.” 
To this general principle I most readily assent; but that 
nothing can be here inferred from the want of rdv is certain, 


CHAPTERS IV. V. VI. 191 


on account of the Preposition preceding. Part i, Chap. vi. 

1, | 
; V. 20. ὄχλος. A. Ὁ. Ὁ ὄχλος, which, with πάλιν, is pro- 
bably right. 

V. 28. βλασφημίαι, ὅσας, x. τ. A. Griesb. admits into the 
text ai before βλασφημίαι. ‘This is not indisputable, ὅσος 
sometimes allowing its antecedent to be anarthrous. Com- 
pare Acts ix. 39. I do not, however perceive with Bengel, 
that ‘* Articulus in Edd. omissus magnam sermoni vim addit.” 


CHAP. IV. 


V.1. εἰς τὸ πλοῖον. See on Matt. xiii. 2. 

V. 3. 6 σπείρων. See on Matt, xii. 3. ι 

V. 22. οὐ γὰρ ἐστί τι κουπτόν. Griesb. on the authority of 
some good MSS. prefixes the mark of possible spuriousness to 
τι. ‘The word is not necessary. See on Exclusive Proposi- 
tions, Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 5. 


CHAP. V. 


_ V. 88. πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν. The whole truth respecting 
the affair in question. See Part i. Chap. vii. § 3. 


CHAP. Vi. 


V.3. ὃ τέκτων. This term, as Schoettgen observes, is of 
various import, signifying an artificer of any kind whatever. 
If we may rely on a passage in Justin Martyr’s Dial. with Try- 
pho, p. 270. edit. Jebb, the Founder of our Faith τὰ τεκτονικὰ 
ἔργα εἰργάζετο ἐν ἀνθρώποις Ov, APOTPA καὶ ΖΥΓΑ. To vin- 
dicate the dignity of such an occupation, would be just as absurd, 
and as foreign from the spirit of the religion of humility, as was 
the once prevailing fashion of defending the style of the Sacred 
Writers, because, forsooth, it had incurred a sneer from the 
infidel Harl of Shaftesbury. Te who can believe that the 
Almighty Beimg must select the original promulgers of his 
will from among those only who possess the advantages of rank 
and learning, worships not the Universal Father, but the God 
of his own vain imagination. Still, however, it may be re- 
marked, that our Saviour’s employment was not degrading, 
though, that it was lowly, is evident from the passage now 


6 


192 ST. MARK, 


before us. From the Rabbinical writers we learn, that among 
the Jews, even they who were destined to contemplative life, 
were yet taught some manual occupation. It was a Jewish 
maxim, that he who brings not up his son to some kind of 
work, is as culpable as he who should teach his son to steal. 
See Schoetitgen Hor. Heb. vol. ii. p. 898.—In this place there 
is a variation in a few MSS. and Versions, which make Christ 
to be only the son of a τέκτων, perhaps, says Wetstein, from 
the notion that such an art little suited the dignity of our 
Saviour: and it is remarkable that Origen cont. Cels. lib. vi. 
p- 299. 4to. denies that Christ is ever so denominated by any 
of the Evangelists: which, however, contradicts. the vast ma- 
jority of MSS. and Versions, as well as general tradition, and 
the otherwise uniform testimony of the Fathers, 

Same v. ἀδελφὸς δέ. C.D. L. have καὶ ὁ ἀδελφός. This 
must be wrong, because it would make the son of Mary and 
the brother of James to be distinct persons. See Part i. 
Chap. 111. Sect. iv. § 2. | | 

V. 14. ai δυνάμεις. See on Matthew xiv. 2. 

V. 15. ὅτι προφήτης ἐστίν, ἤ κι τ. X. According to Luthy- 
mius, some copies had ‘O προφήτης, which Heinsius, Exerce. 
Sacr. approves; so that the sense would be, ‘‘ He is the Pro- 
phet predicted of old;” but the almost general consent of the 
MSS. in omitting ἢ, forbids us to admit the Article and the 
exposition which is founded on it. The sense is, He is a Pro- 
phet resembling one of the Prophets of ancient times. 

Υ. 29. tv τῷ μνημείῳ. Markland (ap. Bowyer) objects to 
the Article before μνημείῳ. It is found, indeed, in scarcely 
any MS. except D, though it was admitted into Stephen’s 
edition, and has since been a part of the received text. 


V. 55 ἐπὶ τοῖς κραββάτοις. A. 1. 69.—roi¢: but the ‘Ar. 


ticle may be used for the Possessive Pronoun. 


CHAP. VII. 


V. 10. τὸν πατέρα cov καὶ τὴν μητέρα cov is here followed 
by ὁ κακολογῶν πατέρα ἢ μητέρας These passages are quoted 
from the LX X. Ex. xx. 12. and xxi. 17.: yet there is not in 
them any irregularity in respect of the Article: see on Matt. 
vi. 3. and x. 37. Τὸ account, however, for the insertion in the 
one case, and the omission in the other, is among the prob- 


CHAPTERS ὙΠ]. IX. 193 


lems proposed by the Unknown Writer alluded to on Matt. xi. 
11. He has, besides the present, collected various instances 
of πατὴρ and μήτηρ (principally from the LX X.) in some of 
which these words have the Article, and in others are without 
it. For the insertion, I apprehend no reason will be required : 
the omissions are all of them, either in consequence of preced- 
ing Prepositions, or after an anarthrous.governing Noun, or in 
what I have called Enumeration. In the same page (viz. 25.) 
he urges, as another unanswerable argument against Mr. 
Sharp, to whose hypothesis, however, it could not at all apply, 
that we find in one place περὶ τὴν τρίτην ὥραν, and in another 
(without the Article) περὶ ἕκτην, which is the common anomaly 
in Ordinals. He next adduces examples of θεός and ὃ θεός; 
in none of which is the usage violated, (see on Luke i. 15.) and 
in some the other form could not be adopted. He who is thus 
ignorant of every thing relating to the point in dispute may, 
with little invention, find questions to put to his antagonist: it 
may be doubted, however, whether the interrogative style in 
controversy be always judiciously chosen. 

V. 24. εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν. The Article should be omitted, as in 
a vast majority of the MSS. Wetstein and Griesbach both 
reject it. 


CHAP. Vit. 


V. 8. ἦραν περισσεύματα κλασμάτων. The Cod. Ephrem or 
C. has ra περισσεύματα. D has τὸ περίσσευμα τῶν κλασμάτων. 
Neither of these readings appears to conform with the Greek 
idiom. The former offends against regimen, which would re- 
quire ΤΩΝ κλασμάτων : and the latter contradicts the usage 
noticed. Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii, § 4. 


CHAP. IX. 


V.15. wae ὃ ὄχλος. D and edit. Colin.—é, which, how- 
ever, is indispensable. Part i. Chap. vii. § 1. 

V.41. ὅτι Χριστοῦ ἐστε. It is a question of some interest 
in Biblical Criticism, whether Χριστός, as used in the N. T. 
be a Proper Name or an Appellative; and though Dr. Camp- 
bell, in his Prelim. Vol. D. v. P. iv. has several pages on this 
very subject, his remarks, however yaluable, are not altogether 
so accurate as to preclude further inquiry. 

ο 


[94 ST. MARK, 


That Χριστὸς was originally merely an Appellative deserip- 
tive of office or dignity, as Campbell makes it, no one can 
doubt: he truly observes, that 6 Χριστὸς was as much an Ap- 
pellative as 6 Βαπτιστὴς, and that the commonness of the name 
Jesus among the Jews, both rendered an addition necessary, 


and also contributed to the gradual substitution of that addi- _ 


tion for the real name. The point to be determined is, How 
early did this substitution take place, and was Χριστὸς used as 
a Proper Name, while Christ was still on earth? Campbell 
says, ‘ This use seems to have begun soon after our Lord’s 
Ascension: in his lifetime it does not appear that the word 
was ever used in this manner:” and he adds, that in the Titles 
and some other places of the Gospels, the Writers only adopt 
the practice of their time. ‘This conclusion would merit our 
assent, if the learned author had been able satisfactorily to 
explain away the instances which, as he felt, might appear to 
be exceptions: but this, I think, he has not done. ‘Thus he 
adduces John xvii. 3. where our Lord calls himself Ἰησοῦν 
Χριστόν, but which, from its stagularity, Campbell suspects 
should be read TON Χριστόν, to make it an Appellative, 
though not a single MS. has the Article. Next, respecting 
the passage which has given rise to this Note, he observes, that 
in this, as in all other terms, there is an ellipsis of the Article, 
where the common usage would require it: but what are the 
limits of this licence he pretends not to show, nor does he 
adduce any similar example: that the use of the Article is not 
thus vague, I have every where endeavoured to demonstrate. 
A similar expression occurs in 1 Cor. iii. 23. ὑμεῖς δὲ Χριστοῦ, 
Χριστὸς δὲ Θεοῦ, where Campbell, I am persuaded, would 
readily allow Χριστὸς to be a Proper Name; for in the Epistles 
he admits it to be common. By way of further exception to 


his rule, viz. that the absence of the Article generally deter- 


mines Χριστὸς to be a Proper Name, he adduces Luke ii. 11. 
Χριστὸς Κύριος ; where, however, again there is no reason for 
the omission of the Article before Χριστός, if it be an Appel- 
lative: and the same is true of Luke xxiii, 2, In one or two 
other cases instanced by Campbell, the absence of the Article 
is not decisive either way: but then the ground of this may be 
assigned. Thus John ix. 22. Χριστὸν might be either Christ 
or the Messiah, because of the Verb Nuncupative ὁμολογήσῃ; 


a = 


——— ΝΥ. Ὅμδο, 


CHAPTER IX. 195 


for as to the Pronoun αὐτόν, it has not, though Campbell sup- 
poses the contrary, any thing to do with the business: the 
sense, however, of the passage compels us, with him, to under- 
stand Χριστὸς of the Messiah. For a similar reason it might 
be doubted in which way Χριστὸς should be taken in Matt. 
xxvil. 17. and 22. ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός᾽ for ὃ λεγόμενος, Ὁ 
Χριστὸς would not be Greek: see on Matt. i. 16. Campbell, 
conformably with his notion, that Pilate, during the lifetime 
of our Saviour, could not have meant to call him Christ, de- 
cides for rendering it Messiah: the turn of the expression is, 
however, so entirely similar to Σίμων 6 λεγόμενος Πέτρος, that 
I think its tendency is rather to prove that Christ was, even 
before the ascension, our Saviour’s familiar appellation. That 
He is not so addressed by his disciples is true; but this leads 
to no conclusion: for in scarcely any instance do they address 
him by the name Jesus; Κύριε, διδάσκαλε, Ραββί, being the 
forms usually employed. Besides, as Campbell observes, Vo- 
cative Cases would decide nothing, because there the Article — 
eould not be used. 

On the whole, it can hardly be doubted that the word Χρισ- 
τός, even during our Saviour’s lifetime, had become a Proper 
Name, though its Appellative use was by much the more 
frequent: it is, however, very remarkable, that Michaelis 
in his Introduction (edit. Marsh, Chap. vi. Sect. xiii.) says, 
“* In the time of the Apostles the word Christ was never 
used as the Proper Name of a Person, but as an epithet 
expressive of the ministry of {6518 : and hence he infers 
the spuriousness of a passage, Acts vill. 87. which will be 
noticed in its place. But if Χριστὸς be never used as a 
Proper Name in the Apostolic Epistles, how are we to explain, 
among other instances, Rom. v. 6; 1 Cor. i. 12. 23; 2 Cor. 
Hi. 3; Gal. ii. 17; Coloss. iii. 24; 1 Peteri. 112 Are we to 
translate, ‘‘ an anointed person died,” &c.? for to say “ the 
anointed,” or “ the Messiah,” is more than any of the passages 
will bear: and no reason can be assigned why, if Ὃ Χριστὸς 
in such places be really meant, the Article is in all the MSS. 
omitted. Considering the stress which Michaelis elsewhere 
lays on the Article, it is surprising that he overlooked this 
objection. 


02 


196 ST. MARK, 


CHAP. X- 


V. 6. ἀπὸ δὲ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως. Part i. Chap. vi. § 1. and 
Chap. iii. Sect. 11. § 7. | 

V. 25. διὰ τῆς τρυμαλιᾶς τῆς papidog. A. C. F. &e. with 
a few of Birch and Matthiii—vije bis ; and Griesbach has pre- 
fixed to each Article the mark of possible spuriousness. There 
can be no doubt that they are spurious; the latter, because 
any needle indefinitely is meant, and the former by Part i. 
p- Ol. a 
V. 29. οἰκίαν ἢ ἀδελφοὺς ἢ κι τι A. Enumeration. Part 1, 
Chap. vi. § 2. | | 

V.31. καὶ of ἔσχατοι πρῶτοι. Many MSS.—oi, and Gries- 
bach has removed it to the margin. See above on Matt. xix. 
30. 

V. 35. of υἱοὶ ZeBedatov. A with some others—oi. In 
this reading there is an appearance of accuracy; for nothing 
is more prevalent than υἱὸς or υἱοὶ, without the Article pre- 
fixed: but in such cases, if I mistake not, the parentage of the 
person is, generally speaking, then first announced: here the 
case is different; for James and John had been declared to be 


the sons of Zebedee already in this Evangelist, i. 19,20. The 


Article, therefore, in this place may serve to recall to the 
Reader’s recollection, that James and John had, in this par- 
ticular relation, been already introduced to his notice. Vat. 
1209. reads οἱ AYO υἱοὶ x. τ. λ. 

V. 46. vide Τιμαίου Βαρτίμαιος. Here several MSS. in- 
cluding B. C. D. L. and five of Matthii’s, but those among the 
worst have Ὁ υἱός ; and Griesbach has, though with the mark 
of the lowest degree of probability, admitted the Article into 


the Text. Wakefield believes that vide Τιμαίου is the inter- 


polation of some one who wished to show that he knew the 
meaning of Bartimzeus: the Syr. however, has “ Timezeus, the 
son of Timezus,” which affords a strong presumption that Bar- 
timzeus was not all which was found in the original of St. 
Mark; and had υἱὸς Τιμαίου been interpolated as an explana- 
tion of Bartimeus, it would probably have followed, and not 
have preceded, the word which it was intended to explain. It 
appears to me not unlikely that the name of the person was 


ee ae 


CHAPTER ΧΙ. 197 


really as the Syr. represents it, Timzeus, but that from the 
circumstance of his father’s name likewise being Timzeus, he 
was called also Bartimaeus: in this case it was very natural in 
the Evangelist to add υἱὸς Τιμαίου (the Greek form of expres- 
sion,) the name by which the person in question was some- 
times called: but the Syr. Translator was here compelled to 
make a slight deviation; for a literal rendering from the Greek 
would have been ‘‘ Bartimzeus Bartimzeus,” a repetition which 
the Syriac Reader would not have understood. The 'Trans- 
lator, therefore, very properly consulted the sense of the pas- 
sage, rather than the literal phrase, by rendering it ;O ual 
woe}, which expresses, indeed, something more than the sup- 
posed Greek original, but not more, possibly, than the Trans- 
Jator knew to be true.—If this conjecture as to the original of 
St. Mark be right, a step will be gained towards deciding on 
the Article; for if Βαρτίμαιος came from the Evangelist, and 
be not a subsequent interpolation, (which is, of the two, more 
plausible than the opinion of Mr. Wakefield,) the Article 
should most. likely be omitted, since there is an apparent con- 
tradiction in announcing the son as already known, and then 
immediately subjoining his name. I admit, however, that this 
is only a presumptive argument; for certainty in such cases is 
not looked for, except where the natural and usual practice 
eannot be disregarded without positive absurdity. 


CHAP, XI. 


V.4. τὸν πῶλον. Very many MSS.—rép.. Probably with- 
out the Article, this being all which the sense requires. 

V. 13. οὐ γὰρ ἦν καιρὸς σύκων. This passage, as explained 
by Wetstein and Campbell, though less liable to objection than 
it had been heretofore, is still not perfectly plain. They have 
observed that the fig-tree has the property of forming its fruit 
before the leaves appear: the fruit, therefore, of the tree here 
spoken of ought to have been now well advanced: it could not, 
however, have been gathered, because the καιρὸς σύκων, the 
season of gathering, had not yet arrived: the absence of fruit, 
therefore, could be accounted for only by the barrenness of the 
tree. But Michaelis, who in his Anmerk. on Matt. xxi. 19. 
has examined the subject at great length, objects that the figs 


198 ST. MARK, 


at this time of the year (April) must have been so unripe, as to 
be wholly unfit to eat. Shaw, however, of whom Michaelis 
has made great use, tells us in his Travels, p. 342. edit. 1757, 
*‘ that some of the more forward and vigerous trees will now 
and then yield a few ripe figs six weeks or more before the 
full season.”—-But my concern is more immediately with Mr. 
Wakefield. He observes, that the reason why the Article is 
wanting (he should have said Articles, for ὁ καιρὸς σύκων 
would not have been Greek, notwithstanding that Origen and 
one or two MSS. have this reading) is, because there are in 
Judzea two seasons of ripe figs in a year. Michaelis affirms, 
after Shaw, that there are three; but this is not the reason 
why the Articles are wanting, nor could it have been, if we 
consider, that whatever be the number of gatherings in a year, 
there can be only one gathering of a given crop. Mr. W. 
appears to have been misled by observing, Matt. xxi. 34. 6 
καιρὸς τῶν καρπῶν applied to grapes: and no other solution 
seems to have occurred to him, why the Articles should be 
used in the one case, but in the other omitted. Whoever 
compares the two passages will perceive, that in this place the 
Proposition is confined to Ewistence: see Part i. Chap. iii. 
Sect. iii. § 1. whilst in St. Matthew near approach is predi- 
cated of the vintage. 


CHAP. XII. 


V. 23. ἔσται γυνῆ. A. Ὦ. ἃ pr. manu Ἢ γυνή. See above 
on Matt. xxii. 28. In this verse all the MSS. properly omit 
the Article before γυναῖκα, by Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 4. 

V. 26. ἐπὶ τῆς βάτου. This is an undoubted instance of the 
Rabbinical mode of citing Scripture, and signifies, “ in the 


section which treats of the burning Bush.” See above, on 


ii. 26. If the Reader should be of opinion that the conjecture 
of Michaelis on that place is strengthened by the present pas- 
sage, (and the word ἀνέγνωτε, which is found in both, though 
in the former it is placed rather too far from ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιάθαρ, in 
some degree removes the objection,) the Article before ἀρχεε- 
θέως will be necessary, and its force will be that which I have 
assigned it: the difference will be confined to the Preposition. 


V. 27. ὃ θεὸς νεκρῶν, ἀλλὰ θεὸς ζώντων. In this passage 


6 


i i ὦ τό. 


"ἦν ἱ 


— a ἝὉΨοὸ’![ονς ΝΗ 


ΒΥ ἐόν ίῳ, ἀν es ee ee 


CHAPTERS XII. XIV. 199 


there is a great variety in the reading, arising probably from 
an apparent difficulty in the construction of the Article. ‘O 
θεὸς νεκρῶν, if the words were in Regimen, could not be tole- 
rated: νεκρῶν must, therefore, depend on a second θεὸς under- 
stood. This in many MSS. is inserted, whilst a few would 
obyiate the supposed difficulty by omitting the Article, and 
making the Proposition exclusive, ‘‘ There is no God,” &c. 
which, though it offends not against the idiom, is but a lame 
expedient. The insertion of θεὸς before νεκρῶν accurately 
explains the Ellipsis, but is wholly unnecessary, and θεὸς before 
ζώντων, in the received Text, is yet more superfluous. Gries- 
bach, on the authority of many MSS. has removed it into the 
Margin. 

, 86. ἐν τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ. A multitude of MSS. and 
several editt.—7 bis : and Griesbach rejects the Articles. If, 
as the context seems to require, we are here to understand the 
influence of the Spirit, the omission is right. See on Matt. i. 
18. | 

V. 41. βάλλει χαλκόν. Wetstein’s 1. 69. and Origen have 
τόν. In Luke xxi. 1. it is ra δῶρα αὐτῶν: in the same man- 
ner τὸν x. would mean their money. I am, however, of opi- 
nion, that the Article is spurious ; and indeed it is well known 
that Wetstein’s 1. 69. and Origen (to which in general may be 
added his 13 and 33) amount to little more than one evidence. 


CHAP. XIII. 


V. 11. τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. Evidently the Holy Spirit in 
the personal acceptation. See on Matt. i. 18. 

V. 28. τὴν παραβολήν. The Article here is not without its 
use, as a superficial Reader might conclude: a particular simi- 
litude is founded on a particular tree. 


CHAP, XIV. 


V. 10. ὁ Ἰούδας ὁ ᾿Ισκαριώτης εἷς τῶν δώδεκα. The first 
Article in ἃ great many MSS. including A. B. C. D. is want- 
ing; and Griesbach prefixes to it the mark of probable spuri- 
ousness. Judas had never been mentioned by this Evangelist 
excepting once in Chap. iii. which is so far back, that the use 
of the Article would hardly be justifiable on the ground of 


900 ST. MARK, 


previous mention; and when it is .subjoined, that the Judas 
here spoken of was one of the twelve, the spuriousness of the 
Article is fully established.—The second Article also is absent 
from a few MSS. and probably should haye been omitted in 
all. See on Matt. x. 4. The Vat. 1209. alone prefixes Ὁ to 
gle, which is altogether without meaning. 

V. 23. τὸ ποτήριον. Here again several MSS. —rd, and 
Griesbach has the mark of possible spuriousness. See on 
Matt. xxvi. 27. 

V. 36. ᾿Αββᾶ ὃ ὃ πατήρ. LHeinsius (ap. Bowyer) conjectures 


Ὃ πατήρ, i.e. 6 ἐστι μεθερμηνευόμενον πατήρ, and even Schleus- 


ner considers ὁ πατήρ to be an interpretation of Αββᾶ, though 
he does not adopt the conjectured"O. The word ’APPa occurs 
three times in the N. T. and always with the same’ addition: 
the MSS. have no various reading, except that in this place. 
Wetstein’s 69. and Birch’s Vind. Lamb. 31. subjoin pov. This 
reading accords with the Syr. whence, no doubt, it was taken ; 
and that excellent Version, if we compare it in the three places 
with the Greek, shows plainly in what manner ὁ πατὴρ must 
be understood: for it renders ὁ πατήρ, my Father, or our Fa- 
ther, as the cireumstances of the case require. ‘The Article, 
therefore, has here, as elsewhere, the force of a Possessive Pro- 
noun; and 6 πατὴρ must be taken for a Vocative Case, like 
ὁ υἱὸς in this Evangelist, x. 47; ὃ βασιλεύς, Matt. xxvii. 29; 
Κύριε ὁ θεός, Apoc. xv. 3. which answers the objection of 
Lightfoot. Mr. Wakefield, indeed, thinks, that ‘‘ every Reader 
of sensibility would rejoice at the suppression of ὁ πατήρ, as in 
the Arabie and Persian Versions.” Other Critics, however, 
(and I must request to be admitted of their number) have re- 
garded the addition as expressive of the most impassioned feel- 
ing. AP Pa was the Oriental term, by which children famili- 


arly addressed their parents: the addition of my Father” was — 


requisite to give it solemnity and force. 

V. 41. τὸ λοιπόν. A great many MSS. including several 
of Wetstein’s best,—ré, and Griesbach prefixes his mark of 
probable spuriousness. In the sense, however, in which the 
word is here used, I do not find that the Article is ever omitted. 
in the N. T, nor, so far as I recollect, even in the classical 
Writers. Some of Matthii’s MSS. also want the Article, but 
not any of those, which he deems most valuable. 


CHAPTER XIV. 201 
V. 69. ἡ παιδίσκη. The Article in this place, as Biblical 


Scholars well know, has been a source of great embarrassment. 
St. Matthew, relating the same transaction, has instead of ἡ 
παιδίσκη, (the maid recently mentioned) ἄλλη, another maid. 
To get rid of this difficulty Michaels had proposed (Introd. by 
Marsh, Chap. x. Sect. iv.) to read*simply παιδίσκη. LRosen- 
miller with less apparent temerity has recourse to the common _ 
expedient of making ἡ παιδίσκη equivalent to παιδίσκη τις; 
( quomodo interdum sumi Articulum, certum est :” than which 
nothing is more absurd in theory, or more false in practice. 
The whole difficulty, however, has arisen from the vain ex- 
pectation that the Evangelists must always agree with each 
other in the most minute and trivial particulars; as if the 
credibility of our Religion rested on such agreement, or any 
reasonable scheme of inspiration required this exact cor- 
respondency. The solution which Michaelis afterwards offered 
in his Anmerkungen, affords all the satisfaction, which a candid 
mind can desire. After stating that. Matthew had said “ ano- 
ther maid,” Mark “ the maid,” and Luke “ another man” (ἕτε- 
ooc), he observes, “‘ the whole contradiction vanishes at once, 
if we only attend to John, the quiet spectator of all which 
past: for he writes, xviii. 25, They said to him, wast not thou 
also one of his disciples? Whence it appears, that there were 
several, who spake on this oecasion, and that all, which is said. 
by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, may very easily be true: there 
might probably be more than the three, who are named: but 
the maid, who had in a former instance: recognized Peter, ap- 
pears to have made the deepest impression on his mind, and 
hence in dictating this Gospel to Mark, he might have said, 
The maid,” 

I have since perceived that the remark from Rosenmiiller, 
given in this Note, belongs to Grotius: but its value is not by 
this discovery either increased or diminished. It may not be 
amiss to mention once for all, that Rosenmiiller, whose Scholia 
are for the most part a compilation, very rarely points out the 
particular source, from which his information is derived. Hence 
in the explanations which he offers, he has in general no other 
merit or demerit, than that of the selection, 


2002 ST. MARK, 


CHAP. XV. 


V. 43. Ἰωσὴφ 6 ἀπὸ ᾿Αριμαθαίας. Bengel (m Gnom.) ob- 
serves, “" Articulus ostendit hoc Josephi cognomen esse factum : 
Mattheus Articulum non ponit, quia ante Mareum seripsit.” 1 
think that there is something in this remark, and that it is 
capable of being extended: not, indeed, that the Article could, 
in the present form of expression, have been omitted; but the 
whole expression might have been different. 

It is well known, that considerable doubts prevail respecting 
the order, in which the four Gospels were written. All, which 
is certain, is that John’s Gospel was written last: it is thought 
probable, that St. Matthew’s is the oldest; though some are 
of opinion that the first place is to be given to St. Luke. St. 
Mark, according to the majority of Critics, for her¢ again they 
are divided, followed both St. Matthew and St. Luke. The 
probability that this is the true place of St. Mark, is, I think, 
somewhat strengthened by the manner in which the four 
Evangelists first make mention of Joseph of Arimathea. St. 
Matt. xxvii. 57. says, ἦλθεν ἄνθρωπος πλούσιος ἀπὸ ᾿Αριμα- 
θαίας, τοὔνομα Ἰωσήφ. This is the language of an Historian, 
who wrote before Joseph had acquired celebrity. St. Luke 
xxi. 50. has, ἀνὴρ ὀνόματι ᾿Ιωσήφ, ἀπὸ ᾿Αριμαθαίας πόλεως 
τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων. This is even more explicit than the former: 
but is, perhaps, not so much an argument for the priority of 
St. Luke’s Gospel over that of St. Matthew, as for the gene- 
rally received opinion, that St. Luke wrote in Greece. St. 
Mark (in this place) has, ἦλθεν Ἰωσήφ, ὃ ἀπὸ ᾿Αριμαθαίας, 
εὐσχήμων βουλευτής" here it is supposed that the addition of 
ὁ ἀπὸ ᾿Αριμαθαίας will enable the Reader to recognize the 
person meant. Lastly, John xix. 38. has ἠρώτησεν ὁ Ἰωσὴφ 
ὁ ἀπὸ ᾿Αριμαθαίας" if this be the true reading, we have here 
language adapted to still increased notoriety: many MSS. 
however, omit the first 6—Something similar may be ob- 
served in the manner, in which the four Evangelists introduce » 
the name of Pilate. Matthew xxvii. 2. has παρέδωκαν αὐτὸν 
Ποντίῳ Πιλάτῳ τῷ ἡγεμόνι. Luke's first mention of him is 
ili. 1. ἡγεμονεύοντος Ποντίου Πιλάτου τῆς Ιουδαίας, and again 
xiii. 1, ὧν τὸ αἷμα Πιλάτος ἔμιξε. Mark in this Chapter, ver. 1. 


CHAPTER XVI. 208 


introduces Pilate with merely παρέδωκαν τῷ Πιλάτῳ, one MS. 
only (viz. the Vat.) omitting the Article. . John xviii. 29. 
ἔξηλθεν οὖν 6 Πιλάτος, no MS. omitting the Article.—If 
similar instances abounded, they would form, perhaps, some- 
what of a criterion, by which we might be assisted in deter- 
mining, if not the order of the four Evangelists, at least the 
place of St. Mark. 


CHAP. XVI. 


V. 1. διαγενομένου τοῦ σαββάτου. The Sabbath being 
over: hence this does not contradict Part i. Chap. ii. Sect, 

V. 15. πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει. Eng. Version, ‘ to every creature:” 
Campbell, ‘‘to the whole creation:” the latter is the more 
correct. See on πᾶς, Parti. Chap. vii. § 1. 

Ὑ. 16. ὃ πιστεύσας καὶ βαπτισθείς. In the Complutens. 
edit. the second Participle also has the Article, which would 
materially alter the sense. Parti. Chap. iii. Sect.iv. §2. It 
would imply, that he, who believeth, as well as he who has 
been baptized, shall be saved; whereas the reading of the 
MSS. insists on the fulfilment of both conditions in every in- 
dividual. | 


~ 


204 ST. LUKE, 


ST. LUKE. 


CHAP. I. 


V.1. ᾿Ἐπειδήπερ πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησιν, 
x. t. A. The Reader cannot be unacquainted with Mr. Herb: 
Marsh’s most ingenious and profound Dissertation .on the 
Origin of the Three first Canonical Gospels; in which he 
assumes as the basis of all the Three, a Hebrew Document 
marked in his notation by δὲ. This Document, he thinks; 
(p. 197.) may have been entitled in Greek, Διήγησις. περὶ 
τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων, καθὼς παρέδοσαν 
ἡμῖν. of ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου" 
in which case it is actually referred to in the Preface to 
St. Luke. This had been the conjecture of Lessing. Mr. 
Marsh, after stating several objections to another way of 
understanding this Preface, and after observing that the pro- 
posed conjecture will obviate them all, leaves it to others to 
determine, whether the attempt is not rendered abortive by 
the want of the Article before dujynow. His general hypo- 
thesis, it is truly remarked by him, will at any rate remain 
unaffected: the conjecture, however, if it could be confirmed, 
would afford so direct and decisive evidence of the existence 
of the supposed Document, that I cannot without reluctance 
proceed to offer the following observations. 

With respect to the Article the rule is, I believe, that the 
Title of a Book, as prefixed to the Book, should be anarthrous; 
but that when the Book is referred to, the Article should be 
inserted. Dion. Hal. ed. Reiske, vol. i. p. 182. has Καλλίας 
δὲ ὁ TAX ᾿Αγαθοκλέους Πράξεις ἀναγράψας" the Title of this 
Book was probably Πράξεις ᾿Αγαθοκλέους similar to Πρ. τῶν 
᾿Αποστόλων. So also p. 172. Σάτυρος ὃ TOYS ἀρχαίους 
μύθους συναγαγών" the Title must have been”Agyaioe μῦθοι: 
as Plutarch has denominated a work ᾿Ερωτικαὶ διηγήσεις. 


eT ee ΜΝ ΝΜ. ΝΡ. 


CHAPTER I. 205 


Longinus also (δ 9.) has εἴγε Ησιόδου καὶ THN ᾿Ασπίδα θετέον᾽ 
the Title, as prefixed to the Poem, is ᾿Ασπὶς «Ἡρακλέους. The 
reasons for the assumption, and also for the non-assumption, 
are sufficiently obvious. The Reader may further consult 
what was said Part i. p. 106. on the names of Dramas: we 
must, indeed, except instances, where the name of the work 
is governed by a Preposition, or where any other of the causes 
already alleged will account for the omission: to say that a 
passage is found ἐν Μηδείᾳ is perfectly admissible: for this is 
the common anomaly. Part i. Chap. vi. § 1. 

I must further express my doubts, whether the supposed 
difficulties require us to understand Διήἤγησιν, &c. as the title 
of a document. Mr. Marsh has stated four objections, which 
I will not transcribe, because his work is in every body’s 
hands. To the First, it may be answered, that if διήγησιν in 
the Singular be exceptionable, the Plural would not be less 
so; since it might imply that each individual: of the πολλοὶ 
had written several narratives: the Syr. however, has the 
Plural. Secondly, With respect to the word ἀνατάξασθαι, 
which Mr. M. would understand as signifying to “ re-arrange 
a narrative already written,” it is certain, that the Preposition 
ava does not always in composition retain its proper force: 
avayoadw very frequently is no more than γράφω, as has been 
shown by Raphel: it is so used also in the first of the citations 
above from.Dion. Hal. and so also very commonly in Josephus. 
The word itself ἀνατάσσομαι is so rarely found, that it is diffi- 
cult to determine any thing respecting it with certainty: in 
the N. T. it is ἅπαξ λεγόμενον : in the LXX. we are referred 
by Trommius to Eccl. ii. 10. where, however, it does not ap- 
pear: in ii. 20. we have ἀποτάξασθαι. Plutarch, in his Trea- 
tise Πότερα τῶν ζώων, &c. Ed. 1674. p. 479. uses the word, 1 
think, equivocally: he says, that some elephants having been 
previously taught certain attitudes and movements, one of 
them, who had often been punished for his dulness, was seen 
by moonlight ἀναταττόμενος τὰ μαθήματα καὶ μελετῶν" this in- 
stance, however, the Reader will, perhaps, deem favourable to 
Mr. Marsh: it is the only one, which my small library enables 
me to adduce. Hesychius has explained the word by εὐτρε- 
πίσασθαι, unless this be one of the Sacred Glosses subsequently 
inserted: see Bentley’s Letter to Biel, in Alberti’s Hesych., or 


206 ST. LUKE, 


in Bentley’s Correspondence, which has been so splendidly 
published by Dr. Ch. Burney. That ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησιν is 
simply to write a narrative, seems probable from what follows, 
ἔδοξε κἀμοὶ γράψαι. Thirdly, It will not be necessary to sub- 
stitute αὐτοῖς for ἡμῖν in ver. 2. unless we reject the Syr. and 
(if I may trust the Latin) some other ancient renderings of πε- 
πληροφορημένων : they explain it to signify “ things of which 
we are firmly persuaded:” the Syriac word is the same which 
is employed, Luke xx. 6. to express πεπεισμένος : Schleusner 
has shown that this rendering may be vindicated from the 
N.T.; and if so, we may understand the second yerse as assign- 
ing the ground of the firm conviction which had been men- 
tioned in the first: καθὼς not unfrequently signifies siguidem, 
propterea quod: (see Schleusner) ἡμῖν will be, “ to us Christ- 
ians.” The Fourth objection will be answered, if we admit the 
answer to the third: they were not eye-witnesses who had 
composed narratives; these, probably, were credulous persons, 
who had blended falsehood with παῖ, for which reason St. 
Luke, in ver. 4. uses the word τὴν ἀσφάλειαν: the eye-wit- 
nesses were those on whose authority rested the conviction 
mentioned in ver. 1. 

On the whole, then, so far as I can judge, (and I offer my 
opinion with great deference,) no difficulties really exist: if 
they do, I fear that the omission of the Article destroys the 
conjecture by which it is proposed to remove them. 

V.15. Τοῦ Κυρίου. Griesb. on the authority of many MSS. 
rejects τοῦ : and Matthdi thinks that the Article was originally 
interpolated by some one who wished it to be understood that 
Κύριος, in this place, signifies God. It has already been ob- 
served, on Matt. i. 20. that Θεὸς and also Κύριος, in the sense 
of God, either take or reject the Article indiscriminately; a 
licence which these words derive from their partaking of the 
nature both of Appellatives and of Proper Names. It may 
be right, however, to fix the usage with somewhat more pre- 
cision than was done in the Note referred to. 

_ With respect to Θεός, there is, I believe, no instance in the 
N. 'T. though the word occurs more than thirteen hundred 
times, in which it does not. conform to that law of Regimen 
which forbids an anarthrous Appellative to be governed by one 
having the Article prefixed: and hence such a phrase as ὁ υἱὸς 


" 


a ὦ 


CHAPTER I. 207 


Θεοῦ is not to be found. In some other respects also it fol- 
lows the common rule of Appellatives, e. g. in rejecting the 
Article where it (Θεὸς) is the Predicate of a Proposition which 
does not reciprocate, as in John i. 1. for as to Θεὸς being 
sometimes used in an inferior or qualified sense, an opinion 
which Mr. Wakefield and others have found it convenient to 
adopt, there is not a single example of such an use in the whole 
N. T. Θεὸς is God, or @ God, either true or false, real or 
imaginary; but never swperior or inferior. But more of this 
on Romans ix. 5. For the present it is sufficient to show that 
the absence of the Article affords not, as some have affirmed, 
any indication of this pretended subordinate sense; for in 
many of the passages in which, without dispute, Θεὸς is meant 
of the Supreme Being, the Article is not used: see Matt. xix. 
26.; Luke xvi. 13.; John i. 18. ix. 33, xvi. 30.; Romans 
viii. 8.; 1 Cor. i. 3.3; Gal. 1, 1.; Eph. 1. 8.; Heb. ix. 14.— 
But Κύριος, in Regimen at least, is not so strictly limited ; 
since we find Matt. i. 24. 6 ἄγγελος Κυρίου. Luke i. 38. ἡ 
δούλη Κυρίου. Acts ii. 20. τὴν ἡμέραν Κυρίου. James v. 11. 
τὸ τέλος Κυρίου. The word Κύριος, therefore, differs in the 
manner in which it is used, from Θεός, by approaching more 
nearly to a Proper Name; for Proper Names, it will be re- 
membered, are very commonly anarthrous, though depending 
on Appellatives which have the Article: thus in the verse just 
cited from St. James, τὸ τέλος Κυρίου is immediately preceded 
by τὴν ὑπομονὴν Ἰώβ. The LXX. indeed, have frequently 
translated the incommunicable names of the One True God, 
Mi and M, by Κύριος, and that too most commonly without 
the Article: so that the interpolation of the Article, according 
to the probable conjecture of Matthiii mentioned above, tended 
rather to defeat the purpose of the interpolator; for though 
both Κύριος and Ὃ Κύριος are used in the N. T. to signify 
God, yet Κύριος without the Article, without the addition of 
the name of Christ, and so circumstanced that none of the 
rules for Appellatives will show why the Article is wanting, 
signifies God almost invariably: I say almost invariably; for 
undoubted instances of the contrary occur. The learned and 
excellent Bishop Pearson, in his great work on the Creed, 
(p. 150. edit. 1723,) has, indeed, collected about a-hundred 
examples to prove that Κύριος, without the Article, is used to 


208 ‘ST. LUKE, 


Sinity the Son: but on examining them I found by far thé 
ereater part of them to be wholly inconclusive: eas; at least 
half of them consist of such phrases as ἐν Κυρίῳ, ὑπὸ Κυρίου, 
κατὰ Κύριον, where the Article may have been omitted because ᾿ 


of the Preposition; and in some of them this was plainly the © 


reason, for ἐν Κυρίῳ is immediately preceded or followed by Ὁ 
Κύριος used in the same sense: see 1 Cor. ix. 1. xv. 98.; 
2 Cor. x. 17. In others of his examples we have Κυρίου after 
some anarthrous Noun: in some, Κύριον follows a Verb Nun- 
cupative, or one of appointing: ina few, the reading is doubt- 
ful: in some, we may fairly question whether the Son be 
meant. He has quoted even Ephes. iv. 5. εἷς Κύριος, “ there 
is one Lord,” not considering that εἷς Ὁ Κύριος would have 
conveyed a totally different meaning. His least exceptionable 
instances are, Matt. iii. 3. and.the parallel places, τὴν ὁδὸν 
Κυρίου, and 1 Thess. ν. 2. with 2 Pet. iii. 10. ἡ ἡμέρα Κυρίου, 
though the first of them is not entirely free from objection, 
being a quotation from the LX X. where Κύριος represents the 
Heb. Jehovah: the latter may be admitted to be satisfactory. 
To these examples we may add 2 Cor. iii. 17, 18. τὸ πνεῦμα 
Κυρίου and τὴν δόξαν Κυρίου, with a few others, which the 
Bishop has not noticed: also Rom: xiv. 6. which is decisive. 
The instances adduced by him of the form Κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς 
Χριστὸς are certainly to his purpose, but do not affect my | 
remark. 


The same illustrious writer complains, that ‘‘ the Socinians 
will have 6 to be an accession to Θεός, but a diminution from — 


Κύριος." That Θεὸς in the N. T. is equivalent to ὁ Θεὸς has 


already been shown: but what if we admit, that 6 Θεὸς, where + 
; 


there is no reason for omitting the Article, be, though not uni-: 


versal, at least the more common? . The Writers of the N. T. V3 


adhered, in great measure, to the usage established before their 


time. Now if we turn to the LXX. we shall find that they 
call the false gods of Egypt and of Canaan θεούς, but never 
Κυρίους ; which is the more. remarkable, when we consider 
the etymology and meaning of Dy: this, however, they have 
never rendered by Κύριοι, but have commonly left untrans- 
lated, by giving the word Βααλείμ. The Jews, indeed, from 
their proneness to idolatry, seem to have regarded the false 
gods, as not wholly without power, though fatal experience 


CHAPTER I. 209 


so frequently convinced them, for the moment at least, how 
wretched was their delusion: hence the true God was gene- 
rally called ὁ Θεός, as distinguished from other Θεοί: but in 
Κύριος, a name exclusively appropriated to the true God, no 
such mark of distinction was necessary: Κύριος assumed the 
rank of a Proper Name; and yet sometimes it took the Arti- 
cle; for though used as a Proper Name, it was not a name 
arbitrarily imposed, but was evidently derived from the domi- 
nion of Him, to whom it was given.—There is, then, no just 
ground of alarm, if the Socinian remark be in part admitted : 
the doctrine of the Article, if well understood, can tend only 
to the confirmation of the true Faith.—It is evident, however, 
that the reading in respect of the verse before us cannot with 
any certainty be determined, ἐνώπιον having the nature of a 
Preposition, and that Editors of the N. T. can have no other 
guidance on similar occasions, than the majority of the best 
MSS. 

Same v. πνεύματος ἁγίου. The influence of the Holy Spirit. 
See Matt. 1. 18. 

V.17. Κυρίῳ. A anda few others insert τῷ. See above on 
ver. 15. | 

V. 32. vide tiorov. Here Mr. Wakefield with his usual 
attention to the /etter of the original, translates ‘a son of the 
most High God:” why he did not-from regard to consistency 
write also “a most High God,” I do not pretend to know; 
yet assuredly that rendering would have been equally defensi- 
ble. Ifthe phrase be not here meant in a pre-eminent sense, 
the declaration of the angel amounts to very little, at the same 
time that it ill accords with what immediately follows: the 
prophecy must be either that Christ should be called the Son 
of God in the sense, in which he afterwards so styled himself, 
or else that he should merely be one of the υἱοὶ Θεοῦ, of which 
number is every righteous person in every age. See Rom. 
vill. 14, Yide, it is true, wants the Article in the original, 
and so it must have done, allowing the sense to be the most 
definite: for ‘O vide after κληθήσεται would not be Greek. 
With respect to ὑψίστου, this word in the LXX. also is fre- 
quently without the Article. See Parti. Chap. vi. § 4. Re- 
gimen may also affect the present instance. 

V. 35, πνεῦμα ἅγιον. This is commonly understood in the’ 

Ρ 


210 ST LUKE, 


Personal sense, but I think improperly. “ΝΑ divine influence” 
equally well suits the occasion, and conforms better with the 
general usage: and indeed δύναμις ὑψίστου in the next clause 
appears to be explanatory of πνεῦμα ἅγιον in the present. 

Same v. vide Θεοῦ. Here also, of course, Mr. Wakefield 
translates ‘a son of God.” See on ver. 32. Besides, if vide 
Θεοῦ be here to be taken in the inferior sense, what becomes 
of the inference implied in &6? To announce to the Virgin 
that she shall have offspring by the extraordinary agency of 
God, and to add “ therefore that offspring shall be called (or 
shall be) a holy man,” really appears to me to be a downright 
anti-climax. It is also observable, that when Zacharias below 
(ver. 75.) prophesies of John, he does not say that John shall 
be called υἱὸς ὑψίστου or υἱὸς Θεοῦ, which in Mr. Wakefield’s 
way of understanding that phrase, he might very well have 
done, but he says προφήτης ὑψίστου κληθήσῃ, which is not 
more appropriate when applied to him, of whom it was after- 
wards said, that there was not a greater Prophet, (Luke vii. 
28.) than is υἱὸς ὑψίστου or υἱὸς Θεοῦ in the highest accepta- 
tion, when applied to Christ. . 

V. 66. χεὶρ Κυρίου. So also in the other work of St. Luke, 
Acts xi. 21. and xiii. 11. (for so we should read in the last in- 
stance with the best MSS.) χεὶρ wants the Article by Part i. 
Chap. 11, Sect. iii. § 6. : 

V. 78. διὰ σπλάγχνα ἐλέους Θεοῦ ἡμῶν. Every attentive . 
reader of the two songs of Thanksgiving of Mary and Zacha- 
rias contained in this chapter, must have remarked in them 
certain peculiarities of style: but the only one, with which 1 
am concerned, is, that they are extremely anarthrous. Ido 
not, indeed, mean to affirm, that they ever violate the rules, 
but only that they display the utmost latitude of omission, — 
which the rules allow: and this is nothing more than we might 
antecedently have expected: they might be supposed to retain 
some traces of the character of their originals, which certainly 
were not Greek. Michaelis says (in his Anmerk.) of the latter 
of them, “ that it appears to have been spoken in Hebrew, not 
in Chaldee the vernacular idiom, for that the Jews still used 
Hebrew in their prayers. Its not having been composed in 
the mother-tongue may explain,” he adds, “‘ why the periods 
are so unrounded, consisting of many short clauses forcibly 


CHAPTER 1. 211 


brought together.” Both compositions have unquestionably a 
Hebrew air; and if we add to their Hebrew origin, that they 
are also poetical compositions, their frequent omission of the 
Article in cases, in which it would probably have been found 
in an original Greek narration, can excite no surprise. Who- 
ever will compare the LX-X. translation of the Song of Deborah 
with the Hebrew, will perceive that it has in most instances, 
so far as the Article is concerned, conformed with the strict 
letter of the original, and that it is so far anarthrous as scarcely 
to be tolerable Greek. 

I have been led into these siecneaions, not at all more by 
the words which introduce the present note, than by some 
other passages to be found in the two Thanksgivings: in those 
passages, indeed, the Article might have been employed, where 
it is now omitted; in the present instance, διὰ TA σπλάγχνα 
would have made it necessary to write TOY 2. TOY @. ἡμών᾽ as 
it stands, the whole precisely agrees with the Hebrew form, 
and is also perfectly defensible on principles, with which the 
Reader is by this time well acquainted. 

V. 80. ἐκραταιοῦτο πνεύματι. The same phrase and the 
same sense of πνεῦμα occurs below, ii.40. The sense is plainly 
in mind, mentally, as opposed to corporeally. But the ques- 
tion is, Can any general rule be laid down respecting the Arti- 
cle, where πνεῦμα is so used? I think not. In this sense we 
find it without the Article in Rom. viii. 13. Gal. νυ. 16, 18, 
25. 1 Pet. iii. 18. (for such should be the reading): but then, 
in other places, as John xi. 33; xiii, 21. Acts xviii. 25; xx. 
22. 1 Cor. xiv. 15. we have Τῶι πνεύματι, and in one instance, 
Mark viii. 12. τῷ πνεύματι AY TOY, an addition which, however, 
adds nothing to the sense, but shows only in what manner the 
Article in that and the preceding instances should be. under- 
stood. Would it, therefore, have been allowable in the Evan- 
gelist to have written ἐκραταιοῦτο TQe wvebpare? I doubt not 
that it would. He has, however, used the more indefinite and 
adverbial form, the sense not requiring the limitation of πνεύ- 
ματι, though such a limitation might very well be admitted. Yet 
I do not affirm, that in all the anarthrous instances above ad- 
duced the Article might be inserted: thus in Gal. v. 16. πνεύ- 
ματι περιπατεῖτε, the insertion of τῷ would injure the sense; 


for the precept is to walk spiritually, i. e. in such a manner as 
P2 


212 ST. LUKE, 


the spiritual or better part, not merely of the persons ad- 
dressed, but of men without limitation, would suggest and 
approve. Although, therefore, it may not be possible so to 
circumscribe the rule, that it shall not be lable to partial ob- 
jection, still the reason of the case will commonly point out a 
preference in the form: and where either form is equally well 
adapted to the particular case, no exception can justly be taken 
against the uncertainty of the practice. See Part i. Chap. v. 
Sect. 11, ὃ 2. 


CHAP. II. 


V. 1. Καίσαρος Αὐγούστου. Here L and Euseb. have TOY 
Αὐγούστου, a reading which supposes Augustus not to have 
been as yet recognized as a Proper Name. In the Acts we 
have Σεβαστός, the translation of Augustus, with the Article, 
as might be expected; for by translating we lose the Name 
and revert to the Epithet, in which the Article is required. 
This may serve to illustrate more fully what was said on 
Χριστός, Mark ix. 40. . 

V. 2. αὕτη ἡ ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο. On this passage so 
much has been written, that a mere abstract of the whole 
would far exceed my limits. It will be recollected, that the 
difficulty consists in reconciling the Evangelist with Josephus, 
who makes the taxing here spoken of to have taken place ten 
or eleven years later than the period of our Sayviour’s birth. 
Hence a multitude of solutions have been attempted, and 
various conjectures risked. Many Interpreters have thought, 
that πρῶτος is here put for πρότερος, of which use there are 
examples, as John 1. 15. πρῶτός μου ἦν. Of this opinion are 
Beausobre and Schleusner. But the cases are not similar: to 
say that one person was before another, is unexceptionable: 
but to say that a taxation was before Quirinius, is harsh in 
the extreme; or if the meaning be, before the presidency of 
Quirinius, the original, as Campbell well observes, would have 
been τῆς ἡγεμονίας Kupnviov or τοῦ ἡγεμονεύειν Κυρήνιον. 
Others have thought that πρὸ τῆς before ἡγεμονεύοντος has 
been lost by the Copyists; a conjecture, which is adopted by 
Michaelis both in his Anmerk. and in his Introduction, but of 
which, besides that it is mere conjecture, our learned Trans- 


e 


CHAPTER II. 213 


lator of the latter work has well observed, that “‘ according to 
the proposed emendation, the Greek of this passage is really 
too bad to have been written by St. Luke, and the whole con- 
struction savours neither of Greek nor of Hebrew.” Lardner 
supposed, that we ought to supply afterward Governor of 
Syria; but then we must have read TOY ἡγεμονεύοντος or 
TOY ἡγεμόνος ; for which see on Mark ii. 26. And it is re- 
markable, that in the only instance, which he produces, the 
Article is prefixed. Newcome’s translation after Lardner is 
faulty in another respect also, as will be~ shown hereafter. 
Casaubon in his Exercitt. ad Baron. p. 115—130. has exa- 
mined the subject at great length: he supposes Quirinius to 
have been, at this time, sent into Judea for the purpose of the 
enrolment, and that this was a distinct mission from that of 
his Presidency mentioned by Josephus. ‘This interpretation 
differs from the last, inasmuch as it makes ἡγεμονεύοντος to 
be significant of this particular duty, and not of the subsequent 
Presidency. ‘This explanation, as well as a former one, must 
be pronounced to be mere unsupported hypothesis, and it is 
also incompatible with the words of St. Luke, as will be seen. 
Amidst all this perplexity the most probable solution (for pro- 
bability is all which can be pretended) is that preferred by 
Wetstein and Campbell. ‘They understand St. Luke to mean, 
that though the census was actually set on foot about the period 
of our Saviour’s birth, it was presently laid aside, or at least 
no consequences followed the imperial decree, till ten or eleven 
years afterwards in the Presidency of Quirinius. Campbell 
rests this interpretation principally on the meaning of ἐγένετο, 
which he explains to signify not merely to be, but to be com- 
pleted or to take effect: and numerous instances of this and 
kindred meanings of γίνομαι are produced by Schleusner ; 
though, as was remarked, he has preferred a different inter- 
pretation. It is true, that Josephus has not related that any 
order for enrolment was issued at this time: yet he adverts to 
circumstances, which make it not improbable, that some mea- 
sure of this kind might be thus early adopted. In the latter 
part of Herod’s reign, which terminated only two years after 
the birth of Christ, we learn from Josephus, (lib. xvi. p. 735. 
edit. Huds.) that Augustus became offended with Herod, and 
in an angry letter threatened henceforth to treat him as a 


= 


214, ST. LUKE, 


slave: by this threat it might fairly be understood, that he 
meant to reduce Judea to the state of a Roman Province; and 
it is not unreasonable to suppose, though the threat was not 
executed in the lifetime of Herod, that steps might have been 
taken to make him believe, that the Emperor was in earnest. 
In the reign of Archelaus, Herod’s successor, the enrolment 
actually took effect: Archelaus was deposed, and Judea was 
made subject to Augustus. 

But not only is the opinion of Campbell, as stated by him- 
self, the most plausible, which I have met with; but further, 
I think it may be strengthened by an argument, of which he 
seems not to have been aware. His translation is, ‘* This first 
register took effect,” &c. whence it is evident that he under- 
stood πρώτη to agree immediately with ἡ ἀπογραφή, not to 
follow éyévero. The same construction is adopted also by 
Wakefield. Newcome, following Lardner, has, * this was the 
first enrolment.” Different from these and more correct is 
our English Version; which separating πρώτη from ἡ azo- 
γραφὴ gives it the adverbial sense: ‘ this taxation was first 
made.” Had our Translators understood ἐγένετο as explained 
by Campbell, their Version of this passage would then have 
been perfect, and it would have expressed the sense, which 
that Critic has adopted, more strongly than he has done it, 
merely by being in stricter conformity with the original Greek. 
He did not perceive that πρώτη is without the Article: and 
that consequently his mode of rendering, as well as New- 
come’s, is inadmissible; ἡ ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη being a form of 
speech, which, if the words be meant to be taken in immediate 
concord, is without example either in the N. T. or the LXX, 
The ground of the impropriety was explained Part i. Chap. 
vill. J am aware that πρῶτος is an Ordinal; but even Ordi- 
nals have not this licence. The more usual form would be ἡ 
πρώτη ἀπογραφή ; but if ἡ ἀπογραφὴ precede, Ἢ πρώτη must 
follow. So Apoc. xx. 5. αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις Ἢ πρώτη" see also 
iv. 1.7; xxi. 19. And in the LXX. Dan. viii. 21. αὐτός ἐστιν 
ὁ βασιλεὺς ὃ πρῶτος" also Joel ii. 20. Exod. xii. 15, 16. 
1 Reg. xiv. 14. Zach. xiv. 10. and in many other instances, 
which Z'rommius’s Concordance will supply ; for though he has 
a few apparent exceptions, they turn out, on examining the 
places, to be either false readings or inaccurate quotations. It 


ee a 


CHAPTER II. 215 


is plain, therefore, notwithstanding the great authority of 
Casaubon, who affirms the contrary, and who appears to have 
been implicitly believed, that the absence of the Article before 
πρώτη is not unimportant: it points to a solution different 
from that which has usually been given, by making it probable 
that πρώτη must be understood in the adverbial sense, as was 
done by the English Translators. Of this sense of the word in 
the N. T. instances may be found in Schleusner, and for the 
classical use see Thieme’s Lex. Xenoph. and D’ Orville in Charit. 
p- 313. The meaning will then be, that “ the enrolment here 
alluded to first took effect (or did not take effect till) under the 
Presidency of Quirinius.” 

Three MSS. including Vat. 1209. omit the Article: on that 
supposition, ἀπογραφὴ must not be taken with αὕτη, since 
οὗτος in its Adjective use requires its Noun to have the Ar- 
ticle. Part i. Chap. vii. § 5. 

I learn from Michaelis (Introd. vol. i. p. 267. edit. Marsh) 
that Kdwit has grounded his explanation of this passage chiefly 
on the use of the Greek Article. In what way he has done 
this, and what is his explanation, I know not. It is possible 
that in this and in some other instances our conclusions may 
be the same: in which case, it may be presumed that they are 
not wholly unfounded, having been independently deduced. 

V.7. ἐν τῇ φάτνῃ. A few of Wetstein’s best MSS. but not 
any of Matthii’s—77, and Griesbach has prefixed to it the 
mark of possible spuriousness. The presence of the Article in 
the received Text has been drawn into the dispute respecting 
the place of our Saviour’s birth. Baronius, principally on the 
authority of a passage in Justin Martyr's Dial. with Trypho, 
makes the birth-place of Christ to have been in the vicinity of 
Bethlehem, and not in Bethlehem itself: and the place of his 
nativity is frequently by the Fathers denominated σπήλαιον or 
ἄντρον. Casaubon (Exercitt. p. 145.) has considered this sub- 
ject also at great length; and he argues that the Article shows 
the φάτνη in question to be that which belonged to the stable 
of the κατάλυμα mentioned in the same verse: ‘‘ allud presepe, 
quod erat in stabulo pertinente ad diversorium.” His argument 
is not altogether invalidated, supposing the various reading to 
be the true one (which, however, is not probable,) for the Pre- 
position might cause the absence of the Article, even though 


910 ST. LUKE, 


φάτνη were intendeddefinitely. But the great difficulty is, to 
ascertain the meaning of φάτνη : for though the Article would 
prove that not any φάτνη was meant, still it would leave the 
import of the word undetermined. Casaubon would render it 
“ the manger:” Campbell, Beausobre, Michaelis, and the 
English Version, have ‘‘ a manger;” which, of course, sup- 
poses ἐν φάτνῃ to be the true reading. Wakefield and Rosen- 
miiller say, ‘‘ in the stable ;” a sense which the word is known 
to bear: and Schleusner understands it of the area before the 
house, a space inclosed, but without any covering, in which 
stood the cattle and implements of agriculture; it was, there- 
fore, according to this notion, not unlike a farm yard. 

With respect to Casaubon’s opinion, that the Article refers 
us to something certain and definite, so as to make φάτνῃ Mo- 
nadic, it can hardly be doubted: but I think he is mistaken in 
supposing that a manger would be spoken of thus definitely in 
relation to the κατάλυμα. The stable and the inn might very 
well be thus contradistinguished, but not so well the inn and 
the manger: of mangers there would probably be several; but 
if not, the very circumstance that there might be several, would 
render this definite mode of speaking somewhat unnatural. 
But there is another consideration which seems to be of im- 
portance, though I am not aware that any attention has been 
paid to it. The context of the whole passage convinces me 
that the φάτνη was not merely the place in which the Babe 
was laid, but the place also in which he was born and swad- 
dled: I understand the words ἐν τῇ φάτνῃ to belong as much 
to ἔτεκεν as to avéxAwev, for else where did Mary’s delivery 
happen? Certainly not in the κατάλυμα, for there we are 
immediately told that there was not room: not room for 
whom? not merely for the new-born infant, but αὐτοῖς, for 
Mary and Joseph. By φάτνη, therefore, we must understand 
some place in which they might find accommodation, though 
less convenient. than that which the κατάλυμα would have 
afforded them, had it not been occupied; and such a place 
could not have beena manger. It might be either a stable or 
an inclosed area; but more probably the former; for an in- 
closed area without any covering, seems not to afford the 
shelter and privacy which the situation of Mary rendered in- 
dispensable, and, moreover, is not to be reconciled with the 


CHAPTER II. 217 


Fathers, who called the birth-place of Christ an ἄντρον or σπή- 
Aatov, nor indeed with the tradition which, according to all the 
Travellers, still prevails in the East, that the scene of the 
Nativity was a Grotto. That the stable might be really such, 
is made highly probable by the remark of Casaubon, who has 
observed, after Strabo, that the country for many miles round 
Jerusalem is rocky; and he adds, that an Arabian Geographer 
has described such excavations to be not unfrequently used in 
those parts for dwellings. The stable of the κατάλυμα, if it 
were so hewn out, might very well be called a σπήλαιον, or if 
it were formed chiefly by nature, it would still better merit the 
appellation. But Casaubon’s other reason, that the meanness 
of the place might also justify the term, in the same manner as 
in Theocritus we have ἰλεόν, οὐκ οἴκησιν, is much less satis- 
factory: from the mouth of Prawxinoe such a figure of speech is 
perfectly natural, as is, indeed, every syllable in the Adonia- 
zuse; but such a ludicrous hyperbole would ill accord with 
the character of any of the Fathers, and was still less to be ex- 
pected from severa/ of them: indeed their agreement plainly 
indicates that they meant to be understood literally. 

The remaining difficulty is to explain why Justin Martyr 
has made the birth-place of Christ to be near and not zz Beth- 
lehem: and on this I have nothing better to offer than the 
obyious remark, that even though the inn were without the 
village, still, inasmuch as it belonged to Bethlehem, whatever 
had happened at an inn so situated, might. fairly be said to 
have happened at Bethlehem: this laxity of expression, if it 
must be so considered, cannot require to be exemplified or 
defended. It may be added, that, according to Volney, the 
Traveller, as quoted in a very useful compilation, Burder's 
Oriental Customs, the houses of public reception in the Kast 
* are always built without the precincts of towns.”  Sup- 
posing this to have been the case in the time of the Evangelist, 
his manner of expressing himself must have been understood 
by others, as it appears to have been by Justin. 

Casaubon, for having, among other things, laid some stress 
in this place on the Greek Article, is warmly attacked by one 
Peter Lansselius, a champion of Baronius, in a Tract annexed 
to Justin’s Works, edit. Paris, 1615. This Writer is one of 
the multitude who teach that Articles are very unmeaning 


218 ST. LUKE, 


things; and he instances in this Chap. ver. 11 and 12, σωτὴρ 
without the Article, and σημεῖον with it. He should have told 
us on what principle the contrary might have been expected : 
σωτὴρ is there very properly without the Article, because it is 
then first mentioned; and σημεῖον as properly has the Article, 
because not any sign indefinitely is spoken of, but the sign of 
the thing in question. This Peter Lansselius appears to have 

been a good Catholic, but a sorry Critic. , 

V. 12. ἐν τῇ φάτνῃ. Here the best MSS.—rq, and Gries- 
bach very properly rejects it. 

V. 25. πνεῦμα ἅγιον. A divine influence. Tov πνεύματος 
τοῦ ἁγίου following may be intended of the same divine in- 
fluence, and the Article may signify only the renewed men- 
tion: however, I am disposed to believe that the latter is 
meant in the personal acceptation, because of the act there 
imputed. See on Matt. i. 18. 

V. 82. φώς εἰς ἀποκάλυψιν ἐθνῶν, x. τ. A. This song of 
Simeon has, as might be expected, something of the anarthrous 
character mentioned above on i. 78. 


CHAP. III. 


V. 21. καὶ Ἰησοῦ βαπτισθέντος. Markland (ap. Bowyer) 
conjectures τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, and he thinks that wherever the Article 
is wanting before the name Jesus, the want has always pro- 
ceeded from the negligence of the Transcribers, except, indeed, 
where the name begins a sentence, or where some descriptive 
epithet is subjoined, as Ιησοῦς Χριστός, Ἰησοῦς 6 Ναζωραῖος, 
&c. I have not been able to discover that this conjecture, or the 
general emendation of which it is a part, has any support. It 
is not true, as Markland supposes, that the omission of the 
Article gives to the name the contemptuous sense one Jesus, 
or that the respect and reverence which the disciples enter- 
tained for him, rendered the insertion of the Article necessary. 
The uses of the Article before Proper Names, and the limita- 
tions, so far as they can be assigned, have been noticed in the 
former Part: it may be observed, however, that it is not in 
the manner of the Sacred Historians to impute celebrity to 
Christ, or to assume that he is known to the Reader: on the 
contrary, they all, at the beginning of their narratives, tell us 


CHAPTER ΠῚ. 219 


who is the subject of their story. That they usually write 
Jesus with the Article, affords no presumption that they did 
so always: they observe the same practice with respect to other 
Proper Names, which have recently been mentioned. 

But Markland has the two exceptions mentioned above. He 
says of the first, that it prevails, though he sees not the reason 
of it; and he instances the first verse of the next Chapter. I 
do not perceive, however, that the exception is at all constant : 
see Matt. 1]. 1; xii.57; xvii. 11; xxvi. 6. and other places in 
which we find 6 δὲ Ἰησοῦς, or some one of its cases beginning 
sentences; and there can be no doubt that the next Chap. 
might in like manner have begun with 6 δὲ Incoiec: it is, there- 
fore, needless to look for the ground of this exception, since 
the fact alleged does not exist. If there can be any reason 
assignable why the next Chap. should rather begin as it does, 
I should suppose it to be, that since the last mention of the 
name of Jesus, a whole catalogue of names has intervened, so 
that Jesus could hardly have been uppermost in the mind 
either of the Historian or his Reader. Ifit be thought that ὃ 
᾿Ιησοῦς, at the beginning of the Acts, contradicts this reasoning, 
let it be remembered that a reference to St. Luke’s former 
work precedes the mention of Jesus, and might therefore re- 
call him to the mind of Theophilus antecedently to the actual 
mention. On a nicety of this kind, however, I mean not to 
lay undue stress, but only to show that Markland’s opinion 
appears to be unsupported. Of his second exception he says, 
that the reason is obvious, meaning, I suppose, that the addi- 
tion makes the Article superfluous. It should be observed, 
however, that 6 "Incov¢e Χριστὸς is admissible, when Χριστὸς 
is not an Appellative, but a Proper Name: which, as was 
shown on Mark ix. 40. is sometimes the case. See Matt.i. 18. 
. and Acts vill. 37. 

Ver. 23. υἱὸς Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἡλὶ τοῦ, κι τ. A. Lightfoot, in 
order in some measure to lessen the difficulty attending this 
venealogy, tells us that υἱὸς, and not υἱοῦ, should be supplied 
throughout, so that the sense may be, ‘‘ the son of Joseph, - 
consequently the son of Heli, and therefore ultimately the son 
of Adam and of God.” Now this is to suppose that the 
Article τοῦ is every where not an ellipsis of τοῦ υἱοῦ, but the 
Article of the Proper Name subjoined: in that case, how- 


29) ST. LUKE, 


ever, we should certainly have found τοῦ prefixed to Ἰωσήφ, 
for no reason can be imagined why it was not as necessary 
there as elsewhere; and further on in the Genealogy we actu- 
ally meet with τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ twice. But on the usually received 
construction, the first-named Joseph is rightly without the 
Article, since such an omission guards the Reader, so far as 
it is possible, against the very mistake into which Lightfoot, 
and others after him, have fallen. Raphel has given from 
Herodotus a Genealogy which in form exactly accords with 
this of St. Luke; Λεωνίδης 6 ᾿Αναξανδρίδεω τοῦ Λέοντος τοῦ, 
κι τ. A... νος τοῦ Ἡρακλέος. The ancient interpreters, 
the best judges in a question of this kind, explained St. Luke 
in the same manner. 

With the various hypotheses invented to reconcile the 
Genealogies by Matt. and Luke I have no concern: they may 
be seen fully detailed in the Βίβλος καταλλαγῆς of Suren- 
husius. 


CHAP, Iv. 


V. 1. ἐν τῷ πνεύματι. It is not universally agreed, in what 
sense πνεῦμα is here to be taken. Wakefield renders “ by 
that spirit,” meaning πνεῦμα ἅγιον just mentioned, which, ac- 
cording to the rule of interpretation laid down Matt. i. 18. 
must mean the influence of the Spirit: I think, however, that 
in this case the Evangelist would have written ἐν τῷ πνεύματι 
ἐκείνῳ ΟΥ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ πνεύματι. As the reading now stands, 
I am inclined to interpret πνεῦμα of the Person called the 
Holy Spirit, and to make ἐν equivalent to ὑπό, signifying 
through the agency of, a common Hebraism; once, indeed, I 
was of opinion, that the hypothesis, which some Critics have 
adopted, of our Saviour’s Temptation being a visionary, not 
a real transaction, was favoured by this expression of St. 
Luke; for τῷ πνεύματι frequently signifies in his mind or 
spirit. ‘This inquiry, however, has led me to observe, that 
then the Preposition is always omitted; as in Mark viii. 12. 
John xi, 83; xiii. 21. Acts x. 20*. Besides, of ἐν τῷ πνεύ- 
ματι meaning ‘‘ by the agency of the Holy Spirit,” we haye 


1 There is a mistake in this reference. It has been suggested to me that it 
should be Acts xx. 22. but I think rather xviii. 5. or 25.—J, 5. 


CHAPTERS V. VI. 221 


an instance in this Evangelist, ii. 27. If to these considera- 
tions we add that Matt. and Mark in the parallel passages have 
expressed themselves less equivocally, we need not hesitate to 
understand ἐν τῷ πνεύματι in the personal sense. Many cogent 
arguments against the doctrine of a visionary temptation are 
detailed with great perspicuity in the fourth of the ‘‘ Lectures 
on St. Matthew” by the Bishop of London, a work, which 
would have done honour to the better ages of Christianity. 

V. 4. ὃ ἄνθρωπος. Griesb. on the authority of several 
MSS. prefixes to 6 the mark of probable spuriousness. But 
see on Matt. iv. 4. 

V. 38. ἡ | πενθερὰ δὲ τοῦ Riwesien. A great majority of the 
MSS.—y, and it is rejected both by Wet. and Griesb. I do 
not perceive on what principle the Article can here be omitted: 
it is true, that the received reading can hardly be right, since 
it throws 62 too far from the beginning of the sentence: but 
Wetstein’s C. and 106. Birch’s 360. and Matthai’s «, which 
are mostly MSS. of repute, have ἡ δὲ πενθερά, which, I doubt 
not, came from the Evangelist. 


CHAP. V. 


V. 29. καὶ ἦν ὄχλος τελωνῶν. Complut. has Ὁ ὄχλος, 
which before τελωνῶν without the Article, is so gross ἃ devia- 
tion from the usage, that supposing it to have been found in 
any MS. it excites some curiosity respecting the history and 
quality of sucha MS. The Cod. Esc. 8. of Birch, according 
to Moldenhawer, by whom the Escurial MSS. were collated 
(See Birch’s Proleg. p. 79.) ““ abundat otiosis Articulorum 
additamentis,” but I do not know of any affinity between this 
MS. and the Complut. Between this celebrated Edit. and 
the Cod. 1 Havn. the agreement is said to be very remarkable. 
See same Proleg. p. 90. 


CHAP. VI. 


V. 12. εἰς τὸ ὄρος. See Matt. v. 1. 

Same v. ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ Tov Θεοῦ. There exists a difference 
of opinion, whether this mean “fin prayer to God,” as our 
Eng. Version renders it, or “‘in the proseuche or oratory of 
God,” which is the interpretation of Camp. and others. The 


999 ST. LUKE, 


ἤν ἐν 


following are the reasons, which induce me to prefer the com- 
mon explanation. 1. It is well known, that the προσευχαὶ of 
the Jews were not usually situated among mountains, to which, 
however, Christ is here said to have retired. It appears from 
Acts xvi. 13. and from the well-known decree of the Hali- 
carnassensians, recorded in Josephus Antiq. xiv. 10. 23. that 
προσευ χαὶ were always situated near water, either that of some 
river or of the sea: the mountain district was not likely to 
afford the requisite convenience. 2. If an oratory had been 
meant, it is not likely that τοῦ Θεοῦ would have been added, 
for all oratories were τοῦ Θεοῦ. 3. It is objected, that if 
prayer to God were here intended, the idiom would require 
πρὸς τὸν Θεόν: but this may be doubted. At least it is cer- 
tain that the genitive of the object after εὐχὴ is unexception- 
able Greek: see Eurip. Ion, 638. Troad. 889. Soph. Cid. 
Tyr. 239. Of προσευχή, indeed, the compound, I do not find 
any similar use: but the word is of rare occurrence in profane 
writers. 4. To pass the night in prayer, without (so far as I 
know) going to an oratory, appears to have been a common 
act of Jewish devotion. ‘This is noticed by Schoettgen, Hore 
Tlebr. 5. Some stress has been laid on the presence of the 
Article in this place: but this is not unusual before προσευχὴ 
in the sense of prayer: see Matt. xxi. 22. Actsi. 14. 1Cor. 
vii. 5. 

Ver. 35. viol τοῦ bli Griesb. on the authority of 
many MSS.—rov. See oni. 32. 

V.48. ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν. See on Matt. vii. 24, 


CHAP. VII. 


V. 5.) τὴν συναγωγήν. Eng. Version “a synagogue.” But 
this implies, that there were several synagogues in Capernaum; — 
which is contrary to the spirit of the original. The Article, 
as is observed by Campb. and Markl. (apud Bowyer) shows 
that there was at that time only one synagogue in the place. 

V. 28. ὃ μικρότερος. That the Comparative is here by an 
Linallage put for the Superlative, is generally admitted: the 
only question is, whether 6 μικρότερος here refer to any person 


''V.3. πρεσβυτέρους τῶν Iovdaiwy. There is an ellipse of τινάς here. Τοὺς 
mpeoBurépovgiwould be nonsense.—H. J. R. 


15 


CHAPTERS VIII. IX. 223 


in particular. Some have thought, and of this number are a 
few of the Fathers, that we are by ὁ μικρότερος to understand 
Christ, from his being junior in ministry and indeed in age to 
John. I cannot but suspect that in this decision, as in so 
many others, the force of the Article has been mistaken. See 
especially on Matt. xii. 29. The tenor of the argument seems 
not to require any such restriction, but rather, I think, rejects 
it: for that Christ should say of Himself that He was greater 
than the person, whom He had just described as having been 
sent to prepare His way, amounts to nothing: besides, the 
expression is ὁ μικρότερος ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ, i. e. under 
the Gospel Dispensation; so that the comparison must be, 
not, as the interpretation supposes, between the Baptist and 
Christ, but between Christ and the body of Christians, in re- 
spect of whom Christ, assuredly, cannot be called ὁ μικρότερος. 
Michaelis (Introd. by Marsh, vol. i. p. 79.) understands μικρό- 
τερος, from the context, to signify the least prophet; and on 
this he grounds a curious argument for the inspiration of the 
N. T. That interpretation certainly may be tolerated ; but if 
προφήτης be not supplied from the former clause, then the 
assertion will be still more comprehensive; viz. that every 
person enjoying the light of the Christian Revelation shall 
possess advantages, which were denied to the most favoured 
of mankind under the former Dispensation. [ἢ this sense the 
promise of Christ has been abundantly fulfilled: the most un- 
lettered Christian, who has ever attended to religious instruc- 
tion, being endued with a knowledge of divine truths which 
the Almighty did not vouchsafe to the Prophets of the O. T. 
nor even to the Baptist. In this manner the passage is under- 
stood by Schoettgen, Hor. Hebr. and, I believe, by the majo- 
rity of Critics. According to either of these latter interpreta- 
tions, the Article is used in the Hypothetie sense. 


CHAP. VIII. 


V.5. ὁ σπείρων. See on Matt. xiii. 5. 


CHAP. IX. 


V. 20. τὸν Χριστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ. According to Mill, the 
Copt. here read od ei Χριστὸς ‘O Θεός" which Wet. has repre- 


204, ST. LUKE, 


iviw 


sented as being Χριστὸς Θεός. For the omission of the 
Article he is sharply reprehended by Matthdi: ‘ Puerile 
autem est, quod Wetsteinius ex ista lectione furtim sustulit 
Articulum: cur non potius supra I. 16. sustulit τὸν Θεόν ἢ ibi 
enim Christus diserte appellatur Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς Ἰσραήλ. It 
would not always be an easy task to vindicate the manner in 
which Wet. has treated passages relating to our Saviour’s. 
Divinity: mere accident, however, may, in the present in- 
stance, have led to the omission of a single letter; which, after 
all, is of no importance, even if the Copt. reading had been 
confirmed by the best MSS., except that Χριστὸς ὁ Θεὸς is 
more consonant with the Greek usage. I have, however, 
already on Matt. i. 2. hinted at the extreme difficulty of ascer- 
taining with precision what readings were found in the MSS. 
used by the Oriental Translators. The Coptic has here what 
is equivalent to‘O XPIZTOS ®O0A’: Phtha was an Egyptian 
name of the Deity, for which see the authors referred to by 
the Commentators on Cicero de Nat. Deor. Lib. iii. Cap. 22. 
“in Nilo natus OPAS, &c.;” and also Jablonski’s Pantheon 
AEgyptiacum: but whether Phtha be more fitly represented by 
Θεὸς or ὁ Θεός, it is not, I should think, possible to deter- 
mine; since the One undoubted God is signified by both these 
terms in various places of the N. T. ᾿ 

V. 48. τοῦτο τὸ παιδίον. Beza and Grotius (ap. Bowyer) 
would here read ΤΟΙΟΥ͂ΤΟ τὸ παιδίον. This reading, how- 
ever, would not be Greek; for though οὗτος requires its Sub- 
stantive to take the Article, this is not the case with τοιοῦτος 
either in the N. T. or in profane writers. It is needless to ad- 
duce examples of the contrary use, since they are so common. 

V. 60. θάψαι τοὺς ἑαυτῶν νεκρούς. Mr. Herb. Marsh in 
his Origin of the Three first Gospels, p. 129. mentions a con- 


jecture by Bolten, that the Syriac of this and the parallel pas- Ὁ 


sage, Matt. viii. 22. is to be rendered by “ relingue mortuos 
SEPELIENTIBUS mortuos suos.” Mr. Marsh observes, that “ if 


1 In this remark 1 followed Wilkins, the Editor of the Coptic Version, who 
makes Phtha to be a single word; and he adds, that they who understand it to 
be an abbreviation representing the noun Noudi (God) with its Article, “rem 
acu haud tetigerunt.” Proleg. p. 10.—I find, however, that La Croze, Lex. 
Agypt. p. 62. is of a different opinion. Non nostrum tantas componere lites: I 
know nothing more of Coptic, than any man may acquire in a month. 


CHAPTER X. 225 


the passage occurred either in St. Matt. alone, or in St. Luke 
alone, one might conjecture that the Greek text was originally 
ἄφες τοὺς νεκροὺς ΘΑΨΑΣΙ τοὺς ἑαυτῶν νεκρούς, and that 
through an oversight of the Transcribers the Σ in θάψασι was 
omitted, and the Participle thus converted into the infinitive 
θάψαι. But that the same oversight should have happened in 
both places, is not probable.” 

I much doubt, however, whether a single Evangelist would 
have translated Syriac or Chaldee words signifying, “ Leave 
the dead to those whose office it is to bury the dead,” by the 
Greek given above: for neither does the Participle of the first 
Aorist θάψασι, notwithstanding some remarkable uses of that 
Tense, seem well adapted to express ‘‘ those whose office it 
is,” nor will it be easy to account for the omission of the Ar- 
ticle. .In Acts v. 9. of πόδες τῶν θαψάντων τὸν ἄνδρα σου, 
the Participle marks a past act: the office appears rather to 
require the Present Tense, as in the LX X. 2 Kings ix. 10. 
οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ θάπτων, and John ii. 16. τοῖς τὰς περιστερὰς πω- 
λοῦσιν εἶπεν. With respect to the Article, had the Proposi- 
tion been negative and exclusive, the case would have been 
different: as it now stands, τοῖς is, I believe, indispensable: 
so John i. 22. iva ἀπόκρισιν δῶμεν ΤΟΙ͂Σ πέμψασιν ἡμᾶς. 

The conjecture of Bolten has the approbation both of Mr. 
Marsh and of Eichhorn: is it not, however, an objection of 
some weight, that ears has the affix, mortuos suos? In 
the usual way of understanding the passage, the affix strength- 
ens the sense. 


CHAP. X. 


Υ. 6. 6 vide εἰρήνης. A great majority of the best MSS.— 
6 and Griesb. properly rejects it. Beza, without the authority 
of MSS. says Wet., inserted the Article, supposing it to be 
necessary; on the contrary, the Regimen will scarcely endure 
it. Raphel, however, so far from thinking the Article neces- 
sary in this place, has recourse to the solution common in all 
difficulties, viz. that 6 is here used indefinitely. 

V. 14. ἐν τῇ κρίσει. See on Matt. x. 15. 

V. 91. τῷ πνεύματι. Several MSS. and most of the old 
Verss. including the three Syr. and all the Lat. add τῷ ἁγίῳ, 
possibly, says Wolfius, because it was imagined that πνεῦμα 

Q 


906 ST. LUKE, 


iw 


with the Article could be intended only of the Holy Spirit. I 
believe this to have been the cause of the interpolation; which, 
however, must have been made at a very early period. To 
πνεύματι, as has been elsewhere observed, frequently means 
no more than in his mind or within himself. See above iv. 1. 
It ought to be mentioned, that of Matthai’s MSS. only one, 
and that among the least considerable, has the addition. 

V. 29. πλησίον. Markl: would read ‘O πλησίον, and two 
or three inconsiderable MSS. have this reading. It must be 
confessed that the conjecture is at the first view plausible, but 
yet I suspect that it is not sound. In ver. 27. we have indeed 
τὸν πλησίον, but there the Article was necessary; for without 
it the meaning would be, “ thou shalt love near thee,” which 
obviously is not sense: τόν, therefore, was requisite to give the 
signification of the person near thee, or thy neighbour. But 
how stands the case in the present verse? The question is, 
Who is near me? i. 6. near in the same sense in which the 
word had just been employed. I do not, then, perceive any 
defect in this construction, and I am persuaded that the re- 
ceived reading is the true one, on comparing it with ver. 36. 
where not a single MS. has ventured to interpolate the Article. 
It is there asked, Who of the three appears to have been near 
him, who fell, &c.' 


CHAP. XI. 


V.4. ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ. See on Matt. v. 37. 

V. 7. εἰς τὴν κοίτην. Eng. Version says, ‘* My children are 
with me in bed.” A difficulty has arisen in determining whe- 
ther they were all in the same bed: some Critics, whom Bishop 
Pearce and Campbell have followed, make per’ ἐμοῦ to mean 
only ‘‘ as well as myself.” Possibly, however, κοίτη may sig- 
nify the bed-chamber; in which case, the same κοίτη held the 
whole family. According to Chardin, as quoted by Harmer, 
it is usual in the East for the whole family to sleep in the same 
chamber, on different beds or mattresses laid on the floor. 
Newcome, I observe, has adopted this interpretation. 


* Winer says that Déderlein compares Asch. Prom. 940. ᾿Εμοὶ δ᾽ ἔλασσον 
Znvocg ἢ μηδὲν μέλλει, where he says that μηδὲν seems to be for rod μηδέν.--- 
H. 2. R. , 


CHAPTER ΧΙ. 227 


ΓΝ, 18. δώσει πνεῦμα ἅγιον. The aid of the Holy Spirit: 
see what was remarked above on Matt. i. 18. under the fifth 
head; of which the present instance is a good illustration: 
accordingly the Greek Scholiasts have χάριν πνευματικήν. 
See Matthii ad loc. 

V. 15. ἄρχοντι τῶν, κι τιλ. Several good MSS. have τῷ 
ἄρχοντι, and Griesbach has admitted the Article into the Text. 
In this admission there was something of temerity. Αρχων 
is one of those words which, being liable to be considered 
either as a Participle or a Substantive, may in this case either 
take or reject the Article: as a Substantive it would reject the 
Article, as a Participle it would require it. The substantive 
use appears to be that here meant, and it is, indeed, the more 
common inthe N. T. Inthe parallel place, Matt. xii. 24. not 
a single MS. has the Article. In the present instance only 
three of Matthii’s MSS. and those not the best, have rw. 
 V. 30. τοῖς Nweviraic. The Article is here properly in- 
serted, though it was omitted Matt. xu. 41. I ought not, 
however, there to have said, that with the Articles the asser- 
tion would not have been true; since in Jonah ii. 5. the re- 
pentance of the Ninevites is affirmed to have been general. 
Still, however, the Articles were not. necessary: it was suf- 
ficient to declare simply, that “‘ men of Nineveh should,” &c.— 
I observe that Dr. Gillies in his valuable “ History of the 
World from Alexander to Augustus,” (Prelim. Survey) has 
assigned several strong reasons to prove that the Nineveh here 
spoken of was situate in the neighbourhood of Babylon, and 
was not the city which stood opposite to the modern Mosul, 
between 36 and 37 deg. of Northern Latitude, near the Tigris. 
Yet D’Anville (Euphrate et Tigre, p. 88.) treating of Mosul, 
says, “‘ On sait que la rive opposée, ou la gauche du fleuve, 
conserve des vestiges de Ninive, et que la tradition sur la pré- 
dication de Jonas n’y est-point oubliée.” . Is this merely one of 
the unfounded Mohammedan traditions which are so prevalent 
in the East? ’AdXa ταῦτα ὡς ἐν παρόδῳ. 

V. 34. 6 ὀφθαλμός. The proposition is convertible. See 
Part i. p. 74. 

V. 36. ἔσται φωτεινὸν ὅλον. Michaelis (Introd. vol. 11. p. 
404.) observes, that “ this verse would be more intelligible, if 
we inserted the Article, ἔσται φωτεινὸν TO ὅλον. ‘The mean- 

Q2 


298 ST. LUKE, 


ing of the passage would then. be, If in consequence of one 
perfect eye the whole body is light, take care that the whole, 
i. e. the whole man, body and soul, become light. The eyes 
give light to the body; but that which Christ calls light, shall 
enlighten, or give true knowledge to the whole man.” ‘The 
sense which would thus arise is, indeed, unexceptionable: but, . 
perhaps, nearly the same meaning is conveyed in the reading 
of the MSS. In the sense of wholly, ὅλον does not require 
the Article: see Part i. Chap. vil. § 4. : the meaning, however, 
will be the same, whether we render, ‘ it will be wholly en- 
lightened,” or “ the whole will be enlightened.” In the former 
case, it is true, the reference will be to σώμα: but 1 much 
doubt whether, if we had read TO ὅλον, we could have under- 
stood it of the ““ body and soul,” nothing. more than the body 
having been mentioned, though the soul be the object which 
our Saviour has in view: and to this, probably, by a tacit in- 
ference the application is to be made. In ver. 35. the analogy 
between external and internal light had been established: in 
the present, the complete illumination described in the con- 
cluding clause, though intended of the mind, is affirmed only 
of the body, the application, after what had been said, being 
supposed to:be obvious. osenmiiller appears to have under- 
stood the passage somewhat in this manner, when he says, 
** nermixta est nempe ret comparate ipsa comparatio.” If 
these remarks have any weight, the conjecture of Michaelis 
becomes gratuitous. 
V. 42. τὸ ἡδύοσμον. Parti. Chap. iii. Sect. ii. ὃ 2. 


CHAP. XII. 


V.6. καὶ ἕν ἐξ αὐτῶν. Three editt. of Hrasmus here read 
TO ἕν. This, in speaking of five things, would not conform 
with the Greek usage. See 1 John v. 7. 

γ, 10. εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα. ‘The Holy Spirit, the Person 
so denominated. See on Matt. xii. 32.. Compare also Mark 
iii. 28, In these places it may be observed, in confirmation of 
what was said on Matt. i. 18. that the Article is employed. 
The only difference is, that in two of them the phrase is τὸ 
πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, which, however, is equivalent. A few MSS. 
indeed, have in this place also the same form, ἢ), as in St, 


CHAPTER XII. | 229: 


Matthew, omits the second Article. The Compiler of that 
MS. was not always sufficiently on his guard. 
ΟὟ, 14. δικαστήν. Part. i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 3. 

V. 54, τὴν vepéAnv.. A few MSS. (among which are A. B.) 
—riv. Dr. Owen (ap. Bowyer) approves the omission ; but 
in this, as in other instances, the Article has its meaning. We 
read in 1 Kings xviii. 44. that the appearance of a certain 
cloud rising out of the sea was regarded as a prognostic of 
rain. Now the sea lay westward of Palestine; and, therefore, 
the cloud which rese out of the sea, might also be said to rise 
from the West. If, then, we put these cireumstances toge- 
ther, there is good reason to suppose that the cloud here spoken 
of was a well known phenomenon, which would naturally and 
properly be adverted to as νεφέλη. Mr. Bruce in his Tra- 
vels has noticed a similar appearance attending the inundation 
of the Nile. Newcome, in his Revision of the Common Ver- 
sion, has adopted this explanation, and yet he translates “ a 
cloud.” I cannot help thinking that a Revision would be ex- 
tremely imperfect, or indeed would'be nearly useless, if it were 
to overlook minute circumstances, such as that before us. It 
is in niceties of this sort principally, that our English Transla- 
tion admits improvement: its general fidelity has never been 
questioned ; and its style, notwithstanding the captious objec- 
tions of Dr. Symonds, is incomparably superior to any thing 
which might be expected: from the finical and perverted taste 
of our own age. It is simple; it is harmonious; it is ener- 
getic ; and, which is of no small importance, use has made it 
familiar, and time has rendered it sacred. Without the least 
predisposition to decry the labours of the Writer to whom I 
have alluded, I may express the hope, that whenever our Ver- 
sion shall be revised by authority, the points last attended to 
will be those which respect a pretended inelegance of language. 
A single instance of the suppression of a local custom or popu- 
Jar opinion, which can be shown to have existed among the 
Jews in the age of the Apostles, appears to me to be of infi- 
nitely higher importance; because, by concealing from the 
notice of the Reader circumstances which are beyond the reach 
of fabrication, we withhold from him perhaps the strongest 
evidence of the authenticity of the Scriptures, and consequently 
of the credibility of our Religion. 


290 ST. LUKE, 


CHAP. XIII. 


V. 27. πάντες of ἐργάται. Griesbach following several MSS. 
prefixes the mark of possible spuriousness to of: but, as I 
think, without reason; especially when ΤῊΣ ἀδικίας follows. ” 


CHAP. XIV. 


V.28. τίς ὑμῶν θέλων, x... Many MSS. have Ὁ θέλων. 
This reading implies that there is an assumption of his wishing 
to build, as if we should say, Who of you, supposing that he 
wished. It is, therefore, not an improbable, though by no 
means a necessary, reading. 


- V. 84. τὸ ἅλας. Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. ii. ὃ 2. 


CHAP. XV. 


V. 22. τὴν στολὴν τὴν πρώτην. A few good MSS. have 
στολὴν without the Article, and Griesbach thinks that it may 
possibly be spurious. It was shown, Part i. Chap. viii. ὃ 2. 
that the Article of the Substantive is in such cases frequently 
omitted: it is, however, much more frequently inserted, as in 
the very next verse, TON μόσχον τὸν σιτευτόν. 


CHAP. XVI. 


V. 22. εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ ᾿Αβραάμ. Griesbach rejects τοῦ : 
it is totally unnecessary, and the best MSS. are without it. 


CHAP. XVII. 


V.1. ra σκάνδαλα. See Matt. xviii. 7. 

ΟὟ, 4. τῆς ἡμέρας. The Article here, though lost in the 
English, is not without its use, as has been already shown: 
see on Matt. xx. 9, : so also Hebrews ix. 7. and LX X. Exod. 
xxiii. 14. 

V.17. of δέκα. A Reader of our Common Version, ** Were 
there not ten cleansed?” might suppose the Article in the 
Greek to be a mere expletive. The original, however, means 
to say, ““ Were not the whole ten (recently mentioned) 
cleansed?” which, though it make no alteration in the tenor of 


CHAPTER XVIII. 231 


the argument, is very different in the turn of the expression. 
Wakefield's Translation accords with the Greek. 

V.34, 35. ὃ εἷς, ἡ μία. The first Article Griesb. has rejected, 
and to the second he has prefixed his mark of probable spuri- 
ousness. I do not perceive any difference in the two cases, 
except that the MSS. which omit 6 are rather.more numerous 
than those which want ἡ. This, however, is a very insufficient 
criterion; nor can it be well doubted, that both 6 and ἡ are 
genuine or spurious alike: I am disposed to think them 
genuine. See on Matt. vi. 24. 


- 


V.2. ἄνθρωπον μὴ ἐντρεπόμενος. Not regarding any man. 
It is not said, in like manner, any God, because only one God 
was in the Historian’s contemplation ’. | 

V.13. ἐμοὶ τῷ ἁμαρτωλῷ. Wet. here remarks, “ rq habet 
emphasin, τῷ καθ᾽ ὑπερβολὴν ἁμαρτωλῷ." The influence thus 
ascribed to the presence of the Article is, I believe, unfounded; 
and the mistake seems to have arisen from inattention to an 
usage which, though sufficiently common, I do not remember 
to have seen noticed. It prevails in the Profane Writers, no 
less than in the N. T. and in Verse as well as in Prose: it is, 
that When any of the words which in the First Part of this 
Work I have denominated Attributives, is placed in apposition 
with a Personal Pronoun, that Attributive has the Article 
prefixed. An instance occurs in this Evangelist, vi. 24. ὑμῖν 
ΤΟΙ͂Σ πλουσίοις, where pre-eminent wealth cannot be intended. 
So also xi. 46. ὑμῖν ΤΟΙ͂Σ νομικοῖς. We find the same form 
of speech in Xenoph. Cyrop. lib. iv. p. 66. κἀγὼ μὲν Ὁ τάλας: 
and ibid. lib, vil. p. 109. ἐγὼ ἡ μωρά. In both these instances, 
it is true that Sturz, in his Continuation of Thieme’s Lex. 
Xenoph. vol. iii. p. 252. supposes emphasis; and so also in 
another example adduced by him, viz. ἐγὼ ἡ παρακελευομένη, 
where the very notion of emphasis is ridiculous: indeed his 


1V.9. πρὸς τίνας τοὺς πεποιθότας ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς. Here, says Winer, to τίνες, 
by which persons not accurately defined are designated, is added a more exact 
description, by means of a definite quality: He said to some persons, and they were 
such as trust in themselves. Bp. Middleton would probably have said, Some per- 
sons, viz. those who (were known) to trust in themselves. See note on ν. 1, Winer 


refers to Herm, ad Soph. Cid. C. 167. Déderlein ad Aid. C. p. 296.—H. J. R. 
6 


232 ST. LUKE, 


whole account of the Article is liable to much objection. See 
also Herod. lib. ix. p. 842. μὲ τὴν ἱκέτιν. Plut. Conviv. Sept. 
Sap. p. 95. ἐμὲ τὸν δύστηνον. The same usage occurs in 'Theo- 
critus Idyll. iti. 19 and 24. μὲ τὸν αἰπόλον, and ἐγὼ 6 δύσσοος; 
and Idyll. ii. 182. See also Soph. Electra, 282. Edit. Brunck.. 
ἐγὼ ἡ δύσμορος. Kurip. Ion, Edit. Beck, 348. σφὲ τὸν δύσ- 
τηνον. αΑὐϊβίορι. Aves 5, Achar. 1154. Eccles. 619, Many 
other examples will present themselves to the-Reader, nor 
need so many to have been produced, had the opinion of Wet- 
stein been of less weight: it seems, indeed, to have been im- 
plicitly followed: thus on μὲ τὸν ταλαίπωρον, Eurip. Hee. 25. 
Ammon informs us that ‘the Article in this place strengthens 
“the expression of misery and misfortune,” &c. &c.: but if 
Ammon’s Edition of the Hecuba had nothing worse in it, it 
might be tolerated. Of the usage in question the ground is 
sufficiently obvious: the Article here, as elsewhere, marks the 
assumption of its Predicate, and the strict meaning of the Pub- 
lican’s Prayer is, ‘‘ Have mercy on me, who am confessedly a 
sinner,” or, seeing that I am a sinner, have mercy on me.” 
V. 27. τὰ adévara..... δυνατά. There cannot be a better 
example than this, of the use of the Article in marking assump- 
tion as distinguished from assertion. Parti. Chap. iii. Sect. iv. 


δι: 
V. 29. γονεῖς ἢ ἀδελφούς, «. τ. A. , Part i. Chap. vi. § 2. 


CHAP. XIX. 


V..2. ἀρχιτελώνης. . What was the rank and office of this 
person? .Our Version calls him “ the chief among the Publi- 
cans:” to this Campbell objects, that it seems to imply the 
chief of the whole order in Palestine, in which case the word 
would most probably have been attended with the Article. 
Thus, he adds, it is always said ‘O ἀρχιερεύς, when the High 
Priest is spoken of: and he concludes with making this apye- 
τελώνης the chief Publican of that particular city or district ; 
which interpretation, however, will, on Campbell’s principle, 
require the Article just as much as would that which he rejects. 
But the truth is, that be the meaning of the word what it may, 
the Article must here be omitted; ἣν ‘O ἀρχιτελώνης would 
offend against the usage noticed, Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 2. 


CHAPTER XIX. 233 


(unless, indeed, there had been a dispute whether Zaccheus or 
some other person were the ἀρχιτελώνης ;) and with respect to 
what Campbell says of ὁ ἀρχιερεύς, his error has arisen from 
his not adverting to that usage: for though ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς be the 
common appellation, yet the Article here, as elsewhere, is 
omitted whenever the word follows a Verb Substantive. Thus, 
by this Evangelist, in Acts xxii. 5. St. Paul is made to say 
of him, who in the preceding verse is called τὸν ἀρχιερέα τοῦ 
θεοῦ, “1 knew not ὅτι éorty ἀρχιερεύς :” which is strictly simi- 
lar to the passage under review... So also. St. John xi. 49. 51; 
xviii. 13. and in the LXX. 2 Mace. xv. 12. τὸν γενόμενον 
ἀρχιερέα. There is, therefore, no reason to infer that apyire- 
λώνης is at all less definite in its import, than would ‘O apy- 
τελώνης be, if the circumstances had permitted the Article to 
be employed. 

The precise nature of the office it is not easy to determine. 

Michaelis, in his German work so often quoted, understands 
Zaccheus to have been a Publicanus, or Farmer of the Tolls, 
as distinguished from a Portitor, or mere Collector; and a pas- 
sage of Josephus, adduced by Wetstein, makes it probable that 
Jews were sometimes admitted to this rank, though, as every 
one knows, it properly belonged to Roman knights. Such a 
‘person might without impropriety be called ἀρχιτελώνης, a 
Head-Collector, as being a Publican in the strict sense, under 
whom the τελῶναι acted. The Publicani, indeed, formed a 
Society, or College, under the direction of a President residing 
at Rome; and this President managed the concerns of the 
Society by means of Representatives appointed in the Pro- 
vinces. The President himself was called Magister, and each 
Representative Pro-Magister, as the Reader will learn on con- 
sulting Grevius’s Note on Cicero ad Fam. lib. xiii. Epist. 9. 
Zaccheus might, perhaps, be this Representative; for though 
he was a Jew, it might be the policy of the Romans sometimes 
to employ Jews in offices of trust and emolument. Of these 
two conjectures, for I confess they are nothing more, I am 
inclined to prefer the latter. The word ἀρχιτελώνης is ἅπαξ 
λεγόμενον in the N. T, 

V. 23. ἐπὶ τὴν τράπεζαν. A great many MSS. omit τὴν, 
to which Griesbach prefixes the mark of probable spuriousness, 
The omission will not, in this instance, affect the sense: I am 


284 ‘ST. LUKE, 


disposed, however, to retain the Article, observing that in 
Demosthenes ἐπὶ τὴν τράπεζαν is common, whilst ἐπὶ τράπεζαν 
is not found. See Reiske’s Index Demosth. voce τράπεζα. 

V. 29. ἐλαιῶν. We have not in this instance any infringe- 
ment of the rule of Regimen. The Mount of Olives is com- 
monly called τὸ ὄρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν, and the second Article is then 
never omitted. But the insertion of καλούμενον makes a dif- 
ference; for then we have an ellipsis of ὄρος understood after 
καλούμενον, where TO ὄρος would be contrary to the rule. 
See Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. ὃ 2. Notwithstanding this, one 
or two inferior MSS. have τῶν. . | 

V. 30. οὐδεὶς πώποτε ἀνθρώπων. It might be expected 
that ἀνθρώπων, after the Partitive οὐδεὶς, would have the Ar- 
ticle; but see Part 1. p. 54. 


CHAP. XX. 


V. 36. καὶ υἱοί εἰσι τοῦ Θεοῦ. Here the Alex. MS. has 
the remarkable reading, of υἱοί εἰσι Θεοῦ, which, however, 
can scarcely be right: it would mean, ‘‘ the children are of 
God'.” i 


1 In v. 38. of this chapter, we have our Saviour’s argument in proof of a resur- 
rection, expressed with some difference, in respect of the Article, from the corre- 
sponding terms in Matthew and Mark: Θεὸς δὲ οὐκ ἔστι νεκρῶν, ἀλλὰ ζώντων" 
πάντες γὰρ αὐτῷ ζῶσιν. This passage furnishes us with a specimen of the 
Scriptural criticism of some of the opponents of Bishop Middleton’s hypothesis. 
“The Article ought to be inserted before Θεός, says the Monthly Reviewer, 
(June, 1810.) Not necessarily; as the present reading may very well be ren- 
dered, ““ But he is not the God of the dead, but of the living.’ But the Reviewer 
proceeds: “ The additional words in Luke, πάντες γὰρ αὐτῷ ζῶσι, which are 
rendered in our common Version, ‘ all live unto him,’ mean, we think, “ all who 
are his are rewarded with life and happiness,”—‘“ no good man loses his reward.” 
This is sufficiently startling to one accustomed to the sober criticism of Bishop 
Middleton; but the surprise excited by it is increased by the examples brought ᾿ 
to confirm the novel interpretation: ‘‘ See the dative so used in Luke ν. 33. 
John xvii. 6 and 9. And he further appeals to some Hebrew usages in the Old 
Testament. Passing by these latter as proving nothing, the Greek references 
deserve to be examined. The first is Luke v. 33. οἱ δὲ coi ἐσθίουσι καὶ πίνουσι" ' 
where ool is evidently the nominative plural of the adjective σός, and if the writer 
had intended it for the dative of σύ, he would have used the dative also in the 
beginning of the verse, Ἰωάννῃ instead of Ἰωάννου. The examples from John 
are of the same kind, oot ἧσαν and σοί εἰσι" though if there could be a doubt of 
the construction, the tenth verse would remove it: τὰ ἐμὰ πάντα σά ἐστι. In 
the same way, the construction of Luke xx. 38, should be compared with Romans 


CHAPTERS ΧΧΙ. XXII. 235 


| V~. 42. ἐν βίβλῳ ψαλμῶν. Some MSS. have ἐν τῇ βίβλῳ 
τῶν Ψαλμῶν. Both Articles may be omitted by rules, which 
have often been referred to. 


CHAP. XXI. 


Wi 25: ἐν ἡλίῳ καὶ σελήνῃ καὶ ἄστροις. Part i. Chap. vi. 
§ 2.: 

V. 37. ἐλαιῶν. Here again two or three MSS. read τῶν. 
See on xix. 29. 


CHAP. XXII. 


V.3. ὃ σατανᾶς. Very many MSS. omit ὃ, and Griesbach 
rejects it. This word is used both with and without the Ar- 
ticle, as partaking of the nature both of a Proper Name and of 
an Appellative, q. ἃ. the Adversary. 

V.11. ὁ διδάσκαλος. 1 remember to have seen it some- 
where remarked, that the Article in this place indicates the 
pre-eminent dignity of the Teacher: but this notion may easily 
be shown to be groundless, if we consider that διδάσκαλος, 
without the Article, would here scarcely have been sense. The 
disciples of a particular Teacher could not well have spoken of 
their Master in any other manner. See Aristoph. Nub. 868. 
1150. 1329. 1335. 1837. 1447. Edit. Hermann: and these 
instances, it will be remarked, are taken from a Poet. 

V.17. ποτήριον. A few MSS. including the Alex. prefix 
τό. Michaelis (Anmerk.) says that “ this is not the Cup used 
at the institution of the Holy Supper, but an earlier one, per- 
haps the first, which was drunk before the meal.” That only 
one vessel was used during the celebration is probable, as I 
have remarked on Matt. xxvi. 27. in which case the reading 
would be τὸ ποτήριον : the MSS. however, are, for the most 
part, against this supposition. But this is not the only diffi- 
culty attending the passage. Our Saviour is here said to have 
given thanks, εὐχαριστήσας : this Cup seems, therefore, to have 


xiv. 8. τῷ Κυρίῳ ζῶμεν.---- ΤῊ 6 reader will probably be disposed, from this speci- 
men, to consider Bishop Middleton and our own Translators safer guides to 
follow.—J. 8. 

1 Winer says that the Avicied is omitted before ἥλιος, when it is mentioned 
with the moon and stars !—H. J. R. 


236 ἀν $T) LUKE,: © 


been the Cup of Blessing, or the Third of the Four, and in 
that case it probably was the Cup used at the institution of the 
Lord’s Supper, contrary to Michaelis’s supposition. But then, 
on the other hand, how are we to understand what is said 
below, ver. 202 The perplexities attending the present pas- 
sage are such as almost to induce me to believe it spurious, 
‘It is wanting,” says Adler (in his Verss. Syr. p. 183.) “in all 
the MSS. of the Peshito, and in the first or Vienna Edit. and 
also in the Codex Veronensis of Blanchini.”. The Latin Trans- 
lation contained in that Codex cannot, in the opinion of a con- 
summate judge, (see Marsh’s Note on Mich. Introd. vol. ii. 
p- 559.) be shown, with any colour of argument, to have been 
made in the first Century: its very remote antiquity, however, 
neither Mr. Marsh nor any other Critic, so far as I know, 
appears disposed to question. | 

V.19. τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σῶμά pov. Mr. Wakefield, having 
translated these words in the usual manner, observes, ‘* The 
original is more emphatical and striking, This is this body of 
mine, laying his hand probably at the same time upon his. 
breast.” I do not perceive that the original expresses any 
thing of this sort; and if it did, I should not well under- 
stand it. | 
_ V. 60. 6 ἀλέκτωρ. Griesbach, on the authority of very many 
MSS. rejects ‘O. See on Matt. xxvi. 34. 


CHAP. XXIII. 


ὟΝ, 18. τὸν Βαραββᾶν. In this place, and in the correspond- 
ing one in St. John, Βαραββᾶς, when first mentioned, has the 
Article. Here, indeed, several MSS. including A. G. H. and 
a large proportion of Matthdi’s omit τόν : but in St. John the 
MSS. are uniform in exhibiting the Article. The celebrity of | 
this robber, at the time, at least when St. John wrote his 
Gospel (see above on Mark xy. 43.). may have caused the name. 
to be thus introduced. ; ri 

According to Origen, the name was Jesus Barabbas, but the 
name Jesus was omitted, lest it might appear to be profaned:. 
and a few MSS. do actually insert it in Matt. xxvii. 17. The 
Armenian Version also of that passage has, according to La 
Croze, Jesus Barabbas: it is found too in the Vers. Syr- 


CHAPTER XXIII. 237 


Hieros.: and Adler says (Verss. Syr. p. 173.) that there is a 
tradition among the Syrians, that Barabbas was called also 
Jesus. Schleusner doubts not that the Copyists expunged that 
name wherever Barabbas occurs. ‘The presence, however; of 
the Article in all the MSS. of St. John (for here it ought pro- 
bably to be omitted) is rather unfavourable to this hypothesis. 
‘If Barabbas’s name had been Jesus Barabbas, it must in Greek 
have been written Ἰησοῦς Βαραββᾶς, as is the case with Σίμων. 
Πέτρος, not Ἰησοῦς Ὁ Βαραββᾶς : consequently, the reading 
in St. John, at least, affords a presumption that ᾿Ιησοῦν never 
in that instance preceded TON Βαραββᾶν. It may be said, 
indeed, that τὸν was inserted in the place of the name ex- 
punged: but this is highly improbable, since the name Barab- 
bas, without the Article, would have accorded rather better 
with the ordinary usage. On the whole, I’ am disposed to 
think that the authority of Origen influenced some of the Copy- 
ists to insert the name of J esus, and that even the tradition 
mentioned by Adler mby. have arisen from the same source. 

V. 26. τοῦ ἐρχομένου. The Article should probably be 
omitted, as in many MSS. and in Griesbach. 

V. 38. ἐπιγραφή. Many MSS. have Ἢ ἐπιγραφή. This is 
not absurd, since the practice of putting up inscriptions on 
similar occasions was not unusual; and to this practice refer- 
ence might be made. 

V. 43. ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ. ‘The reference in. this place.is to 
the Jewish notion of the state of the dead. See Lightfoot. 

V. 47. δίκαιος ἦν. In Bowyer’s Collection we haye a conjec- 
ture by Wasse, ‘O δίκαιος : in support of which he quotes Acts 
vii. 52; xxii. 14. Jamesv.6. That δίκαιος in this place, if used 
κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, may dispense with the Article, is more than I 
dare affirm ; though, considering the tendency of the Verb Sub- 
stantive to render the Noun following anarthrous, and espe- 
cially that Names and Titles (see above, xix. 2.) so situated 
reject the Article, I think the case somewhat disputable. There 
is, however, another view in which the question may:be re- 
garded. St. Luke was not present: he had heard the exclama- 
tion of the Centurion from others: and in what manner did 
the relater represent it? The Roman said, probably, Revera 
hic.vir Justus erat. If St. Luke understood not Latin, the 
reporter was to translate the phrase into Greek: but would he 


238 ST. LUKE,. 


have been justified in representing the Centurion to have said 
what was equivalent to Ὁ δίκαιος 2 This would have been 
rather to act the part of a Commentator than of a narrator. Be- 
sides, a Roman who had heard merely that the Messiah was to 
be distinguished by the attribute of justice, or that he was to 
be called the Just One, would very naturally, according to the 
practice of his nation, suppose Justus to be a cognomen of 
Christ; to which he might thus allude: that it was a cognomen 
in some instances we know from Acts i. 23; xviil. 7. Col. iv. 
11; and if the Reporter or Translator viewed the case in this 
light, I do not see that he would think of inserting the Article 
in the Greek. Had Pompey died gloriously, I can conceive a 
Greek by-stander to have exclaimed, ᾿Αληθῶς ὃ ἀνὴρ οὗτος ἦν 
Méyac, in allusion to Magnus; and I believe he would have 
said no more. Such allusions, it is well known, are very much 
in the manner both of the Greeks and Romans. But see more 
on Acts vil. 52. 

V. 54. ἡμέρα and σάββατον are illustrations of Part i. ΩΝ 
ii. Sect. ii. § 1. Se, 


CHAP. XXIV. 


V.10. Μαρία ᾿Ιακώβου. Markland conjectures Ἢ ᾿Ιακώβου. 
This is the reading of the best MSS. including a large propor- 
tion of Matthii’s. 

V. 18. ὃ εἷς. Some MSS.—6:-but this is wrong, there 
being only two persons mentioned. 

V. 21. τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν. This is contrary to what was 
said on οὗτος in Part i. Chap. vii. ὃ 5. A few MSS. indeed, and : 
Syr. Philox. want ταύτην, by which omission the difficulty 
would be removed: it is evident, however, from Wetstein’s 
Note, that the phrase accords with the practice of the Greek 
writers. In the whole N. T. I find no other instance of οὗτος 
in immediate concord with an anarthrous Noun, except Acts 
i. 5. μετὰ πολλὰς ταύτας ἡμέρας, and xxiv. 21. περὶ μιᾶς ταύτης 
φωνῆς : unless, indeed, we add τοῦτο τρίτον, John xxi. 14. and 
2 Cor. xxiii. 1. where, however, the Substantive is understood. 
Now in all these instances it will be observed, that either a 
Numeral Adjective occurs, or something which is analogous to 
it: whence I infer that the anomaly noticed Part i. Chap. vi. 
§ 3. sometimes extends its influence so far as to cause the 


CHAPTER XXIV. | 239 


omission of the Article in cases like the present. I am aware 
that some Critics would at once have recourse to the homaeote- 
leuton: but I am disposed to believe that almost every word 
which existed in the Autographs is found in some one at least 
of the MSS. still extant. If there be many instances in which 
the original reading is wholly lost, they will probably, for the 
most part, respect the Article: yet rarely, if ever, has a case 
occurred, in which the reading of some MS. or other did not 
agree with the principles previously established in this Work. 

Same v. Markland here conjectures Ἢ σήμερον, making it, 
I suppose, the Nominative to ἄγει : no emendation, however, 
is requisite: the Nominative to ἄγει is Christ. Σήμερον is 
wanting in the Vat. MS. and in the Syr. Arab. Copt. Ath. 
and Arm. Verss. It is not necessary to the sense. 


240ῃ ST. JOHN, 


ST. JOHN. 


CHAP. I. 


V. 1. Θεὸς ἦν 6 λόγος. Certain Critics, as is well known, 
have inferred from the absence of the Article in this place, that 
Θεὸς is here used in a subordinate sense: it has, however, been 
satisfactorily answered, that in whatever acceptation Θεὸς is to 
be taken, it properly rejects the Article, being here the Pre- 
dicate of the Proposition: and Bengel instances the LXX. 
1 Kings xviii. 24. οὗτος Θεός, as similar to the present pas- 
sage. It may be added, that if we had read ‘O Θεός, the Pro- 
position would have assumed the convertible form, and the 
meaning would have been, that whatever may be affirmed or 
denied of God the Father, may also be affirmed or denied of 
the Logos; a position which would accord as little with the 
Trinitarian as with the Socinian hypothesis. It is, therefore, 
unreasonable to infer that the word Θεὸς is here’used in a 
lower sense: for the Writer could not have written ‘O Θεὸς 
without manifest absurdity. The meaning of that clause in 
the Athanasian Creed which affirms that “ the Father is God, 
the Son God, and the Holy Ghost is God,” is adequately ex- 
pressed by Θεὸς ὁ Πατήρ, Θεὸς ὁ Υἱός, Θεὸς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ 
ἅγιον : nor will the most zealous Trinitarian, if he understand 
Greek, be dissatisfied with this interpretation of his belief. It 
is, therefore, not very easy to perceive what Origen could mean 
in his Commentary on this verse, when he commends the caw- 
tion of the Evangelist in omitting the Article before Θεός, as 
applied to the Logos: whatever degree of divinity that Father 
might impute to the Logos, the Article could not have been 
used in this place, for the reasons already alleged. Besides, it 
is not true that the Sacred Writers have distinguished between 
Θεὸς and ὁ Θεός, as was shown above, Luke i, 15. 


CHAPTER II. 241 


V. 21. ὁ προφήτης. This is another of the instances re- 
ferred to by Abp. Newcome, to prove that the Article is some- 
times redundant: see above on Matt. v. 1. Accordingly he 
translates ‘* Art thou a Prophet?” and he appeals to this Evan- 
gelist, vii. 40, 41; where, however, the Article is no more 
redundant than in the place before us. Here, indeed, the very 
answer of the Baptist is of itself sufficient to show that 6 προ- 
φήτης must be rendered as the idiom requires: for else how 
could John have answered in the negative? Does not Christ 
declare of John (Matt. xi. 9.) that he was a Prophet, and even 
more than a Prophet? See also Luke i. 76. The reference 
is, I believe, properly explained in the Anmerk. of Michaelis, 
who says, ‘‘ Namely, the Prophet promised in Deut. xviii. 
15—19. The Jews understood these words of an individual 
resembling Moses in greatness and in miracles: I am of a dif- 
ferent opinion, and understand them of all and singular the 
true Prophets, whom God from time to time was to send to 
the people of Israel: the question, however, is put to John 
according to the then prevailing interpretation.” Lightfoot 
supposes ὃ προφήτης to mean “ one of the ancient Prophets” 
spoken of Luke ix. 8, 9.: but this is as inconsistent with the 
presence of the Article, as is the rendering of Newcome. 

V.42. ὁ Χριστός. The best MSS. omit 6. It is remarkable 
that any should insert it. See Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 2. 

V.46. τὸν Ναθαναήλ. The Article here is of use to show 
that Ναθαναὴλ is in the Accusative, and not a Cognomen of 
Φίλιππος preceding. 

V.47. τι ἀγαθόν. Dr. Owen (apud Bowyer) conjectures TO 
ἀγαθόν, than which nothing is more improbable: the meaning 
is, that nothing good could come from Nazareth; much less, 
therefore, could τὸ ἀγαθόν. 


CHAP, II. 


V. 11. τὴν ἀρχήν. A. B. 1. and Origen—rfv. These are 
considerable authorities: but see on οὗτος, Parti. Chap. vii. 
§ 5. Matthii’s MSS. as usual, comply with the idiom’. 


1 V.25. τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. I observe, that the Article is here used for the pur- 
pose of Hypothesis only, because Winer, I. ὃ 14. and II. ὃ 3. seems to consider it 
as indicating that ἄνθρωπος is one of two correlatives,—the man with whom he had 
to do.—H. J. R. : 

R 


242 ST. JOHN, 


CHAP, III. 


~ V.10. ὁ διδάσκαλος τοῦ Ἰσραήλ. Eng. Version, ‘a Master 
of Israel.” Campbell observes that the Article here is remark- 
able, and that it is omitted inno MS. Many MSS. have been 
for the first time collated since his work appeared, but in none 
of them is the Article omitted. It must, therefore, be con- 
eluded to have a sense which is indispensable to the passage ; 
and Campbell is certainly right, when he contends that it ought 
to be expressed in Translations. It is, indeed, the more re- 
markable that we should find the Article in αἱ the MSS. 
since, even if we should admit the definiteness of διδάσκαλος, 
it might still have wanted the Article on account of the Verb 
Substantive preceding; though the subject od would favour 
the insertion. 

To determine the precise meaning of the appellation is a 
task which, I believe, no Commentator pretends to have accom- 
plished. We know that Nicodemus was a person of high con- 
sideration, and a member of the Sanhedrim: and some suppose 
him, and not without reason, to have been the same Nicode- 
mus who is frequently mentioned in the Zalmud: in which 
case, he was not in wealth and consequence inferior to any 
Jew of that time. Still it will be asked, why did our Saviour 
say to Nicodemus, Art thou the Teacher of Israel? I have 
only conjecture to offer; but even this may be tolerated, where 
nothing certain is known, and when even conjecture has scarcely 
been attempted. It has been observed, that the Jews gave 
their Doctors high and sounding titles: ‘ Splendidis valde 
nominibus Doctores suos Judei orndrunt vel potius onerdrunt,” 
says Danz apud Meuschen, N. T. ex Talm. illustr. p. 579, in 
the same manner, probably, as among the Schoolmen in the 
middle ages, one was called the Angelic Doctor, another the 
Admirable, and a third the Irrefragable. Might not, then, 
Nicodemus have been styled by his followers, 6 διδάσκαλος τοῦ 
Ἰσραήλ᾽ Οἱ this supposition, nothing is more probable than 


1 There is aremarkable passage in the Theetetus of Plato, ὃ 60, Bekk. which 
strikingly illustrates the supposed use of the Article in the case before us. Pro- 
tagoras is represented as repressing the triumph which Socrates would indulge 


PWV Pe νὰν SSeS TAP PMN are δ μιλιὰ Poo ole, ih hl 


eee Oe See ey νῦν eS ee ee 


CHAPTER IV. 243 


that our Saviour should have taken occasion to reproyve the 
folly of those who had conferred the appellation, and the vanity 
of him who had accepted it: and no occasion could have been 
more opportune than the present, when Nicodemus betrayed 
his ignorance on a very important subject. Our Saviour’s 
readiness to condemn the practice here referred to, may be 
proved from Matt. xxiii. 7. and it is observed by Schoettgen 
Hor, Hebr. on James iii. 1. μὴ πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι γίνεσθε, that 
“cum nomine Magistri res wsa simul a Christo et Apostolis 
ejus est prohibita.” If it be said that Christ would rather have 
asked, “" Art thou called the Master of Israel?” I think it may 
be answered, that this objection is the same with that made by 
the High Priests to the Inscription on the Cross: see this 
Evangelist, xix. 21. in which case it cannot be deemed of 
weight. Besides, the reproof is more severe in the present 
form of expression, since it seems to signify not only that the 
followers of Nicodemus distinguished him by this appella- 
tion, but also that he thought himself not altogether unworthy 
of it’, 

V. 29. νυμφίος. Markland (ap. Bowyer) conjectures Ὁ 
νυμφίος. No MS. has this reading, nor is it wanted. See 
Part 1. Chap. iii. Sect. iv. ὃ 1. 

V. 84. τὸ πνεῦμα. This is generally understood of the gifts 
of the Spirit: I rather prefer the personal sense. That τὸ 
πνεῦμα here follows δίδωσιν is no ground of objection; since 
we find the same word applied to the Son in the 16th verse of 
this very Chapter. 


CHAP. IV. 


V. 27. μετὰ γυναικός. Eng. Version, ** With the woman.” 
But Campbell lays some stress on the absence of the Article, 
and thinks the meaning is, with any woman at all. From the 
absence of the Article nothing can be inferred, because of the 
Preposition: on the whole, I am inclined to believe that the 
surprise felt by the Apostles was rather at our Saviour’s con- 


over him, the famous Master, when in fact he had gained it only over one of his 
Disciples. Οὗτος δὴ ὁ Σωκράτης ὁ χρηστός, ἐπειδὴ αὐτῷ παιδίον, κι τ᾿ ε.. .. 
oa a > γέλωτα δὴ TON EME ἐν τοῖς λόγοις aviderEe.—J. S. 
1 Winer quietly adopts the Bishops conjectural interpretation, without any 
acknowledgment.—H. 4, R. 
R 2 


244: ST. JOHN, 


versing with this particular woman, than with any woman 
indiscriminately. It is true, that we learn from the Rabbi- 
nical Writers that it was not thought decorous in a man to hold 
conversation with any woman in public: it may be observed, 
however, that not only was this woman a Samaritan, a cir- 
cumstance which made her peculiarly obnoxious, but also, as 
Schoettgen Hor. Hebr. vol. i. p. 343. has remarked, the very 
place rendered her character somewhat suspicious. . The busi- 
“ness of fetching water belonged exclusively to females; and 
wells had, from that cause, become places of resort for the 
loose and licentious of both sexes. It is possible, therefore, 
that the surprise of the disciples might be excited more espe- 
cially by our Saviour’s conversing with this particular woman, 
whom he had found in such a place; and her appearance, pro- 
bably, bespoke somewhat of her real character, as exhibited in 
the sequel of the story. It may be added, that in other places 
our Saviour is represented to have conversed with women, 
without having given rise to particular observation. | 
V. 37. ὃ ἀληθινός. Beza remarks on this place, that-every 
person moderately acquainted with Greek, must perceive that 
the Article is here inadmissible. A few MSS. indeed, are 
without it: but, as Matthai well observes, “δέ abesse et adesse 
potest.” If we render, ‘‘ in this instance the saying is true,” 
the Article must be omitted: but if “in this is exemplified 
the true saying,” the Article is absolutely necessary, as in this 
Evangelist, i. 9; vi. 32; xv. 1. Markland refers us in behalf 
of the Article to 2 Peter 11. 22. which has nothing to do with 
the question, for there the Adjective precedes the Substantive 
instead of following it. I cannot but observe of Matthdit, that 
he is the most accurate Greek Scholar who ever edited the 
N. T.—Griesbach prefixes to the Article the mark of possible 
spuriousness. In this instance, however, the great majority of 
the MSS. ought, I think, to preyail: they are at least as fifty 
to one. | 
CHAP, Υ. 


V.1. ἑορτὴ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων. If we could accurately ascer- 
tain what was the Festival here meant, it would go far to- 
wards determining the much controverted question respect- 
ing the duration of Christ’s Ministry; the various opinions 
concerning which the reader will find very ably detailed in 


CHAPTER V. 245 


Marsh's Michaelis, vol. iii. Part i. p. 56. of the Notes. It 
seems to be admitted, that if the reading had been Ἢ. ἑορτή, 
(which, indeed, is found in several MSS.) the Festival here 
spoken of could be no other than the Passover, and that then 
there were four Passovers, according to St. John, during our 
Saviour’s Ministry: otherwise, it is contended that some other 
Feast, probably of Pentecost, is here meant, and that the Pass- 
overs of our Saviour’s Ministry were only three. In proof, 
indeed, that ἑορτὴ without the Article may mean the Passover, 
Grotius refers us to the phrase κατὰ ἑορτήν, Mark xv. 6. and 
Luke xxiii. 17. where, however, the omission of the Article, 
as in other instances, is to be accounted for by means of the 
Preposition. ‘The present case, therefore, is wholly dissimilar ; 
and on the supposition that the Passover is here intended, we 
must explain the absence of the Article on a different prin- 
ciple. That principle, if I mistake not, was developed in 
Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. ii. ὃ 1. which treats of Propositions 
affirming or denying existence. In this Evangelist, xix. 14. 
we have an example similar to the present in the word παρα- 
σκευή, ἦν δὲ TAPASKEYH τοῦ Πάσχα, than which nothing 
ean be imagined more definite ; where there is no reason against 
admitting the Article, we find it called ἡ παρασκευή. So also 
we usually read τὸ σάββατον : yet in this Chapter, ver. 9. we 
have ἦν δὲ σάββατον, and elsewhere. So likewise Auschines, 
in the Orat. Gr. vol. iii. p. 456. ὅτ᾽ ἦν TIPOATQN, which was 
the prelude to the games. It may, indeed, be supposed that 
the Proposition under review 15 not strictly confined to the 
assertion of Existence, on account of μετὰ ταῦτα: but this ob- 
jection is of little or no force, because μετὰ ταῦτα is not here 
emphatic, i. e. it is not the principal purpose of the Writer to 
affirm, that the Festival was after, rather than before, the 
events last recorded: he means simply to say, Then came the 
Festival of the Jews. The case is. different in this Evangelist, 
vii. 2.. ἦν δὲ ἐγγὺς ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν Ιουδαίων, ἡ σκηνοπηγία" for 
there the nearness of the Feast of Tabernacles is an important 
part of the Proposition; indeed the assertion of this fact was 
the chief or sole object of the Writer. It is also to be ob- 
served, that lest the phrase ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν Ιουδαίων should be 
ambiguous, he adds ἡ σκηνοπηγία. It is, therefore, probable, 
that in the passage before us, if the principal Festival had 


246 ST. JOHN, 


not been meant, something explanatory would have been sub- 
joined. 

On the whole, I think it certain that the Passover may here 
be intended, and that the arguments against this supposition 
are not strengthened, as is commonly supposed, by the absence 
of the Article. On the other hand, the opinion that the Pass- 
over is here meant, is somewhat favoured by the various read- 
ing, since the insertion of the Article in several MSS. may 
have arisen from a desire in the Copyists to make the definite- 
ness of ἑορτὴ more evident: that most of the MSS. want 7, 
affords no support to the contrary opinion, because it was to 
be expected that the majority would conform with the esta- 
blished usage. 

V. 27. ὅτι vide ἀνθρώπου ἐστί. The term ὃ vide ἀνθρώπου 
has already occurred above seventy times, but now, for the 
first time, without either of the Articles: and on this circum- 
stance some stress has been laid by Beza, Michaelis, Campbell, - 
and others. They contend that the Articles are here pur- 
posely omitted, for that our Saviour meant only to assert, that 
the person to whom power was thus given, was himself a man: 
and that here, by a common Syriasm, son of man and man are 
synonymous. “ The Syrians,” says Michaelis (Anmerk. ad 
loc.) ““ cannot express the word man otherwise than by son of 
man: accordingly, 1 Cor. xv. 47. Adam, in the Syriac Ver- 
sion, is called the first Son of Man, though no mortal was his 
father.” I am fully aware that as¢> and {aaj +> are used for 
ἄνθρωπος, and mean no more than the Latin homo, or the 
German mensch: but, if I mistake not, the Syriac expressions 
above mentioned are no where employed by the Authors of the 
Peshito as equivalent to ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, nor even to the 
υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου of the present verse. This term (for I consider 
the absence of the Articles as making no difference) they every 
where translate by eal: «¢9: whence it may be inferred, that 
in the verse under review, no less than in other places, they 
held υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου, applied to Christ, to be significant of 
something different from ἄνθρωπος.---Τὸ appears, then, that the 
argument founded on the Syriasm is rather against the con- 
clusion which it was meant to establish: the omission, however, 
of the Greek Articles ought to be explained from the Greek 
usage, if any such exist. The question is, How came the 


CHAPTER V. 947 


Articles in the phrase ‘O υἱὸς TOY ἀνθρώπου ever to be em- 
ployed? Obviously, because our Saviour assumed to Himself 
this appellation; and the very asswmption forbad Him to use 
the phrase otherwise than as ὁ vide τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. He was to 
be designated as Ὃ υἱὸς, for otherwise He would not have 
been distinguished from any other individual of the human 
race; and if ὁ υἱὸς, then TOY ἀνθρώπου, for ὁ υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου 
would offend against Regimen. Hence it is plain, that the 
Article before ἀνθρώπου is not, if I may say so, naturally and 
essentially necessary, but is so only accidentally ; and conse- 
quently it will not be admitted, unless where Regimen requires 
it, 1. 6. where ὁ υἱὸς precedes. Now in the present instance 
υἱὸς, and not ὁ vide, properly follows ἐστί. See Parti. Chap. 
ii. Sect. iv. § 1. and, therefore, the phrase could not be any 
other than υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου. ~We find, indeed, such phrases as 
σὺ εἶ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, or even ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, as was explained 
above, Matt. iv. 3: but the Reader will recollect that the word 
Θεοῦ commonly takes the Article even where Regimen does 
not make it necessary, besides that the Pronoun XY contri- 
butes to give the Predicate a definite form. See Part i. p. 44. 
—If it be thought remarkable, and therefore unfavourable to 
the foregoing interpretation, that υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου, as applied to 
Christ, now first occurs without the Articles, it is sufficient to 
answer that now, for the first time, has Christ asserted his 
claim to the Title: in all other places he has assumed it. It 
is moreover to be observed, that the Fathers, in similar cases, 
appear always to use the phrase υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου, 1 mean where 
the Canons require υἱὸς to be without the Article. See Succer's 
Thesaurus, voce vide. 

On the whole, I am accu that the rendering of our 
common English Version ‘‘ the Son of Man” is correct, con- 
trary to the opinion of those who would conform with the letter 
rather than with the spirit of the original. The import of the 
passage is, indeed, as they contend, “ that God hath made 
Christ the Judge of Man, for that He, having taken our na- 
ture, is acquainted with our infirmities.” But the same mean- 
ing will be deducible from the Common Version, if we consider 
that the very Title, “ Son of Man,” has every where a refer- 
ence to the Incarnation of Christ, and is, therefore, significant 
of His acquaintance with human weakness. I have, indeed, 


248 ST, JOHN, 


observed, that in a’majority of the places in which our Saviour 
calls himself the Son of Man, (and he is never in the N. T. so 
called by others before his Ascension,) the allusion is either to 
his present humiliation, or to his future glory: and if this re- . 
mark be true, we have, though an indirect, yet a strong and 
perpetual declaration, that the human nature did not originally 
belong to Him, and was not properly his own. He who shall 
examine the passages throughout with a view to this observa- 
tion, will be able duly to estimate its value: for myself, I 
scruple not to aver, that I consider this single phrase so 
employed, as an irrefragable proof of the Pre-existence and 
Divinity of Christ’. 
. V. 35. ὃ λύχνος 6 καιόμενος. _ Campbell objects to our Ἴων 
sion, ‘‘a burning and a shining light,” on the ground that the 
Article indicates something more. So far 1 agree with him: 
but I do not believe, that in this place there is any reference 
to the LX X. Psalm cxxxi. 17. I suppose, rather, that the 
allusion is to some phrase then in vogue among the Jews, to 
signify a wise and enlightened Teacher: and on turning to 
Lightfoot, one of the best illustrators of the N. T. 1 find that 
** a person famous for life or knowledge was called ὦ candle : 
hence the title given to the Rabbins, the Candle of the Law, 
the Lamp of Light.” I conclude, therefore, that our Saviour 
meant to say, ‘‘ John was,” to use your own phrase, “‘ the burn- 
ing and shining light.” Allusions of this kind are much in 
our Saviour’s manner. Compare what was said on iii. 10. 

V. 86. τὴν μαρτυρίαν. An inattentive Reader might object 
to the Article: but see similar instances, Part 1, Chap. viii, 


§ 1. 


CHAP, VI. 


V. 40. ὁ θεωρῶν καὶ πιστεύων. See on Mark xvi. 16. 

V. 63. τὸ πνεῦμα, ἡ σάρξ. I do not here understand τὸ 
πνεῦμα of the Holy Spirit; for πνεῦμα and σάρξ are evidently 
opposed to each other, as co-existent in the same whole, So 
we find them Matt. xxvi. 41. Rom. viii. 5. James iv. 5. In 


1 V. 32. ἄλλος ἐστὶν ὁ μαρτυρῶν περὶ ἐμοῦ. In this place, Winer explains the 
Article, by saying that a definite witness, viz. Gop, was in the writer’s mind. He 
that witnesseth rightly about me is another. This falls in nearly with Bishop Mid- 
dletons observation in iii. 3. 2. (p. 44.) on reciprocating propositions. —H. J. R. 


CHAPTER VI. 249 


like manner, 2 Cor. 111. 6. we have πνεῦμα opposed to γράμμα; 
for as in an animated substance there are the flesh and the 
animating principle, so in the Levitical Law there was the 
letter, which was intelligible to the most carnal understand- 
ings, and the spirit or ulterior design of the Institution, which 
for the most part eluded notice: and, by an easy metaphor, in 
speaking of any system or body of instruction, the term spirit and 
flesh may be substituted for spirit and letter. Indeed we learn 
from Philo, vol. ii. p. 483. (as quoted by Michaelis, Anmerk. 
ad loc.) that the Essenes actually used this illustration with 
regard to the Mosaic Law. I suppose our Saviour, therefore, 
to say, ‘‘ Does this, then, stagger you? How much more 
would ye be surprised, if ye were to witness my ascension! 
But it is the spiritual part of Religion which is of avail in 
opening the understanding: the mere letter is nothing: my 
words, however, are the spirit and the life of all, which ye 
have hitherto known only in the literal and carnal sense.” 
Michaelis explains this passage nearly in the same manner. 
Mr. Wakefield apologizes for “ having in so many instances 
conformed with wnconquerable prejudice,” and translates πνεῦμα 
by breath. This might be endured; but he adds, that ‘ there 
is not one place in the Scriptures where the original word 
would not more properly and intelligibly be so translated.” He 
says, *‘ the scrupulous and unlearned may consult for their 
satisfaction Gen. ii. 7; vi. 17. 1 Kings xvii. 17. 21. and the 
margin of our Common Version at James ii. 26.” These places, 
and many others which he might have adduced, prove, what is 
universally admitted, that πνεῦμα frequently retains its pri- 
mitive meaning of breath. Mr. W. as he rightly insinuates, 
wrote for a class of persons who, though perhaps endowed with 
good intentions, are not generally the most capable of judging 
for themselves on subjects of erudition. He became, therefore, 
their instructor: and in what manner has he discharged his 
trust? His Readers may possibly be ‘ scrupulous and un- 
learned:” that he himself was either not very learned or not 
very scrupulous, is the inevitable conclusion. But the doc- 
trine of the personality of the Spirit is not to be subverted by 
random and unsupported assertion. Ifthe Reader wish to try 
the effect of breath as a general translation of πνεῦμα, he may 


250 ST. JOHN, 


begin the experiment with the passages referred to, Matt. i. 18.’ 
under the fourth head. 


CHAP. VII. 


V. 23. περιτομήν. In the preceding verse it is THN περι- 
τομήν : but there the znstitution is spoken of el here, 
only a single act}, 

V. 89. οὔπω γὰρ ἦν πνεῦμα ἅγιον. Πνεῦμα ἅγιον is here 
plainly to be understood of the extraordinary influence of the 
Spirit. There is a trifling difference, indeed, in the reading. 
Some MSS. omit ἅγιον, and some insert διδόμενον ἢ: by both 
sets of Copyists it was, I suppose, imagined, that the words of 
the received Text could mean only the Person of the Holy 
Spirit, which they justly regarded as an impiety. But no MS. 
or Version, so far as I know, omits’ the passage: it cannot, 
therefore, be an interpolation: it is‘thén, not indeed direct 
evidence, but what is much more valuable, an indirect appeal 
to the world for the truth of what St. Luke has recorded in 
Acts ii. The unavoidable inference is, either that this Evan- 
gelist contrived obliquely to countenance a notorious falsehood, 
and that his Readers conspired to give it ANCOR: τ or r else that 
our Religion is true. 

V. 40. ὁ προφήτης. See above oni. 21%. 

V. 52. προφήτης. Dr. Owen (apud Bowyer) wold read ‘O 
προφήτης, for that. some Prophets had come from Galilee. 
Campbell very justly replies, that men who are angry are apt 
to exaggerate. 


1V.24, τὴν δικαίαν κρίσιν κρίνετε. This is easily explained on the principles 
noticed in Bp. Middleton’s concluding note to Chap. iv. Let the judgment which 
you pass be just. Winer says awkwardly, The just, in opposition to The ee 
as only one judgment can be passed on one case.—H. J. R. 

2 In our English Version διδόμενον is properly expressed, though not found in 
the original: “The Holy Ghost was not yet given.” And with this should be 
compared Acts xix. 2. which exactly answers to it in the Greek, though it is 
strangely translated in our Version: “ We have not so much as heard whether 
there be any Holy Ghost.” ᾿Αλλ’ οὐδὲ εἰ πνεῦμα ἅγιόν ἐστιν, ἠκούσαμεν.---- 
J. S. 

3.V.51. τὸν ἄνθρωπον, the man who falls under the cognizance of the law. Winer. 
—H. J. R. 


CHAPTER VIII. 251 


CHAP. VIII. 


V. 7. τὸν λίθον. The eleven first verses of this chapter, 
containing the story of the Adulteress, are wanting, as is well 
known, in a great many of the best MSS. and Versions, and 
the majority of Critics appear to regard them as spurious. 
Michaelis, however, is the advocate of their authenticity, and 
thinks that the Copyists omitted them from scruples about 
their tendency, as being liable to be misinterpreted or per- 
verted. I regard it as a circumstance rather in favour of their 
authenticity, that λίθον has the Article prefixed. . The allusion 
is to the particular manner of stoning, which required that one 
of the witnesses (for two at the least were necessary, see Deut. 
xvii. 6.) should throw the stone, which was to serve as a signal 
to the by-standers to complete the punishment. There is, 
therefore, strict propriety in calling this stone TON λίθον, in 
order to distinguish it from other stones. But would an inter- 
polator have been thus exact in his phraseology? or would he 
have adverted to this apparently trifling circumstance? Pro- 
bably he would not, especially since the expression of βάλλειν 
τὸν λίθον is not elsewhere found in the N. T. Some MSS. 
indeed, though but few, omit the Article; but this, I think, 
proves only that the Copyists knew not what to make of it, 
and that had they undertaken to interpolate the passage, they 
would have done it less skilfully than did the present inter- 
polator, supposing that we must consider the passage to be 
spurious. ) 

Erasmus Schmidt, in his N.'T. 1658, infers from TON λίθον, 
that each of the by-standers was prepared with a stone, which 
is thus referred to: but I prefer the former solution. 

Υ. 44. ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου. The MSS. differ as to 
the insertion or omission of the first Article: the best of Mat- 
thii have it, and he thinks that the Copyists omitted it, lest it 
should seem to ascribe a Father to the Devil: I do not perceive 
that after the Preposition any difference will arise, whether the 
Article be inserted or omitted. Some MSS. have the addition 
of ὑμῶν, which, if authorized, would leave no doubt of the 
construction. 

Same v. bri ψεύστης ἐστὶ, καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ. Our English 
Version says, “ He is ἃ liar, and the father of it.” One of my 


Q52 ST. JOHN, 


earliest recollections is that of my surprise at this uncouth 
and scarcely intelligible phraseology; and that surprise did 
not abate on my becoming acquainted with the original of the 
IN. Ds 

One thing must be evident to all who accurately observe the 
construction; viz. that cai 6 πατὴρ αὐτοῦ is equivalent to καὶ 
ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ἜΣΤΙ ΨΕΎΣΤΗΣ, “ he is a liar, and so is his 
father.” It has been said, indeed, that αὐτοῦ here refers, not 
to the Nominative to ἐστί, but to ψεῦδος above, and in behalf 
of this strange and unnatural construction we are reminded of 
Acts viii, 26. Heb. ix. 4. and Iliad XXIV. 499. passages 
which have not the slightest similitude to the present. But 
further, not to insist that phrases in the form of 6 πατὴρ αὐτοῦ, 
meaning his father, are extremely common, there is another 
difficulty, which for some centuries seems not to have been 
thought of: indeed I have no evidence that it ever was directly 
drawn into the dispute, though there is reason to believe that 
it was tacitly regarded; 1 mean, that if we are to affirm that 
any one is the father of us, him, it, &c.i. 6. if ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ is 
to follow ἐστί, the Article is wholly intolerable, and in such 
cases is always omitted. Thus in this single chapter we haye, 
yer. 31. ἀληθῶς ΜΑΘΗΤΑῚ pov ἐστέ; ver. 42. εἰ ὁ Θεὸς ΠΑ- 
THP ὑμῶν ἦν; ver. 54. ὅτι ΘΕΟΣ ὑμῶν ἐστι, not OI uw, Ὁ π.»; 
Ὁ θ. We may, therefore, safely determine that our Common 
Version, which, however, is the interpretation of Campbell, 
Newcome, Mill, Beausobre, Erasmus Schmidt, Casaubon, Hein- 
sius, Suicer, Whitby, Wolfius, Rosenmiiller, Schleusner, and 
indeed of most modern Critics, is erroneous; and I am per- 
suaded, that had these eminent men attended to the Article, 
they would have had recourse to some different explanation. 
Indeed it is evident from the manner in which some of the 
Fathers quoted the passage, what idea they entertained of the | 
construction : for some of them (see Griesbach) for καὶ read we, 
or καθὼς καί. Ido not suppose that they found either in their 
MSS. or that they pretended to have found it; but only that 
they thus endeavoured to prevent misconception. 

This passage, however, it must be confessed, was attended 
with difficulty, even in the- earlier ages of Criticism. See 
Suicer, i. 635.. Some of the Fathers, for instance Jerome, 
interpreted the place as is usually done at the present day. 


CHAPTER VIII. 253 


Others inferred (and indeed the construction leads directly to 
this inference) that the Father of the Devil was here spoken of: 
“this being the sentiment,” says Whitby, “ not only of the 
Cajani and Archontici, who held that the God of the Jews was 
the Father of the Devil, as St. Austin saith, but also of the 
orthodox, as St. Jerome testifies; and Origen leaves it as a 
thing doubtful.” To detail other opinions of the antients 
might be tedious to the Reader; but 1 think that, generally 
speaking, they admitted the true construction. Among the 
moderns, Grotius in part adheres to the antient interpretation. 
He supposes that the Devil here spoken of as the Father of the 
Jews and a manslayer, was not the Prince of Devils, ὁ ἄρχων 
Tov κόσμου τούτου, but an inferior evil Spirit, ἄγγελος Σατανᾶ; 
2 Cor. xii. 7. This explanation, it must be admitted, accords 
very well both with the construction and with the general tenor 
of the passage: but it may be doubted how far the doctrine on 
which it rests is warranted by Scripture. This is an objection 
which Grotius has not endeavoured to remove. 

It may, then, be imagined, that nothing is to be made of 
the text in its present state, and that recourse must be had to 
conjecture. Of this opinion was Mr. Wakefield: for in the 
place of τὸ in τὸ ψεῦδος, he would substitute TIS. This con- 
jecture, like most others, makes every thing plain; for who, 
with the unlimited licence of invention, would recommend a 
reading which does not entirely suit the place? I have pro- 
fessed myself to be altogether unfriendly to conjectural emen- 
dations of the N. T.; but is it not possible that the sense of 
the passage may, by an allowable ellipsis, be the same as if we 
had actually found TIS inserted? and may not Mr. W. in this 
instance, as has happened to other Critics, have corrupted his 
author by attempting to supply an imaginary defect? The 
learned Reader will judge. In Hestod, Op. et Dies, 291. Ed. 
Le Clerc, we have ἐπὴν δ᾽ εἰς ἄκρον ‘IKHAI, though, as we 
are told in the Note, Philo, Clemens, Xenophon, and others 
confirm the common reading ἽΚΗΤΑΙ: Heinsius, the author 
of the alteration, tells us, that Sealiger and Meursius approved 
it: they did not then perceive that τὶς before ἵκηται might 
be understood. So also Soph. Cid. Tyr. 315. ἔχοι τε καὶ δύ- 
varo. sc. TIS. In Xenoph, the same Ellipsis is not very un- 
common: in the Memorab. I. 2. 55. ἐὰν βούληται τιμᾶσθαι, 


254 ST. JOHN, 


without any Nominative; suwbawd. TIS. Cécon. I. 12. ἣν ἐπί- 

στηται, sc. TIS. In the Apol. 7. ὑγιὲς δὲ (τις) τὸ σῶμα, K. τ΄ A. 
where, however, says Sturz, in Lex. Xen. TIS was first interpo- 
lated by Leunclayius. So alsode Re Eq. VIII. 13. ὡς ἂν βού- 
Anra, ἀντιχαρίσηται, (sc. TIS,) which Leunclavius and Wells 
altered into βούλῃ, ἀντιχαρίσῃ. For these passages, excepting 
one, 1 am indebted to Stwrz; and I have little doubt that a 
multitude of such might be found, if every vestige of them had 
not in many instances been obliterated by unauthorized de- 
parture from the MSS. 1 suppose, then, the same Ellipsis in 
St. John; and, if I mistake not, a similar form of expression 
is found Heb. x. 38: so at least ἐὰν ὑποστείληται is under- 
stood by our Translators. In this way of interpreting the pas- 
sage, every thing is plain and consistent: in the beginning of 
the verse it had been said, ‘‘ Ye are of your Father the Devil :” 
it is here added, “" When (any of you) speaks that which is 
false, he speaks after the manner of his kindred; for he is a 


1” 


liar, and so also.is his Father?. 


CHAP. IX. 


V.17. προφήτης. Wolfius is of opinion that the man cured 
of blindness does not here speak of Christ, merely as a Prophet, 
but as the one Prophet foretold by Moses; and he adds, that 
though the Article be here wanting, yet it is frequently omitted 
where “ res singularis indicatur :” in proof that Ὁ προφήτης is 
here meant, he refers us to ver. 22. I do not think this rea- 
soning conclusive ; for it does not follow, because the parents 
were cautious in their answer, that the son should haye been 
incautious; his caution, indeed, is apparent in ver. 25. and the 
conduct of the Pharisees leads us to infer, that though they 
were little pleased with his answer, they did not consider him 


1 That the learned Author is right in his general view of this passage, I can 
have no doubt: my only wonder is, that he did not carry his improvement a little 
farther, and translate, taking away the comma after ἐστὶ, “ For his father also is 
a liar.”"—I cannot but wonder also that there are found any competent judges of 
the question, who do not immediately approve of the Bishop’s proposed improve- 
ment; but either adhere to the old method, or understand rd ψεῦδος to be the 
nominative to λαλῇ. 

The ellipsis of reg needs no further support to justify it: but perhaps it is un- 
necessarily supplied in the passage from the Hebrews.—J. S. 


CHAPTER ΙΧ. 255 


as having pronounced Jesus to be the Messiah. Their further 
interrogation of him rather confirms this opinion: in ver. 31. 
the man says only, that ‘‘if any one be a worshipper of God, 
and doeth his will, him God heareth :” this seems to prove that 
the man considered Christ to be only θεοσεβής, a term appli- 
cable to the meanest Prophet; and in ver. 36. he shows plainly 
that he did not acknowledge our Saviour to be the Son of God, 
a phrase which, among the Jews, was equivalent to Christ. I 
am, moreover, of opinion, that if the man had meant to declare 
that Christ was the promised Prophet, the Evangelist would 
either have inserted the Article, or he would otherwise have 
prevented what, at any rate, must be regarded as an ambiguity. 
An expression perfectly similar occurs Mark xi. 32. applied to 
John the Baptist; from which, however, it never was inferred 
that John was believed to be the Christ. 

After all, however, the argument of Wolfius proceeds on the 
supposition that the Prophet promised in Deut. xviii. 15. is 
the Messiah. I have already had occasion, on 1. 21. to advert 
to this subject: it may be useful in this place to consider it 
somewhat further. ‘The principal reason for confining the pro- 
mise to the coming of Christ is founded on.the apparent appli- 
cation of the passage to our Saviour by St. Peter, Acts iii. 98, 
and by St. Stephen, vii. 37. On the former of these places, 
Michaelis (Anmerk.) has the following observations: “ The 
Prophet like unto Moses, whom God would raise up unto the 
Israelites from among their brethren, and whom they were to 
hear, many Christians have understood to be Christ himself: in 
which case they will have it, that the passage is adduced by 
Peter as a Prophecy respecting the Messiah. But this opinion 
appears to me to be improbable. The phrase, ‘ A Prophet 
like myself,’ used of Christ, would, in the mouth of Moses, 
seem very indecorous and offensive; and to judge from the 
context, the discourse is not of one, but of several true Pro- 
phets, whom God from time to time would oppose to sooth- 
sayers and diviners: to these impostors, set up by Superstition, 
the Israelites were not to give ear, but only to the true Pro- 
phets resembling Moses, whom God would occasionally send 
them. Many of the Jews, it is true, in the time of Peter, 
interpreted the promise of an extraordinary Prophet, in great- 
ness rivalling Moses, but not of Christ: for they distinguish 


256 ST. JOHN, 


this Prophet from Christ, calling the former simply the Pro 
phet: John i. 21. 25; vii. 40, 41. “1 understand Peter, then, 
to mean, Moses says, God will raise up to the people of Israel 
prophets to whom they must give ear; and whosoever will not 
hear them, him will God call to an account: all the Prophets 
bear witness of Jesus; what answer, then, shall he be able to 
give, who is disobedient to all the Prophets ?”—Dathe also, in 
his Latin Version of the Pentateuch, Deut. xviii: 15. agrees for 
the most part with Michaelis, except, indeed, that he admits 
the application of the passage by St. Peter and St. Stephen to 
the Messiah. He inculeates the doctrine, that ‘* multa Vet. 
Test. loca preter sensum proximeé intentum (lteralem vocant ) 
habere quoque sensum sublimiorem.” My own reason for adopt- 
ing this opinion will be given on Hebrews ii. 6. 


CHAP. X. 


V. 33. ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν Oedv. It is not to be inferred that 
θεὸς is here used in an inferior sense, because the Article is 
omitted. See Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. i. ὃ 3.. 


CHAP. XI. 


V. 33. τῷ πνεύματι. The injudicious zeal of some of the 
antients was exercised in attempting to prove that the Holy 
Spirit was here intended; and the same opinion has found 
abettors in later times: but it must be obvious to the dispas- 
sionate Inquirer, that τὸ πνεῦμα here, as in a multitude of 
places, means only the mind or spirit of man: this is evident _ 
on comparing ver. 38. where it is said, ἐν ἑαυτῷ. The eager- 
ness which has been sometimes shown to explain πνεῦμα in- 
discriminately of the Holy Spirit, has greatly contributed to 
countenance the temerity which I have already noticed and | 
condemned. It is thus that extremes generate their opposites. 
I have endeavoured to assist the younger Student in distin- — 
guishing the different senses of πνεῦμα, though it must be 
confessed, that in a few cases, generally however of inferior 
importance, some doubt may still remain‘. 


1 The meaning, therefore, in the present passage will be, “ in his spirif.’— 
J. S. . : ᾿ 


CHAPTERS XII. XIII. XIV. 257 


CHAP, XII. 


V.1. ὅπου ἦν Λάζαρος ὃ τεθνηκώς. Markland (ap. Bowyer) 
rightly censures the Latin Versions for rendering ubi Lazarus 
fuit mortuus, and thus overlooking the Article. The sense, as 
he observes, is, ‘‘ where Lazarus was, he who had been dead.” 
Had this celebrated Critic elsewhere exercised the same dis- 
crimination, by far the greater part of his Conjectures would 
never have seen the light... His objection does not, and is not, 
meant to apply to the English Version. | 
ΟΟΥ͂,, 24. ὃ κόκκος. Mr. Wakefield renders “ this grain:” he 
says, it is “δὴ elegant designation of Himself (Christ); on- 
which circumstance the propriety and beauty of the Article 
depends.” This is not the only instance in which Mr. W. has 
confounded Ὃ with OYTOS ‘O: he might as well have said 
that ἡ γυνή, xvi. 21. is “ an elegant designation” of some par- 
ticular woman; whereas nothing can be more remote from the 
- sense: he did not perceive that the Article may be used hypo- 
thetically. 


CHAP. XIII. 


V. 5. εἰς τὸν νιττῆρα. The-Article seems to indicate, that 
only one pean or ewer was used on this occasion. 

V. 13. & διδάδοαλιοςξ καὶ 6 Κύριος. The editt. of Erasm. 
Colin. ar Bogard omit the latter Article, I suppose, from a 
belief that it interfered with the usage which has lately been 
defended by Mr. Granville Sharp. No MS. however, warrants 
the omission; nor is it at all necessary: for though both titles 
are meant to be applied to our Saviour, yet they are not spoken 
of as being applied at the same time, but distinctly and inde- 
pendently, as if our Saviour had said, One of you calls me 6 
διδάσκαλος, another 6 Κύριος. The Article, then, is necessary 
to each of the Nouns, as must be evident on considering the 
reason of the rule. Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iv. §. 2. | 

V.21. τῷ πνεύματι. See above, xi. 33. 


CHAP. XIV. 


V. 16. εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. This word, both in the Singular and 
in the Plural, always has the Article in the N. T. unless after 
5 


258 ST. JOHN, 


Prepositions, or from other assignable causes. The reason is, 
that in the Singular it is Monadic, life, eternity, the Jewish or 
the Christian Dispensation, &c. being but one: in its Plural 
sense, of the worlds, it requires the Article by Part i. Chap. iii. 
Sect. i. ὃ 5. In the Classical Writers we meet with aidva 
διάγειν, which is a Hendiadys. See Part i. p. 94. The 
multifarious meanings of the word αἰὼν are well deduced by 
Schleusner. 


CHAP. XV. 


V. 18. πρῶτον ὑμῶν. It is rightly contended by Campbell, 
that Lardner’s interpretation of these words, your prince or 
chief, is unwarranted by the construction: it would then rather 
have been τὸν πρώτον tuwv. ‘The use of the Superlative for 
the Comparative is a known Hebraism. 


CHAP. XVI. 


V. 13. πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν. Our English Version has, * into 
all truth.” This, however, is somewhat too comprehensive : for 
though I have admitted in the former part of this Work, that 
it is frequently difficult and even impossible to ascertain when 
the Article should be used before abstract Nouns; yet, as was 
there observed, there is not the same difficulty, when such 
Nouns are preceded by πᾶς. See Part i. Chap. vii. § 3. and 
I think that the Examples there adduced clearly prove that 
ἀλήθεια, in this place, is not truth universally, but only in 
reference to the particular subject: ‘ He shall lead you into 
all the truth,” as Campbell has translated ‘it, though without 
any remark. Compare also Mark vy. 33, 

V. 21. ἡ γυνή. See above xii, 24. 


CHAP. XVII. 


ὟΝ 8. σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεόν, κι τ. A. There are, says 
Rosenmiiller, “ tres potissimum FERENDI constructionis modi,” 
not all of which, however, appear to me to merit this indulgent 
appellation. The first is, “‘ μέ te et quem misisti Jesum Chris- 
tum solum verum Deum agnoscant.” This is said to be the | 
manner in which the passage was explained by Chrysostom; 
but for want. of reference, I cannot find the place. With this 


CHAPTER XVII. 259 


first interpretation the use of the Article does not directly 
interfere. I would remark, however, that such a construction 
appears very violent and unnatural; whilst, on the other hand, 
σὲ τὸν ἀληθινόν, supposing the words to be taken in immediate 
connexion, is so common a form of expression, that the Writer 
could hardly intend that they should be taken in any other 
way. See on Luke xvii. 13. A second interpretation is, ‘‘ wt 
te agnoscant (sc. esse) unum verum Deum et quem misisti Jesum 
(esse) Christum vel Messiam.” Here the doctrine of the Ar- 
ticle does interfere, for thus we must omit τὸν before μόνον, as 
well as before Χριστόν : not to insist that ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς can- 
not be separated without violence. It may be imagined, in- 
deed, that the subject σὲ may justify εἶναι TON μόνον : but 
this is to suppose a dispute, whether Jehovah or some other 
were the one true God. See on St. Luke xix. 2. The third 
construction, which Rosenmiiller ascribes to John Melch. Faber, 
a learned German Professor, is, ἵνα γιγνώσκωσί σε (εἶναι) τὸν 
μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεόν, καὶ ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν (εἶναι ἐκεῖνον,) dv 
ἀπέστειλας" but this seems to bé objectionable partly on the 
same ground with the former, and is besides so involved, that I 
question whether any thing parallel to it can be found in any 
author, sacred or profane. ? 

I cannot but remark, that the first interpretation appears to 
_ have originated in a wish to evade the consequences which this 
Text has been supposed to establish. It has usually, I believe, 
been regarded as one of the strong holds of Socinianism; and 
much use is made of it by Credlius in his Tract de Uno Deo 
Patre, in the Collection of the Polish Brethren. But, as 
Schleusner and others have observed, τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν 
is here opposed to the false gods of the Pagan worship: com- 
pare 1 Thess. i. 9. 1 John 11. 8; v.20. Apoc. iii. 7. It ought, 
then, to be considered, that the Socinian, in quoting this text 
in support of what he calls Unitarianism, commits the common 
mistake of interpreting phrases rather from opinions subse- 
quently adopted, than from those which prevailed at the time 
when the words in question were employed, and to which alone 
the words were intended to refer. ‘The Socinian argues as if, 
in our Saviour’s days, there had been the same controversy 
about the nature and essence of the One True God, which 
arose afterwards; whereas the dispute then was, whether there 

5 2 


900 ST. JOHN, 


~ were a plurality of Gods, or only One : the Jews held the latter 
opinion, and the whole Pagan world the former. Our Saviour, 
therefore, keeping, if I may so call it, this controversy in view, 
tells his hearers that eternal life is to be obtained only by a 
knowledge of the One True God and of Jesus Christ, thus 
at once directing the mind to the truths both of natural and of 
revealed religion: and the hearers of our Lord could not pos- 
sibly have understood him in any other sense. It is, therefore, 
perfectly frivolous to introduce this passage into the Trinita- 
rian dispute: and the stress which has been laid on it, can be 
accounted for only from the extreme difficulty of giving to the 
opposite hypothesis any thing like the sanction of Scripture.— 
The English Version appears to me to give the sense of the 
original. 


CHAP. XVIII. 


V.1. τῶν κέδρων. English Version, ‘ the brook Cedron.” 
It is very remarkable that only three MSS. viz. A, Vat. 354. 
and Vind. Lamb. 30. have τοῦ Κεδρών, which, however, is the 
reading of Jerome, as well as of both Syr. Verss. the Vulg. 
and some others, and is probably the true one, notwithstand- 
ing that τῶν κέδρων occurs twice in the LXX. The received 
reading might originate in a mistake of the Copyists, or pos- 
sibly even in design: for we know that the Greeks were accus- 
tomed to give a Greek appearance to barbarous names, wher- 
ever this could be done by a trifling alteration: in many in- 
stances, indeed, they seem not to have been so scrupulous. 
See Richardson on the Languages, &c. of the Eastern Nations, 
p. 40. The Persian names in the Perse of Auschylus, and 
many of the names of places in Strabo, may also serve as ex- 
amples. It is, therefore, highly probable that the name of this 
brook, or rather torrent, was Κεδρών, and it is spoken of under 
this appellation by Josephus. The name is supposed to be 
derived from VTP, and hence Κεδρων will mean the black or 
gloomy torrent. It is curious, supposing this account of the 
corruption of the reading to be just, that a perfectly similar 
corruption has happened in the name of the river Kison, which 
Suidas (voce ᾿Ιαβὲὶν) has called yemappove τῶν Κισσῶν, the 
Torrent of Ivy, just as the common reading makes Κεδρὼν the 


Torrent of Cedars. See Rel. Palest. vol. i. p. 289 and 294, 


CHAPTER XVIII. 261 


for an excellent account of Cedron.—Griesbach has admitted 
TOY Κεδρὼν into the text. 

Υ. 3. τὴν σπεῖραν. This is spoken of definitely, as being 
the particular Cohort which, by order of the Procurator, at- 
tended on the Sanhedrim at the great festivals, and preserved 
tranquillity. See Rosenm. 

V. 15. ὁ ἄλλος μαθητής. Grotius says, ‘ it is certain that 
in these, as well as in other writings, the Article is frequently 
redundant.” Schleusner too adduces some other instances, 
besides the present, in proof of the same assertion (see Lex. 
voce ὃ, ἡ, τό) in the principal, however, of which it has 
already been shown, that the assertion is wholly groundless ; 
and it is to be considered as the refuge of ignorance, though of 
the ignorance of learned men. I am, indeed, ready to confess, 
that the Article in this place is a subject of some difficulty ; of 
greater, perhaps, than in any other in the whole N. T.: yet, 
though it should be altogether impossible to assign its use with 
absolute certainty, it is surely more reasonable to impute the 
obscurity to our own want of knowledge, than to attempt to 
subvert the whole analogy of language ; for to say that 6 ἄλλος 
and ἄλλος may be used indifferently, is an assertion which is 
contradicted alike by experience and by common sense. It is 
better to understand phrases according to their obvious import, 
even though we should be compelled to leave the proof of their 
fitness to more diligent or more fortunate inquiry. Thus τὸ 
πλοῖον, Matt. xiii. 2, and elsewhere, has always been regarded 
as signifying merely a certain ship: I should not, however, 
have acquiesced in this vague interpretation, even if I had 
found it impossible to account for the Article in a satisfactory 
way. I entertain the same feeling with respect to the present 
passage. 

It is not at once to be taken for granted, that the received 
is the true reading. ‘The Article is omitted in A. D. and two 
other MSS. and in the Syr. Pers. and Goth. Versions, accord- 
ing to Griesbach. He might have added the Vulg. for alus 
does not express ‘O ἄλλος : this would be alter. Nonnus also 
in his Paraphrase has νέος ἄλλος ἑταῖρος : but on a poetical 
Paraphrase, little stress can be laid. The Edition also of 
Erasmus, Colin. and Bengel, omit 6. Griesbach has thought 
this evidence sufficient to justify the mark of possible spurious- 


962 ST. JOHN, 


ness, which he has prefixed to the Article. It is easier, how- 
ever, to account for the omission of the Article in a few MSS. 
supposing it to be authentic, than for its insertion in almost all 
of them, supposing it to be spurious: for the apparent diffi- 
culty, which might operate as an inducement in the one case, 
would be a powerful discouragement in the other. _ Besides, I 
observe that all the MSS. collated by Birch, as well as those 
of Matthii, which last are probably, on the whole, the best 
existing, exhibit the Article. 1 am, therefore, disposed to 
retain it, whatever be the difficulties with which the reading is 
accompanied. | } 

Commentators have generally admitted, that by ‘‘ the other 
disciple” here mentioned, St. John means himself; and Mi- 
chaelis (in his Anmerk.) well observes, that “John has never 
named himself in the whole Gospel, nor has ever said J: and 
yet the occurrences which took place in the hall of Annas, as 
well as St. Peter’s Denial of Christ, he has described so cir- 
cumstantially, and has thrown so much light on the dark and 
seemingly contradictory narratives of the other Evangelists, 
that we cannot but conclude that he was present.” Supposing, 
then, that St. John himself is meant by ὃ ἄλλος μαθητής, it. 
may not be impossible to assign something like a plausible rea- 
son why he should call himself the other disciple. This phrase 
obviously implies the remaining one of two persons, who not 
only were, in common with many others, disciples of Christ, 
but between whom some still closer relation might be recog- 
nized to exist: and if it could be shown that Peter and John 
stood towards each other in any such relation, the term the 
other disciple might not unfitly be used, immediately after the 
mention of Peter, to designate John; especially, if from any 
cause whatever John was not to be spoken’ of by name. Now — 
it does appear, that a particular and even exclusive friendship 
existed between Peter and John: the circumstance has been 
noticed in that admirable manual of Christian piety, the Com- 
panion for the Fasts and Festivals. ‘ Upon the news of our 
Saviour’s resurrection, they two hasted together to the Sepul- 
chre. It was to Peter that John gave the notice of Christ’s 
‘appearing at the sea of Tiberias in the habit of a stranger: and 
it was for St. John that St. Peter was solicitous what should 
become of him. See John xxi. 21. After the ascension of 


CHAPTER XIX. - 263 


our Lord, we find them both together going up to the Temple 
at the hour of prayer; both preaching to the people, and both 
apprehended and thrown into prison, and the next day brought 
forth to plead their cause before the Sanhedrim. And both 
were sent down by the Apostles to Samaria, to settle the plan- 
tations Philip had made in those parts, where they baffled 
Simon Maeus.”—See p. 77. It might have been added, that 
the same two were sent by Christ to prepare the last Passover, 
Luke xxii. 8. It is moreover to be observed, that the same 
expression of 6 ἄλλος μαθητής, with some addition indeed, 
occurs in this Evangelist, xx. 2. where, however, I do not per- 
ceive that the addition affects the question: it is repeated also 
in verses 3, 4, and 8, of the same Chapter, in a manner which, 
to the modern Reader, will appear extraordinary, but which, 
combined with the circumstances already related, leads me to 
infer that this phrase, when accompanied with the mention of 
Peter, was readily, in the earliest period of Christianity, under- 
stood to signify John: and it is not impossible that the Evan- 
gelist may have employed this expression in order to remind 
his Readers, that, of the Twelve Apostles, two weré distin- 
guished from the rest by their closer friendship and connexion. 
If this be a reasonable solution of the difficulty, (and I cannot 
help thinking it preferable to the bungling expedient uniformly 
adopted,) the Article ought to be expressed in all future Trans- 
lations: by the omission of it, we withhold from the Reader’s 
notice a circumstance of considerable interest and beauty. See 
also below, Acts 1. 13. 


CHAP. XIX. 


Υ. 7. υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ. The Editt. of Erasmus and Colin. 
have τὸν υἱόν : but this must be wrong. See Part i. Chap. iii. 
Sect. iii. ὃ 3. The Article before Θεοῦ is wanting in a multi- 
tude of MSS. including the greater part of the best of Mat- 
thii’s: Griesbach has dismissed it from the text. The true 
reading, therefore, is υἱὸν Θεοῦ, as is usual in such cases, how- 
ever definite be the sense. Yet Mr. Wakefield, gualis ab 
incepto, goes on translating ** a Son of God,” thus at once dis- 
regarding the idiom and the obvious sense of the passage: for 
that the Jews should talk of putting Christ to death for pre- 
tending merely to sanctity of character (which is all, that ‘ he 


204 ST. JOHN, 


made himself a son of God” can mean, see Rom. viii. 14.) is 
unnatural and absurd, and is contrary to what we learn from 
the other Evangelists: the charge was evidently not that of 
hypocrisy, but of blasphemy; and Christ, in affirming that 
He was the Son of God, did in fact affirm his Messiahship. 
See on Matt. xiv. 33. and compare Luke xxii. 66. with 70. 
But the bigotry of heterodoxy seems to be to the full as blind 
as the orthodoxy, which it professes to enlighten. 

V. 29. οἱ δὲ, πλήσαντες. This is one of the instances in 
which the Article is supposed to have an indefinite sense: and 
Elsner, Obss. Sacr. ad loc. has collected several similar pas- 
sages from the Profane Writers. In such places, however, the 
Article retains its original pronominal use, no Predicate being 
annexed, probably because it is supposed to be superfluous. 
In the present instance, the Pronoun can refer only to the by- 
standers: the same is true in Luke νυ. 33. Sometimes there 
is a preceding Ellipsis of vi μέν, or what is equivalent : in which 
case of δὲ will mean others: so in Matt. xxviii. 17. where 
we have ἰδόντες, which is equivalent to οἱ μὲν τῶν ἰδόντων. 
Valckenaér, in his Adnot. Crit. would there read ἰδόντες αὖ- 
τὸν ΟἹ MEN: which, however, appears to me to be unneces- 
sary. 

V. 31. ἦν yap μεγάλη ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη τοῦ σαββάτου. We 
have here a considerable variation. A majority of the MSS. 
for ἐκείνη have ἐκείνου : this reading is adopted by both Wet- 
stein. and Griesbach, and, I think, on the best grounds. 
Several also of the same MSS. omit ἡ, so as to make the 
whole run ἦν γὰρ μεγάλη ἡμέρα ἐκείνου τοῦ σαββάτου. No 
Editor, that I know of, has adopted this reading, and yet I am 
persuaded that it is the true one. I understand the sense to 
be, ‘‘ there was a high-day, or, it was high-day, on that sab- 
bath,” in which case the Article Ἢ ought to be omitted, just 
as in ἦν παρασκευὴ and similar expressions. Nor is its inser- 
tion in the MSS. difficult to explain ; for when once ἐκείνη had 
gained admission, the addition of ἡ became necessary. See 
Part i. Chap. vii. § 7. 
~V~. 88. 6 Ἰωσήφ. Many MSS. omit the Article; but see 
on Mark xy. 43. 


CHAPTER XX. 265 


CHAP, XX. 


V. 22. λάβετε πνεῦμα ἅγιον. Here the MSS. as I expected, 
uniformly omit the Article, the meaning being, the influence 
of the Spirit. See on Matt. 1. 18. 

V. 28. ὃ Κύριός pov καὶ ὁ Θεός pov. It might be supposed 
that the former Pronoun and the latter Article should here 
have been omitted, in conformity with Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. 
iv. § 2. It must be confessed that this would have been the 
usual Greek form: but in this instance the Greek idiom seems 
to have given way to the Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic: in those 
languages the Affix must be subjoined to both Nouns; for if it 
be added only to the latter, it will not comprehend the Noun 
preceding. Thus we read, Psalm v. 3. ὙΠ, Ν ἢ 059, and Ps. 
xxxy. 23. 778) ‘TN; and it is not unreasonable to suppose, 
that as the expression of St. Thomas was so remarkable, the 
Evangelist might wish to record it with the utmost exactness. 
This he has done; for supposing the exclamation to have been 
(allowing for the difference of dialect) TDN) TIN, or as the 
Syriac Version has it, uno wz, the Greek translation is 
the closest possible. The two passages above cited from the 
Psalms, the LX X. have rendered respectively by ὁ βασιλεύς 
μου καὶ 6 Θεός μου and ὁ Θεός pov καὶ ὁ Κύριός μου" in both 
which instances, as well as in the present and many others, the 
Nominative with the Article prefixed is used for the Vocative. 
—It will hence be perceived, that I do not understand the 
words of Thomas in the way of assertion, as some have done, 
by supposing an Ellipsis of σὺ ei: of such an Ellipsis I have 
not noticed any example. But though the words seem to have 
been spoken by way of exclamation, this exclamation is not to 
be construed into a mere expression of astonishment. M?- 
chaelis has justly observed, that if Thomas had spoken German, 
(he might have added, English, French, or Italian,) it might 
have been contended with some degree of plausibility, that 
“‘my Lord and my God” was only an irreverent ejaculation. 
But that Jewish astonishment was thus expressed, is wholly 
without proof or support. Add to this, that the words are 
introduced with εἶπεν αὐτῷ, i. 6. to Christ; but a mere ejacu- 
lation, such as that here supposed, is rather an appeal to Hea- 
ven. But our Saviour’s reply makes it absolutely certain, that 


266 ST. JOHN. — 


the words of Thomas, though in the form of an exclamation, 
amount to a confession of faith, and were equivalent to a direct 
assertion of our Saviour’s Divinity. Christ commends Tho- 
mas’s acknowledgment, while he condemns the tardiness with 
which it is made: but to what did this acknowledgment 
amount? That Christ was Κύριος καὶ Θεός.---ΠὉ is true that 
attempts have been made to lessen the value of this recog- 
nition.. Thus Servetus, in a passage cited by Wetstein, re- 
marks that Thomas did not call Christ Jehovah, to which the 
Affix is never applied. This objection is so frivolous, that I 
should not have thought it worth notice, but for the sanction 
which may seem to have been thus given it: for just as well 
might it be urged that the God invoked by Christ was not the 
true God, since Christ, Matt. xvii. 46. and Mark xy. 84. ex- 
claims, ‘‘ My God, my God:” yet was it ever doubted whether 
Jesus in these words addressed Jehovah? ‘The same address 
is common also in the LXX. and is incapable of being other- 
wise understood, than in the obvious and common way. It is 
much to be lamented, that the bias of Wetstein’s mind inclined 
him to countenance such absurdity. 


CHAP. XXI. . 


V. 4. εἰς τὸ πλοῖον. Grotius, wishing, I suppose, to account 
for the Article, says, ‘‘ relictum aut commodatum antehac.” 
The Pronoun seems here, as frequently elsewhere, to be used 
in the possessive sense: they went on board their vessel. 


ACTS, CHAPTER 1. 267 


ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 


CHAP. I. 


V. 5. μετὰ πολλὰς ταύτας ἡμέρας. See on Luke xxiv. 21. 

V. 8. τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, in the personal sense. Matt. 

i, 18. 
_ V.13. Dr. Owen (ap. Bowyer) observes, that from the latter 
part of this verse it seems that the Apostles were here origi- 
nally distinguished by pairs; for which reason he would omit 
the καὶ between ᾿Ιάκωβος and Ἰωάννης. If, however, the 
Apostles are here to be taken in pairs, we might expect that 
Peter should be associated either with Andrew, his brother, or 
with John, his friend. See above, John xviii. 15. The re- 
ceived arrangement, it will be seen, disappoints both these ex- 
pectations, by placing the brothers James and John between 
the brothers Peter and Andrew. It is remarkable, however, | 
that in the MSS. A, C. Ὁ. the Versions Vulg. Syr. Copt. ἡ 
Armen. Aithiop. and in Augustine, John is placed next to his 
friend Peter. The very high authority for this arrangement, 
and its coincidence with what was noticed above, render it ex~ 
ceedingly probable. I do not, indeed, find that any MS. omits 
καὶ so as to distinguish the first two pairs: the Syr. places the 
Conjunction before the names of John and all who follow. 

V. 14. σὺν γυναιξί, It has been doubted whether the trans- 
lation in this place should be with the women or with their wives. 
Campbell, vol. i. p. 501, 4to. chastises Beza for adopting the 
latter sense, and contends that it would then have been σὺν 
ταῖς γυναιξὶν αὐτῶν. The Article, however, alone might sig- 
nify their, as has been seen in a multitude of instances; and 
this Article, as has been shown, may be omitted on account of 
the Preposition preceding. Campbell’s argument, therefore, 
founded on the meaning of the French, avec les femmes, is 


268 ACIS, 


wholly inconclusive; and so, indeed, are most of the reason- 
ings which attempt to prove what will happen in one language, 
from what actually happens in another: the Greek Preposi- 
tion has the power of dispensing with the Article; the French 
Preposition has it not. But not only is it true, that σὺν γυναιξὶ 
may signify with their wives: we see below in this Writer, 
xxi. 5. that it is actually so used; for σὺν γυναιξὶ καὶ τέκνοις 
has no ambiguity. On the whole, I am inclined to think this 
the true interpretation. Grotius, indeed, with the majority of 
Commentators, prefers the other; and he supposes the women 
alluded to, to be those mentioned Matt. xxvi. 55. with some 
others of Jerusalem: but, surely, if this be the sense, it is 
most obscurely expressed, It might be better to say, that the 
women meant are those spoken of by the Writer of the Acts 
in his own Gospel, xxiii, 49. than to send us to St. Matthew: 
yet even if these had been meant, St. Luke would hardly have 
left us to make it out by mere conjecture, 


CHAP. Il. 


V. 36. πᾶς οἶκος Ισραήλ. If the whole house of Israel be 
here meant, of which there can be no reasonable doubt, the 
Greek usage would require οἶκος to have the Article prefixed. 
See Part i. Chap. vii. ὃ 1. I can account for the omission 
only by referring the Reader to what was said on Matt. xv. 
24. | 
V. 47. rove σωζομένους . I do not at all understand the 
remark of δόξα, (ap. Bowyer,) that if τοὺς σωζομένους meant 
those who should be saved, τοὺς is inserted contrary to the use 
of the Greek tongue; and that, therefore, perhaps it should be 
τινάς. If τοὺς σωζομένους be used in this sense, it is made to 
be equivalent to τοὺς σωθησομένους, where the Article would 
be proper and even necessary. But this expression signifies 
ἢ only, as Markland has well observed, those who are in a state 


1 I have already noticed Winer’s explanation of the Article here. He says 
that it is used in consequence of the persons spoken of being thought of definitely, 
and that the place is to be translated, “ The Lord added daily to the Church new 
members, those, namely, who embraced the Christian faith, and were thereby 
saved.” He compares Plat. Menex. p. 236. B. Ort μέλλοιεν ᾿Αθηναῖοι as yene’ 
τὸν ἐροῦντα. —H. J. R. 


CHAPTER II. 269 


of salvation, as of ἀπολλύμενοι, 1 Cor. i. 18. and 2 Cor, ii. 15. 
are the opposite. See also Luke xiii. 23. The tense em- 
ployed shows this to be the meaning; and it is remarkable 
that this is the only tense which excludes the Calvinistic inter- 
pretation; both the Future and the Past tenses would have 
fayoured it: yet Calvinism has made great use of this text, and 
important consequences have been deduced from it. It has 
been rightly observed, that rode σωζομένους may be illustrated 
by σώθητε above, ver. 40. If the salvation of men were either 
already effected, or could be spoken of as a thing which must 
inevitably happen, an exhortation to be saved, or to save our- 
selves, would in the case of the Elect be superfluous, and in 
that of the Reprobate an unfeeling mockery.—This passage, 
however, may seem to countenance the same doctrine from its 
similitude to xiii. 48. which text is a principal fortress of the 
Calvinists. With that text I have no immediate concern: I 
will, however, briefly observe, that the words τεταγμένοι εἰς 
ζωὴν αἰώνιον are not necessarily to be understood of an abso- 
lute decree. The fullest illustration which I have seen of them 
is in Krebs’s Obss. in N. T. ex Josepho; which, as well as 
Loesner’s Obss. in N. T. ὁ Philone, ought to be in the hands of 
every Reader of the Greek Testament. <rebs’s Note is too 
long to be here transcribed: the substance of it is, that it is 
plain who are the τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον ex lege opposi- 
tionis ; for they are expressly opposed to those, of οὐκ ἀξίους 
κρίνουσι ἑαυτοὺς τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς, nempe τῷ ἀπωθεῖσθαι τὸν 
λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ: see ver. 46. and that hence of τεταγμένοι 18 
no more than οἱ ἑαυτοὺς τάξαντες. This remark, is, indeed, 

found in Wetstein, and even in Grotius. It may be difficult 
to discover to whom it properly belongs; for Theologians, as I 
have had occasion to know, are not very nice in acknowledging 
their obligations. Krebs goes on to show from Josephus, that 
the Pret. Pass. is commonly used in a middle sense: but none 
of his quotations appear to me to be so apposite as that from 
Max. Tyr. Diss. x. p. 102. edit. Heins. cited by Loesner, ἐπὶ 
σαρκῶν ἡδονὰς συντεταγμένες ". The Text, therefore, seems } 
to mean no more than that ‘‘ they believed, as many as felt a | 
longing after immortality.” 


1 Exod. xxxv. 21. . duthor’s MS, 


270 ACTS, 


y 


CHAP. I. 


V. 11. τὸν Πέτρον καὶ Ἰωάννην. A. and two or three other 
MSS. prefix τὸν to the second name also: but this is not 
necessary. See Part i. Chap. ili. Sect. iv. § 2. 

V.21. πάντων ἁγίων αὐτοῦ moopntwv. Wetstein, on the 
authority of several MSS. admits τῶν before ἁγίων mto the 
text. It is, however, not necessary in this place. Part. i. 
Chap. vi. ὃ 1. and Chap. iii. Sect. iti. ὃ 7, 

Υ. 25. ὑμεῖς ἐστε viol, κι tA. Several MSS. read οἱ υἱοὶ 
probante Bengelio. Hither reading may be right; for here, as 
has been elsewhere observed, two rules interfere, one of which 
must give way: the received reading appears to me to be the 
more probable. 


CHAP. IV. 


V. 1. ὃ στρατηγὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ. It may be asked, why this 
person is here and below, v. 24. spoken of in the Singular Num- 
ber, and as if there were only one; when we find that in Luke 
xxii. 4. and 52. there were several such στρατηγοί. ‘The most 
probable opinion is that of Lightfoot on Luke xxii. 4. who has 
shown from Jewish Writers, that in various parts of the Tem- 
ple bodies of Levites constantly mounted guard. ‘The per- 
sons commanding these several parties were called στρατηγοί: 
but that, besides these, there was an officer, who had the 
supreme authority over all of them: and this is he whom 
Lightfoot supposes to be called, by way of eminence, 6 orparn- 
γὸς Tov ἱεροῦ, and to be the same with the Man of the Moun- 
tain of the House, mentioned in the Talmud. Michaelis calls 
him the Commandant of the Temple; and Wolfius supposes 
that Pashur, the son of Immer, mentioned Jer. xx. 1. held the 
same office °. 


V.17. μηδενὶ ἀνθρώπων. A very few MSS. some Editt. 


and Theophyl. have ἀνθρώπῳ. This seems to me to be pre- 
ferable, on account of the Partitive μηδεὶς preceding : see Parti. 


1V.12. ἡ σωτηρία, the expected salvation. This is Winer’s remark. | This 
case nearly answers to Bp. Middletons reciprocating proposition in pronouns. It 
is assumed, in short, that there is salvation from a Messiah. The question is, Is 
Jesus Christ that Messiah ?—H. J. R. 


6 


τ ΔΝ 


CHAPTER V. ; 271 


Chap. iii. Sect. i, § 8. though I am willing to admit that the 
rule is not always observed even in the Classic Writers. 

V. 81. πνεύματος ἁγίου. A. D. and one of Matthii’s have 
τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος. ‘This is contrary to the usage so fre- 
quently noticed, when the sense is the Influence of the Spirit. 


CHAP. V. 


V.4. τῷ Θεῷ. From a μετ τε ἈΝ of this verse with the 
preceding one, as well as from other passages, Theologians 
have in all ages inferred that the Holy Ghost is God. . The 
opinions of the Fathers may be seen in Swicer, vol. ii. p. 769. 
Wetstein, indeed, has remarked, that 6 Θεὸς with the Article 
is always confined to God the Father: I have, however, al- 
ready shown that no such distinction is observed: % Θεὸς and } 
Θεὸς are used indiscriminately, except where grammatical — 
rules interfere. In this place Θεῷ and τῷ Θεῴ would have 
been equivalent: thus we have in this Chapter, ver. 29. 
πειθαρχεῖν Θεῷ μᾶλλον ἢ ἀνθρώποις. If, however, the Ar- 
ticle had been wanting in the: present passage, we should pro- 
bably have been told that the Holy Spirit is God, only in an 
inferior sense. 

It is worthy of notice, ‘that though the Writer has in the 
preceding ‘verse made ψεύδομαι to govern an Accusative, it 
here has a Dative. Of the usage in the N. T. nothing can be 
said: for elsewhere this Verb is used absolutely. The classical 
use of the word, if I mistake not, requires an Accusative: at 
least there is no instance of a Dative in any of the passages 
cited by Wetstein; and in many others which I could adduce, 
the Case is the Accusative. Erasmus Schmidt, a good Greek 
Scholar, tells us, that this Verb governs different Cases, accord- 
ing to the difference of the signification. I do not perceive, 
however, that he has been able to make any distinction between 
the senses of the word as used in the third and fourth verses; 
nor does he adduce any instance of a Dative, except the one - 
in question. Schleusner says, that in the LX X. the Verb 
sometimes governs a Dative and sometimes an Accusative: 


1 Which again is expressed by Plato Apolog. Soer. ς 17. Bekk. with the Article: 
πείσομαι δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ Θεῷ ἢ dpiv.—J. S. 


272 ACTS, 


but even there, I believe, the Dative is employed only where 
the Translators wished to represent the Dative of their original 
expressed by 3 or 9; elsewhere they prefer the Accusative. 

V. 32. τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. It will, perhaps, be supposed, 
that these words are not here to be understood in the personal 
sense, because of ἔδωκεν in the next clause: we read, however, 
John iii. 16. that God τὸν YION αὐτοῦ ἔδωκεν. 


CHAP. VI. 


V. 10. τῷ πνεύματι. Here, though the Article be pre- 
fixed, πνεῦμα must be taken for the influence of the Spirit, or 
inspiration. The Article is inserted in reference to ᾧ ἐλάλει 
immediately subjoined; and it is for this reason that in the 
next Chapter, ver. 3. some good MSS. would read εἰς THN 
γῆν, ἥν, κι τ. A. though there the Article is made unnecessary 
by the Preposition. The same solution would, indeed, be 
applicable in the preceding Note; but there the association of 
τὸ πνεῦμα With ἡμεῖς favours the personal sense, as σοφία, with 
which it is here connected, leads us to an Attribute. 


CHAP. VII. 


V. 36. ἐν ἐρυθρᾷ θαλάσσῃ. Part i. Chap. vi. § 1. Other- 
wise it has the Article. 

V. 52. τοῦ δικαίου. This term is evidently used κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν 
to signify Christ: it may be asked, however, How early did 
this name come into use? In a Note on Luke xxiii. 47. in 
which I remarked on the conjecture of Wasse, I assumed the 
possibility that it was the intention of the Centurion to call 
Christ emphatically the Just One; as if the name were used 
by the Jews to signify the expected Messiah; in which case 
it might easily be known to a Roman residing in Jerusalem: 
I ought, however, to have inquired whether there be any rea- 
son to conclude, that the expected Messiah had ever been 
thus denominated, or referred to under this appellation. The 
strongest evidence which I have met with, that Christ was 
foretold as the Just One, may be found in § 65. of the Diss. 
Gen. at the end of Kennicott’s Heb. Bible. As some of my 
Readers may not have immediate access to that work, I will 


CHAPTER VII. 273 


translate the passage. ‘‘ We read in St. John xix. 36, 37, 
These things were done, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, 
A bone of Him shall not be broken: again, another Scripture 
saith, They shall look on Him whom they pierced. In these 
words the Evangelist cites two passages, in which, as he says, 
are foretold certain events relating to the Messiah; and he 
affirms that these predictions were fulfilled in Christ. The 
first of them is not found in any part of the O. T. at this day 
in express terms, so as to be incapable from the context of 
being otherwise applied than to Christ. The Commentators, 
therefore, have, for the most part, had recourse to the type of 
the Paschal Lamb, Exod. xii. 46. and Num. ix. 12. though in 
neither of those places do the words exactly correspond with 
those of the Evangelist. I am of opinion that this circumstance 
of not breaking a bone of the Messiah, not only was from early 
times prefigured by this type, but was also predicted of the 
Messiah somewhere among the Prophetic Oracles, and that too 
in express terms; for by the correction of a single word in 
Psal. xxxiv. the former of the testimonies adduced by John 
may be as easily vindicated as the other.” He then proceeds 
to give an accurate analysis of the whole Psalm. He con- 
cludes, that “ after the just and humble have been spoken of 
in the Plural Number seven times, mention is made in ver. 20. 

of a certain Just individual, the Just One, a name by which, 

as all know, the Messiah is distinguished. Of Him, then, it 
is said, Many are the afflictions of the Just One; but Jehovah 
delivers Him from all of them. He preserves all hig bones: not 
one of them shall be broken. In the next verse the Just One 
is again introduced, and in such a way, that the words can be 
understood only of the Messiah. They that hate the Just One 
shall be made desolate : where, it is plain, that the punishment 
is characteristic of the crime; for the punishment of desolation 
was inflicted on the Jews for their hatred of Christ. This 
interpretation of the three verses, 20, 21, 22, is attended with 
no difficulty or violence, and would no doubt have been 
adopted by others, but for the Singular YW, ver. 21: for it 
was supposed, that as no Impious Person definitely is here 
meant, so no Just One in particular was intended in the verse 
preceding. It is, therefore, to be remarked, that the word 
yw was corrupted from D’yw: and this is proved from all 

T 


274 ACTS, 


the Antient Versions, which agree in having the Plural; viz. 
Gr. Syr. Arab. and Vulg.” He might have added the A:thiop. 
“ς And the evidence of these Versions is confirmed by a He- 
brew MS. of repute, comprehending besides the Hebrew Text 
a Chaldee Paraphrase much purer than the printed one, in 
which MS. the Paraphrase also has N'Y'W7T in the Plural. 
This Codex is preserved in the Barberini Library at Rome. 
The same word is likewise in the Plural in the Chaldee part of 
the Dresden MS. marked in my work 598. Add to this, that 
in the citation of the Evangelist we find συντριβήσεται, which 
is the very word used in the Greek Version of the Psalm, and 
corresponding with the Hebrew: whereas, in the passage relat- 
ing to the Paschal Lamb, we have συντρίψετε and συντρίψου- 
ow.”  Kennicott afterwards notices the other citation from 
Zach. xii. 10. 

This reasoning appears to me to be satisfactory; yet, while 
I entirely assent to the conclusion, I will not conceal the fact, 
that the LX-X. have ai θλίψεις ΤΩΝ AIKAIQN, and so have 
the Vulg. the Arab. and the ASthiop. thus differing from all 
the Heb. MSS. With respect, however, to the LX X. whose 
Version had considerable influence on the Oriental Translators, 
it is not to be considered as absolutely certain that their MSS. 
had O/T; for supposing that they found the Singular, unless 
they understood it of the Messiah, they equally well expressed 
the meaning of their original by writing τῶν δικαίων plurally ; 
for though τοῦ δικαίου, in the hypothetic use of the Article, 
would mean of just men universally, yet it would have been 
less free from ambiguity. At any rate, we cannot suspect the 
Jews of substituting the singular PTS for the Plural: of sub- 
stituting a Plural for a Singular in Psalm xvi. 10. the Jews 
have been suspected: see Kennicott, On the Heb. Text, vol. i. 
pp. 218. 496. but there the alteration was favourable to their 
views; here it would have been directly the reverse. The 
Largum, as printed in Walton’s Polyglott, has PT and PW: 
the Syr. favours the proposed interpretation in both in- 
stances. 

There are one or two other passages in the O. T. which have 
been referred to in proof, that in Prophetie language Christ 
was called the Just One. Whiston, in his ‘* Essay on the Text 
of the O. T.” supposed that in Isaiah xli, 2. ΓΝ was originally 


ee ee . 


CHAPTER VII. 275 


ΡΝ. Wolfius lays great stress on liii. 11. where, however, on 
the authority of three MSS. PTS is rejected by Bishop Lowth, 
and also by Bishop Stock in his Version lately published. The 


opinion that the Just One was a Prophetic name οἵ our 


Saviour, is not ill defended in a Note on Isaiah iii. 9. in the 
* New Translation by a Layman,” (Michael Dodson, Esq.) 
1790: and evidence of the same fact, deducible from the Tal- 
mud, may be seen in Schoett. Hor. Hebr, vol. 11. p. 18. 
Supposing, then, the Just One to have been a Jewish appel- 
lation of the expected Messiah, it will not be difficult to 
strengthen the presumption, that the Centurion (Luke xxiii. 
47.) intended to allude to it. It is said of him, that ἐδόξασε 
τὸν Θεόν, which would hardly accord with the simple assertion 


that Christ was a just man. δοξάζειν is the word employed, Ἅ“.. 


as often as believers in the true God acknowledge the great- 
ness of His power, and do homage to Hisname. Our Saviour 
himself is said δοξάζειν τὸν Πατέρα, and in 1 Pet. ii. 12. δοξά- 
ζειν τὸν Θεὸν is applied to the conversion of the Pagans: it is 
not impossible that the scene of the Crucifixion might have pro- 
duced this effect on.the Centurion, and that St. Luke might 
thus mean to record the event. It has, indeed, been affirmed 
that this officer became a convert to Christianity in consequence 
of what he had seen; and Michaelis inclines to the opinion. 
At any rate, the term employed is much too strong, if ro δοξά- 
Zev τὸν Θεὸν consisted merely in saying, “‘ Truly this man was 
just.” Besides, in what manner had the justice of Christ dis- 
played itself, so as to impress the mind of the Centurion? Or 
was this the language in which a Roman, not having reference 
toa title of the Messiah, would signify his admiration at what 
had passed? I think not. He is made also to say ὄντως, 
which seems to imply that he now recognized Christ in some 
character previously ascribed to Him; a sense which I have 


already affixed to the ἀληθῶς of the other Evangelists. To this, * «°° | 


indeed, it may be said, that the Centurion had heard that 
Christ was a just man, and that now he believed it: but 
surely this confession amounts to very little, when we consider 
how it was extorted, viz. by the prodigies which attended the 
Crucifixion. The Centurion had probably known numerous 
examples of fortitude under suffering; but had he ever wit- 
nessed the manifest interposition of the Almighty at a public 
T2 


a ee 
ae 


276 ACTS, 


execution? If not, I cannot help thinking that his remark, if 
he meant merely to say, Truly this man was just, is so tame 
and cold, as to be absolutely unnatural, and, considering cr 
circumstances, scarcely intelligible. 

It seems to me, therefore, nearly certain, that in Luke 
xxiii. 47. the Centurion alludes to an appellation which he had 
heard applied to the expected Messiah; and the probability is 
not lessened by the agreement, which will thus be established 
between the narrative of St. Luke and the account given by St. 
Matthew and St. Mark, who represent the Centurion as having 
said that Christ was υἱὸς Θεοῦ. In what sense that expression 
is to be taken, I have endeavoured to show in a proper place. 


It is highly improbable, as was there stated, that such a phrase © 


'. as υἱὸς Θεοῦ should have been used by a Roman, without any 
reference to the pretensions of the Messiah: but that another 
~ of the Messiah’s titles should have been stumbled upon by 
mere accident, and without any allusion whatever, is improba- 
ble to a degree, which staggers all reasonable belief. There 
will still, indeed, remain a discrepancy in the expressions of 
the Evangelists, but not any in the sense. Nor is it impos- 
sible that the Centurion might have said what is imputed 


». both by Matthew and Luke: in which case Luke would be 


very likely to lay hold of the Centurion’s recognition of the 
Messiah as the Just One, because, as we know from the Acts, 
he much delighted to speak of our Saviour under that appella- 
tion. See Acts iii. 14. the Verse on which this Note is written, 
and xxi. 14: in the first of these he has combined the two 
titles of the Holy One and Just One. 

It is scarcely worth mentioning, nor do I lay any stress on 
it, that in the exclamation of the Centurion, the Syr. Trans- 
lator has rendered the word Just in the stat. emphat. exactly 
as in the passages in the Acts and in James v. 6. where Christ 
is confessedly meant. This is not done in giving the charac- 
ters of Simon and Cornelius: however, I am ready to admit, 
that in many instances the stat. emphat. of «2.21, as well as of 
other words, is used without any apparent cause. In James 
vy. 16. the Translator seems to have found a reading in his 
Greek MSS. which would justify the stat. emphat.-in his Ver- 


sion. 


‘i aw 


CHAPTERS VIII. ΙΧ, 277 


CHAP. VIII. 


V.5. εἰς πόλιν τῆς Σαμαρείας. A. 31.40. have the Article 
before πόλιν. I have frequently observed, that in cases like 
the present, in which the Article may be inserted or omitted 
indifferently, the Alex. MS. usually prefers the insertion, 
and is sometimes unsupported by any other. These various 
readings appear to me to have been the corrections of a 
Copyist, who was not acquainted with the licence allowed 
after Prepositions; and such a Copyist could hardly have 
been a native Greek. This remark, unimportant as it may 
seem, may not be wholly useless to those who would trace 
this celebrated MS. to its origin. The prevailing opinion had 
always been, that it was written in Egypt, till Wetstein in his 
Proleg. contended that it came from Mount Athos. - See 
Woide's Pref. Sect. i. ὃ 11. In that case, however, the writer 
would, I think, have been: better acquainted with the lan- 
guage. The Moscow MSS. (Matthii’s) are supposed to have 
come from Athos: yet they, as I have had repeated occasion 
to observe, show, on the whole, that the Writers were by no 
Means ignorant either of the rules or the anomalies of the 
Greek Tongue. 

V.37. Michaelis (as translated by Marsh, vol. i. 887. ) infers 
the spuriousness of this verse, not only from its being unknown 
to so many of the MSS. but from the circumstance that Christ 
is here used as a Proper Name; whereas that word, in the 
age of the Apostles, was merely an epithet expressive of the 
ministry of Jesus. My reasons for dissenting from this opinion 
have been fully detailed on Mark ix. 40. The verse, indeed, 
may nevertheless be spurious: it 15 wanting in a great number 
of MSS. but is found in Jreneus, 


CHAP. IX. 


V. 2. τῆς ὁδοῦ. Two MSS. + ταύτης: but this is unneces- 
sary. Comp. xix. 9.23; xxiv. 22. Schoettgen has remarked, 
that ‘‘in the way of the Nazarenes” is still the phrase used by 
the Jews:to express ‘‘ according to the manner of the Christ- 
ians.” ; 

V. 12. ἐπιθέντα αὐτῷ χεῖρα. The phrase is elsewhere τὴν 


278 ACTS, 


χεῖρα or τὰς χεῖρας. EK. Vulg. and Copt, have τὰς χεῖρας, and 
this is the reading below, ver. 16. 
V. 17. εἰς τὴν oixtay: that of Judas, mentioned ver. 11. 


CHAP. X. 


V. 38. ἔχρισεν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ. This is a good example of 
what was noticed on Matt.i. 18. under the fifth head. In 
ver. 47, where it is τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, the words, though 
spoken of the influence, may be understood in reference, viz. to 
the recent dispensation of divine gifts: this may be inferred 
from καθὼς καὶ ἡμεῖς. 


CHAP. ΧΙ, 


Υ. 5. τέσσαρσιν ἀρχαῖς. English Version. By four cor- 
ners. Mr. Wakefield translates ‘‘ by four strings,” and refers 
us to Diod. Sic. Ed. Rhod. p. 32. The passage respects the 
manner of harpooning the Hippopotamus: εἶθ᾽ ἑνὶ τῶν ἐμπα- 
γέντων ἐνάπτοντες ἌΡΧΑΣ ΣΤΎΠΙΝΑΣ ἀφίασι μέχρις av 
παραλύθῃ. Here the meaning of ἀρχαὶ is evident, and the same 
sense is well adapted to the place under review. ‘This illustra- 
tion of Mr. W.’s is singularly happy, and is, probably, worth 
all that remains of his New Testament. I think it is confirmed 
by the absence of the Article. A sheet ὀθόνη (see above, 
x. 11.) could scarcely be other than quadrangular, in which 
case we should expect ΤΑΙ͂Σ τέσσαρσιν ἀρχαῖς; as in Matt. 
xxiv. 31. τῶν τεσσάρων ἀνέμων. 


CHAP. XII. 


V. 3. ἦσαν ἡμέραι τῶν ᾿Αζύμων. This is strictly a Propo- 
sition of Existence; for nothing is affirmed of the days of un- 
leavened bread, but that they were. Yet several MSS. have 
ai ἡμέραι probante Bengelio, and Griesbach has admitted the 
Article into the text. I am convinced that the received read- 
ing is the true one; and it is an additional confirmation of 
what was said on John v. 1, 

V. 15. 6 ἄγγελος αὐτοῦ ἐστιν. English Version. * It is 
his angel.” This supposes an Ellipsis, so that the meaning 
will be, ‘That which thou hast seen and supposed to be Peter, 


ee ae a ee Ν 


a δα, 


CHAPTER XII. 279 


is his angel. In this case, however, if I mistake not, it should 
have been ἄγγελος without the Article, (see on John viii. 44, 
second Note ;) indeed one of the Medicean MSS. viz. Wet- 
stein’s, 56 and 59, and Chrys. omit 6: this, however, will 
hardly be deemed sufficient to justify its rejection; and, there- 
fore, we are to seek some other explanation. I am much 
struck with the arrangement of the words in the Alex. MS. 6 
ἄγγελός ἐστιν αὐτοῦ : it seems to indicate that αὐτοῦ was not 
meant to depend on ἄγγελος, but that it is the Adverb; and 
this is the sense which, as I conceive, St. Luke here intended: 
“His angel is there.” According to Schleusner, the Adverb 
avrov is found four times in the N. T. and it is remarkable, 


that three of these instances occur in the Acts of the Apostles: ~* 


it is, therefore, a word which the writer would not be unlikely 
to employ; and the present verse, probably, supplies a fourth 
example. ‘This interpretation will accord as well with the con- 
text, as does the received one. The maid had just announced 
that Peter was standing before the Porch: the persons assem- 
bled think her mad; but finding that she persists in her story, 
they exclaim, “‘ His angel is there:” viz. before the Porch. I 
suppose 6 ἄγγελος to signify his angel by virtue of αὐτοῦ under- 
stood: Part.i. Chap. iii. Sect.i. ὃ 4. At the same time, I think 
that on comparing the Alex. with the other MSS. we may dis- 
cover vestiges of a reading which no MS. has preserved entire: 
St. Luke may have written 6 ἄγγελος αὐτοῦ ἐστιν αὐτοῦ" the 
Copyists agreed in considering one of the two Pronouns to be 
superfluous: the greater part expunged the second, the writer 
of the Alex. MS. the first. I have, indeed, endeavoured to 
discountenance critical conjectures: but a reading compounded 
of the readings of different MSS. is hardly so to. be regarded. 
At the same time, the proposed explanation does not require 
the Reader to assent to this hypothesis: it is rather an attempt 
to account for the arrangement in the Alex. MS. than the 
ground-work of a new interpretation. 

Υ. 23. τὴν δόξαν. Several MSS. including six out of seven 
of Matthii’s—rfv, and Griesbach has removed the Article into 
the margin. In this expression the Article is usually omitted, 
except where the glory of some particular act is meant. 


280 ACTS, 


CHAP. XIII. 


V.11. χεὶρ τοῦ Κυρίου. I do not perceive why, according 
to this reading, χεὶρ should want the Article. _Griesbach, on 
the authority of many MSS. rejects τοῦ from the text. 

V. 23. σωτῆρα Incovv. Instead of these words, some MSS. 
including the greater part of Matthiii’s, have σωτηρίαν : and 
Mill endeavours to explain the manner in which the various 
reading originated. It is adopted by Matthai. If the re- 
ceived be the true reading, which probably is the case, σωτῆρα 
properly wants the Article by Part i. Chap. iil. Sect. 1. ὃ 4. 5 

V. 29. καθελόντες. Rosenm. observes, ‘‘ Deest Articulus, 
ut sepe; vult enim dicere ΟἹ καθελόντες." Had this been in- 
tended, the Article would have been inserted: for it is not 
true, that in such instances it is ever omitted. Strictly speak- 
ing, indeed, the persons who interred the body of Jesus were 
not the same who had put him to death; but the case will not 
be mended, at least the sense will not agree with the accounts 
expressly given by Matthew and Mark, or with the inference 
deducible from the other two Evangelists, if we should read OI 
καθελόντες ; for thus Joseph of Arimathea and his companions 
will be represented to have taken down the body, as well as to 
have interred it: but the persons who actually took it down, 
appear to have been the executioners. There is, however, no 
need to deviate from the plain sense of the passage, St. Paul 
is addressing his discourse to the Jews, and is recounting the 
several particulars of their treatment of Jesus: and whether 
his murderers be said to have interred Him, or, as St. Matthew 
represents it, ‘‘ to have commanded the body to be delivered” 
to others for the purpose of interment, the Apostle’s argument 


will be the same. He is hastening to the grand subject of — 


the Resurrection, on which he is about to expatiate; and he 
evidently cared not to avoid a trifling inaccuracy, by which 
none of his hearers could be misled, because they were able to 
correct it. 


CHAP, XIV, 


V. 13. 6 ἱερεὺς τοῦ Διὸς ὄντος, x. τ. X. Valekenaér, in his 
Adnot. Crit. in N.'T. would here read ὁ ἱερεὺς TOY τοῦ Διός. 


ἜΝ ” 


nt Ύ si 


CHAPTER XIV. 281 


He says that the Interpreters suppose a statue of Jupiter to 
have been placed before the gate of the city; but that statues 
of the gods standing thus in the open air, and encompassed 
with a ἕρκος or περίβολος, certainly had not Priests allotted 
them. He contends, therefore, that the Temple of Jupiter is 
here to be understood, and that consequently we must read as 
above, so that the first τοῦ may mark an Ellipsis of ἱεροῦ : and 
he commends Casaubon for having similarly corrected a pas- 
sage of Plato.—Notwithstanding the high authority of Valcke- 
naér and Casaubon, I cannot suppress my suspicion, that both 
their emendations are false. With respect to that with which 
I am more immediately concerned, I do not perceive the neces- 
sity, admitting, which seems to be true, that mere statues had 
not Priests assigned them, and that a Temple is here supposed, 
of inserting τοῦ to mark the Ellipsis of ἱεροῦ. It is not un- 
usual, indeed nothing is more common in Greek, than to say, 


‘the Priest of such a God:” thus Soph. Gd. Tyr. ver. 17. 


οἱ δὲ σὺν γήρᾳ βαρεῖς ᾿ 
Ἱερῇς, ἐγὼ μὲν ΖΗΝΟΣ" 

and even elliptically, Demosth. cont. Mid. Edit. Reiske, vol. i. 
p- 531. 6 TOY AIOX. And as to what follows of “ being 
before the city,” though it be said, indeed, of the God, it may 
very well be understood of the Temple, in which the God was 
worshipped, and in which his statue was placed. Thus Pausan. 
lib. iv. p. 337. Edit. Kiihn, Μάντικλος δὲ καὶ τὸ ἱερὸν Meoon- 
νίοις τοῦ Ἡρακλέους ἐποίησε, καὶ ἔστιν ἐκτὸς τείχους Ὃ ΘΕΟΣ 
ἱδρυμένος. He evidently means to say, that the Temple in 
which stood a statue of Hercules, was without the wall.—But 
further, supposing that St. Luke could not have said the Priest 
of Jupiter, but only the Priest of his Temple, the emendation 
is still gratuitous; for rov, as the reading now stands, may as 
well mark the Ellipsis of ἱεροῦ as be the Article of Διός, which, 
as a Proper Name, may dispense with the rule which elsewhere 
prevails in Regimen: τὸ Διός, meaning τὸ Διὸς “ἱερὸν, (for 
ἱερόν, as Valckenaér admits, is often understood,) is just as 
good Greek as τὸ τοῦ Διός. However, I greatly prefer the 
former explanation. 

The emendation by Casaubon may be found in the Animadv. 
on Atheneus, 1X. 12. It respects a passage in the Gorgias, 


282 ACTS, 


p: 183. edit. Routh, where it was proposed to read TOY τοῦ 
Πυριλάμπους, because not Pyrilampes himself, but the son of 
Pyrilampes, is meant: but this again is needless; for why may 
not the single τοῦ mean τοῦ υἱοῦ, or, to preserve the pun, τοῦ 
Δήμου! The Proper Name requires not the Article; and 
accordingly we find immediately afterwards, πρὸς τὸν Πυρι- 
λάμπους νεανίαν. Dr. Routh very properly mistrusts the pro- 
posed correction, and adheres to the common reading. 


CHAP. XV. 


V.11. Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. A very great number of 
MSS. and Editt. have τοῦ Κυρίου, and Wetstein and Griesbach 
admit it into the text. Nearly as many MSS. reject Χριστοῦ, 
which may possibly be an interpolation. There is not, how- 
ever, any other reason than the preponderance of MSS. for 
either of these deviations from the received text. 


CHAP, XVI. 


ΕΥ̓͂, 6, ἐν τῇ ᾿Ασίᾳ. Mr. Wakefield translates ‘ in that part 
of Asia,” and thinks that in the N. T. Asia Minor is meant, 
whenever the Article accompanies the Name. How the Ar- 
ticle can affect the meaning, I am not able to conjecture. The 
fact, however, is, as Schleusner remarks, that in the Ν, T. 
Asia always signifies either Asia Minor, or else only the part 
of it adjacent to Ephesus, and of which Ephesus was the 
capital. 

Υ. 7. ro πνεῦμα. If this be the true reading, I understand 
it in the personal sense of the Holy Spirit. But the MSS. 
A, C, D. E. &e. add Ἰησοῦ, and some, with several Old Ver- 
sions and two or three Fathers, haye τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. Mill, Wet- 
stein, and Griesbach, approve the addition of the name of 
Jesus; and it appears from Jerome, as quoted by Wetstein, 
that the Nestorians were suspected of having expunged ᾿]ησοῦ 
from the modern copies. It is true that the evidence for in- 
serting the name of Jesus is very strong. Wolfius urges against 
this reading, that the addition of Ἰησοῦ to πνεῦμα is not to be 
found in the N, T. In this, however, he is mistaken: we have 
in Philipp, i. 19, τὸ πνεῦμα ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, though in a sense 


CHAPTER XVI. 283 


different from that which most Readers would annex to the 
passage in question. dbp. Newcome, indeed, who adopts the 
reading, explains it by ‘‘ the Spirit imparted by Jesus:” but 
this is, I fear, unsupported by analogy, to which alone we can 
here have recourse. But the context affords the strongest 
argument against the addition: for in the preceding verse we 
are told that the Apostles were forbidden of the Holy Ghost 
to preach the word in Asia; in the present, that on their at- 
tempting to go into Bithynia, the Spirit suffered them not. 
It is, therefore, highly unnatural that τὸ πνεῦμα of the latter 
verse should be meant of any other than τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα in 
the former. It is also to be observed, that of Matthii’s MSS. 
only one, and that not one of the best, has the proposed addi- 
tion: were the remainder written by Nestorians, or taken from 
Nestorian Copies ? 

V. 12. ἥτις ἐστὶ πρώτη τῆς μερίδος τῆς Μακεδονίας πόλις, 
κολωνία. - English Version, “ which is the chief city of that 
part of Macedonia.” Mr. Wakefield translates, ‘‘ by which 
city there is an entrance into that part of Macedonia.” This 
differs from the former in making πρώτη to signify first or near- 
est in situation; a sense which, indeed, it sometimes bears, 
though usually with something in the context to show that 
such is the sense intended: in the instances adduced by Ra- 
phel, it is πρώτη κεῖται Or πρώτη ἰόντι ἀπό, k. τ. r.: besides, 
the Apostles, before they reached Philippi, had passed through 
Neapolis. But my principal objection is to the manner in 
which both the Versions render the Article in τῆς μερίδος, as 
if it were EKEINH® τῆς μερίδος : of such an Ellipsis I have 
not seen any example. 

A Writer (apud Bowyer) for πρώτη τῆς had conjectured 
πρώτης, 80 as to make the meaning to be, Which is a city of 
the First Part of Macedonia, or Macedonia Prima. See Livy, 
lib, xlv. 29, And MAKEAONQN ΠΡΩΤῊΣ is found also on 
Coins. See Spanheim de Usu, &c. vol. i. p. 651. This con- 
jecture, which Wetstein gives to J. Pearce, and Griesbach says 
is ** Artemonii et aliorum,” appears to me to be the most in- 
genious and most probable of all which Bowyer has collected: 
still, however, it is but conjecture. Wetstein thinks, that after 
the battle fought at Philippi, this city became the metropolis 
of its district, though before that time Amphipolis had been 

3 6 


284: ACTS, 


the capital. Michaelis also appears to have been of the same 
opinion, though he adds, that πρώτη is not necessarily con- 
fined to the capital, but may mean merely “ a principal town.” 
He translates, however, “ of this quarter of Macedonia,” which 
is objectionable on the same ground as our own Version. On 
the whole, I see nothing better than to translate, ‘‘ which is 
the chief of its district, a city of Macedonia, a colony.” It is 
rather in favour of this construction, that some good MSS. and 
Chrysost. omit τῆς before Μακεδονίας : Griesbach prefixes to 
the Article the mark of probable spuriousness. If the Reader 
prefer the less definite sense of πρώτη, the construction will 
still be the same. 

V. 13. παρὰ ποταμόν. D has τόν, which Dr. Owen thinks 
necessary to the sense: but he was not aware of the usage so 
common after Prepositions. 


CHAP. XVII. 

V.1. ἡ συναγωγὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων. English Version, New- 
come and Wakefield, ‘a synagogue.” Wetstein remarks, and 
after him Rosenmiiller, that the Article in this place is em- 
phatic ; for that in the other cities of Macedonia there was no 
synagogue, but only a proseucha or oratory. This assertion, 
however, is contradicted by what follows: see below, ver. 10. 
Neither do I perceive with Michaelis, that the Article neces- 
sarily marks the greatness or celebrity of this synagogue, or 
that it justifies his inference, that the Jews were then very 
numerous at Thessalonica, as they are at the present day. The 
passage seems to signify merely that the Jews, I suppose of the 
surrounding district, had their synagogue there. Οἱ Φαρισαῖοι 
is frequently used in the same limited sense. Or if with the 
MSS. A. 40. we omit ἡ, then the Jews must be taken in a 
larger acceptation, and the meaning is that the people of that 
persuasion had there a synagogue. 3 

V. 23. ᾿Αγνώστῳ Θεῷ. It would far exceed the limits of 
a Note to give merely a meagre sketch of the different opinions 
which learned men have entertained of the origin and purport 
of this Inscription: and, indeed, the only question with which 
I am concerned, respects the proper translation of it. It is 
usually rendered, ‘ ‘To the unknown God.” Mr. Wakefield 
has ventured, “To am unknown God.” ‘This Version, if I 
mistake not, more correctly expresses the original. - 


CHAPTER XVII. 285 


An Inscription is still preserved, which some suppose to be 
the very same noticed by St. Paul: it is the first in the Syn- 
tagma of Reinesius, fol. 1682. 


ΘΕΟΙ͂Σ ASIA KAI EYPQITHS 
KAI AIBYHS 
BEQ: ATNQSTQ: 
KAI 
ZENQu. 


Michaelis speaks of this Inscription, as if it were the one re- 
ferred to: yet there are strong objections to this opinion. St. 
Jerome, in his Comm. Epist. Tit. tells us that the altar was 
inscribed, ‘‘ DIIS ASLE ET EUROP ET AFRICH DIIS IGNOTIS ET 
PEREGRINIS;” but that the Apostle, not wishing to argue 
against a plurality of unknown Gods, chose to quote only a 
part of the Inscription, and that too altered from the Plural to 
the Singular, the better to suit his purpose. This, however, 
is on many accounts a most improbable supposition: indeed, 
the very manner in which the Inscription is introduced, “ I 
found an altar with this Inscription,” &c. makes it incredible. 
that St. Paul could intend merely a remote and vague allusion. 
That the altar was inscribed simply with the words ’ATNQ>- 
TQ: OEM, must either be conceded, or all inquiry on the sub- 
ject will be vain. As to the Greek Inscription above cited, 
Reinesius, though he has given it a place in his Collection, 
believes it to be a forgery.— But that St. Paul might have met 
with an altar inscribed, as he himself asserts, is probable in the 
highest degree. We know from Pausanias and Philostratus 
that there were at Athens altars to Unknown Gods: and even 
if this be meant to signify that "AT NQ=ETOIS ΘΕΟΙ͂Σ was 
the Inscription of every altar, (for their expressions are am- 
biguous,) still it will be probable, that if there were several 
such Deities, an altar might sometimes be erected to one of 
them: but the words of the Author of Philopatris, usually 
printed with the works of Lucian, νὴ τὸν ΓΑγνωστον τὸν ἐν 
᾿Αθήναις, are decisive that "ATNQSTQ: OEQ: in the Singular 
was a well-known Inscription. The only question, then, is, 
Was it intended to be applied to one of a possible multitude, 
as if we should impute any kindness or any injury to an un- 
known benefactor or enemy, or was it meant to be significant 


286. ACTS, 


of the One True God, whom the worshipper chose to call 
ἄγνωστος; as possessing unknown attributes? The latter way 
of understanding it has been preferred by the Translators, 
though I know not on what grounds. If Inscriptions of this 
kind, and so intended, had been common in Athens, Paganism 
and Polytheism could scarcely have been tolerated: if they 
were rare, we might expect to read that the authors of them 
were given up to the bigotry of the populace: the Philosophy 
of Socrates, which excited so much resentment, could not have 
been more offensive. It may be urged, however, that the 
Apostle reasons as if the Inscription had been so intended: 
and yet if we recollect his zeal and eagerness to convert his 
hearers, the mention of any unknown Deity must be admitted 
to have afforded him ἱκανὴν ἀφορμήν. Indeed, admitting that 
the Inscription was Zo an Unknown God, the discourse of the 
Apostle is still extremely pertinent. 

Little notice, however, appears to have been taken of the 
order of the words, and the omission of the Article. In ordi- 
nary language, as distinguished from that of Inscriptions, we 
should most probably, meaning a particular God, say either τῷ 
θεῷ τῷ ἀγνώστῳ, OY τῷ ἀγνώστῳ θεῷ : though in the former of 
these we might omit the first or even both the Articles; but 
where the Adjective precedes the Substantive, we must retain 
the Article; for else we shall fall into the indefinite form, and 
thus be misunderstood. Thus Acts xxiv. 14. τῷ πατρώῳ θεῷ. 
Rom. i. 23. τοῦ ἀφθάρτου θεοῦ. Titus i. 2. ὁ ἀψευδὴς θεός. 
Nor does the language of Inscriptions appear to admit any 
other usage. Of the omission of both Articles, where the Sub- 
stantive precedes, may be instanced from Reinesius, p. 199. 
OEOY METAAOY “OAHZIQTQN: p. 202. ΘΕΟΙΣ ΣΩ- 
THPZIN. Spon and Wheeler, vol. ii. p. 590. Ed. 1724. ΘΕ- 
OIS SEBASTOIS. But where the Adjective is placed first, 


the Article is retained. Spon, vol. ii. p.270. TON AAMIIPO- | 


TATON ‘ANOYIIATON. Vol. i. 320. ΟἹ GEIOTATOI AY- 
TOKPATOPE2: p, 306. Τῶι TQTHPI OEQ:: for here ow- 
tho may be considered as an Adjective: I conclude, therefore, 
that had the altar noticed by St. Paul been dedicated to the One 
True, though Unknown God, the Inscription would have been 
either Τῶι "ATNQSTQ: CEQ, or PEQu "AT NQSTA:: since it 
is neither of these, I accede to Mr. Wakefield’s translation.— 


CHAPTER XVIII. 287 


If the Reader would. know what has been written on this text, 
he will find it amply detailed in a dissertation by Wonna, The- 
saur. Theol. Philol. vol. ii. 464. 

ΟὟ, 24. Κύριος. Ed. Bogardi 6 K. This is very faulty: γῆς 
6 Κύριος offends against Regimen. Οὐρανοῦ and γῆς are 
anarthrous by Part i. Chap. vi. § 2. 

ΟὟ, 28. τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν. D. and another for τοῦ 
have τούτου. The Latin hujus would easily suggest this read- 
ing to a writer, who did not consider the original and poetical 
use of the Article. See the Appendix. 

V. 30. τοὺς piv οὖν χρόνους τῆς ἀγνοίας ὑπεριδὼν 6 θεός. 
It would seem almost impossible for a Translator to go amiss 
in rendering this passage, at least so far as respects the con- 
struction; for ὑπεριδὼν has been differently understood, though 
hardly any reasonable doubt can be entertained that it signi- 
fies, having overlooked, or having regarded with lenity. See 
Krebsii Obss. Flav.: yet even the construction was not suf- 
ficiently plain for Mr. Wakefield. He renders ‘‘ condemning 
such ignorance in these times;” and this he thinks correspond- 
ent with the scope and phraseology of the context. He adds, 
indeed, that ‘‘some of the ancient Translators seem to have 
had the same notion of the passage.” Who these were, I can- 
not discover: but if it could be proved that their Greek MSS. 
had the present reading, their Versions would not, from so 
curious a specimen, rise in credit.—Yzepeidw most commonly 
in profane writers, and always in the LX X. governs an Accusa- 
tive: in the Ν, Τὶ it is ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. 


CHAP. XVIII. 


V. 13. τοὺς ἀνθρώπους. Dr. Owen (ap. Bowyer) supposes 
that here the Jews are meant, on account of the Article: but 
see Matt. x. 17. where, however, Mr. Markland admits that 
his remark is not applicable to the Acts. 

ΟὟ, 24. ᾿Απολλὼς ὀνόματι ᾿Αλεξανδρεὺς τῷ γένει. 1). has 
γένει ᾿Αλεξανδρεύς : but τῷ γένει, at least in the Ν, Τὶ is the 
usual form. It is not, however, a case in which uniformity 
should be expected: for whether we say by birth or by his 
birth, there will be no difference, except that the latter will be 
marked by unnecessary though allowable precision, ᾿Ονόματιε 


288 ACTS, 


so used, I think, never takes the Article, possibly because of 
the frequent occurrence of the word, which may have given it 
the more careless and colloquial form. ‘This is one of the in- 
stances in which we may admit the force of custom without 
endangering the Philosophy of Language: where no principle 
is violated, custom and reason are not brought into competition; 
nor can the authorized latitude of the one be made an argue 
ment against the rigorous restrictions of the other. 


/ CHAP. XIX. 


V.6. τὰς χεῖρας. A. and few others—rac. The Article 
is elsewhere inserted in this phrase, nor do I perceive why it 
should be here omitted. 

V. 28. ᾿Εφεσίων. A single MS. has τῶν : but this is wholly 
unnecessary: national appellations have in Regimen the same 
licence which is allowed to Proper Names. 

V. 29. συγχύσεως. A. and very many MSS. and Edd. 
have τῆς, and Griesbach admits it into the text. There may, 
indeed, be a reference to what is related in the verse preced- 
ing: at the same time, if the Article be here to be inserted, 
it will be almost the only instance after a Verb of filling in the 
whole N. T. 


CHAP. XX. 


V.9. ἐπὶ τῆς θυρίδος. English Version, “in a window.” 
I think it may be inferred from the Article, that the ὑπερῶον 
had only one window. 

V. 11. ἄρτον. A. C.D. ἃ pr. manu, have τόν. I do not 
know any reason for the insertion of the Article. The break- 
ing of bread seems not here to be meant of the Eucharist, but 
only of taking ordinary refreshment: and even where the Eu- 
charist is intended, as above, ver. 7. and elsewhere, ἄρτον is 
without the Article; for though the loaf used was only one, 
yet from the double meaning of ἅ ἄρτος, ὦ loaf and bread, it was 
not neqosiny to mark that circumstance. 

V. 13. ἐπὶ τὸ πλοῖον. No ship has been recently men- 
tioned: above, however, ver. 6. mention was made of sailing 
from Philippi: this, therefore, is the ship which was there 
implied, and in which St, Luke and his party performed their 


CHAPTER XX. 289 


coasting voyage, touching at Troas, Assos, Mitylene, Chios, 
Samos, Trogyllium, Miletus, Coos, Rhodes, and finishing at 
Patara: there they embark on board another vessel, a trader 
bound to Phoenicia. See next Chap. ver. 1. Michaelis in 
his Anmerk. adduces some plausible reasons to show that the 
ship here spoken of was one which Paul had hired, in 
order to have it entirely at the disposal of himself and his 
friends. 

V. 22. δεδεμένος τῷ πνεύματι. This, as Wolfius remarks, 
resembles συνείχετο τῷ πνεύματι above, xviii. 5. In both 
places I understand τὸ πνεῦμα, not of the Holy Spirit, but of 
the spirit or mind of Paul; a sense in which τῷ πνεύματι fre- 
quently occurs, as John xii. 21. Acts xvii. 25. et passim. 
Archbishop Newcome renders, “1 go to be bound according 
to the Spirit,” i. e. he says, “the Spirit foretelling that I 
shall be bound.” I cannot help thinking this interpretation 
somewhat unnatural, nor am [ aware that any parallel. con- 
struction can be found in the N. T. 

V. 28. τοῦ Θεοῦ. The Reader is probably aware of the 
variations with which this passage is perplexed. We find, be- 
sides τοῦ Θεοῦ, the reading of the received text, τοῦ Κυρίου, 
τοῦ Χριστοῦ, τοῦ Κυρίου Θεοῦ, τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Κυρίου, and τοῦ 
Κυρίου καὶ Θεοῦ, in all, six readings. It is foreign from my 
purpose to examine minutely the relative degrees of probability 
which each of them may claim: this task, indeed, has already 
been performed by Wetstezn and Griesbach, who decide in 
favour of τοῦ Κυρίου. Since, however, two of these readings 
bring the text within the limits of the Canon revived by Mr. 
Granville Sharp, it may be right briefly to state the evidence 
by which they are all severally supported: and this I shall do 
in the words of Michaelis, (in his Anmerk.) with such addi- 
tional remarks as may be requisite. | 

1. ** The reading τοῦ Θεοῦ has hitherto been found in but 
few MSS. and among those none is of high, or even of con- 
siderable antiquity.. It stands in the present Vulg.; but some 
of the older Latin MSS. have τοῦ Κυρίου, and it is not found 
in any other ancient Version whatever. IfI were called upon 
to speak in its defence, I should say that the Copyists wished 
to avoid the strong expression of God’s blood ; and this they 
have done, some in one way, some in another: at the same 

U 


290 ACTS, 


time I confess, that on impartial attention to the evidence, I 
dare not adopt it as the true and genuine reading.” The MSS. 
in which it is found, amount to fourteen; and it is quoted or 
referred to by a great many of the Fathers. 

2. * Tov Κυρίου is found in several of the most ancient 
MSS. or other early documents; and, on weighing the evi- 
dence, this will be preferred to the other readings. Here 6 Ké- 
olog, as is usual in the N. Τ᾿, is Christ: and thus not a syllable 
is said of his Eternal Godhead}; for as to the notion that thus 
the Divinity of Christ will be more strongly maintained, 6 Κύ- 
ριος being equivalent to Jehovah, it is a barefaced, and I may 
add, a dishonest attempt to employ an argument which has 
been long exploded.’ It is true, that the LX Χ, and others 
who followed them, render Jehovah in the O. Τὶ by Κύριος: 
but 6 Κύριος spoken of Jesus in the N. T. has not this signifi- 
cation.” Ifit be meant, that in the N. T. God is never called 
‘O Κύριος, this is a mistake: see James iv. 15. Luke i. 6; 
ii. 15. Acts ii. 20. I would not, however, willingly rest a 
doctrine of so much importance on equivocal evidence. In the 
Ο. T. this usage is not uncommon.—The authorities alluded 
to in support of this reading, are the MSS. A. C. D. E. and 
five others more modern, and the Copt. and Syr.-Philox. Verss. 
with several of the Fathers. 

3. Tow Χριστοῦ has less support than the preceding : wid 
this, like the former, affords no proof of the Divinity of Christ.” 
It is found in no MS. whatever, but only in the Syr. and Erp.- 
Arab. Verss. and in a few of the Fathers: it appears, however, 
from Adler (Verss. Syr. p. 17.) that one MS. of the Peshito 
has τοῦ Θεοῦ. What are the “ plurimi Codd. Greci,” which, 
as Adler says, (p. 18.) support the reading τοῦ Χριστοῦ, I can- 
not conjecture: they were unknown to Wetstein, Matthii, 
and Griesbach. 

4. and 5. The two next readings have so little authority, 
that, as Michaelis observes, they are scarcely worthy of notice. 

6. ““Τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ Θεοῦ is found in a very great multi- 
tude of MSS. If numbers,” says Michaelis, ** were to decide 
the question, this reading would be preferred; but of the MSS. 
which contain it, none is of high antiquity.” Of these MSS. 
one is in Uncial letters, viz. G. or Harl. 5684, preserved in 
the British Museum, It is also the reading of the Edd. Com- 


CHAPTER XX. 291 


plut. and Plant. and of the Slavon. Vers. and Theophylact. 
It is remarkable, and it could not be known to Wetstein, that 
all of Matthii’s MSS. have this reading, even his Codex 1, 
which in the Acts usually differs from all the rest: this was 
the MS. alluded to above, on xvi. 7. The greater part of 
Alter’s have the same reading. 

These three last readings are supposed by Michaelis to have 
been compounded of the two first: but is it not just as pro- 
bable, that the two first may have arisen by dividing the read- 
ing τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ Θεοῦ ‘The reading τοῦ Κυρίου Θεοῦ, 
which is in one MS. and in the Arab. of Walton’s Polyglott, 
might very well, by the accidental omission of the Copulative, 
be the intermediate step; for in that case subsequent Copyists, 
rightly observing that τοῦ Κυρίου Θεοῦ is a phrase unknown to 
the Writers of the N. T. and indeed to the LX X. who al- 
ways write Κύριος ὁ Θεός, judged one of the words to be 
superfluous: some, therefore, might retain Κυρίου, and some 
Θεοῦ. 

The remark, however, of Michaelis, with which I am most 
concerned, is, that the two last readings would not carry with 
them any proof of the Divinity of Christ; for that the sub- 
joined expression “ of his own blood,” would then be referrible 
not to Θεοῦ, but to Kupiov. Now in the case of the fifth 
reading, tov Θεοῦ καὶ Κυρίου, the most which can be admitted 
is, that there is an ambiguity arising from the uncertainty of 
the usage with respect to Κύριος ; for if Christ be ever called 
Κύριος without the Article, as he sometimes is, (see on Luke 
i. 15.) then it may be contended that the newly revived Canon 
will not here necessarily apply: though it may be answered 
that Κύριος without the Article so seldom means Christ, that 
the application of the Canon will not be at all violent. How- 
ever, Michaelis appears not to have thought of this Canon: 
according, then, to his distinction between Κύριος and ὁ Κύ- 
ριος, if the former mean Jehovah, the reading in question will 
be tautological, for it will mean, “ of God and Jehovah.” It 
has, however, so little authority, that it is needless to ‘quire 
into its import. 

With regard, however, to τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ Θεοῦ, 1 can by no 
means admit, that if it be authentic, it affords no proof of 
the Divinity of Christ: on the contrary, it will establish this 

uz 


292 ~ ACTS, 


important point in a manner the most satisfactory. Allowing 
Michaelis to have been unacquainted with a Canon which once 
was well known and very generally adopted, it is still surpris- 
ing that he did not feel the extreme violence of making τοῦ 
ἰδίου αἵματος refer to Κυρίου, the former of the two Nouns, 
by -passing over Θεοῦ, the datter: and, I think, it may be 
maintained, that had‘not the writers of the numerous MSS. 
which exhibit this reading, understood Κυρίου and Θεοῦ of one 
and the same person, most of them would infallibly have trans- 
posed the words, so as to make αἷμα refer to the Noun imme- 
diately preceding. Their constant acquiescence in the other 
arrangement is a very strong presumption, supposing them to 
have understood what they wrote, (which I believe to have 
been the case with most of the Copyists of the Moscow MSS. 
as well as with many others,) that they perceived no awkward- 
ness in the structure, because they had no idea that τοῦ Κυρίου 
καὶ Θεοῦ could be taken otherwise than of one person. As to 
the proof, that they ought so to be understood, I must refer — 
the Reader to the First Part of this Work, where I have en- 
deavoured not only to exemplify the usage, but to develope 
the principle. I will, however, add, that I consider the phrase 
τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ Θεοῦ, if it be authentic, which is more than I 
maintain, to be among the best possible illustrations of the 
rule: why it is less exceptionable than τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Κυρίου, 
has already been hinted. ‘O Θεός, though when it is uncon- 
nected it possesses, for a reason formerly assigned, the privi- 
lege of rejecting the Article, (which privilege, however, it 
exercises but rarely,) is in all cases of combination with other 
Nouns, subject to the rules which affect the commonest ἌΡΡΕΜ 
lative: thus in Regimen we never find 6 υἱὸς Θεοῦ, ἡ εἰρήνη 
Θεοῦ, &c. but TOY Θεοῦ: so also it is always Ὁ Θεὸς καὶ 
πατήρ, not Θεός. The rule respecting ὃ Θεὸς plainly is, that 
its privilege of rejecting the Article shall in no wise inter- 
fere with the usage common in other cases. It is, therefore, 
indisputable, that if there be authority for admitting the read- 
ing, Mr. Sharp is right in understanding the phrase of one 
person. His proposed rendering of καὶ by even is, indeed, 
erroneous; because it is in direct opposition to the principle 
on which the truth of the rule depends. Καὶ is in all such 
instances no other than the common Copulative, so that the 


CHAPTER XX. 293 


sense will here be, ‘‘ of Him being (or who is) both Lord and 
God.” It may be replied, however, that Mr. Sharp had 
nothing to do with the principle, and was concerned only with 
the fact. . 

It is obvious, that if the reading τοῦ Θεοῦ of the received 
text be authentic, the passage will still afford a proof of the 
Divinity of Christ; for the name God will then be applied to 
Him, who in the next verse is said to have purchased the 
Church with his own blood. Yet where is the inference which 
may not be evaded by human ingenuity? 


Πολλὰ τὰ δεινά, κοὐδὲν av- 
θρώπου δεινότερον πέλει. 


Mr. Wakefield has a Note which may amuse the Reader; and 
the little amusement which I can procure for him, I feel that I 
ought not to withhold. After having preferred τοῦ Θεοῦ, which, 
considering his bias, must excite surprise till the mystery is 
explained, and having stated that Griesbach’s testimony re- 
specting the Aithiopic Version is ‘‘ infamously false,” Mr. W. 
thus proceeds to comment on his own rendering of τοῦ ἰδίου 
αἵματος: 

** His own son: literally, his own blood: but, as this expres- 
sion could answer no good purpose, and would unavoidably 
lead those unacquainted with the phraseology of these languages 
into erroneous doctrines and impious conceptions of the Deity, 
I could not justify myself in employing it in this place. So 
blood is used for man in xvii. 26. and Matt. xxvii. 4. So 
Homer 1]. Z. 211. 


““ Taurng τοι γενεῆς τε καὶ AIMATO®S εὐυχομαῖι εἰναι. 
AIMA σοφου Φοιβοιο, kat εὐπαλαμοιο Κυρηνης, 


** says Nonnus D. ΠΡ. ν. p. 152. and the scholiast on Eur. Orest. 
1239, says AIMA δὲ of ΠΑΙΔῈΣ, γενος of αδελφοι, συγγενεια 
of γαμβροι. And Virgil Ain. vi. 836. 


“* Projice tela manu, SANGUIS MEUS! 


** See farther Davies on Cicero de finn. i. 10. note 2. This 
is well known, and supplies the most easy and obvious inter- 
pretation of this most disputed passage. See also Mr. Hen- 
ley’s Note in the Appendix to Bowyer’s Criticisms, who first 


294: ACTS, 


excited in my mind the notion of this acceptation, and to 
whom, therefore, the entire applause justly due to this excel- 
lent solution of so great a difficulty, ought in all reason to be 
given. Ifno passage of the N. T. quite parallel can be found, 
we should recollect that Luke is an elegant writer, and does 
not confine himself to the narrow limits of Hebrew phraseology; 
as might be shown by many instances.” 

The Note of Dr. Henley’s referred to by Mr. W. is as 


follows : 


* διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου AIMATOS. An expression explanatory of 
αἵματος occurs in Tibullus, lib, 1. 1. Ὁ. 72. 


“Te semper, natamque tuam te propter, amabo, 
Quicquid agit, sanGuis est tamen illa tuus. 


** But there is one still more analogous in the Alexander of 
Lucian, ed. Reitz. tom. ii. p. 225: 


“ Rint Γλύκων, τρίτον AIMA Διὸς, φάος ἀνθρώποισι." 


To whom the merit of this notable contrivance properly 
belongs, I shall not inquire: it may, possibly, be Dr. Hen- 
ley’s; or if any other Critic should assert his claim to it, Dr. 
Henley’s high reputation may very well spare “ the entire 
applause :” perhaps, indeed, he feels the justice of Mr. W.’s 
acknowledgment quite as much as the generosity. Mr. W. 
has undertaken to defend the ‘* excellent solution;” and he 
cannot be suspected, here at least, of prevarication, I mean in 
the Latin sense of that word: yet what has he been able to 
establish? only that ἀθῶον αἷμα has been used of blood unjustly 
shed, (which, by the way, is the blood spoken of in the pre- 
sent passage,) and that God has of one blood made all the 
nations of the earth. But then Luke was “an elegant writer :” 
at this rate he, or rather St. Paul, must have been to his hearers 
a perfect barbarian; for it is almost impossible that they should 
have understood him; because the very mention of doing any 
thing * by his own blood” must have directed their minds to 
the sacrifice made. by Christ, the efficacy of whose blood was 
an idea extremely familiar to the first Christians, whatever 
it may be to those of the present day; so familiar, that the 
phrase διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος otherwise applied could not but 


CHAPTER XX. 295 


have misled them. A few of the passages in which mention is 
made of Christ’s blood are, Rom. iii. 25; v. 9. Ephes. i. 7; 
ii. 13. Col. i. 14. and in Heb. ix. 12. and xiii. 12. we find the 
very phrase, διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος, plainly intended, though 
not more plainly than in the present verse, of the sacrifice 
made by Christ. Besides, in what part of Scripture do we 
find the Son of God, so often mentioned, called the blood of 
God? and is it not to the full as revolting to all human notions 
(for they, as it should seem, are alone to be regarded) to im- 
pute blood to the Father, as Divinity to the Son? I agree 
with Mr. Wakefield in thinking that such a translation might 
lead men into “ erroneous doctrines and impious conceptions 
of the Deity,” unless the context made it evident that God in 
this place could mean only God the Son: yet if this be really 
the language of Scripture, if God and Blood be so associated, 
why is it to be concealed by a false rendering, and then ac- 
knowledged in a Note, which the majority of Mr. Wakefield’s 
Readers will never examine, deterred by its learned aspect? 
Has Christianity its exoteric teaching for the vulgar, and _ its 
esoteric for the advantage of the few, who possess the erudition 
of the late Mr. Wakefield? “Apa πρὸς Χαρίτων πάνσοφός τις 
iv 6 Πρωταγόρας, καὶ τοῦτο ἡμῖν piv yvitaro τῷ πολλῷ συρ- 
φετῷ, τοῖς δὲ μαθηταῖς ἐν ἀποῤῥήτῳ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἔλεγε. 

I know not whether it be in consequence of being acquainted 
with the discovery said to have been made by Dr. Henley, that 
Michaelis mentions this very rendering, as one of the ways by 
which the inference from the common reading may be evaded 
by the opponents of the Divinity of Christ. The same Writer 
suggests another mode of avoiding this stumbling-block; one 
which is in all respects as ‘‘ excellent” as the former, and is just’ 
as defensible by an appeal to the language of Scripture: it is 
that of translating διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος “ by the blood of his 
own (Son):” and it is added that several of the oldest MSS. 
place the Adjective after the Substantive, reading τοῦ αἵματος 
τοῦ ἰδίου, (as in τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, &c.) a circumstance by 
which this construction is supposed to be somewhat favoured. 
Whether, indeed, Tibullus or Virgil will in this case supply 
any thing parallel,.is a question which I forbear to examine. 


296 ACTS, 


CHAP. XXI. 


V. 4. rove μαθητάς. English Version has simply, “ find- 
ing disciples.” Many MSS. and Editt. omit the Article: 
among the MSS. are six of Matthii’s, including the best. 

V. 6. εἰς τὸ πλοῖον. Michaelis is of opinion, that when the 
ship in which St. Paul sailed from Patara to Tyre had un- 
laden her cargo, he hired it, in order to make ἃ day’s voyage 
to Ptolemais. The Article seems to strengthen this conjec- 
ture. , 

V. 8. τοῦ ὄντος. A very great number of MSS. and Editt. 
—rov. Since it had not been already said that Philip was one 
of the Seven, there can be little doubt that the Article should 
be rejected, as it is by both Wetstein and Griesbach!. 


CHAP. XXII. 


V.14. τὸν δίκαιον. See above, vii. 52. 

V. 25. τοῖς ἱμᾶσιν. The Article is not here without mean- 
ing: there is reference to the thongs or cords usually employed 
for this purpose. 


CHAP, XXIII. 


V. 5. ὅτι ἐστὶν ἀρχιερεύς. Ananias had just before been. 
called 6 ἀρχιερεύς : still the Article in this place, whichever of 
the proposed interpretations be the true one, is necessarily 
omitted. Our English Version understands St. Paul to say, 
that he knew not that Ananias was the High Priest: Light- 
foot adduces reasons why the Apostle might affirm that he 
knew not that there was then any High Priest. Michaelis 
supports the former opinion, and shows that from particular 
circumstances St. Paul might very easily be ignorant of the 
dignity which Ananias had assumed *. 


? But see Chap. vi. 5. Whereas, if the Article be omitted, it will be more natu- 
rally rendered, ‘‘ Since he was one of the seven.”—J. S. Winer concurs in 
this remark.—H. J. R. 

2 V. 6. Τὸ ἕν μέρος ἐστὶ Σαδδουκαίων. Compare this with Mark xii. 27, In 
both, as the Predicate would be the same word as the Subject, it is omitted. See 
too Gal. iii. 20. and the note on Col. ii. 17. Compare also Rom. iii. 29; ix. 9. 
1 Cor, xiv. 33. and perhaps Eph. ii. 8.—H. J. R. 


CHAPTER XXIII. 297 


V. 8. τὰ ἀμφότερα. Mr. Harris, in his Hermes, p. 226, 
observes, after Apollonius, that we cannot say in Greek ΟἹ 
ἀμφότεροι, nor in English, he adds, the both. This is one of 
the instances in which these profound Grammarians appear to 
be mistaken on the subject of the Greek Article: we find it 
prefixed to ἀμφότεροι no less than three times in Ephes. ii. 14. 
16. 18, So also Plato, vol. ii. p. 180. TA ἀμφότερα γινώσκει. 
It is true, that we cannot in English say the both; but we can 
say they or them both, or both of them, which is precisely the 
meaning of OI ἀμφότεροι, or TA ἀμφότερα, in the text. The 
reason assigned why ἀμφότεροι and both reject the Article is, 
that they are in themselves: “ sufficiently defined:” but to 
define is not, strictly speaking, the use of the Greek Article. 
Harris, however, sets out on this principle ; and it is the source 
of most of the mistakes which follow. But of this enough has 
been said in Part 1.—The two things referred to are the Re- 
surrection and the Existence of Immaterial Beings, for πνεῦμα 
and ἄγγελος are considered as falling under the same head. 
It has, indeed, been supposed that ἀμφότερα may, by Writers 
who are not very attentive to correctness, be used of things 
which are more than two: but of this I have seen no example. 
Mr. Wakefield understands the passage in the same way with 
myself. ι 

V.9. οἱ γραμματεῖς. A great number of Wetstein’s MSS. 
though not any in Uncial letters,omit the Article: so also do 
the best of Matthii’s. Griesbach prefixes the mark of possible 
spuriousness, and not without reason. Several MSS. instead of 
οἱ γραμματεῖς, have τινὲς τῶν γραμματέων, which was evidently 
the marginal illustration of some one who wished to show that 
γραμματεῖς, which he found in his copy without the Article, 
signified some scribes. ‘This is one of many instances in which 
the MSS. written in small characters, appear to have preserved 
the true reading, where the Uncial MSS. have lost it: nor is 
this surprising, since it is not at all improbable that some of 
the former may be lineally descended, that is, be copies of 
copies, from MSS. much older than any which now exist. 
The lectiones singulares, observable in some of the less ancient 
MSS., where they are neither mistakes of the Transcriber, nor 
apparent corrections, can scarcely be accounted for on any 
other hypothesis. The deference, therefore, which is usually 


298 ACTS, 


paid to the Uncial MSS. may in some instances be unmerited: 
at least it may be affirmed, that the evidence of A. B. C. Ὁ. 
E. &c. is not so decisive as to supersede further inquiry. 


CHAP. XXIV. 


V. 14. τῷ πατρῴῳ Θεῷ. It is worthy of remark, that the 
Editt. of Erasmus, and after him of Colin. and Bogard, have 
τῷ πατρῴῳ ΤΩι Θεῷ. This reading is so faulty, that I cannot 
believe it to have been found in any MS.: in that case it was, 
probably, one of the corrections of Erasmus, a curious speci- 
men of the philological skill of so learned a man. See Part 1. 
Chap. viii. ὃ 2. | ahs 

V.15. δικαίων re καὶ ἀδίκων. An English Reader might 
here expect ΤΩΝ δικαίων: but see Parti. Chap. vi. ὃ 9. 

V. 23. τῷ ἑκατοντάρχῃ. English Version and Newcome, 
** to acenturion.” I need hardly observe, that this must be 
wrong. Mr. Wakefield translates the Article, but without any 
remark. It may be shown, I think, that the Article here, as 
elsewhere, has its meaning. It will be recollected, that in the 
preceding Chapter, ver. 23. the Chief Captain, or χιλίαρχος; 
called unto him two Centurions, and ordered them with a body 
of horse and foot to escort Paul to Cesarea. Having arrived 
at Antipatris, (ver. 32.) the infantry return to Jerusalem, and 
leave the prisoner in custody of the cavalry, who conduct him 
to Felix. It is plain, therefore, that the Centurion here 
spoken of as a person known to the Reader, was no other than 
the Commander of the Horse, who had the sole charge of Paul, 
after the Captain of Infantry, who made part of the escort as 
far as to Antipatris, had returned to Jerusalem. That Felix 
should remand Paul to the same Officer who had brought him 
to Cesarea, is the conduct we should expect... The fidelity of 
this Centurion had been tried, and might therefore be trusted. _ 


CHAP. XXV. 


V. 26. τῷ Κυρίῳ. This is the only passage in the N. Τὶ in 
which we find ὃ Κύριος applied to the Roman Emperor: in- 
stances of this early usage of the title are at least uncommon. 
See Spanheim de Prest. Numism. vol. ii. p. 483. 


CHAPTERS XXVI. XXVII. 299 


CHAP. XXVI. 


V. 30. ἀνέστη ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ ὃ ἡγεμών. All the MSS. 
rightly insert the second Article, two different persons being 
here intended. ‘The same care has been observed in the 11th 
verse of the next Chapter. 


CHAP. XXVII. 


V. 9. τὴν νηστείαν. Two or three different, but wholly 
needless and unsupported, conjectures have been proposed in 
place of the reading of all the MSS. The νηστεία here men- 
tioned, as is now generally admitted, is the Day of Expiation, 
the great Fast on the 10th of the month Tisri. See Lewis’s 
Heb. Antig. vol. ii. p. 569. The 10th of Tisri is, according to 
Michaelis, about the 10th of our October; and consequently, 
if the great Fast was now past, the season of the year could 
not well be favourable to navigation. ‘The objection of Mark- 
land (ap. Bowyer,) that a Heathen would take no notice of a 
Jewish Fast, is wholly inexplicable : it is not said or insinuated 
that the Alexandrian Mariners did take any notice of the 
νηστεία : the remark is made by St. Luke, to whom, as a Jew, 
or at least a person much acquainted with Jewish habits, the 
mention of the Fast was a natural and obvious mode of mark- 
ing the time of the year: and to say that ‘‘ τὴν νηστείαν must 
be something which increased the danger of sailing, to which 
the Fast of the Jews has no more relation than Circumcision 
has,” would certainly, had it proceeded from any man less 
eminent than Markland, be thought ridiculous. ‘The Poets 
represent the stormy season as beginning soon after the rising 
of Hedi, or the setting of Arcturus : yet it never was seriously 
supposed, that the rising or setting of a star produced a storm. 
—In short, few texts of the N. T. appear to be less difficult 
than the present: and yet he who should read Markland’s 
Note without attending to the passage, would suppose it to 
be corrupted beyond the possibility of restitution. The same 
Fast, as Loesner has shown, is adverted to by Philo de Vita 
Mosis, whence we may collect, that it was commonly called 
The Fast κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν: his words are τὴν λεγομένην νηστείαν. 


900 . ACTS, 


Besides, as Michaelis observes, it was the only Fast in the 
whole year of Divine appointment. 

V. 16. τῆς σκάφης. On this passage a Criticism of mine 
appeared, many years ago, in one of the periodical publications 
of the day: it is to the following effect. 

The learned Michaelis has established it as a rule, that criti- 

cal conjectures are not to be admitted into the sacred text ; and 
yet he confesses that some emendations have forced themselves 
upon him, which, in a profane author, he should not hesitate to 
adopt. One of these proposed readings (vid. Marsh’s Michaelis, 
vol. ii. p. 406) respects Acts, Chap. xxvii. ver.:16, Νησίον δέ 
τι ὑποδραμόντες καλούμενον Κλαύδην, μόλις ἰσχύσαμεν περι: 
κρατεῖς γενέσθαι τῆς σκάφης, where the Critic would reject the 
Article from τῆς σκάφης, because it implies that they had be- 
fore let down the boat into the sea, and had afterwards great 
difficulty in recovering it. ‘* This,” says he, “‘ is improbable ; 
because, Ist. No reason can be assigned why they should have 
let it down into the sea in a storm. 2dly. If they had let it 
down, they would have been able to draw it up again; unless 
‘we suppose, what is contrary to reason, they had let it entirely 
loose. 3dly. Supposing the boat to have been loose, it does not 
appear that the circumstance of the ship’s being near an island, 
has any connexion with the recovery of this boat. I would 
therefore omit the definite Article, and explain the passage — 
thus: Being near an island, we sought for help, but could not 
procure a boat to our assistance.” Thus far Michaelis. 

Now, in the first place, to say nothing farther of this con- 
struction, it is impossible to adopt it, because μόλις ἰσχύσαμεν, 
κι τ᾿ A. must signify, we found a difficulty in gaining the boat, 
and not that we could not procure a boat at all: so μόλις is 
twice used in this very Chapter, ver.’7,8. But, secondly, a very 
easy and obvious supposition will remove all the objections 
urged by the Professor against the acknowledged reading of » 
the MSS. St Luke is describing the storm, in which St. Paul 
at last suffered shipwreck; and it is well known that the boat, 
with every thing on deck, is frequently washed overboard by 
the violence of the waves. This seems to have happened in 
the voyage of St. Paul; and as the sea was running high, μόλις 
properly expresses the difficulty of regaining the boat. To the 
objections, therefore, of Michaelis, I would answer, with respect 


CHAPTER XXVIII. 301 


to the first and the second, that the boat was not purposely let 
down into the sea, and that nothing of that kind is implied; 
but that it had broken loose: and to the third, that the cir- 
cumstance of the ship’s being near an island, was not intended 
to have any other connexion with the recovery of the boat, 
than, in the following sentence, the vicinity of a promontory 
has with the loss of a mast: “" Being a league S. W. of the 
Lizard, our foremast went by the board :” the mention of place, 
no less than of time, is essential to the accuracy of a journal. 

V. 20. μήτε ἡλίου μήτε, κι τ. A. Part 1. Chap. vi. § 2. 

V. 38. τροφῆς. A few MSS. τῆς τροφῆς. There may be 


reference to former mention: but see on xix. 29, 


CHAP. XXVIII. 


V. 4. ἡ Δίκη. No MS. wants the Article. See Part i. 
Chap. vy. Sect. i. § 2. 


302 ROMANS, -. 


ROMANS. 


CHAP. I. 


Υ. 4. υἱοῦ Θεοῦ. Mr. Wakefield, as usual, avails himself of 
the absence of the Article, not considering that by the usage 
the Article could not be here inserted. Part i. Chap. iii. 
Sect. iii. §2. Neither does the context very well accord with 
his Translation; for if the meaning be merely that Christ was 
shown to be a Son of God, (a term explained by St. Paul in 
this Epistle, Chap. viii. 14.) surely Christ’s ‘‘ miraculous resur- 
rection from the dead” was a much stronger instance of Divine 
interposition than the occasion required. 

We are told (ap. Bowyer) that ὁρισθέντος is supposed by 
some to be a gloss from the margin: I see no pretence for this 
suspicion ; which must be unfounded, since τοῦ υἱοῦ Θεοῦ would. 
offend against Regimen. | 

V.17. δικαιοσύνη γὰρ Θεοῦ. It may be right in this place 
to apprise the Reader, that the style of St. Paul, in respect to 
the Article, as well as otherwise, somewhat differs from that 
of the Evangelists. It was to be expected, from the general 
vehemence and quickness of his manner, that he would, in the 
use of the Article, adopt a mode of expression the most remote 
from precision and formality, which the Greek idiom admits. 
Dion. Hal. in his description of what he calls the austere style, 
among many other remarks distinguished by nice discrimina- 
tion, observes, that it is ὀλιγοσύνδεσμος, ANAPOPOS: see 
de Comp. Verb. ὃ 22. and these, perhaps, are not the only 
characters of that style, as represented by Dionysius, which are 
applicable to the language of St. Paul. ir the Evangelists, as 
has been noticed, there are a few instances in which Θεὸς is 
without the Article, but in the Epistles of St. Paul such 

6 


CHAPTER II. 303 


instances occur very frequently; and hence, in conformity with 
the rule of Regimen, we meet with so many expressions similar 
to that in question: so ὀργὴ Θεοῦ in the next verse: so also 
Ἢ βασιλεία TOY Θεοῦ, the phrase which is every where used 
in the Gospels and Acts, sometimes in the Epistles rejects 
both the Articles. Other examples, in which the Apostle has 
preferred the anarthrous form, will be noticed in the sequel. 

V. 21. τὸν Θεὸν οὐχ we Θεόν. Here the second Θεὸν 
necessarily refuses the Article, the sense in such cases requir- 
ing us to supply οὐχ we (ὄντα) Θεόν. 


CHAP, II, 


V. 13. τοῦ νόμου, bis. Itis remarkable, that A, D. G. and 
two others, in each place omit τοῦ: but it is more remarkable 
that Griesbach has prefixed to each his mark of probable spuri- 
ousness: for the form οἱ ἀκροαταὶ νόμου, as I have repeatedly 
observed, is not admissible. It was, however, I imagine, in- 
ferred that the context here did not allow the mention of the 
Mosaic Law, which the presence of the Article might seem to 
imply; and hence the omission of the Article was originally 
the correction of some one who knew not the Greek usage, 
and moreover, as I think, misconceived the sense of the pas- 
sage. It must, indeed, be admitted, that there is scarcely in 
the whole N. Τ᾿. any greater difficulty than the ascertaining of 
the various meanings of νόμος in the Epistles of St. Paul. In 
order to show that, “ by the Gospel alone men can be justi- 
fied, and that the Mosaic Revelation is in this respect of no 
more avail than is the Light of Nature,” a proposition, the 
proof of which is the main object of the whole Epistle, he has 
oceasion to refer to the different Rules of Life with which the 
Gentiles and Jews had respectively been furnished: to the 
latter, more than one Revelation had been granted; for from 
the earliest ages to the time of Malachi, the Almighty favoured 
them, through the Patriarchs and Prophets, with repeated in- 
dications of his will. Hence νόμος is used by St. Paul of every 
Rule of Life, of every Revelation, especially of the Mosaic 
Law, and even of the moral and ceremonial observances, one 
or both of which it is the object of every. νόμος to inculcate. 
The yarious senses, then, of this word are calculated to pro- 


804 “ ROMANS, 


duce perplexity, especially since, as will be seen, there are 
passages in which more than one meaning of the word will 
accord with the tenor of the argument. It had, indeed, very 
early been remarked, that where the Law, as promulgated in 
the Pentateuch, is spoken of, and even where the whole body 
of the Jewish Scriptures is meant, there νόμος for the most 
part, though not without exception, has the Article prefixed. 
See Macknight on Rom. ii. 12. and on vii. 1. . Now it is 
obvious, that were this rule without exception, an important 
step would be gained; for at least we should know, when the 
Jewish Law is meant by the Apostle, which is now so often, 
even among the best Commentators, a subject of dispute: but 
if there be exceptions, and these have no certain character, 
then plainly they-destroy the rule, and it is on account of these 
exceptions that the rule seems now to be pretty generally 
abandoned. My observation, however, has led me to conclude, 
that the rule is liable to no other exceptions than those by 
which, as has been shown in this work, words the most definite 
are frequently affected. or example, we have in this Epistle, 
vii. 7. διὰ νόμου, where, as is rightly contended, the whole 
tenor of the passage requires us to interpret νόμου of the Law 
of Moses. Here, then we have an exception, which, no doubt, 
has with some others been thought to invalidate the rule; as 
unquestionably it would, if it were not-an example of an 
anomaly which every where prevails: Part i.. Chap. vi. § 1. 
As it is, the Law of Moses may there be meant, and the con- 
text shows that νόμου cannot be otherwise interpreted: but 
this is not to be regarded as an instance in which the Mosaic 
Law is called simply νόμος, because the omission of the Article 
may be accounted for. And similar reasoning may be employed 
in behalf of the other places, where the Law κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν may 
appear to be called simply νόμος : in all such, if I mistake not, 
the Article is omitted by some licence allowed in like cireum- 
stances to all words, however definitely meant, and of which the 
limits have already been ascertained. How far this may be 
true, will be seen as we proceed. 

It is scarcely necessary to observe, that our English Version, 
by having almost constantly said “* the Law,” whatever be the 
meaning of νόμος in the original, has made this most difficult 
Epistle still more obscure: for the English Reader is used to 


CHAPTER IL. 305 


understand the term of the Law of Moses, as in the Evange- 
lists. 

With respect to the passage under review, I am of opinion, 
that by τοῦ νόμου the Law κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν is meant, though it 
must be confessed that the purpose of the Apostle would not 
be altogether defeated, if the word were here used in a less 
restricted sense. I understand, however, with Macknight and 
Whitby, that the Apostle means to reprove the presumption of 
the Jews, who thought themselves sure of eternal life, because 
God had favoured them with a Revelation of his Will: in 
which case the reasoning will be, As many as have sinned 
without a Revelation, shall be punished without incurring the 
additional penalties which such a Revelation would have en- 
acted: and as many as have sinned under a Revelation, shall 
suffer the severer punishment which that Revelation, whatever 
it be, has denounced against their crimes. If it be thought 
strange, says St. Paul, that such indulgence should be shown 
the former class of persons, I will add, that not the hearers 
even of the Law itself, but, &c. Besides that the other inter- 
‘pretation would have required ἀκροαταὶ νόμου, this turn is 
more forcible, and more in the manner of St. Paul. The verse 
following seems also to prove that τοῦ νόμου in the present is 
so to be understood: for the Apostle subjoins, For when Gen- 
tiles, who have not any Revelation, practise, by a natural im- 
pulse, morality as pure as that which even the Mosaic Law 
enjoins, though they have not actually a Revelation, they 
become a Revelation to themselves, and may, therefore, hope 
for all the rewards of virtue, which an actual Revelation would 
have taught them to expect. And the same argument, with 
the same attention to the use of the Article, is prosecuted to 
the end of the chapter. 

V.17. τῷ νόμῳ. Here Griesbach, on the authority of A. 
Β, D. and a few others, prefixes to τῷ the mark of probable 
spuriousness.’ Thus, it is true, we shall not, as in the former 
instance, have questionable Greek; and the reasoning will be 
consistent, if the Apostle be made to say to the Jew, “ Thou 
restest on a Revelation,” instead of on the Law : the received 
reading is, however, more pointed and direct, and the authority 
for altering it is so trifling, as to be of no avail, even supposing 
the sense either way to be equally good. Griesbach might 

x 


806 ROMANS, 


possibly be influenced by observing that the Article is wanting 
in ἐν νόμῳ, ver. 23. but from this nothing can be inferred, 
because of the Preposition. 

V. 25. νόμον πράσσῃς. Here it is plain, that by νόμον 
without the Article we are to understand, not the Law itself, 
(nor indeed would πράσσειν TON νόμον be very intelligible,) 
but moral obedience or virtue, such as it was the object of the 
Law to inculeate, and of which Circumcision was the outward 
and visible sign. Thus in the next verse, instead of νόμον, we 
have, in the same sense, τὰ δικαιώματα τοῦ νόμου. We have 
also, 1 Mace. ii. 21. νόμον καὶ δικαιώματα, where νόμον is used 
as itis here by St. Paul. So also Sirac. xxxiii. 2, 3; xxxy. 1. 
The same explanation will serve for νόμου below, ver. 27. 

V. 27. σὲ τὸν διά, x. τ. A. See below, 1 Cor. xiv. 97. 


CHAP. Ill. 


γ. 11. ὃ συνιῶν, 6 ἐκζητῶν. The former Article is omitted 
in A. B. G. and the latter in B. G. Though we have for the 
omission of the Articles the authority of only a few MSS. I 
am disposed to prefer the reading which those MSS. exhibit. 
See Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iti. ὃ 1. Thus we have immedi- 
ately afterwards οὐκ ἔστι ποιῶν, one MS. only reading ὃ, pro- 
bably a correction for the sake of uniformity. The quotation 
is from Ps. xiv. 1—3, and from Ps. lin. 1—3. on turning to 
which I find that the Articles are every where omitted. I 
have, indeed, above, on Luke ix. 60. quoted from the LX X. 
οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ θάπτων" which, however, differs from the present 
instances in expressing an occupation. 

V. 20. ἐξ ἔργων νόμουι The absence of the Article proves 
nothing in this place as to the meaning of νόμου. Parti, 


1'V. 27. It will appear from the note on 1 Cor. xiv. 9. that the Bishop allows 
Mr. Wakefield’s explanation, i. e. that he would take σὺ ὁ διὰ γράμματος for tu 
literatus, 1. 6. qui literam vel legem Mosaicam projiteris. When we look to the 
original, we can have little doubt of this, for ἡ ἐκ φύσεως dxpoBvoria, in the first 
clause, is opposed to σὲ τὸν διὰ γράμματος καὶ περιτομῆς, in the second. But 
the Apostle, as is usual with him, is led into a form contrasting in sense, not in 
words, with the former. Gersdorf (rightly) explains the sentence to be, σὲ τὸν 
διὰ y. κι π. ὄντα, παραβάτην νόμου εἶναι. 

Winer rightly says, that as τελοῦσα has not the Article, it is here truly 
participial, and does not serve for definition. Jf it fulfils the law.—H. J. R. 


CHAPTERS IV. V. 307 


Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 7. Rosenmiiller says, that it signifies the 
whole Law as revealed to the Jews, and contained in the O. T. ; 
and Michaelis is of the same opinion. But this explanation 
appears to me to fall short of the Apostle’s argument. It is 
his purpose to show that πὸ man whatever can be justified by 
the works either of the Jewish Law or of any other: πᾶσα σάρξ, 
like 6 κόσμος in the preceding verse, cannot but be understood 
universally; and what follows, διὰ γὰρ νόμου ἐπίγνωσις ἁμαρ- 
τίας, is also plainly an universal Proposition. Macknight here 
takes νόμος in the same sense that I do; though his reasoning 
is somewhat different. In the next verse, χωρὶς νόμου is well 
explained by Macknight to signify ‘‘ without perfect mora/ 
obedience.” See above on ii. 25. But in this very verse, 
where the Law, meaning the Pentateuch, is mentioned, we 
have ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου. : 

Υ. 25. ἱλαστήριον. The Article which is found in G. is 
inadmissible by Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iti. § 4. 

V. 31. νόμον. Here νόμος without the Article must be 
taken in the sense of moral obedience, as is plain from the con- 
text; for it is opposed to faith. Few texts of Scripture, 
rightly understood, are more important. Our own Version, 
from a cause which has been already noticed, does not place in 

the clearest light the truth herein taught. 


CHAP. IV. 


V. 4. τὸ ὀφείλημα. Wetstein and Griesbach reject the Ar- 
ticle. It is wanting in a great majority of the MSS. and how 
it found its way into any, it is not easy to discover. 

V.11. πατέρα. Article wanting by Parti. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. 
§ 2. 

V. 13. τοῦ κόσμους Several MSS. omit τοῦ : Griesbach re- 
jects it. The omission may certainly be vindicated by Part 1. 
Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 7: but it is by no means necessary to 
deviate from the received text. Matthdi’s MSS. all retain the 
Article. 


CHAP. V. 


V. 13. ἄχρι νόμου. Here, as in an instance already noticed 
on ii, 18, νόμου is equivalent to τοῦ νόμου, but the Article is 
x2 


308 - “ROMANS, 


omitted on account of the Preposition. So also ἐν κόσμῳ 15 ἐν 
τῷ κόσμῳ. | 

V. 15. τοῦ ἕνός : the one mentioned in the preceding verse, 
viz. Adam. By τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου, in the same verse, there 
is reference to Him, who had just before been called τοῦ 
μέλλοντος. 

V. 90. νόμος δὲ παρεισῆλθεν. Locke, Rosenmiiller, Schleus- 
ner, and Michaelis, and indeed most of the Commentators, 
understand this of the Law of Moses: in which case it must 
be admitted, that the rejection of the Article is not here au- 
thorized by any of the Canons. Macknight, however, has a 
different explanation of the passage. He well contends, that 
παρεισῆλθεν cannot be said of the Law of Moses, since it signi- 
fies ‘* entered privily,” as in Galat. u. 4. the only instance, 
besides the present, in which the word occurs in the whole 
N. T. So also the similarly compounded words παρεισάγω, 
2 Pet. ii. 1; παρεισακτούς, Galat. 11. 4; παρεισδύω, Jude ver. 4. 
But the Mosaic Law was ushered into the world with all pos- 
sible pomp and notoriety: Macknight, therefore, understands 
νόμος of the Law of Nature: he asks, ‘‘ Can any one with 
Locke imagine, that no offence abounded in the world which 
could be punished with death, till the Law of Moses was pro- 
mulgated? And that grace did not superabound, till the 
offence against the Law abounded? The Apostle himself 
affirms, Rom. i. 30. that the Heathens, by the light of nature, 
knew not only the Law of God, but that persons who sinned 
against that Law, were worthy of death. The offence, there- 
fore, abounded long before the Law of Moses entered. For 
these reasons, 1 windltiate that the Law which silently entered, 
the moment Adam and Eve were reprieved, was the Law of 
Nature: and its taking place, the Apostle very properly ex- 
pressed by its entering; because if Adam and Eve had been . 
put to death immediately after they sinned, the law of man’s 
nature would have ceased with the species. But they being 
respited from immediate death, and having a new trial ap- 
pointed them, by the sentences recorded Gen. iii. 15, 16, 17. 
the law of their nature took place anew, or entered silently into 
the world.” Perhaps, however, in such cases νόμος had best 
be rendered, a Rule of Life: this exactly accords with Mack- 
night's notion, for in his Commentary he says, ‘‘ Law secretly 


CHAPTER VI. 309 


entered into the world as the rule of man’s conduct ;” and such 
a rendering would be more generally intelligible than the 
term Law, to which the English Reader annexes no very pre- 
cise idea. 

Same v. τὸ παράπτωμα, and in the next verse, ἡ ἁμαρτία, 
are supposed by Wetstein to express κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν the wicked- 
ness of the Jews, as being more heinous than that of the Gen- 
tiles. Iam afraid that this explanation is without authority 
from the use of the Article in similar instances, and is also 
foreign from the purport of the argument. By τὸ παράπτωμα 
I understand the offence of Adam already spoken of, the con- 
sequences of which were more and more visible in the corrup- 
tion of his posterity. “H ἁμαρτία is sin universally : Macknight 
thinks that it is here personified: in either case, the Article is 
properly inserted, though in the anarthrous style of St. Paul, 
the latter usage is not always observed. 


CHAP. VI. 


V.13. ὅπλα ἀδικίας, and so also ὅπλα δικαιοσύνης. Part i. 
Chap. ii. Sect. iii. § 4. 

V. 14 and 15. ὑπὸ νόμον. Here again, I believe, we must 
desert the multitude of Commentators, and interpret the pas- 
sage with Macknight, whose ‘‘ Translation of the Epistles” has 
contributed more largely to our Theological knowledge, than 
perhaps any other exegetical work which appeared in this 
country during the last century.. It is true, that if by ὑπὸ 
νόμον we understand the law of Moses, the argument will be 
coherent with respect to the Jews: but it ought to be re- 
marked, that the design of the Apostle is far more comprehen- 
sive, and that he means to contrast the nature of all Zaw, i. e. 
of every Rule of life, which offers neither mediation nor atone- 
ment, and consequently makes no provision for the inevitable 
weakness of man, with Grace, i. e. with a gracious dispensa- 
tion, which requires not an unsinning obedience, but only the 
best exertions of frail creatures, giving assurance of pardon 
through Faith, where our obedience has been imperfect. 


310 ROMANS, 


CHAP, VII. 


V.1. γιγνώσκουσι γὰρ νόμον. Macknight appears to doubt 
whether by νόμον we are here to understand the Mosaic Law, 
or Law generally: the absence of the Article inclines him to 
the latter interpretation, though he thinks that the Apostle’s 
reasoning in this Chapter admits either of them. My own 
notion of the passage is, that St. Paul here. addresses his 
Readers with some degree of rhetorical complaisance. He 
might, indeed, have said merely, that they knew τὸν νόμον, 
the Mosaic Law; for the greater part of them, probably, had 
not extended their view to the imperfection which must belong 
to every Dispensation not providing an Atonement. He takes 
it, however, for granted, that they had made a general appli- 
cation from their own particular experience; and the design 
of the Epistle (see on ii. 13.) led him to speak, directly or 
indirectly, of the imperfection of all the possible schemes of 
salvation which afforded not a Redeemer. 

V. 7. διὰ νόμου. This has already been considered on ii. 13. 
Macknight, though he admits that this can be understood only 
of the Mosaic Law, translates indefinitely ‘‘ through Law:” 
he was, probably, unacquainted with the licence allowed after 
Prepositions. 

V. 13. ἀλλ᾽ ἡ ἁμαρτία, ἵνα φανῇ ἁμαρτία. English Version, 
“but sin, that it might appear sin.” Macknight, “ but sin 
(hath become death) that sin might appear.” Here this excel- 
lent Translator deviates from the Common Version, not only 
without reason, but in neglect of a plain distinction arising 
from the omission of the Article before the second ἁμαρτία. 
Had the Apostle meant to make this the Nominative before 
φανῇ, he would probably, I do not say certainly, have written 
ἡ ἁμαρτία, as in the clause preceding: but supposing the sense 
to be as represented in our English Version, the omission of 
the Article is absolutely necessary: there can, therefore, be 
little doubt that our Version is right. Three, indeed, of 
the least considerable of Matthiii’s MSS. have ἡ ἁμαρτία, but 
this was possibly the correction of some one who understood 
the passage in the same manner with Macknight. The Syr. 
and the Vulg. render the words as in the English. 

V.18. ἀγαθόν. F. G. and Cyril, with ὦ of Matthai, read 


, gt LPP. 


CHAPTER VIII. 311 


τὸ ἀγαθόν. This appears to be a mistake, arising from the 
use of rd ἀγαθὸν just before: the Article is here rightly 
omitted. Parti. Chap. ili. Sect. iii. ὃ 5. 

V.21. τὸν νόμον. The Article here is anticipative of what 
is subjoined; the law or principle, which the Apostle is about 
to describe as impelling him to evil, even when he is endea- 
vouring to practice virtue. Hemsterhusius (ap. Wetstein) 
would expunge τὸ καλόν, so as to make τὸν νόμον dependent 
on ποιεῖν. This reading would understand τὸν νόμον of the 
Mosaic Law; a sense which accords not with the argument. 


CHAP, VIII. 


_V.9. πνεῦμα Ocod...... πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ. Michaelis in 
his Anmerk. says, ‘“‘ Here, at least in my opinion, and so far 
as can be collected from the context, St. Paul is not speaking 
of the Holy Ghost, the Third Person in the Godhead, who 
had not hitherto been mentioned, but rather of what in the 
Platonic Philosophy is called the Spirit, or the rational Soul, 
which is named likewise the Spirit of God, because it is formed 
after God’s image, and is, like God, a Spirit, a thinking 
essence, eternal, &c. &c.” He proceeds to observe, πνεῦμα 
Θεοῦ, πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ, and Χριστὸς ἐν ἡμῖν, are mere vari- 
ations of phrase, without any difference of sense. Πνεῦμα 
Χριστοῦ he makes to signify, ‘‘ those higher faculties of the 
soul which, in Christ, had entire dominion over the body, and 
by which the body was subdued.” 

It is extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to fix the pre- 
cise import of these terms; but if any thing be certain, it is, I 
think, that this passage, notwithstanding the opinion of so 
great a Critic, is not to be éxplained from the phraseology of 
Platonism. I much question, indeed, whether πνεῦμα Θεοῦ be 
a phrase in use with Plato; at least I do not recollect to have 
seen it in his Works, though, considering their extent, it may 
have escaped my notice: or if it be meant only that it was 
common with the Platonists of the School of Ammonius, it is 
obvious that St. Paul could not have borrowed their language. 
The misfortune is, that the plan of Michaelis’s Work per- 
petually restrains him from adducing quotations and authori- 
ties which only men of some erudition could require or under- 

6 


3912. ROMANS, 


stand: it is true that he meditated a similar work for the 
Learned; but this, unhappily, he lived not to execute. Not- 
withstanding this inconvenience, ‘* The Annotations for the 
Unlearned” is a work by which the most learned may profit: 
it contains much which is original and profound; it was the 
last labour of its author, and may, therefore, be regarded as 
the depository of his settled convictions; and the arguments 
which it affords in behalf of some important doctrines, are the 
more valuable, because they are the arguments of an Advocate 
whose occasional concessions attest his regard to truth. A 
Translation of this Work, or rather a Selection from it, (for to 
German prolixity it sometimes adds German indelicacy,) would 
doubtless be acceptable to English Readers; and a knowledge 
of the German language, which so many have acquired for no 
very commendable purpose, might thus be employed in pro- 
moting the best interests of man. 

But though it may be questioned whether πνεῦμα Θεοῦ cam 
be explained from the language of Platonism, 1 incline to the 
opinion that it is not here to be understood of the Holy Ghost, 
and also that the three phrases are nearly of the same import; 
for this is evident from the context. The sense of πνεῦμα, in 
this and in several other places, will probably be best deduced 
from Luke ix. 55. οὐκ οἴδατε οἵου πνεύματός ἐστε, where it 
means indisputably spirit, mind, temper, or disposition : in like 
manner we meet with πνεῦμα δουλείας, πνεῦμα σοφίας, πνεῦμα 
πρᾳότητος, &c. all common Hebraisms, in which the Genitive 
is to be construed, as if it were the corresponding Adjective 
agreeing with πνεῦμα. Two of the phrases in question appear 
to me to be of the same character, so that πνεῦμα Θεοῦ and 
πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ will signify a godly and a christian frame of 
mind: so also 1 Cor. vii. 40. πνεῦμα Θεοῦ cannot be taken of 
the Holy Spirit in the personal sense, but must mean Divine . 
aid, or inspiration. The proposed interpretation exactly suits 
the context: ‘‘ they who are carnal,” says St. Paul, cannot 
please God: ye, however, are not carnal, but spiritual, if, 
indeed, a godly spirit dwell in you; but if any one have not a 
Christian spirit, then he is not Christ’s. If, however, Christ 
be in you, your body, it is true, shall die in consequence of 
(the original) transgression (of Adam), but your soul shall live 
through the righteousness (of the Redeemer.)” I admit, how- 


CHAPTER VIII. 915. 


ever, that in ver. 11. τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ ἐγείραντος ᾿Ιησοῦν can be 
taken only. of the Holy Spirit, for there the Hebraism has no 
place: and even τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ, 1 Cor. iii. 16. I would 
interpret in the same sense. 

V. 13. πνεύματι is here evidently used in the adverbial sense, 
to mean spiritually, for it is opposed to κατὰ σάρκα, carnally, 
in the preceding clause: πνεύματι Θεοῦ also, in the next verse, 
seems to mean little more, and is in some degree a confirma- 
tion of what was said in the last Note. Macknight, however, 
understands both these of the Holy Spirit; as if we had read 
ὑπὸ or διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος" for some Preposition is, I 
think, always used, when an act is said to have been accom- 
plished through the agency of the Holy Spirit. See on Luke 
iy... | 

V. 16. αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα... .. - - τῷ πνεύματι ἡμῶν. Here 
we have two important senses οὗ πνεῦμα plainly contradistin- 
guished: ‘* the Holy Spirit,” and ‘‘ the spirit or mind of 
man.” 

V. 22. πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις. English Version has “ the whole 
creation:” Macknight, ‘‘ every creature.” The former is the 
right translation: see Part i. Chap. vii. § 1. though I am not 
aware that the settling of this point will be of any avail in 
ascertaining the meaning of the whole passage, beginning at 
yerse 19. They who would know the several senses in which 
it has been interpreted, may consult Wolfius; whose Work, 
besides its other merits, is an excellent Index to the various 
interpretations of difficult passages of Scripture. ‘There is 
likewise a Dissertation on the same subject in the Zhesaur, 
Theol. Philol. vol. ii. On the word κτίσις I shall have occa- 
sion to remark, Col. i. 15. 

V. 23. νἱοθεσίαν. We have here an illustration of Part i. 
Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 4; so that the construction will be, 
** even we also, though we have received the first-fruits of the 
Spirit, wait for a deliverance from death, as our adoption.” 
Macknight thinks that there is an allusion to our Lord’s words, 
Luke xx. 36; in that case, the proposed construction is still 
more evidently the true one. The Translators have inverted 
the order, though without much injury to the sense. In D, 
Ἐν G. the word υἱοθεσίαν is omitted. 


314 ROMANS, 


V. 24. βλεπομένη. Better with the Article, as in F. G.: 
the circumstance, that zt is seen, should be assumed. 


CHAP. IX. 


V. 5. 6 ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός, x. τ. A. It is well known that 
this text has been the subject of much controversy; yet not 
of more than was to be expected, considering how strongly and 
directly it attests the Divinity of Jesus Christ: if, however, I 
mistake not, the doctrine of the Article has much more to do 
with the question, than is commonly imagined. 

1. One method which has been employed to evade the re- 
ceived interpretation, is conjecture. Schlictingius would trans- 
pose 6 ὦν, and likewise alter the accent and breathing of the 
latter word, so as to make it wy 6. The meaning would thus 
be, “ whose (viz. of the Jews) is the Supreme God.” It may 
be asked, however, whether St. Paul was likely to affirm that 
the Jews had an exclusive interest in the One True God, when 
he had already in this very Epistle (see iii. 29.) asserted the 
contrary: “15 He the God of the Jews only, and not also of 
the Gentiles? Yes, also of the Gentiles.” Nor is this all: 
an Article is wanting to authorize the proposed interpretation ; 
for by thus making 6 the Article of Θεός, we ought also to 
have an Article before εὐλογητός, taken in immediate concord 
with Θεός : Part i. Chap. viii. ὃ 2. the form ὧν (ἐστι) 6 Θεὸς 
εὐλογητός, (for the words discarded affect not the construc- 
tion,) is without example in the N. T. But see on 1 Tim. 
i. 17. and Heb. ix. 1. places which may seem to contradict 
this remark. This conjecture, therefore, though it ranks among — 
the happiest efforts of Socinian Criticism, obtrudes on the pas- 
sage an argument which is improbable, and Greek which is 
impossible: yet Griesbach has, in his new edition, honoured 
this conjecture with a place among his various readings. An 
instance of the form which the proposed emendation would 
require, is Acts iv. 24, 25. σὺ (ci) ὃ Θεὸς Ὃ ποιήσας τὸν οὐρα- 
vov, κι τ. A. Ὁ διὰ στόματος, K. τ. λ. 

I scarcely know whether I ought to consider under the same 
head a remark of Wetstein, who observes at the end of his long 
Note, ““ Denique si id voluisset Paulus, quod quidam putant, 


CHAPTER ΙΧ. 315 


videtur potius scripturus fuisse 6 ὧν Ὃ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλο- 
γητός, ut Eph. vi. 6.” In the opinion of Michaelis, Wetstein 
was the most learned of the opponents of the Divinity of 
Christ: it may, therefore, be thought incredible that he should 
have expressed the received interpretation in false Greek: yet 
such, I fear, is the case. Ὃὧ ὧν ‘O, so intended that the latter 
Article shall be predicated of the former, is, 1 am persuaded, a 
form of expression not to be met with in the uncorrupted 
remains of Greek literature, whether sacred or profane: for 6 
ὧν ‘O would in fact amount to ὁ ὧν ‘O ’QN: accordingly, 
throughout the N. T. even in cases where the sense of the 
Noun following ὧν is the most definite, we always find the 
Article omitted. Thus John x. 12. οὐκ ὧν ποιμήν, though a 
particular Shepherd is meant, viz. of the sheep in question: 
xi. 49. ἀρχιερεὺς ov, declared immediately to be the High 
Priest of that year. Heb. v. 8. ὧν υἱός, the Son, who is 
always, where no rule interferes, called 6 υἱός. Acts v. 17. ἡ 
οὖσα αἵρεσις τῶν Σαδδουκαίων, not Ἢ αἵρεσις, though in xv. 5. 
we have τῆς αἱρέσεως τῶν Φαρισαίων. 2 Cor. xi. 31. ὁ ὧν 
εὐλογητός, though in Mark xiv. 61. we find the Father called 
κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, Ὁ εὐλογητός. And not to accumulate examples, 
we have in Philo, p. 860. and p. 1040. Ed. 1640. τοῦ πρὸς 
ἀλήθειαν ὄντος QEOY, and τὸν ὄντως ὄντα "AAHOH ΘΕΟΝ. 
It is inconceivable how the terms God and true God, in these 
two passages, could be meant more definitely; yet after ὄντος 
and ὄντα the Articles are necessarily omitted. Wetstein, in- 
deed, refers us to Eph. iv. 6. where, however, the Participle dv 
has no place: to have supported this hypothesis, it should have 
been ὮΝ ὁ ἐπὲ πάντων, for as the reading stands, and must 
stand, it is no more to his purpose than is every other clause in 
that whole chapter.—I see, then, no reason to admit, that if 
St. Paul had meant what is commonly understood by his 
words, he would have written ὁ ὧν Ὁ : a specimen of Greek 
which is worse even than the conjecture of Schlictingius; for, 
besides the fault just noticed, it involves the same error of 
using εὐλογητὸς without the Article, when Θεὸς is with it.— 
I find, however, in Clarke’s Reply to Nelson, p. 68, the re- 
mark, that “ if the words ὁ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς be allowed to 
be certainly spoken of Christ, yet it is not the same as if the 
Apostle had said, 6 ὧν Ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός. 


916 ROMANS, 


2. But conjecture, in defiance of MSS., Versions, and 
Fathers, has by many been thought a desperate resource. This 
_ uniformity, indeed, seems not always to have been known. 
Schoetigen, Hor. Hebr. holds himself obliged to concede that 
“ς guamplurimi Codd. et quidam ex Patribus” want Θεός, and 
in the more popular work on the Trinity, by Clarke, we find 
a similar assertion. Some, therefore, may have inferred that 
this text cannot fairly be adduced in support of the Trinitarian 
scheme; and yet the received reading is confirmed by all the 
MSS. which have been hitherto collated, by all the ancient 
Versions, and by all the Fathers, except Cyprian in the printed 
copies, and also Hilary and Leo, who, according to Griesbach, 
have each of them once referred to this text without noticing 
Θεός. Whence the notion arose that Θεὸς is wanting in many 
MSS. I am not able to discover: there is scarcely a verse in 
the N. T. in which ancient authorities more nearly agree. It 
has, therefore, been deemed a safer expedient to attempt a 
construction different from the received one, by making the 
whole, or part of the clause, to be merely a doxology in praise 
of the Father; so that the rendering will be either “‘ God, who 
is over all, be blessed for ever,” or, beginning at Θεός, “God be 
blessed for ever.” ‘These interpretations also have their diffi- 
culties, though of a kind unlike the former ; for thus εὐλογητὸς 
will properly want the Article. On the first, however, of these 
constructions it is to be observed, that in all the Doxologies, 
both of the LX X. and of the N. T. in which εὐλογητὸς is 
used, it is placed at the beginning of the sentence’: in the 
N. T. there are five instances, all conspiring to prove this 
usage, and in the LX X, about forty. The same arrangement 
is observed in the formula of cursing, in which ἐπικατάρατος 
always precedes the mention of the person cursed. The reading, 
then, would on this construction rather have been, εὐλογητὸς 
ὃ ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εἰς τοὺς aiwvac.—Against the other 
supposed Doxology, which was approved by Locke, the objec- 
tion is still stronger, since that would require us not only to 
transpose εὐλογητὸς, but to read Ὁ Θεός. This word, as has 
already been remarked, though it have some latitude in taking 
or rejecting the Article, never uses its licence so as to create 
the least possible ambiguity: thus it can make no difference 
whether we write (vill. 8.) Θεῷ or ΤΩι Θεῷ ἀρέσαι, but εὐλο- 


CHAPTER IX. 317 


ynroc Θεὸς will appear to signify, not. ‘* blessed be God,” but 
that the words are to be taken in immediate concord with each 
other: accordingly, in all instances where a Doxology is meant, 
we find εὐλογητὸς Ὁ Θεός. See also below on 1 Cor. i. 9. 
For these reasons I conclude that both the proposed construc- 
tions are inadmissible. But, 

3. Mr. Wakefield would qualify the meaning of Θεός. He 
says, “1 adopt, with the Athiopic Translator, a lower sense of 
Θεὸς common in the O. 17. : so 2 Thess. ii. 4. and elsewhere :” 
and he renders ‘‘ who is, as God, over all, blessed for ever- 
more.” On looking at the Latin of the thiopic Version, I 
find ‘* gui est Deus benedictus in secula.” Whether this be 
the true rendering of the Aithiopic, I am wholly incapable of 
judging; certainly it discovers nothing of a lower sense of Θεός. 
Mr. W. indeed, every where professes his high opinion of this 
Version; but I do not recollect that he has any where in- 
formed us on what ground his esteem of it is founded; whether 
on the merits of the Version itself, of which, according to 
Michaelis, we know less than of any other Oriental Version, 
but which, so far as respects the Epistles, he says, was made 
by a person who was very unequal to the task: or merely on 
the Latin, which, according to the same Critic, is of little 
value. be this as it may, I have, on the alleged lower sense 
of Θεός, already in part stated my opinion. See on Luke i. 15. 
In order to show that the lower sense is common even in the 
Old Testament, it is to be regretted that Mr. W. did not pro- 
duce a few examples. One, to which possibly he might allude, 
is Judges χη. 22. where the Hebrew has DYN translated by 
the LX X. ΘΕΟΝ ἑωράκαμεν, though what Manoah had seen 
was in reality no more than N20, an angel. Now here, it is 
true, that we have Θεὸν in a lower sense; but then the circum- 
stances of the case are not at all applicable to'the New Testa- 
ment. The LX X. were Translators, and not Commentators; 
and, therefore, it is not surprising if they sometimes adhered 
to the letter, rather than to the spirit, of their original. In 
the Hebrew they found DDN, which usually signifies Θεὸς in 
the strict sense: they still, however, rendered the Hebrew by 
Θεός, even where the strict sense was not intended, the dis- 
covery of which they left to the discernment of the Reader, 
and possibly to his knowledge, that the original was ambiguous. 


918 ROMANS, 


Nothing of this will apply to the Writers of the New Testa- 
ment, who came to their task unfettered and unbiassed, and 
were at liberty every where to choose the word which best 
suited their purpose: they have not, therefore, in any instance, 
though the opportunities were so frequent, called an angel 
Θεός. But Mr. W. refers us to 2 Thess. ii. 4: there the 
word Θεὸς occurs repeatedly; but in which of the places he 
supposed it to be meant in a lower sense, I am unable to deter- 
mine. It is the Prophecy respecting the Man of Sin: of 
whom it is not said, that he shall assume inferior Divinity ; 
that he shall arrogate to himself the plenitude of Divinity, is 
asserted in the strongest terms. We there find, indeed, men- 
tion of ** every one that is called God,” which, however, is not 
to be understood as indicating that there are several Qsof, 
whose divinity differs not in kind, but in degree, but only as 
including the objects of human adoration, whether men wor- 
ship the true God, or any of the creatures of their own super- 
stition: for the Apostle has cautiously said, not πάντα Θεόν, 
which was liable to perversion, but πάντα AETOMENON 
Θεὸν ἢ SEBASMA: and the same caution with respect to 
λεγόμενος is observable in 1 Cor. vill. 5. But I suppose Mr. 
W. more particularly to allude to the words ὡς Θεόν, since he 
translates Θεὸς in the passage under review by “ as a God.” 
He should, however, rather have produced an instance of a 
similar Ellipsis of ὡς, for he has inserted as into his Verse 
without any other apparent reason than that he might weaken 
the force of Θεός. Ellipses of we, I well know, may be found; 
but can an instance be adduced, in which ὡς may be supplied 
between ὃ ὧν and its Predicate? Besides, that ὩΣ Θεόν in 
2 Thess. ii. 4. marks any Diminution of Divinity, it would be 
absurd to imagine, if we look at the context; for to say that 
the Man of Sin “ shall sit in the Temple of the True God, (εἰς. 
τὸν ναὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ,) as if he were an inferior God,” is a viola- 
tion of common sense’. It may be observed too, that the 
words ὡς Θεόν, to which I suppose Mr. W. to allude, are 
wanting in many MSS. and in many of the old Versions, 
among others, in his favourite the A‘thiopic: Griesbach has 
_ removed we Θεὸν into the margin. Lastly, if Mr. W. inferred 


1 See Rom. i. 21. H. Κ΄ B. 


CHAPTER X. 319 


any thing from the absence of the Article before Θεὸς in the 
verse from 2 Thess. I will remind the Reader, that it is not 
once omitted where, consistently with the rules, it could have 
been inserted.—I have been obliged to examine Mr. Wake- 
field’s solution at some length, because it is impossible to know 
precisely on what it rests. The inquiry, however, might have 
been evaded by the previous question, Whether it be agree- 
able with the usage of Scripture to apply to an inferior Divinity 
the solemn formula, εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς ai@vac? 

Having thus endeavoured to refute the principal hypotheses 
which have been adopted to weaken or destroy the force of a 
most important text, I shall conclude this Note in the words 
of Michaelis: “ I, for my part, sincerely believe that Paul 
here delivers the same doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, 
which is elsewhere unquestionably maintained in the N. T.” 

V. 9. ἐπαγγελίας γάρ, κι τ. X. The rule of Regimen is not 
here violated, as might be inferred from the English Version, 
by the omission of the Article before ἐπαγγελίας : the construc- 
tion is, For this word is of promise. ‘The sense, it is true, will 
be the same’. 

V. 27. ro κατάλειμμα. This is another of the instances 
wherein the Article may be supposed to be redundant. The 
passage is quoted from Isaiah x. 22. where the LX X. inserted 
the Article, though they found it not in the Hebrew. This 
appears to have been right: for ro κατάλειμμα is the remnant 
or portion of the Israelites reserved by the Almighty for the 
purposes of his promises: see Taylor's Heb. Concord. voce NW. 
It would be better that this circumstance should be noticed in 
any future Translation. 


CHAP. X. 


V.4. τέλος yap νόμου. Νόμος is here plainly ὁ νόμος, the 
Law of Moses: the Article is omitted by Part i. Chap. iii. 
Sect. iii. § 7. 

V.10. xapdia..... στόματι. Both used adverbially. 


1 See above, note on Acts xxiii, 6.—H. J. R. 


320 ROMANS, 


CHAP. XI. 


V. 12. πλοῦτος κόσμου, similar to τέλος νόμου, ver. 4. of 
last chapter, and to καταλλαγὴ κόσμου below, ver. 14. 

V. 19. οἱ κλάδοι. Many good MSS. including some of 
Matthii’s, omit oi, to which Griesbach prefixes his mark of 
probable spuriousness. Matthiii, however, observes, “ I doubt 
not that the Article ought to be retained; it marks the 
arrogance of the Gentile. [0 was, perhaps, rejected because 
in ver. 17. we read τινὲς τῶν κλάδων, for κλάδοι is τινὲς κλάδοι, 
whereas οἱ κλάδοι is πάντες οἱ κλάδοι." This remark discovers 
a very just notion of the hypothetic use of the Article (see 
Part I. p. 55:) at the same time, I am rather inclined to 
understand of κλάδοι in reference to the τινὲς τῶν κλάδων men- 
tioned just before: the argument of the Gentile is continued. 

V. 33. ὦ βάθος πλούτου καὶ σοφίας καὶ γνώσεως Θεοῦ. 
This is a good instance in illustration of what was said in the 
Note, Part I. p. 68. The meaning is, TOY zw. καὶ ΤΗΣ σ. 
καὶ ΤῊΣ yv. TOY 8. But βάθος being in the Vocative can-— 
not have the Article prefixed: the whole clause, therefore, is 
anarthrous. 


CHAP. XIII. 


V. 8. νόμον here appears to be used in the same sense as 
above, ii. 5. Markland and Dr. Owen (ap. Bowyer) make 
νόμος here to signify the second Table of the Law. It is 
true, that the moral observances which respect our neighbour 
are the subjects of that Table; and so far this interpretation 
accords with my own notion of the meaning of νόμος in similar 
passages: it is, however, better in all cases t. deduce the mean- 
ings of words generally, than to trust to their accidental appli- 
cation ’. 


1 In v. 9. of this Chapter, there is an use of the Article somewhat uncommon, 
but strictly classical, which is not happily preserved in our Version: indeed the 
whole verse is far from being a favourable specimen of a admirable work, Td 
γάρ" Οὐ μοιχεύσεις, κι τ. ἑ. It should be rendered: “ For the commandment, 
Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill; Thou shalt not steal, Thou 
shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet, and WHATEVER (εἴτις) other 
commandment there is, is briefly comprehended in THE precept, Thou shalt love 
thy neighbour as thyself.”—J. S. 

V. 14. τῆς σαρκὸς προνοίαν μὴ ποιεῖσθε. See Chap. iii, Sect. iii, § 9. and 
Heb. i, 3.—H. J. R. 


CHAPTERS ΧΙΝ. XV. 921 


CHAP. XIV. 


V. 8 Τῷ Κυρίῳ. Mr. Wakefield translates “ to this 
Master,” as if it were τῷ Κυρίῳ TOYTQ:. Similar instances 
of mistranslation have already been noticeds See above on 
. John xii. 24. 

V. 9. καὶ νεκρῶν καὶ ζώντων. The dead and the living 
generally. Articles wanting by Part i. Chap. vi. § 2. 

V. 13. τῷ ἀδελφῷ. Mr. Wakefield rightly renders the Ar- 
ticle by your: in ver. 15. and 21. cov is added, 


CHAP. XV. 


V. 6. tov Θεὸν καὶ πατέρα. No MS. violates the usage by 
inserting the Article before the second Noun. See Part i. 
Chap. iii. Sect. iv. § 2, 


Os 
ras) 
ras) 


I. CORINTHIANS, 


I. CORINTHIANS. 


CHAP. I. 


V. 1. Swobivng ὃ ἀδελφός. It has been inferred, says 
Rosenmiiller, from the Article prefixed to ἀδελφός, that Sos- 
thenes was a person of eminence in the church. ‘That he was 
not inconsiderable, is evident from his being joined with St. 
Paul in this prefatory address; but the Article seems not to 
authorize any conclusion of this sort. Such an one, 6 ἀδελφός, 
is nothing more than the accustomed manner of mentioning a 
fellow Christian: so Rom. xvi. 23. Kovaproc¢ ὁ ἀδελφός, who 
is no where else spoken of, and of whom nothing is known. 
The practice of calling each other Brethren, as we learn 
from Swicer, (voce ἀδελφός,) continued long in the Christian 
Church. 

V.9. πιστὸς ὃ Θεός. C—é. In this form Θεὸς never wants 
the Article. See 2 Cor. 1. 18; ix. 8. Heb. vi. 10. e¢ passim. 
And these are further confirmations of what was said respect- 
ing εὐλογητὸς ὃ Θεός, Rom. ix. 5. 

V. 17. ἐν σοφίᾳ λόγου. Bp. Pearce conjectures either οὐκ 
ἐν λόγῳ σοφίας, Or οὐκ ἐν TH σοφίας λόγῳ. The latter of these 
is very questionable Greek; nor do I perceive any thing diffi- 
cult or exceptionable in the reading of the MSS. 

V. 20. ποῦ σοφός; ποῦ γραμματεύς; ποῦ, κι τ. A Com- 
mentators have usually supposed this exclamation to be quoted 
from Isaiah xxxili. 18. Michaelis, however, Introd. vol. 1. 
p- 209. and also in his Anmerk. thinks that there is no ground 
for this supposition, and that the whole similarity consists in 
the threefold repetition of Where is? In this opinion I entirely 
agree with him, and so probably will the Reader, if he turn © 
either to the Hebrew, to the LXX. or to the late Translation 
by the Bp. of Killala, whose rendering of that passage, though 


CHAPTERS II. Ill. IV. 323 


expressed in modern and familiar terms, conveys the true 
sense of the original : “‘ Where now is the Commissary? Where 
the Collector?’ Where is the Barrack-master?” As to the 
phraseology, I recollect nothing more closely resembling it 
than the language which Demosth. de falsé Leg. vol. i. Kd. 
Reiske, p. 400. imputes to Aischines : ποῦ δ᾽ ἅλες ; ποῦ τρά- 
πεζαι: ποῦ σπονδαί; to account for the omission of the Arti- 
cles, it might in each case seem sufficient to say, that it marks 
a vehemence and rapidity of style: but the principles laid down 
in the former part of this Work will afford a more satisfactory 
explanation. It is the object of the Speaker, in each instance, 
to deny that the things or persons spoken of have any longer 
either effect or existence: this case, therefore, falls under 
Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. ii. § 1. 


CHAP. 11. 


V.9. ὀφθαλμός, x. τ. Δ. Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 5. 


CHAP. III, 


V.13. ἡ γὰρ ἡμέρα. Commentators are much divided about 
the meaning of ἡμέρα in this place. Schleusner supposes it to 
mean metiely futurum tempus, so that the sense may be, as we 
say in English, “‘ time will show:” but he has not produced 
any parallel instance. Irather suppose with Macknight, that 
ἡ ἡμέρα is the day, the dreadful day of persecution. His 
reasoning, which appears to be just, accords best with this 
interpretation. 

V. 22. κόσμος. This word usually has the Article, except 
where some rule interferes: here it is wanting, by Part. 1. 


Chap. vi. ὃ 2. See on Gal. vi. 14. 


CHAP. IV. 


V. 5. ὁ ἔπαινος. The praise due, in reference to the act by 
which it will be acquired. So Winer. 

V.9. καὶ ἀγγέλοις καὶ ἀνθρώποις. Enumerated as the con- 
stituent parts of ὁ κόσμος preceding. Part i. Chap. vi. § 2. 


y 2 


O24 I. CORINTHIANS, 


CHAP. V. 


V. 9. ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ. An important question, which has 
been much agitated, and on which, at this day, the learned are 
not agreed, turns partly upon the reference of the Article in 
this place. It has been inferred from this text, that St. Paul 
had already written to the Corinthians an Epistle, which is no 
longer extant, and to which he here alludes: while others 
contend, that by τῇ ἐπιστολῇ, he means only the Epistle which 
he is writing. Of the former opinion we may reckon Calvin, 
Beza, Grotius, Le Clerc, Capellus, Witsius, Heinsius, Mill, 
Wetstein, Bishop Pearce, Beausobre, Rosenmiiller, Schleusner, 
Michaelis : against these may be opposed the names of Fabri- 
cius, Wolfius, Glass, Whitby, Jer. Jones, Lardner, Macknight, 
Abp. Newcome, and the Bishop of Lincoln. It is not pro- 
bable that this question can ever be decided, so as to preclude 
all future doubt; for it is rightly contended that the reference 
of the Article may be either to the Epistle which St. Paul was 
then writing, or to a former one; and the meaning of ἔγραψα, 
on which also, in part, the dispute depends, is unfortunately 
not less ambiguous. One thing alone is certain, that our own 
Version, “ in an Epistle,” is not correct: the Article is no more 
redundant in this place than in others, in which its meaning has 
been shown, though none was supposed to exist. Schleusner, 
indeed, explains ἐν τῇ to mean ἔν τινι, a sense of the Article 
which cannot be established by any instance from the N. T.: 
the examples which he adduces have most of them been already 
otherwise accounted for. If, indeed, Schleusner imagines this 
to be an instance of the 4ittic usage, he is further mistaken, 
since τοῦ for τινος is Feminine as well as Masculine: see the 
Scholiast on the Ajax of Soph. 290. Ἔν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ, then, 
must be rendered ‘in the letter,” or, ‘in my letter:” but the 
question is, What letter? the present, or a former one? It 
may be right to state the evidence on both sides, 

That τὴν ἐπιστολὴν may be said of the letter which St. Paul 
is writing, is beyond dispute: thus Tertius, who was Paul’s 
Amanuensis, speaks of the Epistle to the Romans xvi. 22; so 
also Coloss. iv, 16. 1 Thess. ν. 27. .2 Thess. iii. 14. Lardner 
too, vol. vi. near the end, has produced two passages from the - 
Epistles of Libanius, which prove the same usage. It is, 


ὌΨΙΝ Κι ee een! Oe ee Oe Ὁ Ργ ν᾿. 
γε στ οὶ. » "δ a 


omy poten 
OO tg = 


CHAPTER V. . 325 


therefore, very obvious, so far as the Article is concerned, to 
understand τῇ ἐπιστολῇ of the present Epistle. On the other 
hand, there is a single passage, 2 Cor. vii. 8. in which ἡ ἐπισ- 
τολὴ can mean only the former Epistle: there, indeed, the 
Philox-Syr. adds the word former; but a single authority is 
not to be insisted on. ‘There is, however, this difference, 
which has not, I believe, been noticed, that there the reference 
to a former letter is at once evident, because the Apostle had 
in the preceding verse been speaking of the effects which that 
letter had produced. In the case under review nothing of this 
kind takes place: hence the argument for a lost Epistle ought 
not to be founded on the ambiguity of the phrase ἐν τῇ ἐπισ- 
τολῇ, which every where considered per se refers to a present 
Epistle. As to the passage 2 Cor. x. 10. it scarcely merits 
notice; for as Lardner has observed, ἐπιστολαὶ is often used 
glixally in a singular sense; and even if it were not, the 
Corinthians might very well speak of the character of St. Paul’s 
Epistles from a single specimen. 

There seems, therefore, to be no internal evidence for a lost 
Epistle, unless ἔγραψα and the general import of the passage 
compel us to suppose one. That ἔγραψα is not necessarily to 
be understood in a past sense, Lardner infers from John iv. 38. 
where ἀπέστειλα is used by Christ of the Mission of the Apos- 
tles, which, however, had not yet taken place. Of this use of 
the first Aorist I entertain no doubt. That it has frequently 
a present signification, is admitted by Hermann in his Treatise 
de Emend. Ratione Grece Gramm. p. 194; a work which 
every Scholar must wish to see completed: and I have as little 
doubt, that it has the sense also of the Latin Future Perfect 
Seripsero or ἔσομαι γράψας, which Hermann will not allow, 
though ἀπέτισαν, which he adduces from Iliad LV. 161. appears 
to admit no other explanation. Lardner, therefore, instead of 
supposing ἔγραψα to refer to verses 5 and 6, as is usually done 
by the Commentators on his side of the question, considers it 
to be anticipative of what the Apostle will be found to have 
written in the 10th Chapter. I do not, however, perceive 
that any considerable part of that Chapter treats of the crime 
of fornication: I am, therefore, disposed to consider the refer- 
ence as made generally to the excommunication of the inces- 
tuous person, which was an important object with St. Paul in 


326 I. CORINTHIANS, 


writing this Epistle; so important, that the subsequent peni- 
tence of that person is adverted to in the Epistle following. 
“1 have written to you,” says St. Paul, ‘‘ in my letter, not to 
associate with fornicators:” and the Readers of the Epistle 
could not but perceive that the Apostle had done so; for the 
incestuous person was instantly excommunicated.—Some stress, 
indeed, is laid on the subjoined νυνὶ δὲ ἔγραψα in verse 11. as 
if this were meant by way of distinction from what the Apostle 
had said on some former occasion: the very contrary, however, 
is the inference which I draw from these words. It is to be 
remarked, that the same Tense ἔγραψα is here used again, 
which could scarcely happen if νυνὶ were not meant to be 
synonymous with ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ. In Philipp. iii. 18. we read 
πολλάκις ἔλεγον, viv δὲ κλαίων AETQ: in like manner, I 
think, if a different occasion had been intended, we should 
have read νυνὶ δὲ TPA®Q. I question also whether, if the 
supposed opposition had been designed, we should not have 
found in verse 9. ἔγραψα MEN to correspond with νυνὶ AE, 
for though μὲν sometimes suffers Ellipsis, this rarely happens, 
so far as I have observed, where the opposition is so strong as 
that here alleged. 

Putting, then, all the circumstances together, even the in- 
ternal evidence seems to be unfavourable to the hypothesis, 
that a letter to the Corinthians had preceded that which St. 
Paul was now writing. As to the external evidence, it is 
entirely against the same supposition; for besides the extreme 
improbability that a Canonical Book should have been lost, a 
point which is well established by Jones (on the Canon, vol. i. 
p- 158, Ist edit.) and also by Lardner, as above, no instance 
has been produced in which an ancient Writer has cited the 
pretended first Epistle, or even alluded to its existence, though 
both the received Epistles are quoted by the Fathers perpetu- _ 
ally, and that too from the earliest period. On the whole, 
therefore, I entertain no doubt myself that the two Epistles 
still preserved are the only ones which St. Paul ever addressed 
to the Corinthians: at the same time, I cannot hope that the 
little light which I have been enabled to throw on this con- 
troversy, will avail towards its decision. 

V.13. τὸν πονηρόν. The incestuous person who is the sub- 


ject of this Chapter. A few MSS. have τύ. 


CHAPTERS VI. VII. 327 


CHAP. VI. 


V. 1. πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον. This word, used in the sense of 
one’s neighbour, usually has the Article. So Rom. xiii. 8. and 
this Epistle, x. 24. 29. The reason is, that in such cases two 
persons are supposed, who stand in a certain relation the one - 
to the other. I do not, therefore, see any reason to agree 
with Mr. Wakefield in preferring ἑταῖρον, which is found in 
no MS. but was, as he says, the reading of most of the old 
translators. I suspect, however, that they intended only to 
give the sense, not to show that they read ἑταῖρον : the Syriac 
renders ‘ his brother ;” yet I do not thence conclude that the 
Translator found in his copy τὸν ἀδελφόν. Dr. Mangey also 
conjectured ἑταῖρον. 

V. 16. ὃ κολλώμενος τῇ πόρνῃ. Here πόρνῃ has the Ar- 
ticle, being spoken of in relation to 6 κολλώμενος : see last 
Note. It is as if he had said ὃ κολλώμενος καὶ ἡ πόρνη εἰσὶν 
ἕν σῶμα. See also on Matt. xy. 11. 


CHAP. VII. 


*V.28. ἡ παρθένος, in the hypothetic use of the Article, she 


who is a virgin, 1. €. virgins generally. So below, verse 34. 
See on John xii. 24. , 

V. 34. σώματι καὶ πνεύματι. A few MSS. oe Arti- 
cles, but probably they should be omitted by Part i. Chap. vi. 
§ 2. 

V. 39. νόμῳ, by moral obligation, by the prs of every law, 
divine or human. See on Rom. ii. 25. 

V. 40. πνεῦμα Θεοῦ, Divine guidance. See on Rom. viii. 9. 


1 Vy.10and 11. ᾿Ανὴρ and γυνὴ are without the Article, but the Propositions 
are exclusive. 

V. 20. τήρησις may want the Article because Θεοῦ does, on grounds familiar 
to the reader; or the Proposition may not be universal, τήρησις not being one 
act like περιτομή, but a continued line of conduct. The Apostles meaning and 
the correct translation may be, ‘Circumcision and uncircumcision are nothing 
but an attention to Gops commands, (is what is required,’) and not ‘ the full, 
entire, and unsinning observation of Gods commands.’—H. J. R. 


328 I. CORINTHIANS, 


CHAP. IX. 


V. 20. ὑπὸ νόμον, the Mosaic Law: the Article is wanting 
by Part i. Chap. vi. § 1. ΤΗΝ 

V. 22. τὰ πάντα. Many good MSS. and some Fathers 
omit ra: probably right after yéyova: so Achilles Tatius πάντα 
ἐγενόμην, quoted in Rosenmiiller. 

V. 26. ἀέρα δέρων. It might be expected that ἀέρα should 
have the Article, but I take this to be an instance of what I 
have called a Hendiadys, Part i. Chap. v. Sect. ii. § 1. 


CHAP. X. 


‘'V. 13. τὴν ἔκβασιν, in reference to the temptation from 
which escape is to be made. 


CHAP. XI. 


V. 3. παντὸς ἀνδρὸς ἡ κεφαλή. We have not here a real, 
though an apparent, breach of the rule of Regimen: for παντὸς 
ἀνδρὸς is equivalent to τοῦ ἀνδρός, using the Article in the 
hypothetic or inclusive sense. Besides, παντὸς τοῦ ἀνδρὸς 
would have a different meaning. The next κεφαλὴ wants the 
Article, which could not be admitted. | 

V. 7. εἰκών. A. and three others have ἡ εἰκών, which can- 
not be right, when Θεοῦ wants the Article. Two of them, 
indeed, but not A. have τοῦ Θεοῦ; but even this, I fear, will 
not do after ὑπάρχων. Thus Acts xvii. 24. οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς 
Κύριος ὑπάρχων. This is, I think, another presumption against 
the Greek origin of A. See above, Acts viii. 5. 

Vv. 8,9, 10, 11, 12. In these verses the words ἀνὴρ and 
γυνὴ repeatedly occur both with and without the Article; and 
I know not any passage in the whole N. T. from which an 
inconsiderate opponent would be so likely to infer that the 
Article may be inserted or omitted scribentis arbitrio. Mack- 
night indeed, in his Version, has in this passage closely ad- 
hered to the original, without producing any awkwardness or 


1 V. 10. τοῦ ὀλοθρευτοῦ. The destroyer mentioned by Moses. Comp. Heb. 
xl. 28.—H. J. R. 


CHAPTER ΧΙ. 329 


confusion. I might, therefore, perhaps be excused, if I were 
to pass over these verses without notice: I would not, however, 
incur the imputation of having expatiated on instances favour- 
able to my purpose, whilst I suppressed others which may be 
thought of less easy explanation. 

In verse 8. then, ἀνὴρ and γυνὴ must be understood of indi- 
viduals, a single man and a single woman, the progenitors of 
the human race; for in any greater latitude the assertion would 
be untrue. In verse 9. the Apostle says, that in no instance 
was a man (ἀνήρ, any man) created on account of the woman, 
(i. 6. one assumed already to exist, διὰ τὴν γυναῖκα,) but a 
woman was formed on account of the man (already existing.) 
In verse 10. whatever be the meaning of the remark, it is plain 
that women generally are spoken of, and ἡ γυνὴ accords with 
the usage in such cases. Verse 11. I understand to mean, 
** Notwithstanding, (such is the ordinance of God,) neither is 
any man brought into being without the intervention of a 
woman, nor any woman without that of a man: for as (ver. 12.) 
the woman (i. e. women generally) is originally from the man, 
so the man (i. e. men generally) is brought into being by the 
intervention of the woman (i. e women:) these and all other 
things are ordained by the wisdom of God.” If this be the 
true sense of the passage, the Article is throughout inserted 
and omitted according to the principles laid down in this work. 
I have given the meaning of verses 11 and 12. as they are 
understood by Whitby and others; and I think, leaving the 
Article entirely out of the question, it is that which is most 
consonant with the tenor of the argument. Χωρὶς I interpret 
in its most common acceptation, without the aid or operation of, 
as in John i. 3. χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδέν" et passim: χωρὶς 
γυναικὸς in verse 11. I take to be the contrary of διὰ τῆς 
γυναικὸς in verse 12. Some Commentators, indeed, among 
whom is Mr. Wakefield, understand verse 11. to signify,. that 
the Christian Dispensation extends alike to both sexes, as is 
affirmed Gal. iii. 28: but I do not perceive how such a remark 
could be introduced in this place, where the Apostle appears 
to be treating of the relative dignity of the sexes, as deducible 
from their origin, and from the laws by which the species is 
continued. : 


With the difficulties of verse 10. I have not properly any 


990 I. CORINTHIANS, 


concern. Michaelis confesses that he does not understand it. 
It seems on all hands to be admitted, that ἐξουσία signifies a 
veil, or something of that kind worn by females. It was gene- 
rally supposed that this was called ἐξουσία, as being an emblem 
of the authority of the husband: but this opinion is exploded 
both by Michaelis and Schleusner. The former supposes ἐξου- 
σία to be a provincial term, understood only at Corinth; but 
pretends not to account for this application of the word. 
Schleusner is of opinion that this term was thus applied from 
the authority and consequence by which, among the Jews, 
married were distinguished from unmarried women. For my- 
self, I have sometimes thought that a veil might have acquired 
the name ἐξουσία from the power or licence which it gave the 
wearer to appear in public; for without it she was not per- 
mitted to leave her chamber. This conjecture, however, is pos- 
sibly of no more value than are the multitude which have been 
already offered in illustration of this most obscure passage’. 

V. 20. Κυριακὸν δεῖπνον. The Article may here be omitted 
by the same licence by which it is. so frequently wanting before 
Κύριος; in the same manner as National Appellations par- 
take of the licence which is allowed to Proper Names. On 
this passage Michaelis, Introd. vol. iv. p. 61. has a valuable 
remark : 

** In the first Epistle to the Corinthians we find the plainest 
indications that they celebrated Sunday. ‘They assembled on 
the first day of the week (xara μίαν σαββατων :) and the ex- 
pression κυρίακον δειπνον, 1 Cor. xi. 20. may be translated, as 
in the Syriac Version, ‘ a meal which is proper for the Lord’s 
day,’ or a Sunday meal. In the controversy relative to the 
celebration of Sunday, it is extraordinary that this translation 
of κυριακον δειπνον, in so ancient a Version as the Dyan 
should never have been quoted.” 

V. 27. αἵματος. A multitude of MSS. and several F Pirie 
have τοῦ αἵματος, which is probably the true reading. 


1 It may be mentioned here, that Valkenaer lays much stress on the difference 
between κεφαλὴ and ἡ κεφαλὴ in this place. This is only one of a thousand 
proofs that Bishop Middletons observation as to the omission of the Article after 
a Preposition, without any consequent change of meaning, had escaped the most 
eminent scholars.—H. J. R. 


κω. 


CHAPTER XII. 331 


CHAP, XII. 


Υ. 4. τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα. It is plain that πνεῦμα must here 
be taken in the Personal sense: nor do I see how it is possible 
to elude the observation of Markland, that in this and the two 
following verses we have distinct mention of the Three Persons 
of the Trinity. Dr. Owen (ap. Bowyer) asks, Whether τὸ 
πνεῦμα of this verse be not the same, who in the next two 
verses is called Κύριος and Oed¢? This opinion likewise is, to 
say the least of it, highly probable: for the structure of the 
whole passage leads us to understand ὃ ἐνεργῶν τὰ πάντα ἐν 


wao., as intended to be applied alike to the Three Persons; 


else the two preceding verses will be defective, and only the 
last will be complete. There we are told that it is the same 
God who works all in all: this is very intelligible: but in the 
two former, that it is the same Spirit—who does what? and 
the same Lord—who does what? unless we are to understand 
the concluding clause as applicable alike to the Three Persons: 
and if so, then the Three Persons must in some sense be the 
same. The Reader, indeed, of our English Version might 
suppose that the two verses, 4 and 5, assert only the Unity of 
the Spirit, and the Unity of our Lord. Had the words been 
ἕν δὲ πνεῦμα and εἷς δὲ Κύριος, this might have been alleged ; 
and the propositions, though ill according with what follows, 
would have been complete in themselves: but this is not 
the case: yet εἷς is, I believe, the term employed wherever 
the assertion of Unity in the thing spoken of is all which is 
intended. So Ephes. iv. 5. εἷς Κύριος, μία πίστις, ἕν βάπ- 
τισμα. It is, therefore, to be concluded, that in verses 4 and 
5 a clause is understood; and if it be not that which is sub- 
joined to the whole passage, what are we to supply? But see 
the next Note. 

V. 11. τὸ ἕν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα. Some MSS.—7d prius. 
This would be right, if there were not reference to the Spirit 
recently spoken of: but that such reference was intended is 
most certain, both from the whole tenor of the argument, and 
also the addition of τὸ αὐτό. Of the personal sense of πνεῦμα 
in this place, it might be thought that the blindest prejudice 
could not entertain a doubt, since He is here said to * dis- 
tribute gifts according to his pleasure,” which surely is the 

6 


332 I. CORINTHIANS, 


attribute not merely of a Person, but of a Being who is Omni- 
potent. Then again, the term ἐνεργεῖν is applied to Him; 
though, as was shown on Matt. xiv. 2. it is never used in the 
New Testament but of an agent, and that commonly a very 
powerful one. Now it is observable, that πάντα ταῦτα ἐνεργεῖ; 
spoken in this verse of the Holy Spirit, is very similar to what 
is said in verse 6. of Θεός, or, as I am inclined to think, (see 
last Note,) of each of the Three Persons of the Trinity: the 
question is, Whether these words identify τὸ πνεῦμα, to which 
they are applied, with the other two Persons, or at least with 
Θεὸς mentioned in verse 62 The Spirit is said to work πάντα 
ταῦτα; but what are these? They plainly comprehend all the . 
miraculous powers enumerated from verse 7. to verse 11. in- 
clusive, among which are χαρίσματα spoken of in verse 4. and 
ἐνεργήματα in verse 6. ‘The διακονίαι of verse 5, it is true, are 
not expressly noticed; but if this term according to Theodoret, 
and as it is usually explained, relate principally to the office of 
preaching, διακονίαι will be included in the enumerated opera- 
tions of the Spirit; for λόγος σοφίας and λόγος γνώσεως, 
verse 8. are the qualities by which διακονίαι are rendered effi- 
cacious. It appears, therefore, that αὐ the miraculous powers 
mentioned in verses 4, 5, and 6, are here imputed to the in- 
fluence of the Spirit. The result is, that if we understand the 
clause ὃ ἐνεργῶν, x. τ. A. verse 6. to belong, in the manner 
which I have supposed, to each of the three verses 4, 5, and 6, 
then the Spirit must in some sense be the same with the other 
two Persons, since he is here, verse 11. made solely to be the 
cause of effects above severally ascribed to the Spirit, to the 
Lord, and to God. Or if be not admitted that the clause in 
question was intended to be so applied, then the present verse 
identifies the Spirit only with God, (ver. 6.) to whom the clause 
is confessedly applied: though still it will be very difficult to 
account for the introduction of the Spirit, verse 4. and the 
Lord, verse 5. if it be not meant that they are respectively the 
authors of χαρίσματα and διακονίαι, in which case the conse- 
quence will be the same as if the concluding clause be admitted 
to be common to verses 4, 5, and 6. 

The observations of Markland and Dr. Owen, which gave 
rise to the Note on verse 4. are, it should be known, very 


ancient (see Wolfius;) though this could not be inferred from 


CHAPTERS XIII. XIV. 333 


any thing that is said in Bowyer. Theologians would do well 
to notice the antiquity of the opinions which they defend, 
because that antiquity is sometimes no inconsiderable evidence 
of truth. 

~V. 21. ὀφθαλμός. With a multitude of MSS. we should 
read Ὃ ὀφθαλμός. Griesbach has admitted the Article into 
the text. | 


CHAP. XIII. 


V. 2. πᾶσαν τὴν yvoow..... τὴν πίστιν. The knowledge 
and the faith here spoken of must be understood in reference, 
viz. to the Gospel. See Part i. Chap. vii. §3. Mr. Wakefield 
has rendered the Article in his translation. 

Vv. 3, 4. ἀγάπην Eye. .... ἡ ἀγάπη. Abstract Nouns 
after ἔχω are commonly anarthrous; Parti. p. 124. But ἡ 
ἀγάπη, verse 4. is used in its most general sense, or may even 
be considered as personified. See Part i. Chap. v. Sect. i. 
§ 1,2. Inverse 13, πίστις, ἐλπίς, ἀγάπη, want the Article, 
probably by Part i. Chap. vi. § 2. 


CHAP. XIV. 


V. 2. πνεύματι. Used adverbially. 

V. 4. ἐκκλησίαν. Ido not perceive why, according to the 
received reading, this word wants the Article. Mr. Wakefield, 
indeed, translates “ἃ whole Church:” F. G. and the Vulg. 
add Θεοῦ, which appears to be the true reading. 

V. 9. ὑμεῖς διὰ τῆς γλώσσης, κι τι A. Mr. Wakefield trans- 
lates, “ Ye, who speak with a different language, unless ye 
speak plainly, &c.” He says that this phrase, ὑμεῖς διὰ τῆς 
γλώσσης, is of the same kind as σὲ τὸν διὰ γράμματος, k. τ. X. 
Rom. ii. 27. which he explains, Stlv. Crit. P. I. p. 123. by te 
literatum, i. 6. gui literam vel legem Mosaicam profiteris. In 
this explanation Mr. W. may be right; for if τὸν were imme- 
diately the Article of παραβάτην, νόμου depending on it could 
not be anarthrous. It is, however, impossible to accede to 
his interpretation of the present verse, in which ὑμεῖς διὰ τῆς 


. γλώσσης differs from σὲ τὸν διὰ γράμματος by wanting the 


Article of before ὑμεῖς. Τὸ this difference Mr. W. did not 
attend: yet without the Article, διὰ τῆς γλώσσης must depend 


994 I. CORINTHIANS, - 


on δῶτε. Moreover, it is probable that he has mistaken the 
sense of τῆς γλώσσης, which does not here signify a foreign 
language, (for then it wants the Article, as may be seen through- 
out the chapter,) but the tongue, the organ of speech, which is 
here opposed to the musical instruments recently spoken of. 
Besides, Mr. W.’s rendering does not accord with the Apostle’s 
argument, which is, that he who speaks “ in a foreign tongue” 
cannot speak * plainly.” St. Paul, wishing to repress the 
vanity of those who valued the gift of tongues more than other 
gifts, which, though less splendid, were more generally useful, 
contends, that he who speaks in a foreign tongue, can rarely, 
if ever, edify the hearer. ‘‘ If the trumpet give an unintelli- 
gible sound, who will prepare for battle? so also, if ye by the 
tongue speak not so as to be understood, how shall men be 
benefited ?” 

V. 17. ὃ ἕτερος. See above, on vi. 1. 

Υ. 32. καὶ πνεύματα προφητών προφήταις ὑποτάσσεται. On 
the meaning of these words there are two opinions: according 
to some Expositors, they signify, that ‘‘ the inspiration with 
which true Prophets are gifted, does not, like the phrensy 
which agitated the Priests of the Heathens, hurry them away 
irresistibly, but that they have power to controul its opera- 
tion, as occasion may require.” Others affirm that the passage 
means, that ‘they who are divinely inspired, are bound at 
proper seasons to give place to others who have been gifted 
with the same inspiration.” Neither of these interpretations 
is at variance with the context: one of them tends to show the 
practicability, the other the duty, of observing good order in 
publicly declaring the suggestions of the Spirit; and both 
senses accord very well with the verse following: “ for God is 
not the author of disturbance, but of peace.” The partisans of 
the former opinion appear to be the more numerous: I incline, 
however, to the latter, because I believe that in the other way — 
of understanding the passage, the expression would have been 
different; perhaps something of this sort, κυριεύουσι γὰρ τῶν 
πνευμάτων οἱ προφῆται" at any rate προφήταις, would not 
have been anarthrous; if the same Prophets be meant with 
those just mentioned, it will be difficult to assign a reason why _ 
we should not read τοῖς προφήταις. On the other hand, if 
other Prophets be intended, the phrase is precisely that which 


CHAPTER XV. | 335 


might be expected: thus Mark xiii. 2. λίθος ἐπὶ λίθῳ, one 
stone upon another: in this Epist. vi. 6. ἀδελφὸς μετὰ ἀδελ- 
gov, one brother with another: xv. 41. ἀστὴρ γὰρ ἀστέρος 
διαφέρει, one star, another star: in such cases I have observed 
that in classical writers also both Nouns are anarthrous. On 
the whole, though either explanation may be reconciled with 
the context, that which I have adopted seems to be preferable: 
since the practicability of doing what is enjoined is proved in 
the verse preceding, δύνασθε γάρ, &c.: in the present, the 
Apostle intends to show that it is also a duty, being an ordi- 
nance of that Being who is not the author of confusion. To 
avoid this consequence, Macknight renders καὶ in this verse by 
for, a Hebraism which is not very common in the N. T.— 
Schleusner is among the few moderns who understand the pas- 
sage as here explained: he renders ὑποτάσσεται by sibi invicem 
cedere debent. Many MSS. for πνεύματα have πνεῦμα, which, 
however, affects not the question. Bentley’s conjecture, ὑπο- 
taconra, would, if admitted, produce no other difference than 
that of commanding subjection, instead of affirming that such 
subjection is the will and ordinance of God; as far as I see, it 
amounts to the same thing, whichever explanation be ap- 
proved. It is to be observed, however, that the commands of 
St. Paul are usually given in the niin ἢ of which this 
chapter affords several examples *. 


CHAP. XV. 


V. 8. ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι ὥφθη κἀμοί. There is no pas- 
sage in the N. T. which has given rise to more dispute on the 
subject of the Article, than has the present. Two MSS. in- 
deed, viz. F. G.—rq@, but these, as it is known, (see Marsh’s 
Michaelis, ii. 226.) amount to little more than one evidence: 
it is wanting also in one of Matthii’s Kuchologies. There 
can, therefore, be little or no doubt that the received reading 
is right: though Griesbach, on this evidence, thinks the various 
reading of equal value with that of the text. 

Some Critics will have the Article here to be a Hebraism: 
others affirm that it is the Enclitic rw, for τινί: and a third 


1 V. 33. See note on Acts xxiii. 6, 


336 I. CORINTHIANS, 


class thinks that τῷ ἐκτρώματι is used κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν. The first 
of these opinions is preferred by Loesner, Obss. e Philone. Of 
Hebraisms, however, in the use of the Article in the N. T. I 
have met with no example, unless in translations, or quotations 
from the LX-X.: see Part I. p. 156: neither am I aware that 
the Article could thus be accounted for, even if the Hebraism 
were to be admitted; since the LX -X. who, as translators from 
the Hebrew, abound in Hebraisms, have said, Job iii. 16. 
ὥσπερ ἔκτρωμα, and Num. xii. 12 ὡσεὶ ἔκτρωμα. The second 
mode of explaining the Article in this place is as little satis- 
factory: it was, I believe, first proposed by Aetterhusius in his 
Notes on Porphyry’s Life of Pythagoras, and it has been 
adopted by many succeeding Critics, among whom is Sch/eus- 
ner. I have, however, already observed that this Attic usage 
is unknown to the Writers of the N. T.: (see above, on νυ. 9.) 
besides, would it not be extraordinary that these writers should 
Atticize in only two or three examples, though the occasions 
are so frequent? In the writers who are generally allowed to 
have used this mode of speaking, we find an instance of it in 
almost every page.—To the third solution, which is approved 
by Wolfius, I object, because I do not perceive that ἔκτρωμα, 
in whatever sense we understand the word, admits the idea of 
pre-eminence : in one ἔκτρωμα there cannot be any superiority 
over others. My own opinion is, that the Article might here 
be accounted for nearly in the same manner as in Luke 
xviii. 13. It appears to be the purport of the writer to apply 
the term ἔκτρωμα to himself, and to say that he is, as it were, 
ἔκτρωμα : to express which, it was necessary to use the Article, 
for otherwise the meaning would have been, “ as by an ἔκτρω- 
μα," as if ékrpwuara sometimes in other cases saw what he had 
seen. ‘There is no doubt, that if he had left out ὡσπερεὶ, and 
had inverted the clauses, he must have written ὥφθη κἀμοὶ τῷ 
ἐκτρώματι, as in Luke, ἐμοὶ τῷ ἁμαρτωλῷ: see on Luke, as” 
above. Ido not perceive any difference in the sentence as it 
actually stands, except that ὡσπερεὶ is an apology for an appli- 
cation which might seem to be too strong. That this is an 
allowable use of ὡσπερεὶ is evident from Longinus, (noticed by 
Wetstein,) Sect. xxxii, Ed. Toup. 8vo. p. 111, who calls this _ 
word one of the μειλίγματα τῶν θρασειῶν μεταφορῶν. 

This method, however, of explaining the Article supposes, for 


CHAPTER XV. ᾿ἙἑὈ 337 


the most part, that the common interpretation of ἔκτρωμα, viz. 
fetus immaturus, or what the French call avortement, is the true 
one: but of this I have sometimes doubted; and herein, as I sus- 
pect, and not in the Article, lies the principal difficulty of the 
passage. It is true, that whenever the word occurs in the 
LXX. it is used in this sense: but how, it may be asked, could 
any thing be seen by an ἔκτρωμα in this acceptation? In Job 
iii. 16. and Eccles. vi. 3. compared with verse 5. the ἔκτρωμα is 
expressly said to be that which never sees the light: and the 
same thing is asserted in the Hebrew of Psalm lviii. 9. though 
this does not appear in the LX X. who, instead of ΩΝ 553, 
must, from their translation, (ἔπεσε πῦρ,) have read UN 5D); 
and in the only remaining place in which ἔκτρωμα occurs in the 
LXX. they have made it to represent what in the original sig- 
nifies, “as one who is dead in the womb.” It is, therefore, 
hardly to be believed, that St. Paul meant to use ἔκτρωμα 
in the same sense with the LX-X.; for according to this, to 
say ‘‘ he was seen by me, ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι,᾽" would involve 
a contradiction. Judging merely from the context, and from 
the tenor of the argument, ἔκτρωμα might be supposed to sig- 
nify a last-born child, especially if there were a prevalent notion 
that such children in one respect resembled ἐκτρώματα by being 
smaller and less perfect than others, as is the opinion at this 
day among our country people, with respect to the last-born 
offspring of multiparous animals at a given birth: this meaning 
would suit both the ἔσχατον πάντων, which precedes, and the 
ἐλάχιστος, which follows, and the whole of the reasoning would 
be clear and connected. That the word, indeed, ever has this 
sense, is more than I can prove; and yet that some such idea 
was entertained by Commentators of considerable antiquity, 
may, I think, be collected from an expression of T’heophylact, 
who, after stating the common reasons why St. Paul should 
call himself ἔκτρωμα, subjoins τινὲς δὲ τὸ ὕστερον γέννημα 
ἔκτρωμα ἐνόησαν. In that way of understanding the passage, 
ἐκτρώματι would have the Article, being opposed to the other 
Apostles just mentioned, and being therefore in its nature 
definite and monadic. 

V. 15. νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται. An exclusive Proposition ; 

Ζ 


338 I. CORINTHIANS. 


and so throughout the Chapter. Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. 
ὃ 5. F. G. improperly have OI vexpot’. | 

V. 29. ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρών, secundo loco. A great many MSS. 
have ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν. Wolfius vindicates the received reading, 
** mropter emphasin, quam in voce νεκρῶν collocasse Apostolum 
vel ex preposito Articulo τῶν apparet.” Iam not sure that I 
perceive the drift of this remark: there is, however, no em- 
phasis in the Article here, and this may be affirmed of nine 
places out of ten where Commentators suspect an emphasis. 
The dead taken generally are οἱ νεκροί; though there may be 
reasons for omitting the Article, as in the last Note. It is foreign 
from my purpose to detail the different attempts to explain this 
very obscure text, since the Article is not in question: I may 
be permitted, however, to notice the opinion of Matthdi. He 
understands ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν to be equivalent to ὑπὲρ ἑαυτῶν; 
taking the word νεκρῶν in the figurative sense, as in Matthew 
viii. 22: this notion is at least ingenious ; how far it may be 
satisfactory, the Reader must judge for himself. 

V. 41. ἡλίου .. .. σελήνης. These words want the Article 
by Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. ὃ 7. and δόξα by § 1. 


CHAP. XVI, 


V. 24. ἡ ἀγάπη μου. It is observed by Estius, (ap. Bowyer,) 
that ““ St. Paul does not use to conclude his Epistles with the 
benediction of his own love: and that for μου we should pro- 
bably read Θεοῦ." Regimen would require TOY Θεοῦ, which, 
of course, renders the conjecture less probable. 


1 See prefatory remarks as to this word.—H, J. ἢ, 


a. 0ΡῚ — 


- Βα.» 


339 


Il. CORINTHIANS. 


CHAP. I. 


TV. 20. ὅσαι γὰρ ἐπαγγελίαι Θεοῦ, ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ val, καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ 
τὸ ἀμήν. The Authors of our English Version, from not 
attending to the Articles, have here, I think, obscured the per- 
spicuity of the original: they have rendered “ for all the pro- 
mises of God in him are Yea, and in him Amen:” and the 
other English Translators, Macknight, Wakefield, and New- 
come, have taken the words in the same order. I would render 
*‘ for how many soever be the promises of God, in Him (Christ) 
is the Yea, and in Him the Amen;” meaning, Whatever God 
hath promised, He will through Christ assuredly fulfil, vai and 
ἀμὴν being strong and well-known asseverations of the truth. 

V. 22. τὸν appaBeva τοῦ πνεύματος. I understand this of 
the Holy Spirit, and so did many of the Ancients, as appears 
from Suicer; the pledge spoken οἵ consists of those various 
gifts of the Spirit which were an earnest of immortality to the 
persons on whom they were conferred. 

V. 24. κυριεύομεν ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως. Macknight distin- 
guishes between ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως and τῆς ὑμῶν πίστεως, 
though if he mean by the latter the more usual arrangement, 
he should have put the Pronoun last: and he translates “* lord 
it over you through the faith,” making τῆς πίστεως to depend 
on a Preposition understoood. He remarks, “ that this is a 
proper translation of the passage, is evident from the position 
of the Greek Article.” In this, however, he is mistaken ;’ for 
this position of the Article is extremely common: thus in this 
Epistle, x. 6. ὅταν πληρωθῇ ὑμῶν ἡ ὑπακοή, Which Macknight 


1 VI17. τῇ ἐλαφρίᾳ. ᾿Ελαφρία, says Winer, is here spoken of objectively, as 
a quality inherent in human nature: the well-known sin of light-mindedness.— 
H. J. R. 


zZ2 


“40 Hl. CORINTHIANS, 


renders, ‘‘ when your obedience is completed.” The very same 
position is found also in the next Chapter, yer. 11. Philipp. 
i. 7; 11.2. 1 Tim. iv. 15. 2 Tim.i. 4. Coloss. ii. 5. 1 Thess. 
i. 3, et passim, where this excellent Theologian has adhered 
to the common interpretation. He further, deed, contends, 
that St. Paul could not consistently disclaim all authority over 
the faith of the Corinthians, since by the inspiration of the 
Spirit given to the Apostles, they were authorized to judge or 
rule the 'I'welve Tribes of Israel: Matt. xix. 28. This remark 
is just; yet I do not perceive that it is at all at variance with 
the common construction of the present text. By κυριεύειν I 
understand the exercise of a domineering and arbitrary power, 
(as in Luke xxii. 25.) as if the Apostle had said, Though I 
speak of punishment, I would not have you think that we 
tyrannize over your faith by wanton acts of severity, but rather 
that we are fellow-workers of your joy; i. e. that we have your 
welfare at heart; for by your faith alone, that faith which we 
seek to strengthen in you, can you attain to salvation This 
appears to be a natural and reasonable vindication, not only of 
the threat already employed, but of any severities to which the 
Apostle might afterwards be driven in the discharge of his 
duty. : | . 


CHAP. III. 


ΙΝ, 8. πνεύματι Θεοῦ ζῶντος. Mr. Wakefield translates, 
“1 a power of a living God.” ‘The original, however, is 
very different. The English Reader might hence infer, that 
the term the “ living God,” instead of being a name of the one 
True God, as distinguished from idols, may be applied with 
equal propriety to several Divinities. 'The Article is omitted 
before πνεύματι, as is usual, where not the Spirit in the per- 
sonal sense, but the inspiration of the Spirit is intended; and _ 
Θεοῦ ζῶντος wants the Articles by Part i, Chap. iii. Sect. iii. 
§ 7. Abp. Newcome says, “ not written with ink, but by the 
Spirit of the living God;” but besides that a person or agent 
is not well opposed to an instrument, it may be objected, that 
if the Apostle had intended what is here expressed, he would 
have prefixed some Preposition to πνεῦμα, See above on Rom. 
vil, 13. 

V. 6. οὐ γράμματος ἀλλὰ πνεύματος, I would render “ not 


CHAPTER V. 341 


a literal, but a spiritual one.” Καινῆς διαθήκης may want the 
Article, by depending on the anarthrous word διακόνους, and 
this last wants the Article by Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. ὃ 3." 
We ought, however, probably to understand καινῆς διαθήκης 
in this place definitely. In the same verse, τὸ πνεῦμα is that 
which is spiritual, viz. the Gospel, as opposed to that which is 
literal, or the Mosaic Law. 

V.17. 6 δὲ Κύριος τὸ πνεῦμα, i. 6. the spiritual Religion 
mentioned in ver. 6. 

V. 18. ἀπὸ Κυρίου πνεύματος. English Version has “ by 
the Spirit of the Lord;” but in the margin, “ by the Lord of 
the Spirit’:” this is adopted by Macknight: Abp. Newcome 
says, “ by the Lord, who is that Spirit ;” but this, I believe, 
would have been in the Greek τοῦ πνεύματος, in like manner 
as the Article is always inserted in Κύριος ὁ Θεός. The phrase, 
“* Lord of the Spirit,” Macknight explains to mean the Author 
of the Gospel, called τὸ πνεῦμα in the last verse; but I do not 
remember that this construction has any parallel in the N. T. 
or that Christ is ever called the Lord of the Gospel, of the 
Faith, or of the Spirit. I prefer the common interpretation, 
the sense of which appears to me to be free from all objection : 
the Spirit of the Lord is that mentioned in the verse preceding. 
it ought, however, to be observed, that much doubt has always 
existed about the true construction of the words in question. 


CHAP. V, 


V.1. ἡ ἐπίγειος ἡμῶν οἰκία τοῦ σκήνους. English Version 
has ““οἿἿ earthly house of this Tabernacle,” which is more than 
is warranted by the Greek. ‘The Syr, understands the whole 
to signify, ‘‘ our earthly abode of the body ;” so also do Mi- 
chaelis and Schleusner. The former, in his Anmerk. observes, 
** This word σκῆνος in Greek frequently signifies no more than 
body : it is so used by the Philosophers, especially the Pytha- 
goreans, and even by the writers on Physic. The expression 
is not uncommon in Hebrew, but the Greeks borrowed it from 
the Egyptians, to whom it is so familiar, that regard is no 


‘ j.e. After Verbs of creating, appointing, choosing, &c.—H. J. R. 
2 The common marginal reading is, ‘‘ Of the Lord the Spirit.”—J. 8. 


942 II. CORINTHIANS, 


longer paid to its derivation or primitive sense: thus the Phys 
sician speaks of the Zent, and to paint the Virgin Mary is 
expressed by the phrase, To paint the Tent of the Mother of 
God. The reason is, that in countries like Egypt, inhabited 
by Nomadic tribes, human life was represented as the peregri- 
nation of roving shepherds dwelling in tents. Paul, indeed, 
may have adverted to the literal meaning of the word, and may 
have contrasted the temporary tent, the body, with the eternal 
and immoveable habitation which we shall occupy hereafter: 
this allusion, however, could not well be conveyed in German, 
the phrase House of the Tent not being very intelligible.” The 
same objection must lie in English against House of our Taber- 
nacle. ‘he proposed interpretation is much strengthened by 
comparing ver. 4. with ver. Θ᾽, 


CHAP. VI, " 


V. 6. ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ. Not merely the omission of the 
Articles, but the Nouns, which are here associated with πνεύ- 
ματι ἁγίῳ, forbid us to understand it in the personal sense: I 
suppose it, therefore, to signify the influence of the Spirit, 
Macknight appears to have understood πνεῦμα in this place of 
the human mind, for he explains it by “a well regulated 


4 Inv. 15. εἰ εἷς ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀπέθανεν, dpa ot πάντες ἀπέθανον, the Article 
inserted on the renewed mention of πάντες refers us back to πάντων, preceding, 
and marks the meaning of the two words as. co-extensive. Whatever conclusion 
this may lead to, it is quite certain that ἀπέθανον is wrongly translated were dead, 
a sense which it never did, and never could, bear. Where the Apostle wishes to 
express were dead, as in Ephes. ii. 1. he does it by the periphrasis, νεκροὺς ὄντας. 
On the contrary, he uses ἐπέθανον frequently in its proper sense, they died or 
ARE dead. See Rom. v. 15; vi. 2. 8; vii. 2. Galat. ii. 19. Coloss. ii. 20; iii. 3. 
Once only, in Luke viii. 53. it is properly translated, “was dead:’ but this is 
owing to the difference between the Greek and English idioms, the latter pro- 
perly taking a past tense after a past, while the former, by a very common 
anomaly, admits the present. The construction, therefore, in κατεγέλων αὐτοῦ, 
εἰδότες Ort ἀπέθανεν, is precisely the same as in Plato, Apolog. ὃ 6. Bekk. and a 
thousand other places, ἠπόρουν ri ποτε λέγει" I was at a loss to know what in the 
world he means (Angl. meant.) Compare John xi. 13—4.—The passage of St. 
Paul, therefore, ought to be translated, Then all died, or are dead, as Coloss. iii. 3. 
The meaning I am not concerned with: my business is with the point of criticism, 
not of doctrine.—J. S, 


CHAPTERS VII. VILL. IX. 343 


Spirit:” I have no where, however, observed it to be so used, 
where it has the epithet ἅγιον ". 


CHAP. VII. 


V. 8. ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ. See on 1 Cor. v. 9. 

V.11. ἐν τῷ πράγματι. In the affair, viz. of the incestuous 
person: the readiness with which the Corinthians, at the in- 
stance of the Apostle, had excommunicated the offender, justi- 
fied the acknowledgment of St. Paul, that they were not any 
longer to be blamed for what had happened. Some Com- 
mentators understand τῷ πράγματι as in 1 Thess. iv. 6. See 
on that place. 


CHAP. VIII. 


V. 12. ἐὰν ἔχῃ τις. A great many MSS. &c. omit τίς. 
Griesbach prefixes to it the mark of probable spuriousness ; 
and Mr. Wakefield says, that it has been foisted in by some 
ignorant Scribe, to mend what he supposed a defective con- 
struction. In this conjecture Mr. W. may be right; but when 
he makes προθυμία, repeated from the last clause, to be the 
Nominative to ἔχῃ, I think he is mistaken. If τὶς be an inter- 
polation, it was still meant to be understood ; and we shall 
then have another instance of the usage noticed John viii. 44, 
It is remarkable that the Ellipsis in this place did not put Mr. 
W. on the true construction of that passage, especially as he 
saw that τὶς was there wanting to the sense. 


CHAP. IX. 


V. 8. πᾶσαν χάριν, rendered rightly by Macknight, “ every 
blessing.” English Version has “ all grace.” See Part 1 
Chap. vii. § 3. | 


' V. 17. ἀκαθάρτου. Our version has the unclean thing, where the Article 
wears the appearance of renewed mention. Probably our Translators did not 
intend it, but meant to express only that whichis unclean, any unclean thing. The 
Article is wanting here by Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 5, the proposition being exclusive. 
—H. J. R. 


344 II. CORINTHIANS, 


CHAP. X. 


V. 10%. ai μὲν ἐπιστολαί. See on 1 Cor. v. 9. “40. New- 
come has, however, observed, that St. Paul’s Epistles were sent 
from one church to another to be publicly read; he refers to 
Col. iv. 16. This is a valuable remark. : 


CHAP. XI. 


*V. 25. ἐν τῷ βυθῷ. Some Commentators have under- 
stood this of a prison, and others of a well: in either case, even 
if we admit the word ever to bear these senses, the Article 
would have been omitted. | 


CHAP. XII. 


- V.18. τὸν ἀδελφόν. English Version has “a brother ;” but 
it is evident that this is merely to evade the difficulty of the 
original. Commentators have usually supposed, that by τὸν 
ἀδελφὸν is meant St. Luke, and the Subscription of this Epistle 
expressly informs us, that the bearers of it were Titus and 
Luke, though in the Syr. (not also in the Copt. as affirmed by 
Wetstein) the name of the latter is omitted. The Subscrip- 
tions, however, are not regarded as of high authority, and that 
of this Epistle is believed by Michaelis to be founded on Chap. 
vill, 18. Now to show that St. Luke is not the person there 
intended, the same Writer has (Introd. by Marsh, vol. iii. 
p- 254.) assigned the following reasons; and if they be valid, 
neither can St. Luke be the ἀδελφὸς spoken of in the present 
verse. He says, ‘‘ I have already observed in the preceding 
section, that the word εὐαγγέλιον, as used by the Apostles and 
Evangelists, does not denote a written narrative of the life of 
Christ, and therefore that St. Paul can hardly be supposed, in 
the passage in question, to allude to the Gospel of St. Luke. 


1 V.13. ὁ Θεός μέτρου. Macknight translates “ The God of measure,” which 
is impossible. The Article would have been inserted, as in Rom, xv. 5. I appre- 
hend that pérpov, by a common Greek figure, is in concord with οὗ.--τὸ μέτρον 
τοῦ κανόνος οὗ (sc. μέτρου) ἐμέρισεν κ. τ. ἃ. --Η. J. Β. 

2 Ψ, 4. ὁ ἐρχόμενος. This, says Winer, is that person who will, I think or fear, 
come among you. It is assumed, as Bishop Middleton would say, that a person 


will come.—H. J. R. 


CHAPTER XII. 345 


It is, moreover, probable that by the expression, the brother, 
whose praise is in the Gospel, he meant a totally different person 
from St. Luke. For this brother, as appears from the quoted 
passage, was sent by St. Paul to Corinth: yet though St. 
Paul himself went to Corinth soon after he had written this 
Epistle, St. Luke was not with him when he again departed 
from that city; for, according to Acts xx. 3—6. St. Luke 
went from Philippi (where he had staid several years) to join 
company with St. Paul at Troas. Besides, as this brother was 
sent with Titus, in order to remove all suspicions of St. Paul’s 
making an improper use of the contributions of the Corinthians, 
St. Luke, who was his intimate friend and companion, was by 
no means qualified to answer that purpose. And if we may 
judge from what St. Paul says, 2 Cor. viii. 23, 24. both of the 
brethren, who are there opposed to Titus, whom St. Paul calls 
his partner and fellow-helper, were deputies from the churches 
in Macedonia. Who they were, it is impossible to determine : 
but as Sopater, Aristarchus, and Secundus were Macedonians, 
(see Acts xx. 4.) it is not impossible that two out of these three 
persons were the brethren of whom St. Paul speaks, 2 Cor. 
viii. 18—23.” This appears to me to be conclusive against St. 
Luke’s being the brother spoken of in the two places, viii. 18. 
and the present verse: but independently of this, there is 
something remarkable in the manner in which this brother is 
here mentioned; for even if St. Luke had been meant, I do 
not perceive why he should be called τὸν ἀδελφόν, unless 
indeed in the general sense of τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν, as in vill. 22. 
and even then he will be oddly distinguished from Titus, who 
must have been entitled to the same appellation, and so like- 
wise must the third person; for that three were commissioned 
to be bearers of the Epistle, is plain from viii. 16. 18. 22. 1 
rather wonder, therefore, that neither Mill, Bengel, Wetstein, 
nor Griesbach, have noticed in this place the reading of the 
Syr. which has the brethren, though Schaaf, it is true, in the 
VY. R. subjoined to his Syr. N. T. mentions two Edd. which 
read brother in the Singular, but the original Ed. of Widman- 
stad, which Critics hold in the highest esteem, has the Plural ; 
and so have the other Edd. which are most valued. If ‘this 
reading, then, be genuine, and if the Translator found in his 
copy τοὺς ἀδελφούς, the difficulty, so far as it respects the 


248 II. CORINTHIANS. 


Article in the present passage, entirely vanishes; for τοὺς 
ἀδελφοὺς will mean the brethren, whoever they may be, who 
in viii. 18. and 22. are mentioned as the colleagues of Titus. 

It may be added, that the opinion of Schleusner, which is 
adverse to what Michaelis has said on the Scriptural sense of 
εὐαγγέλιον, is not sufficiently established. Τὸ show that this 
word signifies a Gospel, as we say the Gospel of St. Matthew, 
the four Gospels, &c. he refers us in his Lex. to-Matt. xxvi. 13. 
and Mark xiv. 9. in both which places the judicious reader 
will, I think, discern that the word εὐαγγέλιον is used in a 
different sense. Schleusner mentions, indeed, the Inscriptions 
of the Gospels; but these, though ancient, do not appear to 
have been of the apostolic age. It is of importance to mention 
this circumstance, because the notion that εὐαγγέλιον, viii. 18. 
signified a Gospel in the alleged sense, has operated very 
powerfully in producing the decision, that the brother there 
mentioned is St. Luke. 


«ἄς, 


947 


GALATIANS. 


CHAP. Il. 


*V. 16. ἐξ ἔργων νόμουι Macknight rightly, I think, un- 
derstands this of Law indefinitely, and so also ver. 19. See 
on Rom. ii. 20. But with his interpretation of ver. 19. I am 
not wholly satisfied: ‘‘ Besides, I through law have died by 
law, so that I must live by God:” he makes νόμῳ and Θεῷ 
to be “ Datives, not of the object, but of the cause or instru- 
ment,” and he refers us to former passages of his work. I do 
not know, however, that any thing can be produced analogous 
to ζῇν Θεῷ, signifying to live by the agency of God. He 
quotes, indeed, at Rom. xiv. 7. Soph. Ajax 970. Ed. Brunck. 
θεοῖς τέθνηκεν οὗτος, which the Scholiast explains by θεῶν 
βουλομένων. That explanation may, perhaps, be disputed: 
at any rate, it is contrary to sound criticism to appeal to Sopho- 
cles, when phrases similar to that in question occur in the 
N.T. See Luke xx. 38. Rom. xiv. 7,8. 2 Cor. v. 15. Co- 
loss. ii. 3. and this very Epist. vi. 14, The meaning, there- 
fore, of ver. 19. of this Chapter, I understand to be, ‘ For I 
through law (i. e. the imperfection belonging to law of every 
kind, in not providing an atonement) died unto law, (i. e. re- 
nounced the harsh conditions on which alone it offered me 
salvation,) that I might live unto God (i. e. that I might em- 
brace the more merciful scheme by which eternal life is offered 


1V.7. ot ταράσσοντες, says Winer, are here thought of definitely as such, and the 
passage is similar to the well-known Grecism, εἰσὶν οἱ λέγοντες, They who trouble 
you are some. What Bishop Middleton says on such points is clearer, though it 
perhaps is not very different, i. 6. that it is assumed that there are persons who 
trouble the Galatians, and they are identified with revég. See IIL. 8, 2.— 
H. J. R. 


948 GALATIANS, 


me through Christ.”) And with this interpretation the re- 
mainder of the Chapter very well agrees. Abp. Newcome, 
indeed, supposes “ dying through the law” to mean, “ by the 
tenor of the law itself, which foretels a better covenant.” But 
this arises from making νόμῳ to signify the Law of Moses; in 
which case it would have the Article. See on Rom. passim. 
Besides, this explanation appears not to harmonize with the 
reasoning which St. Paul pursues through the whole Epistle to 
the Romans, and which he repeats in the present, that the great 
defect of all Jaw is its imevitable condemnation of imperfect 
obedience. , 

Mr. Wakefield, Silv. Crit. Part i. p. 125. observes, that the 
phrase ἐγὼ διὰ νόμου resembles Rom. ii. 27. σὲ τὸν διὰ γράμ- 
ματος, “ ut ovum ovo non potest esse similius.” A want of 
similitude, however, arises from the want of the Article in the 
present instance. See on 1 Cor, xiv. 9. 


CHAP, III. 


V.2. τὸ πνεῦμα. Though the word here has the Article, I 
suppose it to mean the gifts of the Spirit, the well-known gifts: 
after the Galatians had received them, ἐλάβετε, they became 
subjects of reference. 

V.3. πνεύματι and σαρκὶ are here used adverbially for πνευ- 
patikwe and capKikwe. 

V. 11. ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται. These words, which 
are an allusion to Habakkuk 11. 4. occur also Rom. i. 17. and 
Heb. x. 38. Macknight and others render * the just by faith 
shall live;” but I much doubt whether this deviation from our 
Common Version can be vindicated. If I mistake not, we should 
thus have read, ὃ δίκαιος Ὁ ἐκ πίστεως, or else 6 ἐκ πίστεως 
δίκαιος. Nor is this all: to say that he who is just or justi- © 
fied by faith, shall live, amounts to very little ; but to affirm 
that the good man, he whose obedience, though imperfect, is 
sincere, shall reap life everlasting from faith, (as opposed toa 
law of works,) and from faith alone, is a most important declara- 
tion; and it agrees exactly with the context. ‘* That no man,” 
says the Apostle, “is justified under the law, ἐν νόμῳ δικαιοῦ- 
ται, is evident, for one of the Prophets hath said, The just man 
shall live by faith.” ‘The second Proposition, as it is repre- 


CHAPTERS IV. V. 349 


sented in the new translation, affords no proof of the truth of 
the former. 


CHAP, IV. 


V. 4. ὑπὸ νόμον. The Mosaic Law. Part i. Chap. vi. 
§ 1. 

V. 24. ai δυὸ διαθῆκαι. Wetstein and Griesbach, with all 
the best MSS. reject ai. The Article is by no means requisite 
to the sense: it was, probably, a subsequent interpolation of 
~ some one who did not attend to the purport of the Apostle’s 
declaration; which was only, that the bond-woman and the 
free-woman were emblems of two Covenants: that these, in- 
deed, were the Mosaic and the Christian dispensations, is 
true; but the application, being so obvious, was left to the 
Reader. 

V. 31. παιδίσκης τέκνα. A distinguished Prelate, the pre- 
sent Bishop of Durham, observes, (ap. Bowyer,) ‘‘ The Article 
being prefixed to παιδίσκης in the preceding verse, suggests the 
probability of its being wanting to it here.” This is certainly 
very plausible: but perhaps the omission may be accounted for 
by the Negative form of the Proposition. 


CHAP. V. 


V.5. πνεύματι. Spiritually, as in ii. 3. et passim. Rosenm. 
says that πνεῦμα is either the mind, or else the Holy Spirit, 
““ nisi malis intelligere perfectiorem illam mentis indolem, qua 
Christiant gaudent,” &c. ‘This is saying only, that πνεῦμα is 
here used in some one of the principal senses in which it is 
found in Scripture. About the real meaning in this place, 
there cannot, I think, be any reasonable doubt: the same ad- 
verbial use, and always without the Article, occurs in a multi- 
tude of instances: in this Chapter, besides the present, see 
verses 16. 18. 25. 

V. 13. τὴν ἐλευθερίαν. Your liberty, as elsewhere; so the 
Syr. and Syr.-Philox. Macknight has “ this liberty,” a sense 
which the Article will, indeed, sometimes bear, but which it is 
not any where necessary to introduce. 

V. 25. εἰ ζῶμεν πνεύματι, πνεύματι καὶ στοιχῶμεν, if we 86 


spiritually affected, let us also walk spiritually. This I take to 


350 GALATIANS, 


be the sense of the passage, and I understand it as a caution 
against the mischievous consequences of trusting to the all- 
sufficiency of Faith. Schleusner, who pays no regard to the 
Article in distinguishing the different senses of πνεῦμα, has 
nearly the same interpretation. ᾿ 


CHAP. VI. 


V. 8. εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα. That which is spiritual, generally. ἡ 

V. 13. οὐδὲ γὰρ of περιτεμνόμενοι αὐτοὶ νόμον φυλάσσουσιν. 
Νόμον is here understood by Schleusner and Macknight and 
the other Critics, of the Law of Moses: but the absence of the 
Article led me to suspect that this is not the true meaning; 
and this suspicion is not without confirmation. It is the object 
of the Apostle to show that the Jews, who were so zealous for 
the circumcision of the Gentile Christians, were ostentatious 
hypocrites. He says, that though they adhered to the Ritual 
of their Religion, of which Circumcision was so important a 
part, they paid no attention to its spirit and design, and being 
thus insincere, were unworthy of regard. They had the ἐν 
σαρκὶ περιτομή, (see Rom. ii. 28, 29.) but not the περιτομὴ 
καρδίας, which ought to follow: περιτομὴ yao ὠφελεῖ, ἐὰν 
νόμον πράσσῃς (Rom. ii. 25.) There, indeed, both Schleusner 
and Macknight make νόμον to signify moral obedience: the 
strict parallelism of the two passages affords the strongest pre- 
sumption that they are both to be interpreted in the same 
manner; and of the former there is not, nor can there be, any 
doubt.—Michaelis, understanding νόμον as others have done, 
proceeds to show the impossibility of closely adhering to all the 
ordinances of the Levitical Law in foreign countries: but this, I . 
believe, is not the subject of complaint. In Acts xxi. 24 
where the Brethren are urging the necessity of adhering to the 
ceremonies of the Jewish Religion, we find TON νόμον 
φυλάσσων. 

V. 14. κόσμος. This word throughout the N. T. meaning 
the world in its common acceptation, has the Article wherever 
the rules will not account for its omission, except in two in- 
stances, viz. the present. and 2 Cor. v. 19. for in 2 Pet. ii. 5. 
the word is to be understood somewhat differently. It appears 
to me that κόσμος, like Θεός, is one of those words which 


rae et, 


gt. 


CHAPTER VI. 351 


partake of the nature of Proper Names. The same uncer- 
tainty prevails in the classical use, as will be evident on a 
cursory view of the Greek philosophical writers, though the 
Article is there, as in the N. T., almost always inserted. The 
word is used as a Proper Name by Plutarch, περὶ Στωικ. ἔναντ. 
p- 470. fol. Basil 1574. ὃ δὲ Ζεὺς καὶ Κόσμος.---Ἐςκ G. in this 
place prefix ὃ, and some good MSS.—r@ before κόσμῳ: the 
former reading is probably the correction of some one who 
knew not the latitude allowed to κόσμος : the latter is probably 
genuine, and is so considered by Griesbach. 


ϑῦῷ EPHESIANS, 


EPHESIANS. 


CHAP. I. 


V. 1. τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ᾿Ἐφέσῳ. It is a well-known 
subject of dispute among learned men, whether this Epistle 
was addressed to the Ephesians, or whether it be the Epistle 
to the Laodiceans mentioned Coloss. iv. 16: the external evi- 
dence is in favour of the former opinion; the internal, as is 
alleged, of the latter. They who would know the arguments 
on both sides, detailed at great length, may consult Michaelis’s 
Introd. by Marsh, vol. iv. chap. 20: my immediate concern is 
with a passage of St. Basil, quoted by Michaelis, and before 
him by Wolfius and others; it is as follows: ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ τοῖς 
᾿Εφεσίοις ἐπιστέλλων, ὡς γνησίως ἡνωμένοις τῷ Ὄντι OV ἐπι- 
γνώσεως, ὌΝΤΑΣ αὐτοὺς ἰδιαζόντως ὠνόμασεν, εἰπών, τοῖς 
ἁγίοις τοῖς Οὖσι, καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. Οὕτω γὰρ οἱ ᾿ 
πρὸ ἡμῶν παραδεδώκασι, καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντι- 
γράφων εὑρήκαμεν. Basilii Opera, tom. i. p. 254. Ed. Garnier. 
From this it has usually been inferred, that in St. Basil’s judg- 
ment the addition of ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ was spurious: and yet nothing 
is more certain than that he acknowledged this Epistle to have 
been addressed to the Ephesians, from the mention of τοῖς 
᾿Ἐφεσίοις above: and in another place, de Spar. Sancto, cap. v. 
cited by Matthdi, he says, γράφων 6 ᾿Απόστολος πρὸς Ἔφε- 
σίους φησίν, ᾿Αληθεύοντες ἐν ἀγάπῃ, κι τ. A. which words are 
still found in this Epist. iv. 1ὅ, Besides, we learn from Igna- 
tius, who lived in the first century, that St. Paul wrote an 
Epistle to the Ephesians, the description of which, as given by 
that Father, corresponds with the Epistle which is still extant. 
See the Bishop of Lincoln’s Elem. of Christ. Theol. vol. i. 
p- 401, The same very learned Prelate observes, that it is 
recognised likewise by Irenzus, Clemens Alex. ‘Tertullian, 


——— 


‘CHAPTER I. | 353 


Origen, Cyprian, Eusebius, and others. The question, there- 
fore, is, What is the meaning of the latter part of the quota- 
tion from St. Basil? ‘‘ For thus our ancestors have delivered 
it to us, and thus have we found it in ancient copies.” Mili, 
in his Proleg. Ist Edit. p. 9. and ad Joc. contends, that certain 
ancient MSS. which St. Basil had seen, omitted the words ἐν 
᾿Ἐφέσῳ, and the late Dr. Paley, in his invaluable Hore Pau- 
line, chap. vi. No. 4. thinks that Mill, notwithstanding the 
objections which have been made, is right. Dr. Paley, how- 
ever, would perhaps have thought differently, if Mr. Marsh’s 
Translation of Michaelis had at that time existed. The German 
Critic has shown, vol. iv. p. 144. that the context of the pas- 
sage in St. Basil is very important to its true interpretation, 
for that the Father, after having accumulated instances where 
the word ἐστὶ is applied to the True God, endeavours to prove, 
that as the True God is called 6 ὯΝ, to distinguish Him from 
false Gods, so true Christians are called οἱ ὄντες, in opposition 
to the Heathens, τὰ μὴ ὄντα, 1 Cor. i. 28: now a man who was 
prosecuting this puerile conceit, might very naturally omit the 
words ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ, as not making for his purpose, without mean- 
ing that they were wanting in the old MSS.; especially when 
he had said in the preceding sentence, that the Epistle was 
addressed to the Ephesians. Dr. Paley was possibly the more- 
disposed to accede to Mill’s opinion from a belief that “* the 
name ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ is not read in all the MSS. now extant ;” and 
if I understand him rightly, he supposes that a few have ἐν 
Λαοδικείᾳ. In this, however, he must have been mistaken ; 
for not a single MS. hitherto collated omits the words in ques- 
tion, or has any various reading: unless, indeed, we except an 
emendation in one of the Vienna MSS. noticed in the new 
edition of Griesbach’s N.'T., but which Dr. Paley could not 
have in view: ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ, according to that emendation, is to 
be expunged. JBut this is no authority. 

If not, then, in behalf of the omission of ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ, why did 
Basil appeal to the ancient MSS.? Some have thought that 
a few copies might before οὖσιν have omitted τοῖς, the genuine- 
ness of which the Father vindicated as being necessary to his 
argument; and Wolfius affirms that a MS. was in his time still 
extant, in which τοῖς was wanting. It is true, that one incon- 
siderable MS. in Griesbach (not known to him, however, when 

Aa 


9204. EPHESIANS, 


he published his former Edit.) does omit rote: whether this 
be, or be not, the MS. alluded to by Wolfius, I cannot believe 
the supposed omission to be that to which St. Basil refers, 
partly because it would offend against the general usage to 
omit the Article in this place, on which account such an omis- 
sion is the less probable ; and partly because St. Basil’s argu- 
ment, such as it is, could suffer nothing from the absence of 
τοῖς, its whole weight resting on οὖσιν. The omission of οὖσιν, 
therefore, I suppose with Michaelis to be the subject of St. 
Basil’s implied censure, as being contrary to τὰ παλαιὰ τῶν 
ἀντιγράφων : and this omission would not only be hostile to his 
whimsical inference, but moreover is one with which it is highly 
probable that some MSS. were chargeable; for though οὖσιν 
would not imply the subintellection of τοῖς, yet the Article 
might, and consequently does, imply the subintellection of the 
Participle of Existence. So in the very first clause of the 
Lord’s Prayer; an instance, by the way, not very favourable 
to St. Basil’s reasoning. I conclude, therefore, that this Fa- 
ther’s appeal to the old MSS. was in behalf of τοῖς OY EIN ἐν 
᾿Εφέσῳ, against some few copies which had what is in truth 
exactly equivalent, viz. τοῖς ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ, though not likely to be 
approved by St. Basil, as not being at all to his purpose. 

In answer to the objection that the Epistle contains no inti- 
mation of its being addressed to persons with whom the writer 
was acquainted, though St. Paul had resided two years at 
Ephesus, Macknight contends that there are passages in which 
this acquaintance is implied. Michaelis, however, gets rid of 
the difficulty by supposing the Epistle to have been circular, 
being addressed to the Ephesians, Laodiceans, and some other 
Churches of Asia Minor. It could hardly be circular in the 
sense in which Michaelis understands that term; for he sup- 
poses that the different copies transmitted by St. Paul had ἐν. 
᾿Εφέσῳ, ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ, ὅζο. as occasion required, and that the 
reason why all. our MSS. read ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ is, that when the 
Books of the N. 'T. were first collected, the copy used was ob- 
tained from Ephesus: but this seems to imply that the Canon 
was established by authority, and that all copies of this Epistle 
not agreeing with the approved edition were suppressed. Nei- 
ther does the ingenious conjecture of Dr. Paley, who thinks 
that this is actually the Epistle to the Laodiceans referred to 

6 


CHAPTER I. 300 


Coloss. iy. 16. altogether accord with the fact, that all the 
extant MSS. have ἐν ’E@éow: he says, ‘‘ Whoever inspects the 
map of Asia Minor will see, that a person proceeding from 
Rome to Laodicea would probably land at Ephesus, as the 
nearest frequented sea-port in that direction. Might not Ty- 
chicus, then, in passing through Ephesus, communicate to the 
Christians of that place the letter with which he was charged? 
and might not copies of that letter be multiplied and preserved 
at Ephesus? Might not some of the copies drop the words of 
designation ἐν τῇ Λαοδικείᾳ, which it was of no consequence to 
an Ephesian to retain? Might not copies of the letter come 
out into the Christian Church at large from Ephesus; and 
might not this give occasion to a belief that the letter was 
written to that church? And, lastly, might not this belief 
produce the error which we suppose to have crept into the 
inscription?” According to this account we should surely ex- 
pect, that if not all the MSS. at least the greater part of them, 
would read ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ, which, however, is not found in one. 
Besides, though the Ephesians, who might thus be disposed to 
multiply copies of the Epistle which Tychicus had shown them, 
were numerous, yet it ought to be considered that the Christ- 
ians of Laodicea, Colossz, and Hierapolis, (mentioned Coloss. 
iv. 13.) three considerable cities which lay very near each 
other, were probably not less numerous; and therefore the 
copies disseminated from that quarter cannot well be supposed 
to be fewer than those which issued from Ephesus; not to 
insist that Tychicus, thus charged with a letter to the Laodi- 
ceans, would hardly of his own accord communicate to the 
Christians of Ephesus what was intended for those of another 
city. On the whole, I see nothing so probable as the opinion 
of Macknight on Col. iv. 16. ““ that the Apostle sent the 
Ephesians word by Tychicus, who carried their letter, to send 
a copy of it to the Laodiceans, with an order to them to com- 
municate it to the Colossians.” This hypothesis will account, 
as well as that of Michaelis, for the want of those marks of per- 
sonal acquaintance which the Apostle’s former residence at 
Ephesus might lead us to expect: for every thing local would 
be purposely omitted in an Epistle which had a further desti- 
nation. 

If ever there were a Letter from St. Paul to the Laodiceans 

Aaz 


356 EPHESIANS, 


distinct from the present, it is lost, that preserved in Fabricius 
and in Jones’s Work on the Canon being universally admitted to 
be a forgery; and yet the loss of a Canonical Writing is of all 
suppositions the most improbable. See on 1 Cor. v. 9. and 
Macknight, Essay II. p. 59. Mr. Wakefield, however, ex- 
plains Col. iv. 16. τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας by “ the Laodicean Epis- 
tle, viz. that sent to them by St. Paul;” and this he would 
vindicate by the phrase ἀνὴρ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως, Luke viii. 27. a 
citizen of Gadara; as if, because in one place the Preposition 
ἐκ marks origin or derivation, it must in another denote the 
destination or end. ‘The instances which Raphel has adduced 
from Polybius in support of the same construction, are not 
much better: the embassy from Rome, sent thither by the 
Lacedeemonians, τὴν ἐκ τῆς Ῥώμης πρεσβείαν, ἣν ἀπέστειλαν οἱ 
Λακεδαιμόνιοι, returned without having accomplished the object 
of its mission; and the other instance is similar, having only 
ambassadors for embassy. But between the case of an embassy 
and that of a letter, there is a manifest difference: ambassa- 
dors, such as were those of the ancients, were expected to 
return from the place to which they had been sent, so soon as 
their business was completed; and when the ambassadors from 
a given place are expressly said to be on their return, as hap- 
pens in beth of Raphel’s examples, they are necessarily under- 
stood to be the same who had already gone thither: but a letter 
is not sent to a place for the purpose of being sent back again 
to the writer, which, however, must be supposed before the 
cases can be admitted to be parallel. In short, nothing appears 
to me more certain, than that τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας must be ren- 
dered, ‘‘ the Letter from Laodicea,” whether, as some imagine, 
it was one which the Laodiceans had written to St. Paul, or 
one which had been transmitted to Colossz from Laodicea, 
though addressed to a different Church. 3 

Once, indeed, I thought that the Epistle referred to might 
be the First to Timothy, (which others have supposed,) and 
that on the following grounds: Ist. The subscription of that 
Epistle declares it to have been written from Laodicea; and 
Schleusner, I know not for what reason, but doubtless on some 
better authority, affirms this to have been the case: see Lex. 
in Aaoéixeta.—2. It was not improbable that the Colossians 
should have been referred to that Epistle, because, as Michaelis 


CHAPTER II. ; 357 


has shown, though not with a view to any such hypothesis, the 
Ist Epistle to Timothy, no less than that to the Ephesians, 
relates partly to the same subject which gave rise to the Epistle 
to the Colossians. See Jntroduct, Vol. IV. Chap. xy. Sect. iil. 
—3. It is not difficult to conjecture why that Epistle should 
be called by St. Paul the one from Laodicea, because not being 
addressed to a whole Church, but merely to an individual, it 
might seem more respectful to the Church of Phrygia, the 
country in which both Colossae and Laodicea were situated, to 
describe the Epistle by the place where it was written. —4. The 
Syr. Version seems to favour the notion that the Epistle in 
question was written from Laodicea: the Latin of Schaaf’s 
Edition is, ‘‘ illam que scripta est Ex Laodicensibus :” the Syr. 
Preposition may, indeed, be rendered “ by the Laodiceans ;” 
Schaaf had probably some ground of preference.—5. Accord- 
ing to the Chronology adopted by Michaelis, the Ist to Timothy 
had been written a few years before that to the Colossians, and 
might therefore be the Epistle in question.—I am aware, how- 
ever, of strong objections to this hypothesis, which, therefore, 
I am not disposed to urge, especially that founded on Col. ii. 1, 
to which Lardner has, indeed, attempted to give an interpreta- 
tion different from the received one, but without, so far as I 
know, having made any one convert to his opinion. 


CHAP. HE. 


1V. 21. πᾶσα ἡ οἰκοδομή. Very many MSS., including a 
large proportion of those of Matthéi, omit ἡ, and many Editors 
adopt this reading; among others, Bengel and Griesbach are 
disposed to think the Article spurious. But thus the sense 
will be “ every building,” (see Part i, Chap. vii. § 1.) which the 
context, as will be evident on looking at the passage, will 
not admit. This is, therefore, one of the instances in which 
the smaller number of MSS. has preserved the true reading. 
Macknight rightly renders “ the whole building,” but observes, 
“ πᾶσα for An,” which I do not understand: is not πᾶς with a 
Substantive, which has the Article prefixed, always equivalent 
to ὅλος 7 


ΕΝ, 8. Θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον. See perhaps Acts xxiii, 6.—H. J. R. 


358 EPHESIANS, 


CHAP. Ill. 


V.1. ἐγὼ Παῦλος 6 δέσμιος, x. τ λ. 1 cannot better state 
the difficulty attending this passage than by abridging Wolfius. 
«There are two distinct opinions by which the Interpreters are 
here divided: since a Verb is wanting to make the sense com- 
plete, some supply γράφω, some πρεσβεύω or κεκαύχημαι, Which 
two last are found in some MSS. or, which is more generally 
adopted, the Verb εἰμί. Others, however, suppose a paren- 
thesis, the limits of which are variously represented; some 
making the sense to be continued at ver. 8. some at ver. 14. 
and others at the beginning of the next Chapter.” Wolfius 
concludes by giving his own opinion, that ‘ an ambages illi in- 
cidunt, qui commati primo plenum et absolutum sensum; sub- 
intellecto verbo εἰμί, non vindicant.” 

On this I have to‘ remark, that πρεσβεύω is found in only 
three MSS. and that κεκαύχημαι exists in only one still pre- 
served: Mill, indeed, speaks of it, as having been found by 
Stephens, but it is not now known where. On these various 
readings, therefore, no stress is laid: the subintellection of εἰμὲ 
is the favourite solution: let us, therefore, consider wherein 
lies the objection to adopting it. 

This Ellipsis, we are told by Wolfius, is in other instances 
very common: I think, however, that it is not at all common 
in cases strictly similar to the present. After the Verb Sub- 
stantive, the Predicate, for the most part, rejects the Article, 
Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. ὃ 2. but this, for a reason there 
assigned, does not always happen when the Subject is a Pro- 
noun Demonstrative, as Glass has observed, Philol. Sac. p. 325. 
Ed. 1711. Thus John x. 7. ἐγώ εἰμι Ἢ θύρα τῶν προβάτων. 
My objection, therefore, is not to the insertion of the Article 
before δέσμιος, but to the subintellection of su’. Among the 
examples which Glass has enumerated in proof of his remark, 
he quotes the verse in question. One thing, however, seems 
to have escaped his notice: it is, that in every passage adduced 
by him, excepting this one, the Verb Substantive is expressed ; 
a strong presumption at least, that however frequently in other 
cases it is understood, in this particular case its subintellection 
is not allowable. But it is not merely from the examples col- 
lected by Glass, that I infer the impossibility of supplying εἰμὶ 


CHAPTER III. 359 


before ὁ δέσμιος : the N. T. abounds with instances in which, 
where ἐγὼ is the subject, the Verb Substantive is expressed, 
both where the Predicate has the Article, and where it is 
anarthrous. Thus Matt. xxiv. 5. ἐγώ ΕἸΜΙ ὁ Χριστός. Luke 
i. 19. ἐγώ ΕἸΜΙ Γαβριήλ. John viii. 12. ἐγώ ΕἸΜΙ τὸ φῶς 
τοῦ κόσμου; xv. 1. ἐγώ ΕἸΜΙ ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινή. Acts 
Xxill. 6. ἐγὼ Φαρισαῖός EIMI. 1 Tim. 1. 15. ὧν πρῶτός EIMI 
ἐγώ. Rev. i. 17. ἐγώ EIMI ὃ πρῶτος ; xxii. 16. ἐγώ ΕἸΜΙ ἡ 
ῥίζα Δαβίδ. 

Rosenmiiller, however, one of the multitude who would in- 
sert εἰμέ, as if conscious of the difficulty of defending it, refers 
us to the idiom of the Hebrew: he says, “" sicut Hebr. VON 
IN eaxplices ἐγώ εἶμι ὃ δέσμιος" comp. Mark xii. 26. Rom. 
viii. 33.” The latter of these examples is dissimilar, because 
no Pronoun Demonstrative is there employed: the former is 
more deserving of consideration; it is ἐγὼ ὁ Θεὸς ᾿Αβραάμ, 
x. τ᾿ A. where unquestionably εἰμὶ is understood: but the 
Reader, who has accompanied me thus far in these remarks, 
will have perceived the necessity of distinguishing original pas- 
sages from citations. Now Mark xii. 26. is cited from Exod. 
ii. 6. and in the Hebrew, as every one knows who has but the 
most superficial knowledge of that language, the Verb Sub- 
stantive in such Propositions is almost always understood. The 
Hebrew says, “1 (am) the God of your father, the God of 
Abraham, &c.” Our Saviour omitted the clause, “ the God of 
your father,” as having no relation to his argument, and appears 
to have quoted in a cognate dialect, ‘‘ I (am) the God of Abra- 
ham,” which his Evangelist has faithfully and even scrupu- 
lously recorded, though even here a few MSS. and so also 
Origen, have inserted εἰμί. But how, it will be asked, have 
the LX X. rendered the Hebrew? ‘Translators are not re- 
stricted so closely as are the reporters of the sayings of illus- 
trious persons: the LXX. therefore, though generally not 
averse from Hebraisms, have rendered the Hebrew by ἐγώ 
EIMI 6 Θεὸς τοῦ πατρός σου, ὃ Θεός, &c. a plain intimation 
that in their judgment ἐγὼ ὁ Θεὸς would be hardly tolerable. 
And I could show that elsewhere they have adopted the very 
same usage, or else, not inserting εἰμί, they have omitted the 
Article of the Predicate, as in Isaiah xli. 4. ἐγὼ Θεὸς πρῶτος, 
not ‘O Θεὸς Ὁ πρῶτος" and so in many other examples. 


360 EPHESIANS, 


There is, therefore, no force whatever in the imaginary He- 
brew instance (for I cannot find it in the O. T.) adduced by 
Rosenmiiller: there is no doubt that he who should meet with 
it, would render it as Rosenmiiller says, ἐγώ ΕἸΜΙ ὃ δέσμιος : 
but would he have sufficient authority for writing, for that is 
the question, ἐγὼ 6 δέσμιος, meaning εἰμὶ to be understood? 
If not, which I think has been abundantly proved, the case 
stands on the same footing as if the Hebrew, instead of omit- 
ting the Verb Substantive, constantly inserted it. 

Thus far I have endeavoured to show that εἰμὲ cannot be 
understood before 6 δέσμιος : to make the argument complete, 
I ought to remind the Reader that ἐγὼ ὃ δέσμιος, on the hy- 
pothesis that ciut is not to be supplied, is the very form usual 
in similar instances: see on Luke xviii. 13. So also ἐγὼ ὁ 
δέσμιος, ver. 1. of next Chapter. The result of the whole 
seems to be, that εἰμὶ is not understood before ὁ δέσμιος, and 
that consequently we must have recourse to a Parenthesis. 

As to the Limits of this Parenthesis, I think that the whole 
reasoning will be perfectly connected and conclusive, if we 
suppose the thread to be resumed at the 14th verse. The 
principal truth announced in the preceding Chapter was, that 
the Ephesians, who had been Gentiles, were in common with 
the Jews admitted to all the privileges and blessings of the 
new Dispensation. ‘‘ For this cause,” (τούτου χάριν, ver. 1.) 
says St. Paul, ‘I the prisoner of Jesus Christ, (for ye cannot 
but,” (εἴγε, see Hoogeveen de Part. Gr. who quotes this pas- 
sage,) “‘ have heard both of my divine commission and of the 
nature of the doctrine which 1 am commanded to teach,” (ver. 
2—138.) ‘ for this cause” (τούτου χάριν repeated ver. 14—19.) 
“JT pray to God, who has been thus merciful in calling you, 
that ye may be strengthened with might by his Spirit, (ver. 16.) 
that so Christ may dwell in your hearts.” After this prayer is 
subjoined (vers. 20, 21.) a Doxology, with the concluding — 
Amen.—The opinion that the sense is not resumed till the 
next Chapter, is certainly somewhat plausible: the reasons, 
however, which tend to show that it is continued at ver. 14. of 
the present Chapter, are also reasons against its being first 
resumed elsewhere: in addition to them I would observe, that . 
the solemn Doxology with which the present Chapter con- 
cludes, forbids us to imagine that the sense is still incomplete. 


CHAPTER IV. 901 


Nor is it difficult to explain the παρακαλῶ οὖν of the next 
Chapter, without supposing it to be the resumption of the 
argument. At ver. 1. Chapter iv. begins an exhortation, 
which is continued to the end of the Epistle: the οὖν, which - 
some suppose to indicate a resumption, is no other than the 
“ gue cum ita sint” of Cicero, which usually introduces his 
perorations. ‘‘ These things being so,” says St. Paul, i. 6. God 
having thus called you to partake in the Covenant οἵ mercy, 
“1 exhort you to walk worthy of your vocation :” and accord- 
ingly the remainder of the Epistle is devoted to moral pre- 
cepts. 

I have entered into this subject the more fully, from the 
perplexity which appears to have attended it. Our English 
Version supposes a Parenthesis, of which, however, the boun- 
daries are not very clearly marked. Macknight and Wakefield, 
as well as the French Translator, Beausobre, supply the Verb 
Substantive, and Michaelis goes on to the next Chapter. It 
is, moreover, a question of some curiosity, as tending to illus- 
trate the style of St. Paul.—If I have not attempted to refute 
the notion, that the resumption is at ver. 8. it is because I 
know not of any thing which can be alleged in its behalf. It 
was, indeed, the opinion of Grotius, but he has not assigned 
the grounds of it. ᾿ 

_V.15. πᾶσα πατριά.͵ All the modern Versions which I have 
met with, here render πᾶσα by ait, in the sense of the whole, 
or something equivalent thereto. It is, however, to be ob- 
served, that the reading is not πᾶσα Ἢ πατριά, and that there- 
fore the sense is every family. Andso the Ancients appear to 
have understood it, i. 6. they understood several πατριὰς or 
Families on earth, and several in Heaven. See Theophyl. Gicu- 
men. and others in Suicer, vol. 11. p. 633, 


CHAP. IV. 


V. 30. μὴ λυπεῖτε τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον... I believe that I have 
already shown ἐκ περιουσίας, that wherever in the N. 'T. either 
action or passion is ascribed to the Spirit, πνεῦμα has the Ar- 
ticle. See on Matt. i, 18. 


362 EPHESIANS, 


CHAP. V. 


V. 5. ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ. This is, strictly 
speaking, the first of the Examples adduced by Mr. Granville 
Sharp in proof that the same Person is in Scripture called 
Christ and God: for in Acts xx. 28. as was there shown, the 
reading is doubtful. The principle of the rule was sufficiently 
demonstrated in Part i. p. 78; and it cannot be pretended that 
the present instance in any respect deviates from the conditions 
there prescribed, since. both Χριστὸς and Θεός, the former 
retaining its more usual sense, and not being taken as a Proper 
Name, are as plainly what 1 have denominated Attributives, 
as are any of the words which appear in illustration of the 
rule: Θεός, indeed, is itself adduced in one or two of the ex- 
amples. JI must, however, repeat, that this word never uses 
its licence with respect to the Article in such a way as to inter- 
fere with the construction usual in the case of the most com- 
mon Appellatives. If Θεοῦ, therefore, be here meant other- 
wise than as a joint Predicate of τοῦ, the construction is wholly 
destroyed; an inconvenience which might easily, and unques- 
tionably would have been avoided by writing TOY Θεοῦ, in the 
same manner as 6 βασιλεὺς καὶ Ὃ ἡγεμών. See on Acts xxyi. 
30. Matt. xviii. 17. second Note: θὲ passim. 

The Unknown Writer, already noticed on Matt. xi. 11. con- 
tends that ““ Χριστὸς being an epithet, the expression is harsh 
and intolerable: and that he must be a rude Writer who should 
say, The anointed and God,” p. 74. Rude he would be in- 
deed: but this is not similar to the Greek, and therefore ought 
not to have been so represented; and yet this very misrepre- 
sentation is made to be the ground-work of the Writer’s whole 
fabric. Without deigning to inquire whether the Greek and 
English Articles have any and what degree of analogy, he sets - 
out with the bold assertion, that the rule laid down by his 
Opponent, and by all Antiquity, ‘“‘ may be tried just as well in 
English as in Greek. Now in English,” he says, ‘‘ we have 
such phrases as the King and Queen, the Husband and Wife, 
&c. &c. which cannot be understood of the same person.” See 
p- 19. And hence he concludes that Mr. Sharp and all the 
Greek Fathers, who, according to Mr. Wordsworth, support 
Mr. Sharp’s interpretation, must be wrong. If it be so, for 


CHAPTER V. - 868 


Mr. Sharp’s error I cannot pretend to account; but that of the 
Fathers should thus appear to have arisen from their ignorance 
of English. 

A mind accustomed to any thing like proof would have 
shrunk from such temerity. It might have been thought of 
some importance in a question of Greek criticism, to have 
ascertained the practice of the Greek Writers in cases precisely 
parallel: it might have been a consequence of this examination 
to have investigated the ground of an usage which, in the 
Greek Writers, both profane and sacred, was found to prevail 
universally: the result of this inquiry might have induced at 
least a suspicion, that the Greek idiom in some respects dif- 
fered from our own; and on a subject of a very serious nature, 
which after all could be decided only by learning and calm dis- 
cussion, it might have been deemed neither necessary nor 
decent to catch at the applause of illiterate Unbelievers, by 
attempting to raise a laugh. On all these points, however, the 
Unknown Writer thought differently from persons accustomed 
to sober and grave deliberation: at the outset he is satisfied 
with a mis-statement of the question, and he is not ashamed 
to triumph in the consequences.—The truth is, that the Article 
of our language not being a Pronoun, has little resemblance to 
that of the Greeks; and the proper rendering of τοῦ Χριστοῦ 
καὶ Θεοῦ is not “οἵ the anointed and God,” but ““ of Him 
(being, or) who is the Christ and God;” in which, I believe, 
there is nothing approaching to the “rudeness” of the bur- 
lesque translation, nor to the vulgarity of such phrases as “ the 
King and Queen.” Of the objection, that Χριστὸς is an epe- 
thet, 1 do not see the drift: for epithets, being descriptive of 
quality, are more especially and strictly subject to the rule; 
though epithets in many instances, as in ξενός, &c. and in this 
also, become Substantives; and to them this Writer, being 
ignorant of the principle on which the rule is founded, seems 
to have supposed it chiefly, if not exclusively, to apply. But 
it is the strange infelicity of the Unknown Controversialst, 
that when he would reason, which rarely happens, he can only 
cavil. 

But not only the principle of the rule, Part i. Chap. ii, 
Sect. iv. § 2. and the invariable practice in the N. T. with 


964 EPHESIANS, 


respect to Θεὸς and all other Attributives, compel us to 
acquiesce in the identity of Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ, but the same 
truth is evinced by the examination of the Greek Fathers so 
ably executed by Mr. Wordsworth; who affirms, ‘‘ we shall 
have the consolation to find, that no other interpretation than 
yours (Mr. Sharp’s) was ever heard in all the Greek churches :” 
p- 26. He then adduces, among other examples, some very 
decisive passages from Chrysostom, Cyril Alex. and Theodoret, 
in which this very text is cited with the common Trinitarian 
texts, John i. 1. Rom. ix. 5. These passages, indeed, the 
Unknown Writer would evade by saying, that the arguments 
of the Fathers are a deduction from the unity of dominion ; 
meaning, I suppose, that Christ and God are no otherwise one, 
than as they jointly reign over one kingdom. But here again 
is the mischief of not inquiring into the principle of the rule 
which does and must apply perpetually in cases where a refer- 
ence to community of dominion cannot be supposed. Besides, 
how will this accord with Theodoret’s explanation of Titus 
ii. 13. (see Wordsworth, p. 32.) ‘‘ He” (the Apostle) ‘ hath 
called the same person the Saviour and the Great God and 
Jesus Christ?” It may here, indeed, with as much reason as 
in the former instance, be urged, that this is a deduction from 
the unity of appearance, ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης : but then why 
is it not TOY σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, as in the former case why was it 
not TOY Θεοῦξ Almost every chapter of the N. T. contains 
some exemplification of the rule in question, with which, there- 
fore, the Sacred Writers were well acquainted, and must have 
supposed their Readers to have been acquainted also; and if in 
Titus ii. 13. they did not mean to identify the Great God and 
the Saviour, they expressed themselves in a manner which they 
well knew would mislead their Readers, and to mislead must 
have been their object: so absurd are the conclusions to which 
the subterfuges and conjectures of this Writer inevitably con- 
duct us. It ought to be observed, that Theodoret’s explana- 
tion of Titus ii. 13. introduces the present text as a similar 
passage.—Mr. Wordsworth avers, (p. 132.) “1 have observed 
more, I am persuaded, than a thousand instances of the form 6 
Χριστὸς καὶ Θεός, (Eph. v. 5.) some hundreds of instances of 6 
μέγας Θεὸς καὶ σωτήρ, (Tit. u. 13.) and not fewer than seyeral 


- ὙΠ πα ν᾿. 


CHAPTER V. 365 


thousands of the form 6 Θεὸς καὶ σωτήρ, (2 Pet. i. 1:) while 
in no single case have I seen, where the sense could be deter- 
mined, any one of them used, but only of one person.” 

The same Writer, however, laments his inability to ascertain 
the sense of the Oriental Versions: though, as he rightly 
states, they are, in comparison with the interpretation of the 
Fathers, but of secondary importance; for it is obvious that 
the Oriental Translators could not be better skilled in Greek 
than were such men as Chrysostom and Cyril Alex.: and the 
probability is, that some of them not being native Greeks, 
understood it not so well: still, however, this is a question of 
some curiosity, and I wish with Mr. Wordsworth, that I were 
capable of answering it satisfactorily. 

The Syriac does not appear to me to have any method, gene- 
rally applicable, of expressing the idiom noticed in Part i. 
Chap. iii. Sect. iv. §.2. I had, indeed, once thought that in 
Genitives resembling the present instance, diversity of persons 
might be signified by inserting the Preposition ; before the 
second Syriac Noun, as well as before the first, and that iden- 
tity was marked by the omission: this would show the Trans- 
lator to have understood Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ of two persons: but 
in 2 Pet. iii. 18. where the Syr. Translator, after Ἰησοῦ Χρισ- 
τοῦ, read καὶ Θεοῦ πατρός, which could not be taken of Jesus 
Christ, he has, instead of |aSyo-as in the present example, 
simply |aso. This, therefore, cannot be the rule. In one 
of Mr. Sharp’s texts (viz. Jude 4.) identity is clearly expressed 
by apposition, the Copulative being omitted: but in Heb. iii. 1. 
τὸν ἀπόστολον καὶ ἀρχιερέα, this does not happen. In the 
present text, at least, I suspect that the Syriac is ambiguous: 
others, perhaps, may detect some distinction which has escaped 
my notice. 

In examining the Coptic, I believe we shall be more success- 
ful. ‘This language has Articles, both determinate and in- 
determinate: they seem not to be employed to mark the dif- 
ference distinguishable in the usage, which we are now con- 
sidering; yet, if I mistake not, the Coptic has a Canon, which 
is equivalent to the Greek one. In that language there are 
two Copulatives, ovon and Nem: the latter, indeed, is a Pre- 
position corresponding with the Hebrew DY or Greek μετά: 
but it is also commonly employed where the Greek has καί. 


306 EPHESIANS, 


I have observed, however, that these Copulatives are not used: 
indiscriminately: where the Translator understood two Attri- 
butives of the same person, καὶ is always, I think, rendered by 
ovoH; where of different persons, as in 6 βασιλεὺς καὶ 6 ἡγε- 
μών, by NEM. A single example will illustrate my meaning: 
the Translator read ver. 20, of the present chapter, ἐν ὀνόματι 
τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πατρός" his 
Version is NEM τοῦ Θεοῦ OUOH τοῦ πατρός. Supposing, then, 
that we have here a Coptic Canon equivalent to the Greek one, 
what is the result? Itis, that of Mr. Sharp’s seven texts, (for 
at Acts xx. 28. the Coptic read Kvoiov,) the present was un- 
derstood of two persons, contrary to the interpretation of the 
Greek Fathers: the three next, viz. 2 Thess. i. 12. 1 Tim. 
v. 91. and 2 Tim. iv. 1. also of two persons: but there the 
Fathers are silent: Titus ii. 13. and 2 Pet. 1. 1. were inter- 
preted of one person: and Jude 4. where, however, the Coptic 
did not read Θεόν, is expressed, as in the Syriac, by apposition. 

For the Arabic and AXthiopic I must avail myself of the 
assistance of Mr. Wakefield. His rendering of this passage is 
very curious, ‘* of the anointed Teacher of God.” He observes 
in his Note, that the Arabic and Aithiopic Versions omit καί, 
and he refers us in behalf of the phrase ‘‘ anointed of God,” to 
Luke ii. 26. and ix. 20, On examining the places, I find 6 
Χριστὸς Κυρίου and ὃ Χριστὸς TOY Θεοῦ" both of which 
accord with the Greek usage: see on Luke i. 15: but where 
are we to look for 6 Χριστὸς Θεοῦ It is somewhat singular 
that a man who had devoted the greater part of his life to Phi- 
lology, who had translated the N.T. and who had written the 
Stlva Critica in illustration of it, should not have known that 
ὁ Χριστὸς Θεοῦ is not Greek. But the Arabic and Aithiopie 
Versions, says Mr. W., omit καί : was he, then, to learn Greek 
from Arabs and Aithiopians, when they presented him with a 
construction founded on a solecism? But after all, how does 
it appear that they omitted καί ἢ I suspect, from the known 
analogy of the Oriental Languages, that neither the Arabic 
nor the AXthiopic Translator meant to indicate what Mr. Wake- 
field’s rendering implies, that καὶ was wanting in the copies 
which they respectively used: for I know that in the Peshito 
ὁ Θεὸς kal πατὴρ is frequently, though not always, rendered 
by ‘‘ God the Father:;” I think it probable, therefore, that the 


CHAPTER VI. 367 


Arabic and Athiopic Translators have here employed the same 
method of expressing identity.—On turning to Bode’s Pseudo- 
eritica, which I had not seen till some part of this work had 
been printed off, I found the very same solution. It appears, 
therefore, that the Arabic and £thiopic Translators did actu- 
ally understand this passage of Him, who is Christ and God. 

On the whole, I regard the present text, as it stands in the 
Greek, to be among the least questionable of the authorities 
collected by Mr. Sharp, and as being, when weighed impar- 
tially, a decisive proof, that in the judgment of St. Paul, Christ 
is entitled to the appellation of God. 

V.20. τῷ Θεῷ καὶ πατρί. Macknight would improve the 
English Version, ‘‘ to God and the Father,” which implies that 
God and the Father are distinct persons, by rendering “ to 
God, even the Father ;” and Abp. Newcome does the same. I 
have already shown, (p. 403, and in Parti.) that καὶ in such 
cases is no other than the common Copulative, and if it signi- 
fies even, there could be no reason for omitting the second 
Article: the Father κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν is always ‘O πατήρ. It is 
rather remarkable, that almost all the modern ‘Translators 
should, in some instances at least, have been compelled to 
adopt the Canon, Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iv. § 2. and yet that 
none of them should have stumbled on the principle. which 
must have led them to a more general application of it. 

V. 23. ὃ ἀνήρ. Many MSS.—6, which is not absolutely 
necessary. A. alone has Ὁ σωτήρ, where, however, the Ar- 
ticle is dispensed with, as in the same verse is ἡ before κεφαλή. 


CHAP. VI. 


V. 2. ἐντολὴ πρώτη. Markland conjectures Ἢ πρώτη, 
though he admits that this word is elsewhere without the Ar- 
ticle. So, frequently, are all Ordinals: see Part 1, Chap. vi. 
§ 3.’ | 


1 V. 12. ἡ πάλη, the contest referred to in the preceding verse, as Wincr 
notes.—H. J. R. 


908 PHILIPPIANS, 


PHILIPPIANS. 


CHAP. I. 


V. 25. εἰς τὴν ὑμῶν προκοπὴν καὶ χαρὰν τῆς πίστεως. Of 
these words there are various translations, which I forbear to 
enumerate. My objection to the greater part of them is, that 
they disjoin προκοπὴν and χαράν, as if πίστεως did not depend 
on the former of these as well as on the latter. That this, how- 
ever, is the construction, I infer from the omission of the Ar- 
ticle before χαράν. So in verse 7. of this chapter, ἐν τῇ ἀπο- 
Aoyla καὶ βεβαιώσει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, though even there Mac- 
knight disjoins the two governing Nouns without any apparent 
reason: for the words ἀπολογία εὐαγγελίου are found in the 
present chapter, verse 17. Neither in the passage under re- 
view would there be any thing harsh in joining προκοπὴν with 
πίστεως, for in verse 12. it is joined with εὐαγγελίου, which in 
sense is not very dissimilar. I understand the translation, 
therefore, to be, “* to promote your advancement and joy in 
the faith,” i. e. for your religious improvement and your re- 
ligious comfort. Macknight renders “ for the advancement of 
the joy of your faith,” which does not seem to be deducible 
from the Greek. 


CHAP. II, 


V.2. τὸ ἕν φρονοῦντες. This reading is remarkable on two 
accounts, both as it is so nearly a repetition of a phrase which 
had already occurred in the same verse, viz. τὸ αὐτὸ φρονῆτε, 
and as having the Article (supposing the common interpreta- 
tion to be right) prefixed to ἕν, which always is anarthrous in 
the N. Τὶ, except where there is some kind of reference. A. C. 
17. 73. of Griesbach and the Vulg. have, indeed, the reading 


9 Sete 


CHAPTER II. 369 


τὸ αὐτό: this relieves us from the difficulty attending the Ar- 
ticle in τὸ ἕν, but it rather increases that which arises from the 
repetition. ‘Those MSS. however, are of considerable autho- 
rity, and it may well be contended, that even without admit- 
ting τὸ αὐτὸ the tautology is sufficiently evident: indeed 
Schleusner makes τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν and τὸ ἕν φρονεῖν to be 
equivalent. Markland and the Bishop of Durham (apud 
Bowyer) suspect that one of those clauses is a marginal ex- 
planation: in the collection of Conjectures, many are much 
more improbable; the suspicion, however, is not confirmed by 
any MS. or Version. Rosenmitiller tells us that τὸ αὐτὸ φρο- 
νεῖν and τὸ ἕν φρονεῖν are different things: the former mark- 
ing consent in doctrine, as below, ii. 16. the latter, conformity 
in moral conduct, as in Rom. xv. 5. But in this there must 
be some mistake; for in Rom. xy. 5. it is not τὸ ἕν φρονεῖν, 
but τὸ αὐτό; neither does the phrase τὸ ἕν φρονεῖν occur in 
the whole N. T. except in the present instance. Blackwall 
(Sacr. Class.) according to the fashion of his day, when it was 
presumed to be impossible that inspired thoughts could be ex- 
pressed in any other than classical Greek, admits the tautology, 
but defends it on the authority of Xenophon ; the two clauses, 
συνεστηκότα εἰς TO αὐτὸ and συνεστήκοιεν εἰς ἕν, being found 
in the same sentence, Cyrop. p. 13. Edit. 1581. This, how- 
ever, proves at most that the best writers are sometimes inat- 
tentive; but even the reading is not indisputable; for accord- 
ing to Sturz, Lex. Xen. voce συνίστασθαι, the Cod. Guelf. 
wants the latter clause: at any rate, it is observable that in 
Xenophon it is not εἰς TO ἕν : and in τὸ ἕν φρονοῦντες, even 
though the tautology could be shown to be of the essence of 
elegance, the Article is still to be accounted for, which can be 
done only by supposing some kind of reference; since there 
is not in the LXX. or the N. T. any instance of τὸ ἕν in which 
the Article is not to be so explained: and in the profane Greek 
writers the usage is the same. But see on 1 Johny. 7. This 
reference, then, I suppose here to be to what immediately fol- 
lows, μηδὲν κατ᾽ ἐρίθειαν ἢ κενοδοξίαν, as if the Apostle had 
said, ‘‘ minding the one thing, viz. &c.” ‘This interpretation is 
favoured by the Vulg. “ 1p 1psum sentientes, Nihil per conten- 
tionem neque per inanem gloriam.” But what principally con- 
firms my opinion is the construction of the sentence following, 


Bb 


370 PHILIPPIANS, 


μηδὲν κατ᾽ ἐρίθειαν, which in having no Verb assumes the form 
of a proverbial admonition, such as might naturally be made a 
subject of reference. Thus in μηδὲν ἄγαν we must supply 
ποιεῖτε, exactly as in the instance before us. I observe that 
Grotius understood the passage in the manner here proposed : 
his words are, “‘ Hoc UNUM studentes, maximé SCILICET, nequid 
contentiose,” &c. 

V. 4. ἀλλὰ τὰ ἑτέρων. Some good ΜΗ. αν ra τῶν, 
which is probably right. 

V. 6. ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ. Ido not recollect that any one has, 
in consequence of the absence of the Article, asserted that 
Θεοῦ is here to be taken in a lower sense; yet Mr. Wakefield's 
translation, “‘ in a divine form,” savours somewhat of this kind 
of criticism. ‘The Article, however, may be omitted by Parti. 
Chap. ui. Sect. ui. § 7, Many modern Divines, and among 
the Fathers Theodoret, understand the clause οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν 
ἡγήσατο somewhat differently from our English Version. The 
remark of Theodoret, as quoted by Wolfius, is, that ““ Christ 
being by nature God, and having equality with the Father, did 
not pique himself on this His dignity, as is the manner of those 
who have obtained unmerited honour; but having renounced 
His high station, he condescended to the extreme of humility, 
and assumed the form of man.” To this interpretation of ao- 
παγμὸν ἡγήσατο, the few parallel expressions which Commen- 
tators have collected, appear to me to be favourable: since the 
terms most nearly approaching to ἁρπαγμὸν are λαφυρόν, 
ἑρμαῖον, φωρίον ; and no difficulty arises from the context, the 
passage being introduced by the admonition, ‘ Let this mind 
be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.” Not dissimilar is 
the praise bestowed on Athanasius by Greg. Naz. vol. i. p. 377. 


ov γὰρ ὁμοῦ τε καταλαμβάνει τὸν θρόνον, ὥσπερ οἱ τυραννίδα 


τινὰ ἢ κληρονομίαν παρὰ δόξαν “APILASANTES, «καὶ ὑβρίζει. 


διὰ τὸν κόρον a passage which I have no where seen quoted 
in illustration of the present verse. If, however, we admit 
even this explanation, the text affords the most decisive evi- 
dence of the Divinity of Christ. He is said to have been in 
the form and nature of God: I know not, indeed, whether 
ὑπάρχων may not be rendered pre-existing, for Suidas, edit. 
Kust. vol. 111, p. 532. observes, ro ὑπάρχειν οὐχ ἁπλώς τὸ εἶναι 
σημαίνει ἀλλὰ τὸ πάλαι εἶναι, καὶ IIPOEINAI, φθάνειν" even, 


eet a’ 


»Ὕ 


ee ἢ τὰ 


CHAPTER III. 371 


however, if the word be taken in its looser sense, the inference 
will be the same: since Theodoret’s interpretation makes the 
humility of Christ to have consisted in His relinquishing the 
dignity of being equal to the Father, which, of course, it 
admits Him to have enjoyed; and if it was enjoyed, it could 
be only in a state of pre-existence. Unbelief has, indeed, 
endeavoured to explain away the force of the expression ἐν 
μορφῇ Θεοῦ: but, as is well observed by the Bishop of Lin- 
coln, (Elem. of Theol. vol. ii. p. 112.) “ Being in the form of 
God, signifies being really God, just as the phrase, ‘ took 
upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness 
of man,’ signifies, that He was really a man in a low and mean 
condition.” Besides, the Fathers explain μορφὴ by οὐσία: see 
Suicer, vol. ii. Ὁ. 377. 

V.11. εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ πατρός. A good instance of Part i. 
Chap. vi. § 1. and Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 7. 

ΟὟ, 18. 6 Θεὸς γάρ, x. τι A. Many MSS.—6, possibly right: 
so Θεὸς 6 δικαιῶν, Rom. viii. 33. 


CHAP. III. 


V. 1. Many MSS. and Editt. have TO ἀσφαλές, of which I 
do not perceive the meaning. 

V. 3. οἱ πνεύματι Θεῷ λατρεύοντες. The majority of MSS. 
with some of the Fathers, have here Θεοῦ : and to this reading 
modern Editors, as Wetstein, Matthiii, and Griesbach, give the 
preference, though Mill and Bengel prefer Oe. I know of 
no ground for adopting Θεοῦ, except the preponderance of 
MSS. and I am persuaded that Θεῷ is genuine, both because 
πνεῦμα Θεοῦ is no where, that I recollect, used to signify the 
Holy Spirit, unless there be a reason for omitting the Articles, 
which here is not the case, and because the context plainly 
requires us to understand πνεύματι in the adverbial sense, and 
consequently to read Θεῷ: unless, indeed, πνεύματι Θεοῦ 
mean no more than πνεύματι. See above on Rom. viii. 13. 
The design of the Apostle is here to depreciate the rite of cir- 
cumcision, as no longer of any efficacy, which therefore he 
contemptuously calls the κατατομή, or mutilation: he says, 
** beware of the concision: we (viz. the Christians) are the cir- 
cumceision (ἡ περιτομὴ) who worship God spiritually, πνεύματι, 

Bb2 


379 PHILIPPIANS. 


and glory in Jesus, and have no trust in the flesh.” Here, 
plainly, to worship God spiritually is made to be the essence 
of true Religion, as distinguished from the barren ceremonial 
observances on which principally the Jewish opponents of 
Christianity appeared to set a value. ‘The very same argu- 
ment is elsewhere urged by the Apostle, especially Rom. 
ii. 25. to the end of the Chapter.—He who keeps in view these 
remarks, can hardly fail to acquiesce in the-reading Θεῷ: 
which is further confirmed by the Syr. and Vulg. and, if we 
may trust the Latin, by the Arab. and Althiop.—Mr. Gran- 
ville Sharp in his Tract, second edit. p. 32. endeavours to vin- 
dicate Θεοῦ, and contends, that if Θεῷ be the reading, it ought 
to be rendered “" the Spirit God,” because the Preposition 
ἐν is not prefixed to πνεύματι. But of πνεύματι without ἐν, 
when used in the adverbial sense, many instances have been 
pointed out, and the N. T. supplies probably more than fifty. 
Besides, the Spirit God, or πνεῦμα Θεός, is a phrase which no 
where exists, not to insist that the duty of worshipping the 
Holy Spirit is entirely foreign from the reasoning. 

V. 5. περιτομῇ ὀκταήμερος. Some Editions, among others 
that of Matthdi, with whom agrees Schleusner in his Lexicon, 
have περιτομὴ in the Nominative: in that case we must con- 
strue “my circumcision was,” &c.; but then I should have 
expected the Article, whereas in the more common construc- 
tion the Article is properly omitted. Moreover, Adjectives of 
time ending in nuspog and aoc, are applied to persons, rarely 
to things. So in a passage quoted by Wetstein, we read Xpic- 
τὸς ἀνίσταται τριήμερος, and in John xi. 39. τεταρταῖος γάρ 
ἐστι. ‘Thus the construction will be, “ in respect of cireum- 
cision (circumcised) on the eighth day.” The structure also of 
the whole passage will be disturbed, if we make περιτομὴ the 
Nominative; for the Apostle, both before and after the words 
in question, is himself the subject of the discourse; ‘‘ I more, 
circumcised on the eighth day, of the race of Israel,” &c.: if, 
therefore, περιτομὴ be the Nominative, it is strangely inserted, 
nor do I perceive how we can, without great violence, restore 
ἐγὼ in the next clause, ἐκ γένους ᾿Ισραήλ. 


373 


COLOSSIANS. 


CHAP. I. 


V. 15. πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως. Our Version has “ of 
every creature:” Macknight and Wakefield, “ of the whole 
creation :” Newcome says it may be either. But this, I appre- 
hend, is a mistake: the absence of the Article shows that 
κτίσις is here used for an individual, as in our Version, and not 
of the creation inclusively, which would have required πάσης 
ΤῊΣ κτίσεως : so Mark xvi. 15.'and Rom. viii. 22. I do not, 
however, perceive that this distinction throws any light on the 
controversy respecting the meaning of the passage. Michaelis, 
after Isidore the Pelusiot, would accent the Penult πρωτοτόκος, 
so as to make the sense active: but then it will signify, not 
simply having borne or begotten, but that for the first time : so 
Homer. I]. XVII. 5. The Socinians understand πρωτότοκος 
to represent the Hebrew 31, and to be thus expressive only 
of the dignity of primogeniture. I am surprised that this 
interpretation should have been adopted by Schleusner ; for 
‘surely nothing can be more incompatible with the whole con- 
text: in illustration of the truth that Christ is πρωτότοκος 
πάσης κτίσεως, the Apostle adds, that through Him (Christ) 
were created all things in heaven and on earth, visible and 
invisible, with the several orders of Angels: thus, then, it will 
be said that Christ was the Eldest born of his own Creation ; 
which is so absurd, that it requires no common hardihood to 
defend it. Schleusner, indeed, it must be admitted, adopts 
the derived, not the primitive sense of πρωτότοκος, making it to 
signify princeps et dominus; but this does not relieve the diffi- 
culty, unless an instance can be produced in which πρωτότοκος 
signifies dominus otherwise than in reference to the brethren 
over whom the first-born among the Jews had authority. Of 


914 COLOSSIANS, 


the Literal sense, the instances cited by Schleusner are, Gen. 
xxvii. 29. 87. and 1 Sam. xx. 29. about which there can be 
no doubt: for the metaphorical he quotes Jeremiah xxxi. 9. 
in which, however, there is no ‘confusion of metaphor, the 
words being, “1 am Father to Israel, and Ephraim is my 


first-born ;” i. 6. Ephraim shall have authority over the other 


tribes, who are his brethren; exactly as in Rom. viii. 29. 
we have πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς. What is wanted 
is an instance in which πρωτότοκος is so used in the meta- 
phorical sense, that it not only has lost sight of its origin as 
a metaphor, but is used in direct contradiction to it, as is 
alleged in the present instance.—On the whole, I know of 
no better expedient than to understand the words as mean- 
ing ““ begotten before every creature,” 1. e. before any created 
being had existence: thus it was explained by the majority 
of the ancients'. See Swicer, vol. 11. p. 879. That πρῶτος 
may be thus used is evident from John i. 15. and 30. Micha- 
elis has observed, that in the language of the Rabbins, God is 
ealled the First-born of the World. At any rate, be the mean- 
ing of this text what it may, the utmost which can be expected 
by the malice of heresy, and achieved by the perversion of 
criticism, is to detach it from the verses which immediately 
follow; with which, however, it seems to be most closely con- 
nected. But even this will be of no avail: with the 16th, and 
especially with the 17th verse, the reasonable Advocate for the 
Pre-existence and Divinity of Christ might, if he had no other 
evidence in his favour, be abundantly content. The positive 


assurance that Christ was before all things, and that by Him . 


all things συνέστηκε (the word used both by Josephus and Philo 
_ of the acknowledged Creator: see Krebs’s Obss. in N. T. ὁ Jose- 
pho; and also by many other writers) leaves no question as to 
the dignity of the Redeemer of Mankind. 

Mr. Wakefield translates, ‘‘ an image of the invisible God, 
a first-born,” &c. as if there were several such: it is difficult. 
to suppose that he was ignorant of the usage after the Verb 
Substantive. 


1 That this is the true interpretation, can hardly be doubted; and the doctrine 
is that which is more fully expressed in the Nicene Creed: “ Begotten of his 
Father before all worlds.”—The substitution of the superlative for the compara- 
tive in such cases, is too common to need illustration.-—J. S. 


a ee 


CHAPTER II. 375 


V. 23. ἐν πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει. Several considerable MSS.—77, 
and Griesbach thinks the Article probably spurious: but see 
the last Note. Nota single-MS. of Matthdi omits the Article. 
The phrase here is equivalent to ver. 6. of this esac id év 
παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ. 


CHAP. HE. 


V. 10. ἡ κεφαλὴ πάσης ἀρχῆς. See on 1 Cor. xi. 3. 

V. 14. τὸ χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν. There are few pas- 
sages of the N. T. in the interpretation of which the Trans- 
lators and Critics have more widely differed from each other. 
Our English Version has “" hand-writing of ordinances,” and 
this is adopted by. Macknight and Newcome;. though how 
this meaning can be deduced from the words of the original, I 
am at aloss to discover. Rosenmiiller explains the Greek by 
‘*<legem illam scriptam preceptis variis constantem ;” and some 
have made τοῖς δόγμασιν to have no dependence on τὸ χειρό- 
yoapor, but to be governed by ἐξαλείψας. I believe that the 
true construction must be sought in an Ellipsis of σύν, ex- 
amples of which are common in the profane Writers: the same 
Ellipsis occurs also in Revel. viii. 4. ταῖς προσευχαῖς .τῶν 
ἁγίων, which is well rendered by Abp. Newcome, “ together 
with the prayers of Saints.” Τὺ 15 some confirmation of this 
solution, that the Armenian adds αὐτοῦ: that two or three 
authorities have SYN τοῖς δόγμασιν : and that in the Second 
Homily of Clemens Romanus (Coteler. vol. i. p. 631.) Moses is 
said to have delivered τὸν νόμον σὺν ταῖς ἐπιλύσεσι. The sense 
_ will thus be, ‘‘ Having cancelled the bond, together with all its 
covenants’:” these covenants or conditions were the numerous 
expiations prescribed by the Levitical Law; the Bond was the 
Law itself. The same Ellipsis is known to the Hebrew: see 
Noldius, p. 576. 

V.17. τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Here many MSS. including 
a large proportion of Matthiiiis—rov. This is probably right, 
especially since Χριστοῦ is not immediately dependent on τὸ 
σῶμα. 


1 See below, ver. 20. and Eph. ii. 15. Author's MS. 


376 COLOSSIANS. 


CHAP. IV. 


V. 5. τὸν καιρὸν ἐξαγοραζόμενοι. Macknight. renders this 
by “ gaining time.” But καιρὸς is not equivalent to χρό- 
voc, being always used in reference to something which is 
to be done. It seems to be the intention of St. Paul in this 
place, as well as Ephes. y. 16. to admonish his Christian 
Readers to “" purchase the opportunity, (viz. of gaining over 
the Heathens,) by judicious concessions, and by a virtuous 
example.” The reason subjoined is, ‘ that the days are evil :” 
i. e. the times in which ye live are so unpropitious to the con- 
version of the Jews and the Pagans, that the zeal and cireum- 
spection which I have recommended are indispensable. 

V. 16. ἡ ἐπιστολή. See on 1 Cor. v. 9. 


377 


I. THESSALONIANS. 


CHAP. II. 


V. 5. Θεὸς μάρτυς. Two MSS. have ὁ Θεός. The Article 
is not necessary, since if μάρτυς were the subject, its Article 
could not be omitted *. 


CHAP. IV. 


Υ. 6. ἐν τῷ πράγματι. Our Version has * in any matter.” 
Wolfius thinks that τῷ πράγματι is equivalent to τοῖς πράγ- 
μασι, by which he understands im business, 1. 6. in commercial 
transactions. Our own Version has the sanction of Schleusner, 
who explains τῷ by ri, though this, as has been shown, is an 
usage unknown to the N. T. He wavers, however, and sup- 
poses, that the words may mean, as they are explained by Wol- 
fius. This Writer is supported by Schoettgen, (Hor. Hebr.) who 
reasons from what he considers as a parallelism, 2 Tim. u. 4. 
ταῖς τοῦ βίου πραγματείαις : this, however, is not a parallelism, 
as might easily be shown. The only passage in the N. T, 
which is at all similar, is 2 Cor. vii. 11. ἐν τῷ πράγματι, sig- 
nifying in the matter, viz. that of which the Apostle was speak- 
ing, the misconduct of the incestuous person; an interpreta- 


1 The Reader will perhaps pardon me if I stop him for a moment, to offer a 
gratuitous piece of service, unconnected with the doctrine of the Article, in the 
correction and illustration of a passage somewhat remarkable in its construction. 
It occurs in this Epistle, iii. 5. ἔπεμψα εἰς τὸ γνῶναι τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν, pH πως 
ἐπείρασεν ὑμᾶς ὁ πειράζων, καὶ εἰς κενὸν γένηται ὁ κόπος ἡμῶν. “1 sent to 
know your faith whether the tempter have tempted you by any means, and Jest (in 
that case) our labour be in vain.” Exactly similar is Eurip. Pheeniss. 91-2. μή 
τις πολιτῶν ἐν τρίβῳ φαντάζεται, Kdpoi μὲν ἔλθῃ φαῦλος, we δούλῳ, ψόγος, Soi 
δ᾽, ὡς dvdooy.—In both cases μὴ has different senses, according to the different 
moods with which it is connected.—J. 5, 


378 I. THESSALONIANS. 


tion which Wolfius admits. And why should not the same 
words in this place be similarly explained? Business or com- 
mercial dealing has no relation whatever to the context. Verses 
3, 4, 5, and 7, enforce the obligation to chastity : would it not, 
then, be extremely unnatural that the 6th should enjoin honest 
dealing in affairs of trade? especially when τὸ πρᾶγμα is a 
known euphemism for impurity. I have, therefore, no doubt 
that Macknight’s way of understanding the passage, ‘‘ in this 
matter,” is the true one; except, indeed, that “" the matter” 
suits the place as well, without needlessly multiplying the 
meanings of the Article. Mr. Wakefield, in his Silva Crit. 
Part i. p. 107. commends the Syr. Translation for rendering 
the passage, ‘‘ guast esset tv τούτῳ moaypati:” this is not very 
accurate Greek.—Among the advocates for the explanation 
which I have adopted, are Michaelis and the Bishop of Durham 
(ap. Bowyer.) It is remarkable, that Grotzuws should have con- 
jectured ἔν τινι. 


CHAP. V. 


V. 19. τὸ πνεῦμα. If this be understood of the influence of 
the Spirit, the Article will be in reference to that portion of 
influence which each had received. I prefer, however, under- 
standing it of the Person: compare Acts vii. 51. 

V. 22. ἀπὸ παντὸς εἴδους πονηροῦ. In this place πονηροῦ 
cannot be used substantively for TOY πονηροῦ, in which sense, 
however, modern Translators usually understand it. It is an 
Adjective agreeing with εἴδους : so Vulg. ““ ab omni specie 
malé.” 

V. 27. τὴν ἐπιστολήν. See on 1 Cor. v. 9. 


$i) eT ει 


379 


Il. THESSALONIANS. 


CHAP. I. 2 

V. 12. κατὰ τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν Kat Κυρίου -᾿ Ἰησοῦ - 
--.ψΧριστου. ‘This is another of the texts on which Mr. Granville 
Sharp would rest the doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus Christ, 


᾿ by rendering “ of our God and Lord.” To the validity, how- 


ever, of this and of one or two others of his proofs, there are 
objections, which I ought not to suppress. 

Κύριος is a word which has a peculiar construction: it so far 
partakes of the nature of Proper Names, that it sometimes 
dispenses with the e Article, where other words would require 
it. Thus, for example, had we im the present instance, instead 
of Κυρίου, read ΣΩΤΉΡΟΣ, no reasonable doubt could have 
been entertained that identity was-here intended; there being 
no reason derived either from theory or from practice for omit- 
ting the Article before σωτῆρος, if different persons be meant. 
So 2 Pet. ii. 2. no one will deny that τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος 
are spoken of one person. But Κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς col- 
lectively is a title of our Lord familiar to the Writers of the 
Epistles. We have repeatedly ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ 
Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ Rom. i. 7. 1 Cor. i. 3. 2 Cor. i. 2. 
Gal. i. 3. et passim. We have also, Philipp. iii. 20. Κύριον 
Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. Hence it is manifest, that in the present 
passage there is no absolute necessity for detaching Κυρίου 
from Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, in order to couple it with Θεοῦ. It is 
true that we find also Ὁ Κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός, as Rom. 
xiii. 14. and 1 Cor. xvi. 21. though in both those places some 
MSS. after Κύριος add ἡμῶν, which would make the Article 
necessary. Admitting, however, the title to have been some- 
times Ὁ Κύριος “I. Xo. still such is the ambiguity, that we 


980 I]. THESSALONIANS, 


shall not be compelled to apply the Canon Part i. Chap. iii. 
Sect. 111. § 2. 

Another, however, and a much stronger doubt may arise 
from the little notice which the Fathers have taken of this text. 
Mr. Wordsworth, indeed, finds a passage in the 121st of the 
Discourses (in Latin) of Theodorus Studites: of this passage, 
in which occurs ‘‘ secundum gratiam Dei Dominique nostri 
Jesu Christi,” he offers what he conjectures to have been the 
original Greek: and that particular clause he renders by κατὰ 
τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμών καὶ Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. He then 
observes, that on this arise two questions; both of which, he 
presumes, must be answered in the affirmative: viz. Does not 
the writer (Theodorus) quote the Epistle to the Thessalonians, 
and does he not understand τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμών καὶ Κυρίου of the 
same person, even Jesus Christ? for does he not, says Mr. W., 
use them just as δέ, Cyril of Jerusalem writes τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ 
σωτῆρος ἡμῶν I. Xo.: or St. Basil, τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν 
"Ino. Χρ.: or St. Gregory, τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ ἀρχιποιμένος 
ἡμῶν I. Xo.? The affirmative of the former of these ques- 
tions, viz. that Theodorus quotes this verse, can hardly be dis- 
puted; but the second may, perhaps, be otherwise determined. 
It is scarcely fair to conjecture from the Latin of his Trans- 
lator, Johannes Livineius, how Theodorus understood the pas- 
sage: moreover, if the Latin of Livineius be an exact render- 
ing of Theodorus, then must the Greek be, I think, not as 
Mr. W. represents it, but τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Κυρίου ἡμῶν : or, on 
the other hand, supposing Mr. W.’s Greek to be that of Theo- 
dorus, then should the Latin translation. have been, *‘ Dez 
nostri et Domini ;” for to say that the present Latin is better 
suited to the place, would be to assume the very point in dis- 
pute. In short, the whole question appears to turn on the 
arrangement of the words in the original Greek, which might 
easily be ascertained by a reference to the Greek MS. pre- 
, served in the Bodleian: if Theodorus has τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Κυρίου 
ἡμῶν instead of τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καί, x. τ. A. he presents us, 
indeed, with a various reading, which, had it been found in a 
few of the more considerable MSS. of the N. T. would have 
had its value: but if the Greek of Theodorus be as conjectured 
by Mr. W. which probably it is, it is obvious that we have 


CHAPTER 1. 981 


here, not an illustration of the Apostle’s meaning, but only the 
same ambiguity transcribed. 

Again, as to the similarity between the supposed Greek of 
Theodorus and the expressions of Cyril, Basil, and Gregory, 
it must be observed, that in the passages recited, Κυρίου is 
either not found at all, or else is so placed as not to be involved 
in the difficulty arising from its peculiar usage. Had St. Paul 
written τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ Θεοῦ Ἰ1. Xp. no person who had 
attended to the manner in which Θεὸς is used, could doubt the 
identity; for, otherwise, it would have been TOY Θεοῦ: see 
on Ephes. v. 5. It is true, that the passage from Theodorus 
concludes with a Doxology, “ to whom with the Father and 
the Holy Ghost be glory,” &c. and nearly the same is imme- 
diately subjoined to the expressions cited from Cyril, Basil, 
and Gregory: but even this will hardly authorize the infer- 
ence, that Theodorus understood the disputed words of the 
same Person, since even if he applied them to ¢wo Persons, the 
Doxology will still be free from absurdity, to whom referring 
to the latter. 

In a subsequent Letter, (p. 57.) Mr. W. has collected vari- 


ous examples of the form ὁ Θεὸς καὶ Κύριος ; “ and it is some- 


of them appear to me to be much to the purpose. That Κύ- 
ρίος is commonly subject to the rule, there can be no doubt: 
the question is, whether Κύριος, being the second Attribute, 
may not be excepted from the rule in the particular form, 
Κύριος “I. Xo.: and of this form the instances adduced are not 
numerous: for even those which have ὁ Θεὸς καὶ Κύριος 
ἭΜΩΝ ’I. Xo. are not admissible, because this position of 
ἡμῶν leaves no ambiguity: if identity were not intended, Κύ- 
ριος ἡμῶν would be preceded by 6, as in the beginning of this 
very verse: the difficulty arises from the single circumstance, 
that Κύριος I. Xo. is a common title of Christ, and is often used 
independently of all which precedes it. Now of unexception- 
able instances, Mr. W. brings only two, the one from Gregory 
of Nyssa, ὁ δὲ Θεὸς ἡμῶν καὶ Κύριος “I. Xp. ὃ παρακαλῶν, &e, 
and another from the Scholiast on Jude, quoted by Matthét, 
N. T. vol. vi. p. 235. These examples proye, I think, that 
Κύριος may be disjoined from “Ins. Χριστός, and be identi- 


{> 
pt 4 


thing,” he observes, “ to see that the phrase is always used of °~ © 
one person.” ‘These examples amount to twenty-six: but few ~~ 


Ἵ ᾽ ν ἐς Bay ΔΗ j Ὧν»; } 
γ vw \ mys : ¥ FS. ? tm. He ts / 


382 Il. THESSALONIANS, 


fied with a preceding Attributive: but that Κύριος may be 
detached from “Ino. Xo. was already probable from 1 Cor. 
vili. 6. καὶ εἷς Κύριος “Incove Χριστός, and also from Phi- 
lipp. ἢ. 11: and yet those passages have been otherwise 
interpreted: the proof required is, that in the form Κύριος 
I, Xo. so frequently occurring in the N. T.) Κύριος com- 
monly is to be separated from the Proper Name, in order to be 
joined with some preceding Attributive: and this proof, I fear, 
cannot be obtained. On the whole, then, I am disposed to 
think, that the present text affords no certain evidence in 
favour of Mr. Sharp. We have seen that the words Κύριος 
"Ino. Χριστὸς are usually taken together; and the acquiescence 
of antiquity induces a strong suspicion, that in this instance 
such was the received construction. On the other hand, the 
Syriac renders the passage by “οἵ our God and our. Lord 
Jesus Christ:” to modern ears, at least, this sounds like an 
expression of identity. 

The Unknown Writer already alluded to, “ prefers, even to 
the Common Version, a construction which should apply both 
Nouns to one Person, viz. not to Jesus, but to the God of 
Jesus:” and he is persuaded that the true rendering is, ‘* by 
the blessing of the God of us and Lord of Jesus Christ :” p. 85. 
The same writer, consistent in his folly, would translate 2 Pet. 
i. 1. * the Saviour of Jesus Christ.” 


CHAP, II. 


V. 3. ἡ ἀποστασία. English Version, “a falling away :” 
Abp. Neweome observes, “‘ from the true Christian faith and 
practice. Some render the Apostacy by way of eminence: but 
in many places of the Greek Testament the Article is used 
without its exact force.” Of the truth of this latter assertion, 
it has now, I hope, become needless that I should urge my 
doubt: see on Matt. νυ. 1. ᾿Αποστασία, from its use in the 
LXX. (for in the N. T. it is found only here and in Acts 
xxi. 21.) appears to denote an act rather than a quality; and 
if so, the Article cannot here be inserted without signifying 
that a particular act is meant. Neither do I see the necessity 
for denying that the Article has here its proper force: since 
Apostacy, however long continued, might fitly be spoken of as 

6 


CHAPTER ΠῚ. 383 


the Apostacy, the several acts marking its progress being con- 
sidered as one whole. 

Same v. ὃ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας. The Papist, Bellarmine, 
yol. i. p. 839. ed. 1590. contends from these words, that Anti- 
christ must be a definite individual, being called Ὃ ἄνθρωπος 
τῆς ἁμαρτίας ; and he wonders that this had not been observed. 
This criticism, however, is well answered by Newton on the 
Prophecies, Diss. xxii. who says that “it is agreeable to the 
phraseology of Scripture, and especially that of the Prophets, 
to speak of a body or number of men under the character of 
one. Thus a king (Dan. vii. viii. Rev. xvii.) is often used for 
the succession of kings, and the high priest (Heb. ix. 7. 25.) 
for the series and order of high priests. A single beast (Dan. 
Vii. viii. Rev. xiii.) often represents a whole empire or king- 
dom in all its changes and revolutions, from the beginning to 
the end. The woman clothed with the sun (Rev. xii. 1.) is de- 
signed as an emblem of the true church; as the woman arrayed 
in purple and scarlet (Rev. xvii. 4.) is the portrait of a corrupt 
communion. No commentator ever conceived the whore of 
Babylon to be meant of a single woman: and why then should 
the man of sin be taken for a single man?” ‘The remark, 
therefore, of Bellarmine is true, that ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας 
must primitively mean an individual; but the inference from 
his remark is of no force; since this is a case in which an indi- 
vidual may represent a multitude. 

V.11. τῷ ψεύδει. Markland (ap. Bowyer) conjectures τῷ 
ψευδεῖ, “ the false one, or the false thing, which he uttereth.” 
The received reading appears not to need correction; τὸ ψεῦδος 


‘is falsehood generally: so John viii. 44. ὅταν λαλῇ τὸ ψεῦδος. 


CHAP. III. 


V. 3. ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ. See on Matt. v. 37. 

V. 14. τῷ λογῷ ἡμῶν διὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς, τοῦτον σημειοῦτε. 
Grotius and others would alter the punctuation, placing a 
comma at ἡμῶν, and making διὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς depend on 
σημειοῦτε. According to this explanation, τῆς ἐπιστολῆς will 
signify a letter to be written by the Thessalonians to St. Paul. 
But then, I think, the Apostle would have omitted the Article, 
and have written either ov ἐπιστολῆς or Ov ἐπιστολῶν, for this 


384 II. THESSALONIANS. 


direct reference to a letter, which was not yet in existence, 
and of which, so far as I know, the future existence was not 
with any certainty to be presumed, appears to be unnatural, 
and to be unsupported by any parallel-example. If, indeed, 
it could be shown that the Thessalonians had promised to write 
to St. Paul, then διὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς might mean “ in your 
letter :” but this is not alleged. That dv ἐπιστολῆς; or ἐπισ- 
τολών, is the proper mode of expressing “ by letter,” where 
the case admits not reference, is evident from 1 Cor. xyi. 3, 
and this Epist. 11, 2. 


385 


I. TIMOTHY. 


4 
lyufa.v. B- Wary oro CHAP. I. 


bsg. V9. δικαίῳ νόμος-οὐ κεῖται. Here we have another pas- 
’ sage in which the Article, usually placed before νόμος, is 
omitted, and, as I conceive, not without design. Macknight’s 
remark, that νόμος, meaning the law of Moses, commonly, but 
not always, has the Article, was noticed on Rom. ii. 13: and, 
judging from his translation, I suppose him to have considered 
this as one of the exceptions; for he renders ‘‘ the Law,” and so 
he explains it in his Note. Rosenmiiller also informs us, that 
‘in explicando hoc loco mirificé a se invicem dissident et dis- 
crepant interpretes. Sed omnia sunt facilia, st animadvertas, 
νόμον ἢ. 1, non esse in universam. legem moralem de officiis 
| agentem (hee enim viris etiam probis lata est,) sed severam 
| illam legis Mosaice disciplinam cum suis penis.” Notwith- 
standing these authorities, I am still of opinion that νόμος is 
here to be understood in the indefinite sense in which it is so 
frequently used in the writings of St. Paul; and that Mr. 
Wakefield’s translation, ‘‘ that no law lieth against a righteous 
man,” expresses the true meaning. ‘The Apostle had said in 
the preceding verse that καλὸς 6 νόμος, ἐάν τις αὐτῷ νομίμως 
χρῆται, i. 6. the Mosaic law is an excellent institution, if men 
would make it subservient to the purposes for which it was 
given, viz. the restraining and subduing of their vicious desires 
and evil habits, (for we read, Gal. iti. 19. ‘‘ the law was given 
because of transgressions ;”) recollecting, continues the Apostle, 
that neither the Mosaic, nor any other law, is directed against 
the just and good, but only against the lawless and disorderly. 
So also Gal. v. 23. St. Paul, having enumerated the fruits of 
the Spirit, love, joy, peace, &c. subjoins, “" against such there 
cc 


4926 I. TIMOTHY, 


is no law,” οὐκ ἔστι νόμος, which appears to be exactly equiva- 
lent to νόμος ov κεῖται in the present verse. In the former of 
these passages, Macknight explains νόμος in the same manner 
in which I would interpret it in both. 

Neither am I aware that the objections which may be urged 
against this interpretation are unanswerable. It may be said 
that the Apostle had confessedly been speaking of the Law of 
Moses in the verse preceding, and that, therefore, he must be 
presumed to do so here also. Ido not, however, deny that 
the Mosaic Law is comprehended in νόμος : I contend only, 
\ that νόμος in this place is not limited to that Law, but that it 
comprises every law written and unwritten, human and divine ; 
nor could the argument of the Apostle be stated with greater 
force, than by his extending what was primarily meant of the 
Law of Moses to Law universally: the Mosaic Law, says St. 
Paul, was intended to restrain the wicked; against the just, 
neither it nor any other law was ever promulged.—Again, it 
_ may be alleged that νόμος seems to be limited to the Law of 
Moses, inasmuch as the lawless and disorderly are explained 
to be those who violate the precepts of the Decalogue. This 
position may, perhaps, be doubted: it ought, however, to be 
remembered, that the precepts of the Decalogue are for the 
most part the precepts of the Law which is written on the 
heart; and that the several vices which St. Paul has enume- 
rated, are such as every system of ethics condemns. Even, 
therefore, supposing him to have alluded more immediately to 
the Decalogue, this allusion will not be inconsistent with the 
supposition, that νόμος was meant of law indefinitely: and in 
speaking of the vices which all laws are designed to restrain, a 
Jew would naturally specify those which his own Law had 


particularly prohibited.—Lastly, it should be observed that. 


this interpretation does not authorize any dangerous infer- 
ences, a commendable dread of which has, I suspect, led some 
Commentators to give the passage a different meaning from 
that which I defend. Wolfius informs us, that ‘‘ comma hoc 
a profanorum hominum abusu vindicat SPENERUuS in Vindiciis, 
&c. p. 376:” without, however, stating either the abuse or the 
vindication. The work of Spener I have never seen: but it is 
easy to conjecture the nature of the abuse of this and some 
other passages in the writings of St. Paul, when they fall into 


ea, 


CHAPTER 1. 387 


the hands of ignorance or enthusiasm. The verse under re- 
view affords no countenance to the frenzy of those who, like 
the Anabaptists of Munster, first persuade themselves that 
they are just, and then conclude that therefore they are not 
amenable to the laws of the Government under which they 
live. ‘There is a wide difference between affirming that the 
just, in the number of whom, however, no man will rank him- 
self without extreme temerity and presumption, are not sub- 
ject to any law, and saying that such are not its proper objects: 
the most virtuous man is and ought to be subject to the laws 
of his country, but he is not the object which those laws 
have principally in view, being the least likely to incur their 
penalties. 

I know not of any other objections which can be opposed to 
the grammatical interpretation of the passage: and the weight 
of those adduced is not such as to preponderate against an 
usage, the ground of which has been ne Rein See Part i. 
Chap. iii. Sect. iii. § 5. pen = 

V. 17. τῷ δὲ βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνωνς. ἀφ δέμεῳ;. ἀρράξῳν: μόνῳ 
σοφῷ Θεῷ. English Version has, ‘ Now unto the King eter- 
nal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God:” (and Newcome 
and Macknight are similar :) thus making ἀφθάρτῳ and ἀοράτῳ 
to agree with τῷ βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων. If, however, they be 
meant to be taken in immediate concord with rw βασιλεῖ, it is, 
as has been shown, against the usage (Part i. Chap. viii.) that 
they should be anarthrous; and I do not perceive that they 
can be taken otherwise, if they agree with τῷ βασιλεῖ at all. 
The true construction is, “ To the eternal King, the im- 
mortal, invisible, only wise God ;” the Article before ἀφθάρτῳ 
being, as frequently elsewhere, omitted before a Title in appo- 
sition. 

I have pleasure in being able, however rare the opportuni- 
ties, to commend Mr. Wakefield; who, in this instance, has 
deviated from his predecessors, not without reason, though 
without remark. I observe that Griesbach in his new edition 
has put a comma after αἰώνων, as I have done above. I have 
no cause to infer from the Latin of any of the Oriental Ver- 
sions, and certainly not from the Syriac of the Peshito, that 
the old Translators saw the true construction: yet Gregory of 
Nyssa (as cited by Suicer, vol. i. p. 596.) has these words: 

~cc? 


388 I. TIMOTHY, 


Srav λέγει ὃ Ociog ἀπόστολος, ἀφθάρτῳ, ἀοράτῳ, μόνῳ σοφῷ 
Θεῷ, κι τ A. If the Fathers have generally been thus correct, 
a question which I leave to others to examine, they were, at 
᾿ least in this instance, better acquainted with the Greek idiom 
than were the Authors of the Oriental Versions. See above 
on Eph. v. 5.—The word σοφῷ is wanting in many authori- 
ties, and is rejected by Griesbach, 


CHAP. Il. , 


V. 5. ἄνθρωπος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. Such is the reading of 
all the MSS. Priceus, however, conjectures Ὁ ἄνθρωπος, as 
in 1 Cor. xi. 2. Matt. xix. 17; xxi. 9. 20. Mark xiv. 20. 
James iv. 12. John vi. 8; viii. 41. But none of these in- 
stances are similar to the present. For my own part, I do 
not perceive that the Article is wanted in this place. I under- 
stand ἄνθρωπος Inc. Xo. to be used as a Title, in the same 
manner with Κύριος "Inc. Xo. nor could Christ be called κατ᾽ 
ἐξοχήν, the man, not possessing the human nature in a pre- 
eminent degree. Michaelis observes, that Luther and other 
Translators have inserted the Article, but that he himself has 
been careful to omit it. 

If any one be still disposed to contend for the Article, I 
can afford him no assistance, except by reminding him of what 
Reiske has remarked, Orat. Gr. vol. iii. p. 490. that before 
ἄνθρωπος, ἀνήρ, &c. the Attic Writers usually omitted the 
Article ; though I believe that Reiske should have said rather, 
that they expressed the Article by the aspiration, viz. ἅνθρω- 
πος. See Dawes’s Misc. Crit. ed. Burgess, p. 128. Even 
this, however, will avail but little, since the vestiges of Attic 
usage are not in the N. T. very common. 

V. 6. τὸ μαρτύριον. Of this abrupt and difficult passage, 
there are various readings and interpretations. D. F. G. and 
Codd. Latini have οὗ τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις ἐδόθη, the 
sense of which is plain. A. omits τὸ μαρτύριον, and Matthiii, 
though he does not adopt this reading, thinks it better than 
most others of that MS. Abp. Newcome is of opinion that we 
may render “ for a testimony to the world at the proper sea- 
son:” but this, I fear, is impossible: see Part i. Chap. iii. 
Sect. i, 4, Mr. Wakefield, in his usual way of rendering 


| 


eee ee iat. 


CHAPTER V. : 389 


the Article, says, ‘‘ that testimony.” I know of nothing better, 
if the received reading be genuine, than to put the clause into 
a parenthesis: ‘‘ the proof of it in due season '.” 


CHAP, V. 


V. 21. ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Κυρίου- Ἰησ.- Χριστοῦ. This 
also is one of the texts which, by applying the rule Part i. 
Chap. iii. Sect. iv. § 2. Mr. Granville Sharp would interpret 
as an evidence of the Divinity of Christ. Several MSS., Ver- 
sions, and Fathers here omit the word Κυρίου, according to 
which reading the passage falls not under the rule: Griesbach 
prefixes the mark of probable spuriousness. The received 
reading may, however, be the true one; and in that case, the 
present verse will deserve consideration. 

Mr. Wordsworth, in-his examination of the Fathers, can- 
didly avows, that “ not in one instance out of fourteen quota- 
tions from the Greek Fathers, and as many at least from the 
Latin,” is the passage explained, so as to favour Mr. Sharp. 
“Some of them determine nothing either way; while the 
greater part correspond strictly in meaning with our English 
Translation.” I really think, supposing the copies used by 
these Fathers to have had the received reading, (and that some 
of them read Κυρίου, may be inferred from evidence adduced 


by Mr. Wordsworth,) on this supposition I cannot doubt that | » 


the particular form, Κύριος "Inc. Χριστὸς ought to be excepted 
from the rule. The grounds of this opinion have been fully 


- detailed above, 2 Thess. i. 12: and the whole of that Note was 


intended to be applicable to the present verse. 

Mr. W. concludes his Inquiry with stating, that “ once, 
indeed, he thought that the Appellation Κύριος might have 
become so appropriate to our Saviour, as to be considered as a 
Proper Name.” I believe that Κύριος, in the form Κύριος 
"Ino. Xo. became, as a Title, so incorporated with the Proper 


Name, as to be subject to the same law: and that the Fathers, | 


in withholding the wished for testimony from the texts in which 


1 V.12. γυναικὶ διδάσκειν οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός. Here the 
Article is omitted, because the Proposition is exclusive;—any woman whatever, 


Chap. 111. Sect, 111, ὃ 5.—H. J. ἢ, 


990 ϑ I, TIMOTHY. 


this form occurs, corroborates the proposed interpretation of 
the other passages.—The Syriac has, ‘‘ before God and our 
Lord Jesus Christ.” 


CHAP. VI. 


V. 5. πορισμὸν εἶναι τὴν εὐσέβειαν. English Version has, 
‘* supposing that gain is godliness.” But the Article, as dbp. 
Newcome has remarked, shows that εὐσέβθεια is the Subject, 
not the Predicate. 

V. 6. ἡ εὐσέβεια. F. G. add Θεοῦ, a reading which is im- 
possible, on account of the Article before εὐσέβεια. Matthdi 
here observes, “ Est hoc recensionis Occidentalis, quod miror 
ab oculatissimo Griesbachio non esse animadversum.” 


abt: 


— 


391 


Il. TIMOTHY. 


CHAP. I. 


V. 8. συγκακοπάθησον τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ κατὰ δύναμιν Θεοῦ. 
Mr. Wakefield here acknowledges that ‘he is quite at a loss 
whether the clause κατὰ δύναμιν Θεοῦ should be joined with 
the Verb, or be connected with εὐαγγελίῳ, the Gospel, which 
is after the power of God.” I cannot perceive that there is 
any ambiguity, for had the clause in question meant that the 
Gospel was after the power of God, the Article would have 
been repeated, τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ Τῶι κατὰ δύναμιν, &e. i. 6 
τῷ ὄντι. So in the next Chapter, ver. 1. ἐν τῇ χάριτι τῇ, 
κι τ᾿ A. et passim. Nor do I know that this rule is ever vio- 
lated: cases resembling 1 Pet. i. 11; iii. 16, &c. are rather 
confirmations of it. Abp. Newcome’s Note is, ‘ according to 
the support which God affords: the early Preachers of the 
Gospel had great support, from the prea that God was 
with them.” 


- CHAP. III. 


V. 6. τὰ γυναικαρία. The best MSS. omit the Article, 
which has the appearance of an interpolation. 

V. 16. πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος (kal) ὠφέλιμος. This is one 
of the texts usually adduced in support of the inspiration of 
the Jewish Scriptures: but it has been doubted whether the 
rendering of the English Version be the true one. Some of 
the ancient Versions, with a few of the Fathers, would omit 
καί, and thus join θεόπνευστος in immediate concord with 
πᾶσα γραφή. In this, however, they are not supported by a 
single MS. still extant. Besides, it is much more easy to 

6 


392 Il. TIMOTHY. 


perceive why καὶ does not appear in these ancient Versions, 
than how, supposing it not to have been in the earliest MSS., 
it found its way into those which remain: for a Translator, 
who had understood θεόπνευστος as agreeing immediately 
with πᾶσα γραφή, as was the case with the Syr.s might find 
it difficult to express καί, which, indeed, even in the original 
would thus have little meaning: on the other hand, and for 
the same reason, if καὶ had bison wanting in the Autograph, 
as its introduction could tend only to embarrass the sense, it 
could hardly be interpolated, and still less retained, by the 
consent of all the Transcribers. 

Mr. Wakefield remarks, that the “‘ Athiopic alone of the 
old Versions does not omit καί, and that the Aithiopic is with 
~ him equivalent to all the rest in a difficult or disputed pass- 
age.” Notwithstanding this declaration, Mr. W. without 
assigning any reason, renders in defiance of the AXthiopic, 
*‘ every writing inspired by God is useful,” &c. I agree, 
however, with him in his translation of πᾶσα γραφή. See 
Part i. Chap. vii. § 1. and I take the assertion to be, “ every 
writing (viz. of the ἱερὰ γράμματα just mentioned) is divinely 
inspired, and is useful,” &c. Ido not recollect any passage in 
the N. Τὶ in which two Adjectives, apparently connected by 
the Copulative, were intended by the Writer to be so unnatu- 
rally disjoined. He who can produce such an instance, will do 
much towards establishing the plausibility of a translation, 
which otherwise must appear, to say the least of it, to be 
forced and improbable. 


CHAP. IY. 

V. 1. ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ Κυρίου "Inc. Xo. There is 
so little authority for omitting the Article before Κυρίου, 
which, however, must be done before this text can be subject 
to the rule Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iv. § 2. that I am rather 
surprised at Mr. Granville Sharp’s having adduced the present 
passage as an example. Many MSS. &c. omit τοῦ Κυρίου, and 
have Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ : the reading which is preferred by Gries- 
bach. Some have τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν. If, however, any one 
should prefer the few which have the requisite reading, I must, 
to save repetition, refer him to 1 Tim. ν, 21. 


393 


TITUS 


CHAP. II. 


V. 13. τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν "Inc. Xo. This 
text also Mr. Granville Sharp* has brought forward to notice: 
he translates it, ‘‘ of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.” 


1 Mr. Winstanley first chooses to introduce a Comma after Θεοῦ, as he does 
also in the place of Jude. He then argues that μεγάλου applies both to Θεοῦ 
and σωτῆρος, and that this explains why the Article is not repeated. But he 
obviously feels that this is very forced, for he adds, ‘ If it be said that our Lord is 
no where else called the Great Saviour, neither is he called ὁ μέγας Θεός, nor any 
thing like it.’ Now really in speaking of a human being, it may be worth while 
to observe, (if the case be so,) that he is often called a Saviour, but that the expres- 
sion, a Great Saviour, does not occur. But if a being is called Gop at all, he is 
called something very like the great Gop indeed !. And Mr. Winstanley, of course, 
does not doubt this. He then states very candidly, that it is very rare to meet 
with Nouns Personal in the Singular Number thus constructed relating to dif- 
ferent persons. But he thinks, that as there are instances of Nouns not personal, 
or where one is, and one is not, so constructed, and as he has found one instance 
in Clem. Alex. 266. viz. τῷ μόνῳ πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ, where both are personal, (which 
instance is obviously one of those noted by Bp. Middleton, where the Article is 
omitted, because no ambiguity could arise,) he thinks himself justified in differing 
from Mr. Sharp. This needs no further remark. His only argument besides these 
is a mere petitio principii, viz. that the words τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ have a just claim 
to be considered as one of the incommunicable titles of Gop the Father. He seeks 
to answer the argument that ἐπιφάνεια is never used but of Christ, by saying 
that it is of no consequence, for (as he found in Erasmus) St. Paul is not speak- 
ing of the appearance of Gop but of the glory of Gop; and our Lord has told us 
that He will come in the glory of His Father. Mr. Winstanley might as well 
have added Erasmus’s observation, that the omission of the Article makes some- 
thing for the opposite (i. 6. Mr. Sharps) opinion.—H. J. R. 


1 St. Athanasius (De Communi Ess. 27.) undertakes to show Ort μέγας Θεὸς 
ἐκλήθη ὁ vide, and he quotes Rom. ix. 5. as well as this place: so that he differed 
from Mr. Winstanley. See Dr. Wordsworth, p. 69.—H. J. R. 


994. TITUS, 


According to the principles already laid down, it is impossible 
to understand Θεοῦ and σωτῆρος otherwise than of one person, 
(see on Ephesians v. 5. and 2 Thess. i. 12.) the word σωτὴρ 
not being exempted from the operation of the rule: nor is 
there a single instance in the whole N. T. in which σωτῆρος 
. ἡμῶν occurs without the Article; except in cases like the pre- 
sent, and in 1 Tim. i. 1. κατ᾽ ἐπιταγὴν͵ Θεοῦ ,σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, 
where σωτῆρος wants the Article, on account of the preceding 
omission before Θεοῦ, exactly as in the common forms, ἀπὸ 
Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν, ἐν Θεῷ πατρὶ ἡμῶν, &c. Clarke, indeed, 
(Reply to Nelson, p. 88.) endeavours to get rid of the true ren- 
dering, by observing that σωτὴρ is sometimes put for“O σωτήρ: 
and he instances Luke ii. 11. Phil. iii. 20. and 1 Tim. i. 1. 
These examples, however, are wholly inapplicable to the pre- 
sent case: the last has been adverted to in this Note; the first, 
in its proper place; and for Phil. iti. 20. 1 refer the Reader to 
the Note on Acts xiii. 23. Clarke thinks that σωτήρ, like 
Θεὸς and Κύριος, partakes in some degree of the nature of 
Proper Names: that Κύριος and even Θεὸς have some pecu- 
liarities, has been shown above, on Luke i. 15. I know not, 
however, of any proof that σωτὴρ has the same peculiarities; 
and even Θεὸς and Κύριος are not used with the latitude sup- 
posed by Clarke: where, for instance, are we to look for Θεὸς 
ἡμῶν, no rule or usage accounting for the omission of the 
Article? But this is only a weak attempt to embarrass an 
antagonist. Accordingly, we learn from Mr. Wordsworth’, 
that all antiquity agreed in the proposed interpretation; and 
many of the passages which he has produced from the Fathers, 
could not have been more direct and explicit, if they had been 
forged with a view to the dispute. 

Some Critics, indeed, of great name, besides Clarke, seem 
to have been aware of the ancient interpretation: of this. 
number was Wetstein, who, without adverting to any of the 
Greek Vathers, informs us that μέγας Θεὸς is to be understood 


1 Dr. Routh (Reliq. Sacr. ii. p. 26.) adds two more to Dr. Wordsworths very 
large collections, viz. Didymus Alexandr. De Trinitate, Tom. iii. 2. ὃ 16. Ei τοῦ 
μόνου Θεοῦ ἐξαίρετον τὸ ὑμνεῖσθαι μέγας Θεός" ἀναφθέγγεται δ᾽ ὁ Παῦλος τοῦ 
μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἴ. X.; and the title of the first Homily ascribed 
to Amphilochius, Eig τὰ γένεϑλα τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἴ. X.— 
H. J. R. 


ΓΤ eae 


ΟΟΗΒΑΡΤΈᾺΚΝ IL. 99 


of Deus Pater; and he concludes with observing, that it was 
so understood by Hilary, Erasmus, and H. Grotius: i. 6. by 
a Latin Writer, a native of Sardinia, who probably had at 
most but a smattering of Greek, and by two modern Scholars, 
confessedly great men, but, compared with ancient Greeks, 
extremely incompetent judges of the question. Of Erasmus, 
especially, this may be affirmed; for an acquaintance with 
Greek criticism was certainly not among his best acquire- 
ments; as his Greek Testament plainly proves: indeed he 
seems not to have had a very happy talent for languages. But 
what says Erasmus on this text? he tells us that the expres- 
sion is eguivocal: he is inclined to think that two persons are 
meant; yet he allows that the omission of the Article before 
σωτῆρος (facit nonnihil) is somewhat in favour of the contrary 
opinion. Grotius, it must be admitted, went very far beyond 
Erasmus in the knowledge of Greek: yet what does he urge 
which could thus influence the mind of Wetstein against the 
concurring judgment of antiquity? Grotius tells us only, that 
Ambrose (i. e. the aforesaid Latin writer, Hilary, the author 
of the Commentary printed with the works of Ambrose) under- 
stood the words as of two distinct persons: and that though 
the reading is not TOY σωτῆρος, yet “it should be recollected 
that in these writings the Article is often inserted where it is 
not necessary, and omitted where the usage would require its 
insertion.” Tedet jam audire eadem millies. Grotius’s state- 
ment amounts only to this, that he preferred one interpreta- 
tion, yet knew not well what could be said against the other.— 
That the Reader may not be misled by high authority, I will 
refer him to Matt. xviii. 17. Mark xvi. 16. John vi. 40. 
Acts xxvi. 30; xxvii. 11. 2 Cor. i. 3. Coloss. ii. 2. 1 Thess. 
iii. 11. 2 Thess. ii. 16. e¢ passim. These instances prove, that 
by the Sacred Writers the rule, both as it respects diversity 
and identity, has been observed: and where’ is the instance in 
which it has been violated? It is idle to tell us, that a certain 
Canon is applicable to other Greek writings, but not to these, 
without attempting to prove so remarkable a difference by a 
single example. 

The Unknown Writer here again attacks Mr. Sharp and Mr. 
Wordsworth; but, as usual, has proved only his utter ignorance 
of the idiom on which he pretends to write. He says, p. 88. 


996 TITUS, 


« the Article which precedes the first Noun, must be supplied 
by Ellipsis before the second:” and on this axiom he founds a 
sort of reductio ad absurdum. But where did he learn that a 
second Article was thus to be supplied by Ellipsis? In such a 
phrase as 6 Κύριος καὶ σωτήρ, a second Article is not to be 
supplied; for then it might as well be expressed; and if it 
were expressed, ὁ Κύριος καὶ Ὃ σωτήρ, then we should have 
two Pronouns, and consequently two different Subjects, with 
their distinct attributes, instead of one Subject, to whom two 
attributes are assumed to belong. See Parti. Chap. ili. Sect. iv. 
§ 2. This writer seems still to have had floating in his mind 
his English illustration of ‘ the King and Queen.” See on 
Ephes. v. 5. Τὸ that his reasoning may, for any thing that 1 
know, apply: that it has nothing to do with the Greek idiom, 
he might possibly have discovered, had he taken the pains 
to inquire. But what absurdities were not to be expected 
in a philological discussion which sets out with the principle, 
that what is true of one language, must be equally true of 
another ? 

The Syriac has in this place, “ of the Great God and our 
Redeemer Jesus Christ.”—In the Annotations of the Assembly 
of Divines, 1651, it is observed on this passage, ‘ To the con- 
futation and confusion of all that deny the Deity of Christ, 
the Apostle here calleth him not only God, but the great 
God.” It would be a curious inquiry, but probably an unsuc- 
cessful one, to attempt to discover the reason why King James's 
Translators, about forty years before, rejected the true render- 
ing of the passage: if, indeed, their own rendering (which may, 
perhaps, be questionable) were not intended to convey the real 
sense, 


CHAP. III. 


V. 4. ἡ φιλανθρωπία τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ὥραν; This and 
some other similar passages ought in strictness to be rendered, 
“‘ of our Saviour God,” as if σωτὴρ had been an Adjective: 
the common rendering would require τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος 
ἡμῶν. Τῷ σωτῆρι Θεῷ has been already quoted from an 
Inscription, Acts xvi. 28. It may be questioned whether, in 
this place, as well as Chap. i. 3; ii. 10. and 1 Tim. ii. 2. the 
** Saviour God” be not Christ, though usually understood of 


CHAPTER ΠῚ. 397 


the Father. The Nouns which severally govern these Geni- 
tives, more especially διδασκαλία, 11. 10. strongly support this 
conjecture. 

V. 5. διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας. A. alone has TOY Xov- 
toov. ‘This is another instance of a reading which could 
scarcely have proceeded from a Greek copyist. See on Acts 
vill. 5. 

Same vy. πνεύματος ἁγίου. 1 understand this of the in- 
SJluence. 

V. 8. τὰ καλά. I do not perceive the force of the Article: 
many of the best MSS. omit it. | 


398 


PHILEMON. 


V. 9. we Παῦλος πρεσβύτης. The common reading, “ as 
Paul the aged,” conveys the idea that the Apostle was thus 
distinguished from others of the same name. The want of the 
Article in the original shows that nothing*of this kind was 
meant: “ Paul, an old man,” is all which there appears. In 
Arist. Eth. Eudem. lib. i. cap. 5. we read Σωκράτης μὲν οὖν 
Ὁ πρεσβύτης wero, k. τ. λ. ᾿ 


Mur whe nw 


399 


HEBREWS. 


CHAP. I. 


V.3. ὃς ὧν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης Kat χαρακτήρ, ὅς. Mack- 
night is induced, by the absence of the Article, to translate 
* an effulgence,” which impresses on the English Reader a 
somewhat different notion. This caution was wholly unneces- 
sary after ὥν. See on Rom. ix. 5’. 

V. 7. τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ πνεύματα καὶ τοὺς λειτουργοὺς 
αὐτοῦ πυρὸς φλόγα. Abp. Newcome, adopting the opinion of 
many eminent critics, translates, ‘‘ who maketh the winds his 
angels, and flames of lightning his ministers.” His translation, 
however, would require τὰ πνεύματα ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ Kal τὴν 
φλόγα τοῦ πυρὸς λειτουργούς. No usage in the language is 
more strictly observed: so in this chapter, ver. 13. See Part i. 
Chap. iii. Sect. π|, § 9, The passage is quoted verbatim from 
the LXX. Ps. civ. 4. Michaelis, (Introd. Chap. xxiv. Sect. xi. 
vol. iv.) on this and some other similar quotations, founds an 
argument for the Hebrew original of this Epistle. 

V. 8. ὁ θρόνος σου, ὁ Θεός, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, x. τ. A. The 
English Version here makes 6 Θεός, as is common elsewhere, 
to be the Vocative case: but Mr. Wakefield ventures to trans- 
late, ““ God is thy throne ;” and in defence of this translation, 
which indeed may boast the support of Grotius and Rosen- 
miller, and also of Semler and Déderlein, (see Abresch Para- 
phr. in Epist. ad Hebr.) he refers us to his work on Early 
Opinions concerning Christ, p. 274. The substance of his 
defence is contained in the remark, that it is ““ contrary to the 
scope of the Psalm,” (viz. the xly. from which the passage is 


1 Again, καθαρισμὸν ποιησάμενος τῶν ἁμαρτίων. This is explained on the 
same principle, and by a reference to Chap. iii. Sect, 111, ὃ 3.—H. J. R. 


400 HEBREWS, 


cited,) ““ and to the rules of grammatical interpretation,” to 
understand ὃ Θεὸς of an address to the Deity. As to the 
scope of the Psalm, Mr. W. supposes the subject of it to be 
the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s daughter. But the 
Rabbins (see Schoettgen’s Hor. Hebr. and Macknight, and 
some good remarks in Swrenhus. Bir. καταλλ.) explained 
that Psalm of the Messiah: and, what is still more important, 
the verse in question is positively applied to the Messiah by 
the Writer of the Epistle, in the chapter under review; the 
whole of which is clearly intended to prove the superiority of 
Christ over all created beings: and he cites the verse as having 
reference πρὸς τὸν υἱόν. It is, therefore, most certain that 
the Psalm relates, if not in a primary, at least in a secondary 
sense (see below on 11. 6.) to the Messiah; and the scope of 
the composition by no means excludes an address, if I must 
not, in deference to Socinian prejudices, say “* to the Deity,” 
at least to One who, in the Hebrew, is called Elohim, and 
even Jehovah, (Isaiah xl. 3. Jer. xxiii. 6.) and in the N. T. 
Oco¢.— With respect to the ‘ rules of grammatical interpreta- 
tion,” Mr. W. is, if possible, even more unfortunate. As a 
Philologist, he should have produced a few unquestionable 
instances in proof that the construction which he would vindi- 
cate, is not without its parallel: for to suppose him ignorant 
that it is attended with some difficulty, is scarcely possible. 
The difficulty alluded to lies in the Article prefixed to θρόνος 
cov. I have, indeed, generally objected to the LXX. as 
evidence in questions respecting the Greek idiom: but as the 
present passage is a citation from the Septuagint Version of 
the Psalms, I am bounden in this instance to place those 
Translators, so far at least as the Psalms are concerned, on the 
same footing with the Writers of the N. T., reserving to my- 
self, however, the right of objecting to the reading, where cir- 
cumstances render it suspicious, in a work which abounds with 
corruptions. Now the point for which I contend is, that the 
Socinian interpretation would require simply θρόνος σου ὃ 
Θεός. Thus Rom. i. 9. μάρτυς γάρ μου ἐστὶν ὁ Θεός" which is 
repeated Philipp. i. 8. So also in the LXX. Psalm xxiv. 1. 
Κύριος φωτισμός μου καὶ σωτήρ pov. Ps. xxvii. 7. Κύριος 
βοηθός μου καὶ ὑπερασπιστής μου. Ps. lili. 6. ὁ Κύριος ἀντι- 
λήπτωρ τῆς ψυχῆς μου. Ps. lxi. 7. αὐτὸς Θεός μου καὶ σωτήρ 


CHAPTER I. 401 


pov. Ps, Ixxiii. 12. ὁ δὲ Θεὸς βασιλεὺς ἡμῶν πρὸ αἰῶνος. I 
will add another instance, because it is adduced by Mr. W. 
himself, to show that God may be styled the rock, the fortress, 
&c. of David: it is Ps. xvii. 3. where, though he speaks of 
grammatical interpretation, the Critic has never noticed the 
grammatical objection which that very passage opposes again 
and again to the translation which he defends: the Psalmist is 
by the LX X. made thus to express himself; Κύριος στερέωμά 
μου καὶ καταφυγή μου Kal ῥυστῆς μου, 6 Θεός pov, βοηθός μου, 
καὶ ἐλπιώ ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, ὑπερασπιστῆς μου καὶ κέρας σωτηρίας μου, 
ἀντιλήπτωρ pov. Now in this accumulation of examples in a 
single verse, there is but one which even apparently favours 
Mr. W., while the rest are decidedly against him; and that 
one on examination vanishes; I mean Ὁ Θεός μου, where the 
reader of the English Version might suppose that the Article, 
according to my argument, should not appear. This Psalm, 
however, is found likewise in 2 Sam. xxii. where, instead of 6 
Θεός pov, βοηθός pov, we read ὁ Θεός μου φύλαξ ἜΣΤΑΙ μου, 
whence it is to be inferred, that in Ps. xvii. also we should 
translate, not “‘ my God, my helper,” as Predicates of Κύριος, 
but “τὴν God is (or, shall be) my helper :” for in Hebrew the 
Verb Substantive frequently suffers Ellipsis—Many more 
proofs might easily be adduced of an usage which is constant ; 
and fewer would have been sufficient, if there were not persons 
who regard Mr. W. as an oracle of erudition. 

I ought not, however, to suppress, that Mr. Wakefield, 
apprehending, as I suppose, that his translation of this verse 
might not be satisfactory to a// his Readers, subjoins in his 
Early Opinions, *‘ Or perhaps, Thy throne is the everlasting 
God.” Mr. W. found, no doubt, in common with other men, 
that it is sometimes easier to devise false solutions, than it is 
to discover the true one, or, where the truth is unwelcome, 
ingenuously to avow it: and here also, as usually happens to 
those who once equivocate, the progress is from bad to worse. 
The former interpretation has been shown to be incompatible 
with the idiom of the Greek language: the latter offends, if I 
mistake not, against both the Greek and Hebrew idioms, and 
also against common sense. I cannot easily believe that even the 
LXX. would admit such a solecism as “ thy throne is ὁ Θεὸς 
εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα," meaning Θεὸς ὁ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα: and if an 


pd 


409 HEBREWS, 


~w 


example can be found in the Hebrew, where God is called 
7y) Day DON, meaning the Everlasting God, it has escaped 
my notice; while the instances in which Ty) D> are used to 
mark the duration of the action, passion, or existence signified 
in the Verb, are numerous: thus, as a single example, Psalm 
li, 10. ty) Dd ODN TOMA NMDA, the meaning is not, “ I 
confide in the Eternal God,” but “ I confide to all eternity in 
God.”—As to the Proposition, “ thy throne is the everlasting 
God,” if it be a mere inversion of the Subject and Predicate, 
it is resolvible into the former rendering, and has only the 
semblance of novelty: but if ὃ θρόνος cov be really to be 
taken as the Subject, then is this second attempt of the very 
essence of absurdity; for what can be understood by saying, 
“ thy throne (i. e. according to Mr. W., Solomon’s throne) is 
the everlasting God?” . | 

I will conclude with noticing what, indeed, is already known, 
that Eusebius, in his Dem. Evang. has, for ὁ Θεός, quoted ὦ 
Θεέ; and that Wetstein, whose bias is elsewhere sufficiently 
manifest, candidly admits, at ver. 9. that 6 Θεὸς is here the 
Vocative, and that the Writer has called Christ by the name 
of God. 


CHAP. II. 


V.4. ἁγίου πνεύματος. This is evidently meant of the 
enfluence. 

V.6. ἄνθρωπος ἢ vide ἀνθρώπου. From the present, and 
from one other application of the 8th Psalm, some persons 
have supposed that it was exclusively intended of the Messiah ; 
and the mention of υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου may possibly have con- 
tributed, though without reason, towards confirming them in 
their opinion: for υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου is here no more than a com- 
mon Hebraism, and cannot, as is plain from the context, be 
meant of the Messiah. What is the Messiah, that thou hast 
such regard unto Him? is a question which the Psalmist would 
hardly ask. It signifies, therefore, no more than “ any son of 
man.” I mean not to insist on the absence of the Articles, 
because in the Hebrew, before 2; the Article could not be 
admitted: the LX -X. therefore, adhering closely to the original, 
have rendered υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου: and they have done so in 
Dan. vii. 183, But other reasons for supposing this Psalm 


CHAPTER II. 403 


to be meant exclusively of Christ, demand fuller considera- 
tion. 

I scruple not to confess myself of the number of those who 
believe that various passages of the O. T. are capable of a two- 
fold application, being directly applicable to circumstances then 
past, or present, or soon to be accomplished ; and indirectly to 
others which Divine Providence was about to develope under 
a future Dispensation: nor do I perceive that on any other 
hypothesis we can avoid one of two great difficulties ; for else 
we must assert, that the multitude of applications made by 
Christ and his Apostles are fanciful and unauthorized, and 
wholly inadequate to prove the points for which they are cited ; 
or, on the other hand, we must believe that the obvious and 
natural sense of such passages was never intended, or that it 
is a mere illusion. The Christian will object to the former 
of these positions; the Philosopher and the Critic will not 
readily assent to the latter. The 8th Psalm, as well as some 
other parts of the O. T. quoted in this Epistle, and indeed 
throughout the N. T., furnishes an illustration of my state- 
ment. 

_ Of the 8th Psalm, the primary and direct purport appears 
to be so certain, that it could not be mistaken. The excel- 
lent Macknight, however, has here a Note, in which he endea- 
vours to prove, that the apparent and obvious sense of this 
Psalm has no existence. His words are, ‘‘ The place here 
referred to is Psalm viii. which hath been generally understood 
of that manifestation of the being and perfections of God, 
which is made by the ordination of the heavenly bodies; and 
by the creation of man in the next degree to angels; and by 
giving him dominion over the creatures.—But this interpreta- 
tion cannot be admitted, 1. Because at the time the Psalmist 
wrote, God’s name was not rendered excellent in all the earth 
by the works of creation, as is affirmed in the first verse of 
the Psalm. The true God was then known only among the 
Israelites in the narrow country of Canaan. Neither had God 
displayed his glory above the manifestation thereof made by 
the heavens. Wherefore the first verse of the Psalm must be 
understood as a prediction of that greater manifestation of the 
name and glory of God, which was to be made in after times, 
by the coming of the Son of God in the flesh, and by the 


pd2 


404 HEBREWS, 


preaching of-his Gospel.—2. Next, our Lord, Matt. xxi. 15, 
16. hath expressly declared, that the second verse of this 
Psalm foretels the impression which the miracles wrought by 
God’s Son in the flesh, would make on the minds of the multi- 
tude, called babes and sucklings on account of their openness 
to conviction, as well as on account of their want of literature. 
Struck with the number and greatness of Messiah’s miracles, 
the multitude would salute him with hosannas, as the son of 
David. And thus his: praise as Messiah would be perfected 
out of their mouth.—3. Farther, it is declared in the Psalm, 
that this strong proof of his Son’s mission was to be ordained 
by God, for the confutation of infidels, his enemies, and that 
he might still or restrain the devil, the great enemy of man- 
kind, called in the Psalm the avenger, because he endeavours 

to destroy mankind, as the avenger of blood endeavoured to — 
destroy the manslayer, before he fled into the city of refuge.— 
4. With respect to the 6th and following verses of this Psalm, 
they are not to be interpreted of the manifestation which God 
hath made of his glory by the creation of man, in regard St. 
Paul hath assured us, that these verses are a prediction of the 
incarnation, and death, and resurrection of the Son of God, 
and of his exaltation to the government of the world. For, 
having quoted these verses, he thus explains and applies 
them; Heb. ii. 8. By subjecting all things to him, he hath left 
nothing unsubjected. But now, we do not yet see all things 
subjected to him. 9. But we see Jesus, who for a little while 
was made less than angels—for the suffering of death crowned 
with glory and honour. Wherefore, according to the Apostle, 
the person who, in the Psalm, is said to be made for a little 
while less than angels, and whom God crowned with glory and 
honour, and set over the works of his hands, and put all things 
under his feet, is not Adam, but Jesus.—5. And whereas in 
the Psalm, the beasts of the field, the fowls of the air, and the 
jish of the sea, are mentioned as subjected, they were with 
great propriety subjected to Jesus, that he might support and 
govern them for the benefit of man, his chief subject on earth: 
seeing the happiness of man, in his present state, depends in 
part on the sustentation and government of the brute creation. 
—Here it is proper to remark, that if τὰ πάντα, the expression 
in the Psalm, includes all things without exception, as the 


CHAPTER II. 405 


Apostle affirms, Heb, ii. 8: 1 Cor. xv. 27. angels as well as 
men being subjected to the person spoken of in the Psalm, 
Adam cannot be that person, since no one supposes that the 
angels were subjected in any manner to him.”—To the Ist 
objection the answer is obvious, that the Hebrew ΥΝΙΤ 
was quite as limited in its acceptation as Macknight could 
wish: see Reland’s Palest. B. i. C. v.: and as to the remark 
that “God had not yet displayed his glory above the mani- 
festation thereof made by the heavens,” it may be replied, that 
nothing of this kind is affirmed; the glory of God is elsewhere 
said to be above the heavens, Ps. exili. 4; cxlviii. 13. meaning 
only, that He is the Most High.—2, The quotation made by 
our Saviour proves the secondary sense, against which I do not 
argue, whilst it by no means disproves the primary: for un- 
questionably the benevolence of God is conspicuous in the pro- 
tection of helpless infancy against violence and oppression.— 
3. Macknight understands the Avenger to mean the Devil: 
but this, though an allowable application, is not necessarily 
the only sense: see Ps. xliv. 16.—4. The fourth objection 
seems to require no other answer than that which was offered 
to the second: it proves the secondary sense, without disproy- 
ing the primary.—5. As to what is said of τὰ πάντα, I think 
the extent of that term in the Psalm is ascertained by the sub- 
joined enumeration of the several classes of brute creatures: 
to say that under the same term angels must be included, be- 
cause angels are subject to Christ, is to assume that the Psalm 
_ has no other than the secondary sense ; which is the very point 
in dispute. | 

The real difficulty of the Psalm, as applied in the Epistle, 
seems to me to lie in the word Oy, which signifies both én a 
᾿ small degree, and also for a short time; the former sense is 
adapted to man, the latter to our Saviour. Macknight, indeed, 
alleges that man is not in a small degree inferior to the angels: 
this, probably, is true, yet it is not a truth to which the writer 
of the Psalm was required to attend: in proclaiming the dig- 
nity of human nature, the remark was sufficiently just, since 
between men and angels the writer knew not, in the chain of 
being, of any intermediate link. Macknight, however, adopts 
an expedient which, if it were authorized, would make every 
thing plain: he supposes the Pronoun Him, in “ Thou hast 


406 HEBREWS, 


made Him,” &c. to refer, not to the immediate antecedent 
Man, or the Son of Man, “ but to a Person not mentioned in 
the Psalm, of whom the Psalmist was thinking, viz. the Son of 
God.” His proofs, however, of this usage are extremely un- 
satisfactory; they are, 2 Pet. ii. 11. 1 John iii. 2. 16. and 
1 Pet. iii. 14. besides the present instance. Now in 1 Pet. 
11. 14. τὸν δὲ φόβον AYTQN pretty plainly refers to the per- 
sons from whom the suffering was to be expected, as implied 
in πάσχοιτε. In 2 Pet. ii. 11. the difficulty is even less; for 
nothing can be plainer than that κατ᾽ αὐτῶν is against the 
τολμηταί, αὐθάδεις, &c. mentioned in the verse preceding. 
And in 1 John iii. 2. 16.. I really wonder that the reference 
should have escaped Macknight’s notice: in ver. 2. we have 
αὐτῷ referring to Θεοῦ in the former part of the verse ; and as 
to ἐκεῖνος in ver. 16. it is the same with ἐκεῖνος in verses 7. 5. 
3; and in ver. 3, it is the same with αὐτῷ in the verse pre- 
ceding; 1. 6. it refers to Θεοῦ; it is first introduced with the 
strictest propriety, the reference being to an antecedent at 
some distance. A question, indeed, may be raised about the 
sense of Θεοῦ : is the Father meant, or is it the Son? Ver. 3. 
seems strongly to favour the latter supposition, for no mani- 
festation had been made but of the Son; and in this case we 
have here a close parallelism to the received, though disputed, 
reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. deserving some notice in the contro- 
versy.—Macknight’s proofs, then, of the usage alleged, are not 
the most convincing: but supposing the reference in the cited. 
passages to have been somewhat more doubtful, how will in- 
distinctness of reference, which is all that can be pleaded, and 
that only in a single instance, apply to Ps. viii. ver. 62 In 
ver. 5. we have αὐτοῦ and αὐτόν, and in ver. 6. we have αὐτὸν 
again: and is it to be inferred from any proof adduced, that 
the last αὐτὸν relates to a person who has never been men- 
tioned or even alluded to in any the remotest manner? This 
would not be indistinctness of reference, but the confusion and. 
destruction of all reference whatever. Besides, we want a few 
examples of this strange anomaly deduced from the Hebrew 
_ Affixes, rather than from the Greek Pronouns Relative.—On 
the whole, therefore, I am persuaded that the meaning of ΟΝ 
derives no illustration from Macknight’s conjecture, but that it 
must be determined on some other ground. Three supposi- 
6 


CHAPTER II. 407 


tions appear possible; either that the Psalmist has used this 
word to signify in a small degree, which is the more common 
meaning, and that Apostle, availing himself of its ambiguity, 
has employed βραχύ τι in the other sense; or else that the 
Psalmist had by inspiration a knowledge of man’s future resur- 
rection and exaltation to the condition of angels, in which case 
he might properly say, for a little time; or, lastly, that the 
Apostle was content to use the phrase, as the Psalmist had 
used it, to signify in a small degree, since this was sufficiently 
expressive of the condition of human nature, though the other 
sense would have been more immediately applicable to the con- 
descension of Christ: and of these the last appears to me to be 


the least embarrassed with difficulties. If the Psalmist has 


declared man to be little inferior to the angels, the application 
of this phrase to Christ will signify, that He took the human 
nature: the only difference will be, that what in the one case 
is made a matter of pride and exultation, is a subject of humili- 
ation in the other. 

I cannot, then, discover any ground for rejecting the ob- 
vious sense of the Psalm under review; and the secondary 
sense can as little be questioned, for a reason already assigned. 
And the same will be true in many other cases. Against the 
doctrine, therefore, of a twofold explanation, what is to be 
urged? I know of no objection-worthy of regard, unless, 
indeed, it be said that the door will thus be opened to the 
caprice of mystics and enthusiasts. But it is not for unauthor- 
ized applications that I contend; it is only for those which 
have been made by Christ or his Apostles; and unless we 
admit that such future applications were originally intended 
by the Holy Spirit, who influenced the minds of the Inspired 
Writers with a view to this very end, it willbe impossible to 
place any of the citations in the N. T., except, indeed, direct 
and avowed prophecies, on any better footing than that of 
being accidentally apposite to the occasion. A quotation 
from the Psalms by St. Paul will not, in its application, possess 
any advantage over a quotation from Horace by Addison. 

That the difficulties on which this reasoning is founded have 
been felt by wise and good men, is evident from the attempt 
which we have witnessed in Macknight, to explain away the 
obvious meaning of Psalm viii.: he saw that its reference to 


408 HEBREWS, 


Christ was not to be denied nor disputed; and not admitting 
a double sense, he had no alternative but that which he 
adopted: but this is to save the application at the expense of 
the passage which is applied, and ultimately even of the 
Christian Revelation: for when once we begin to withhold 
from words their ordinary and natural signification, we must 


not complain, if Infidels charge our Religion with mysticism, , 


or its Expositors with fraud. But to assign, on the authority 
of Christ and his Apostles, to certain passages of the O. T. a 
further and remote meaning, cannot give offence to any one 
who admits the possibility of Inspiration. The Being who 
directs the mind and its operations is Omnipotent; and he 
who shall concede to such a Being any purpose at all, must 
also concede any variety of purposes not inconsistent with His 
Benevolence and Wisdom. These His Attributes are known 
to man, chiefly by the scheme of human redemption. It is, 
therefore, neither unreasonable nor improbable, that having 
the Gospel Dispensation in view, He may not only have sug- 
gested to the Writer of the O. T. expressions and descrip- 
tions adapted to affect the minds of those who should witness 
their future and secondary signification, but may also have 
ordained various events to be the forerunners and types of 
others of greater moment. In examples of both these kinds 
of coincidence, the Sacred Volume abounds: and when we 
perceive how numerous are the phrases and circumstances 
occurring in the O. T., which admitted a hitherto unthought 
of application in the New, we can hardly fail to acknowledge 
in the transactions recorded, and in the language employed in 
both, one directing hand, and One Omniscient Spirit. 

V. 9. τὸν δὲ βραχύ τι παρ᾽ ἀγγέλους, x. τ. A. Abresch 
remarks, that ‘it is inconceivable how the Interpreters are 
embarrassed in settling the construction and sense of this pas- 
sage. Yet the construction is very clearly defined, nor does it 
meet with any opposition from the context. ‘‘ Him, who was 
made somewhat lower than the Angels,” i. 6. who took the 
human nature, “ even Jesus, we behold, on account of his 
having suffered death, crowned with glory and honour:” the 
Subject is, τὸν δὲ βραχύ, x. τ. A....... Ἰησοῦν, and the 
Predicate is all which follows. The subjoined clause, ὅπως 
. +++ + θανάτου, I understand to be the reason assigned why 


CHAPTER ΠῚ. 409 


Christ suffered death as mentioned in διὰ τὸ πάθημα. It is 
remarkable that the Syr. instead of χάριτι Θεοῦ, reads χάριτι 
Θεός, * that God might graciously taste of death.” Adler, 
however, says, that some Nestorian MSS. of the Syr. have 
what is equivalent to ipse enim preter Deum pro omnibus gus- 
tavit mortem : the words preter Deum are explained to signify, 
“in his human nature.” See Verss. Syr. p. 37. 

V. 16. σπέρματος ᾿Αβραάμ. The Article is omitted before 
σπέρματος by Part i. Chap. 111. Sect. ili. § 6: thus also οἶκος 
Ἰσραήλ, &c. passim. Mr. Wakefield had, therefore, no occa- 
sion to translate ‘‘ a race of Abraham:” the Greek idiom does 
not require it, and the English will not endure it. These, it 
is true, are little things: but occurring in almost every page 
of his Translation, they give it the appearance of having been 
made by a person of whom English was not the mother-tongue. 
So also in the preceding chapter, ver. 2. he renders ἐν υἱῷ “ by 
a Son,” which of course implies a plurality of Sons: yet no- 
thing is plainer than that the Son here spoken. of is the same 
who, in John i. 18. is called 6 μονογενὴς τοῦ Θεοῦ. 


CHAP, III. 


V.3. τοῦ οἴκου. Abresch explains τοῦ by τινός, an usage 
unknown to the N. T. The same-Critic would in the next 
verse make ra to mean ταῦτα : but see below, on vi. 3. 

Υ. 6. οὗ οἶκος ἐσμὲν ἡμεῖς. ‘Two MSS. read οὗ ‘O οἶκος, 
and several ὃς οἶκος. It is observed by Abresch, that if οὗ be 
the true reading, the idiom requires the Article before οἶκος; 
and he cites Heb. xii. 26. Acts xviii. 7. John iv. 46. Rom. 
ii. 29. But in all these instances, the Noun governing οὗ is 
the Subject: here οἶκος is the Predicate, in which case the 
Article is usually omitted: I say usually, for where the Sub- 
ject is a Pronoun Demonstrative, it is not improbable that an 
exception may exist. There is not, therefore, any reason to 
infer, that the received reading is faulty, and on that account 
to adopt the reading ὅς, which, after all, does not alter the 
sense: ‘‘ whose household we are,” is equivalent to ‘ which 
household,” if the former be taken in connexion with what 
immediately precedes. 


410 _ HEBREWS, 


CHAP. IV. 


V. 12. ψυχῆς τε καὶ αἵματος. Parti. Chap. vi. $2. So 
ἐνθυμήσεων καὶ ἐννοιῶν, after which καρδίας wants the Article 
by Part 1. Chap. iii. Sect. ill, ὃ 7. 


CHAP. V. 


ΟὟ, 4, ὃ καλούμενος ......6’?Aapdv. With many MSS. 
we should probably omit both these Articles. The latter, in- 
deed, may be tolerated: but the-former disturbs the sense: 
καλούμενος is opposed to ἑαυτῷ, as if the Writer had said, “ not 
of his own accord, but being-called thereto by God.” 


CHAP. VI. 


V. 4. τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς ἐπουρανίου. Abresch here, as in some 
other instances, supposes the Article to supply the place of 
οὗτος, and renders * this heavenly gift :” and on this hypothesis 
principally, he founds remarks which occupy a note of con- 
siderable length. I have already had occasion to observe, that 
there is no authority for such a supposition. There’ may, in- 
deed, be cases in which the sense will not be affected, whether 
we insert the Pronoun Demonstrative or not: this will depend 
on the context. But that τῆς is frequently put for ταύτης, is 
not true; for if it be, what are the cases in which this usage is 
allowable? Besides, they who make this assertion do not 
appear to consider, that if ταύτης; to use the present in- 
stance, were inserted, τῆς would still be requisite. See Part i. 
naps vii. ὃ 5. They should, therefore, rather affirm, that 
οὗτος often suffers Ellipsis: of which, however, I have not 
seen any example. 

V. 5. δυνάμεις τε μέλλοντος αἰῶνος. Markland conjectures 
τε TOY μέλλοντος. This may at the first view appear requi- 
site: yet, I believe, that the received reading is genuine, the 
clause being part of an enumeration of particulars ; hence δυνά- 
pete is anarthrous, and-péAAovtoe αἰῶνος may be so likewise 
by Parti. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. ὃ 7. In the- clause preceding, had 
there been no enumeration, we might have expected TO καλὸν 


CHAPTER VI. 411] 


ῥῆμα TOY Θεοῦ. So also the whole second verse of this 
Chapter is made up of Nouns which would not have been 
anarthrous in other circumstances. Very similar to the pre- 
sent instance is προαγούσης ἐντολῆς in the 18th verse of the 
next Chapter: the προάγουσα ἐντολὴ is the Law of Moses, than 
which nothing can be more definite: yet the Article is want- 
ing, because ἀθέτησις is anarthrous by Parti. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. 
§ 1. It is thus that conjectures the most plausible are often 
found on inquiry to be gratuitous. 

The words δυνάμεις re μέλλοντος αἰῶνος, are rendered by 
Tertullian occidente jam evo, in accounting for which much 
labour had been bestowed to very little purpose: among 
others, Griesbach attempted to solve the problem, but without 
success. ‘They who would see an admirable specimen of con- 
jectural criticism, may consult Matthdi on this passage : his 
Note discovers the hand of a consummate master, as indeed 
does every part of his edition of the New Testament. 

V.12. τὰς ἐπαγγελίας. Mr. Wakefield thinks it “ not im- 
probable that we should read τῆς for τάς, and observes, that 
**so several of the ancient Translators appear to have read. 
The Participle,” he adds, ‘fis used as a Substantive as often.” 
—What is to be gained by this emendation, he does not even 
hint: the word ἐπαγγελία is as frequently used in the Plural 
as in the Singular; and as to the remark, that Participles are 
often used as Substantives, if he mean that of κληρονομοῦντες 
τῆς ἐπαγγελίας would be tolerable Greek, I apprehend that he 
is mistaken. ‘* The Creator of all things” may in Greek be 
expressed by 6 ποιήσας ta πάντα: but he who should write 
τῶν πάντων, would do little honour to his teacher. Yet on 
some points Mr. Wakefield is extremely fastidious. Thus he 
complains that the usual rendering of the 7th verse of this 
Chapter is “ unintelligible and absurd;” and he would there- 
fore j jom ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ, placed at the end of the sentence, with 
ἐρχόμενον, which stands near the beginning. He then refers 
us to Acts xiv. 17. Zech. x. 1. and to a few passages of the 
Classics, which represent rain as coming from Giod, though not 
to a quarter of those which ascertain the same undisputed faet. 
If this and some others of his Notes were not written with the 
intention of making criticism ridiculous, it will be difficult to 
assign to their Author any thing like an adequate motive: 


41 HEBREWS, 


compared with them, the Virgilius restauratus of Martinus 
Scriblerus scarcely maintains its pre-eminence.—In proof that 
μεταλαμβάνει εὐλογίας ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ, applied to the earth, is 
unexceptionable, the Reader may consult Gen. xxvii. 27. and 
xlix. 25. 

V. 16. πάσης ἀντιλογίας πέρας εἰς βεβαίωσιν ὁ ὅρκος. 
Translators generally connect εἰς βεβαίωσιν with 6 ὅρκος. But 
then we should have read 6 εἰς βεβαίωσιν ὅρκος : in which 
remark, however, I find that 1 have been anticipated: see 
Abresch. The meaning is, *‘ The oath (implied in ὀμνύουσι 
preceding) is to them the termination of all controversy unto 
confirmation :” 1. 6. it causes uncertainty to end in assurance. 


CHAP. VII. 


V. 1. οὗτος γὰρ ὃ Μελχισεδέκ. Some doubt has arisen 
whether these words are to be taken in immediate concord: 
the Article appears to me to prove that they are. 

Same vy. τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑψίστουι With many MSS. Wetstein 
and Griesbach have TOY ὑψίστου, which is absolutely neces- 
sary. Part i. Chap. viii. § 1. Scarcely any of Matthdi’s MSS. 
want the true reading. | 

V. 12. καὶ νόμου. Here it is not denied that the Levitical 
Law is meant. See what is said on ver. 18. of this Chapter ; 
above, vi. 5. 


CHAP. VIII. 


ἦν. 4. ὄντων τῶν ἱερέων τῶν προσφερόντων. Three MSS. 
and as many Versions want the words τῶν ἱερέων, and three 
of Matthdi’s omit only the former Article. This latter read- 
ing is to be preferred; ‘‘ there being Priests,” &c. Parti. 
Chap. iii. Sect. iii. ὃ 1. 

Same vy. τὰ Swoa, the gifts, in reference to the Law just 
mentioned. 


1 V.2. τῶν ἁγίων λειτουργός. Λειτουργὸς is here the Predicate of ὃς in ν. 1. 
—H. J.R. 


CHAPTER IX. 413 


CHAP. IX. 


V. 1. τό, re ἅγιον κοσμικόν. English Version, ‘ a worldly 
sanctuary.” ‘This rendering is wholly inadmissible; it would 
require us to read either τὸ ἅγιον TO κοσμικόν, or else τὸ 
κοσμικὸν ἅγιον" of the present form, the whole N. T. furnishes 
not, I believe, one unexceptionable instance: apparent exam- 
ples may always be corrected by the help of the MSS.: see 
on vii. 1. and on 1 John v. 20. Or if it be thought that where 
a Copulative follows the Article, the rules may be dispensed 
with, I offer to the reader’s notice, out of a multitude of in- 
stances, the following: Xen. Hell. iv. p. 314. τά re μακρὰ 
τείχη" Arist. de Rep. v. cap. 12. τῆς re γὰρ ἀρίστης πολιτείας" 
LXX. Ex. xx. 10. τῇ δὲ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ἑβδόμῃ Matt. vii. 17. τὸ δὲ 
σαπρὸν δένδρον. It is, therefore, matter of surprise, that this 
difficulty has not been generally observed; yet, so far as I 
know, Translators both ancient and modern, with a single 
exception, have acquiesced in the common construction. Mr. 
Wakefield, indeed, tells us, “‘ that the reading TON τε ἅγιον 
KOSMON, so suitable to the context, was a conjecture of his 
in very early life, and that he afterwards found it to be the 
reading followed by the Coptic Translator.” He then refers 
us to his Silva Crit. Part v. § 216; where, however, he aban- 
dons his emendation, on discovering in Josephus de B. J. lib. iv. 
the phrase τὴν ἱερὰν ἐσθῆτα περικείμενοι Kal τῆς κοσμικῆς Aa- 
τρείας κατάρχοντες. This Critic, therefore, was led to his 
conjecture merely by the exigency of the context; but he did 
not perceive that the short quotation from Josephus contains 
two examples so unfavourable to the common construction of 
the passage, that they should rather have encouraged him to 
proceed in attempting a new interpretation. It is neither τὴν 
ἐσθῆτα ἱερὰν nor τῆς λατρείας Koopxic’ he saw, however, 
that κοσμικῆς might be an Epithet of λατρείας, and with this 
he was satisfied. eres 

The Coptic was supposed by Mr. W. to have read conform- 
ably with his conjecture. This is a very curious circumstance. 
The Latin of Wilkins is, “ primum quidem igitur tabernaculum 
habuit justitias ministerti et SANCTUM SPLENDOREM:” the 
Coptic word, which is here rendered splendorem, is by La 
Croze (Lex. AXgypt.) explained by ornamentum. Had, then, 


414 HEBREWS, 


the Coptic Translator the reading TON ἅγιον KOZMON, the 
sacred furniture? I believe not; but that his interpretation 
was founded on the reading of all the MSS. τὸ ἅγιον κοσμικόν. 
In Rabbinical Hebrew we meet with the very word ἩΡῚ 2}, 
explained by Busxtorf (Lex. Talm. p. 2006, who cites a pas- 
sage from the Bereschith Rabba, § 19.) to signify ornamenta ; 
and Schoettgen, Hor. Hebr. adduces a Gloss on the same pas- 
sage, which interprets the word by PO WIN IND species ves- 
tium pretiosarum. It is, therefore, conceivable that the Coptic 
Translator’s e¢ sanctum splendorem or ornamentum, may be 
accounted for without having recourse to conjecture ; and that 
too, on either of the hypotheses as to the language in which 
this Epistle was originally written. If it were written, as 
several of the Fathers assert, and as Michaelis, Introd. vol. iv. 
Ρ. 215. attempts to prove by very ingenious arguments, in 7 αἦ- 
mudic Hebrew, it is not impossible that the Coptic Version 
might have been made immediately from an original, in which 
there was no ambiguity: for supposing the Hebrew to have 
been WTP PrP, something equivalent to sanctum ornamen- 
tum would be the almost inevitable translation. It is true, 
that this is to assume either that the Coptic Version was made 
very early, or else that the original Hebrew of the Epistle was 
extant for a considerable time. In the opinion of Wilkins, 
the Editor of that Version, it was made in the middle of the 
third century; but supposing it to have been of somewhat 
later date, I do not discover any difficulty in the supposition, 
that a copy of the original might have been preserved through 
such a period, and yet afterwards have disappeared. Every 
one knows that Greek MSS., which were in use among Scho- 
lars two or three centuries ago, are no longer to be found.— 
On the other hand, if we assume that the present Greek is 


the original of the Epistle, or which is here the same thing, 


that the Coptic Version was made from the Greek Translation, 
there are two points to be conceded; one of which is certain, 
and the other not extremely improbable: first, That the word 
κοσμικὸν existed as a Greek Substantive: of which there can- 
not be any doubt, since we have found the very word written 
in Hebrew characters, any more than there could be of the 
existence in Greek of a multitude of other Talmudic Substan- 
tives, NDAD; PINT, παῤῥησία, διαθήκη, &c. supposing them 


oe 


SS ———EE—— Oe αν δ νι... 5.» .-- 


CHAPTER IX. 415 


of less frequent occurrence in the Greek Writers:—and, se- 
condly, That the Coptic Translator might know κοσμικὸν in 
this place to be a Substantive, though three or four other 
Translators from the Greek were either ignorant of this usage, 
or did not advert to it: the extent of this improbability every 
one sees at once. 

The next question respects the context, in deference to 
which Mr. Wakefield was led to risk his conjecture: but οὗ. 
the context we cannot judge, unless we first agree as to the 
Substantive to be joined with ἡ πρώτη. If we read with some 
authorities, ἡ πρώτη σκηνή, then, as Wolfius observes, ἅγιον, 
meaning the sanctuary, will not suit the passage, since the 
Tabernacle cannot well be said to comprise itself: for which 
reason, by τὸ ἅγιον he would understand vasa sacra totumque 
apparatum Leviticum, which is precisely what I suppose κοσ- 
μικὸν to mean. Schleusner, indeed, explains ἡ πρώτη σκηνὴ 
by economia Mosaica, to which the objection of Wolfius will 
not apply.—The great majority, however, of MSS. and other 
authorities, omit σκηνή, and make ἡ πρώτη to agree with δια- 
θήκη mentioned in the preceding verse; a reading which Mr. 
Wakefield, with most Critics, adopts. According to this, if 
the substantive sense of κοσμικὸν be not necessary, it is at least 
perfectly admissible ; for nothing can be more apposite than to 
say, that ‘‘ the former Covenant had ordinances of worship, and 
the splendour of the Levitical Priesthood.” | 

Lastly, if it should be thought that, after all, κοσμικὸν must 
be rendered as an Adjective, I am ready to allow that this 
sense is possible, though not so the received construction: κοσ- 
μικὸν cannot be assumed of τὸ ἅγιον, but must be asserted of 
it by an Ellipsis of ἦν or ὥστε εἶναι: “ the sanctuary (was) 
κοσμικόν," or it had its sanctuary (so as to be) κοσμικόν, which 
in this case I should render emblematic of the mundane system. 
Macknight, though he did not attend to the construction, 
appears to have thought that κοσμικὸν might be so translated ; 
since in his view of this Chapter he observes, “‘ The Apostle 
begins with acknowledging that the Covenant made at Sinai, 
of which the Levitical Priests were the Mediators, had ordi- 
nances of worship appointed by God himself, and a sanctuary 
which was a representation of the world or universe.” He 
afterwards refers us to the well-known account of the Taber- 


418 HEBREWS, 


nacle, given by Josephus, Antiq. lib. ii. § 7. edit. Hudson. 
According to this construction, it will follow that the Coptic 
Translator mistook the Adjective κοσμικὸν for the Substantive ; 
which, however, is extremely improbable: he could not fail to 
know the adjective sense of the word, though other Translators 
may easily be imagined to have been unacquainted with its 
substantive sense. On the whole, I prefer the construction 
adopted by the Coptic Version.—A friend of mine, whom I 
shall characterize as another Nicias, 


ν᾽ 8 ἊΨ 
- - - = = = = ἰατρον ἐόντα, 
K Ν a Py , δὴ λ 7 5 , 
at ταῖς ἐννέα δὴ πεφιλαμένον ἔξοχα Μοίσαις, 


on having read this Note, suggested that τὸ ἅγιον κοσμικὸν. 
may mean the Holy Beauty, or Beauty of Holiness, mentioned 
Ps. xxix. 2. and elsewhere. To say the least of this ee 
ture, it is too good to be thrown away. 

Υ. 7. ἅπαξ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ. So Luke xviii. 12. die τοῦ σαβ- 
βάτου. See above, on Matt. xx. 2’. 

V. 8. τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου. With the Articles, as usual, 
where an act is imputed to the Holy Spirit. So above, iii. 7. 
and below, x. 14. Also in the 14th verse of this Chapter, διὰ 
πνεύματος αἰωνίου may be taken in the Personal sense, the 
Articles being omitted on account of the Preposition: though 
many with Vitringa, Obss. Sacre, vol. i. 1031. understand it 
of the Divine Nature of Christ. For myself, I prefer the 
former: compare Rom. viii. 11. Some authorities, indeed, for 
αἰωνίου have ἁγίου, which would leave no doubt: but the other 
reading greatly preponderates. 

Mr. Wakefield would not omit either epithet. . He trans- 
lates, ‘‘ who offered himself with a spotless mind unto God ;” 
and in his Note he observes, διὰ πνεύματος duwpov” (ἀμώμου 1 
suppose to have been an error of the press) “ more literally, 
spotless in his mind,” adding that the AXthiopic has no epithet 
to πνεύματος. ‘Thus this single Version, whenever it can be 
made subservient to the purpose of getting rid of an obnoxious 
phrase, is to be paramount to all other authorities. Perhaps, 
however, Mr. Wakefield’s affection for the A‘thiopic would 
not have increased, on a more intimate acquaintance with it. 


4 See Note, p. 41.—J. 5. 


CHAPTER ΙΧ. 417 


On one occasion at least (see above, p. 366.) he was by this 
very Version “‘ deserted at his utmost need,” and that too at 
the moment when it was practising on his credulity by insidi- 
ous offers of support. And how far, in the present instance, 
does it succour him in his distress? Not, as I suspect, in the 
smallest degree: for the Latin, which from its similarity to the 
Greek, can here hardly be incorrect, has “‘ gui obtulit seipsum 
per Spiritum Deo absque maculé :” the whole of which amounts 
to nothing more than that this Translator has said, “ the 
Spirit,” meaning the Holy Spirit, than which nothing is more 
common. Or would Mr. W. render “ per Spiritum absque 
macula” by spotless in his mind? It will bear this translation 
just as well as does the Greek: for supposing διὰ πνεύματος to 
be the true reading, and conceding to Mr. W. the privilege of 
forcing ἄμωμον out of its place, where are we to look for a. 
phrase similar to διὰ πνεύματος ἄμωμον, spotless in his mind ? 
When Christ is said to be ¢rowbled in his mind or spirit, we 
read, John xiii. 21. ἐταράχθη τῷ πνεύματι: and ‘ the humble 
in spirit” are called (Matt. v. 3.) πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι, not διὰ 
mvevmatoc.—The reading ἁγίου, the same Writer thinks “ is 
not amiss,” meaning with.a holy mind: but here again we have 
to seek for authorities which may justify such a translation. 
It is painful to behold a man whose general character and 
conduct betrayed no want of pride, thus condescending to sub- 
terfuge after subterfuge, and ready to submit to any expedient, 
however humiliating, if it promised but for a moment to aid 
the cause which he had at heart. ᾿Αλήθειαν καὶ Παῤῥησίαν 
was the Motto which Mr. Wakefield caused to be inscribed 
on his portrait: in the exercise of the latter of these, he 
yielded to no controul; it were much to ve wished that his 
adherence to the former had been equally unshaken. Can- 
dour, indeed, requires us to impute to ignorance, that which 
cannot be proved to originate in malice. There is, however, 
in the ignorance of this writer, if so we must regard it, the con- 
sistency which usually marks design: his ignorance uniformly 
operates to a given end: and if this be the ground on which his 
advocates shall choose to defend his integrity, they must concede 
that his learning was prodigiously overrated, and must assign 
him a place among scholars of far more modest pretensions '. 


ΕΥ, 13, τὸ αἷμα ταύρων καὶ τράγων. See Chap. vi. § 2. et infra. —H. J. R, 
Ee 


418 HEBREWS, 


*V. 21. τῷ αἵματι, the blood; mentioned above, ver. 19. 

V. 27. κρίσις. This word, though used of the final judg- 
ment, very properly wants the Article in this place; the Pro- 
position not asserting the notoriety or magnitude of the event, 
but only that it will happen. 

V. 28. εἰς τὸ πολλῶν. Here Bentley conjectured εἰς τὸ 
ΤΩΝ πολλών : but this, like the multitude of conjectures on 
the N. T., remains unconfirmed by subsequent collations of 
MSS.; neither do I perceive, pace dixerim viri tanti, the 
absolute necessity for deviating from the common reading. 
We are told that of πολλοὶ is often equivalent to πάντων : it 
is not, however, quite certain that the Apostle here meant to 
express πάντων; the verse concludes with the mention of 
those ** who wait for Him,” i. e. who wait for Christ’s second 
coming, in humble hope of receiving their reward: and these 
manifestly are not the whole human race. So also in this 
Epist. ii. 10. it is said that Christ bringeth many sons, πολ- 
Aove υἱούς, unto glory: see also Matt. xx. 28; xxvi. 28. 
Mark x. 45. The reason why, in some places, Christ is said 
to give Himself a ransom for ad//, and in others, only for many, 
seems to be, that when all are mentioned, it is meant that to 
all He has offered the terms of salvation; and where many are 
spoken of, it is considered that by a// the terms will not be 
accepted. There is, therefore, no ground for the Calvinistic 
interpretation of this and similar texts. 


CHAP. X. 


V. 10. ἐσμὲν διὰ τῆς προσφορᾶς. Many MSS., all indeed 
of Matthai’s, except one, have ἐσμὲν ΟἹ διά, x. τ. A. This 
reading has so little the appearance of an interpolation, that it 
is scarcely possible to doubt its authenticity; for without the 
Article the whole is plain. The passage will thus be similar 
to Rom. 11. 27. σὲ TON διὰ γράμματος. See on 1 Cor. xiv. 9: 
and the meaning will be, “‘ by which will we of the sacrifice” 
(or who partake in the sacrifice) “ of Jesus Christ are sancti- 


1 V.19. τῶν μόσχων καὶ τράγων. This is an excellent instance of what is 
said in the latter part of Chap. iii, Sect. iv. ὃ 2.—H. J. R. 


6 


CHAPTER X. "419 


fied once for all:” I know not what else can be made ‘of it. 
The Arab. Lat. has evident traces of the same reading, “ sanc- 
tificati, ut qui sanctificati sumus.” 

VY. 25. τὴν ἡμέραν. The day of the dissolution of the Jewish 
State. See on 1 Cor. 11, 13. 

V. 29. τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς χάριτος. Mr. Wakefield would trans- 
late, “‘ the mercies of the Gospel,” but laments that “ the pre- 
sent ignorance of Scriptural phraseology will not allow, in this 
and many other instances, alterations which he gladly would 
have made.” I am afraid, however, that no very intimate 
acquaintance with Scriptural phraseology is to be inferred 
from the proposed correction. He tells us that “ spirit of 
grace, favour, or kindness, signifies spiritual kindness, or 
spiritual mercy; viz. the mercy of the Gospel.” There cer- 
tainly is in the ancient Oriental Tongues an usage, of which 
Mr. W. could not have been wholly ignorant, but of which his 
recollection was so indistinct, that he has adduced from it an 
inference directly contrary to the fact: it is, that Attributes 
are frequently expressed, not as with us by means of Adjec- 
tives, but by the Genitives of the names of Attributes, made 
to depend on the Noun to which the Attribute belongs. See 
De Dieu, Gramm. Ling. Orient. p. 68. Thus we find that, in 
Ps. xxii. 2. “ tranquil waters” are called in the Hebrew, the 
waters of quietness, in the LX X. ὕδατος ἀναπαύσεως : in 
Zech. xii. 10. “a benign influence” is, in the Hebrew, an 
influence of benignity, in the LXX. πνεῦμα χάριτος : “ the 
Holy Spirit” is continually named in the Syriac Version, the 
Spirit of Holiness : and “ the Gracious Throne,” a title of the 
Almighty, is in this Epist. iv. 16. 6 θρόνος τῆς χάριτος: 
lastly, “" the all-gracious God” is, 1 Pet. v. 10. 6 Θεὸς πάσης 
χάριτος. A hundred similar examples might easily be col- 
lected. It appears, therefore, that in reality it is the Noun 
governed which expresses the Attribute, and not the governing 
Noun, as Mr. W. supposed: and the sense will be, not “ spi- 
ritual grace,” but the gracious Spirit, i. e. the Holy Ghost. 
And this interpretation exactly suits the context: that the 
Writer should in the same verse speak of trampling on the Son 
of God, and of insulting the gracious Spirit, will seem very 
intelligible and natural to those who admit the personality of 
the Holy Ghost: and they who do not, ought at least to show 

Ee? 


420 HEBREWS, 


that ἐνυβρίζειν in Greek has for its object things and even 
qualities, and that to ‘insult the mercies of the Gospel” is 
tolerable sense. This chasm in the evidence I am unable to 
fill up; and I confess myself to be one of those to whom, as 
Mr. W. supposed, his rendering “‘ would appear a most strange 
and unaccountable perversion of the original.” 

V. 38. ὃ δὲ δίκαιος. See above, Rom. i. 17°. 


Same γ. ἐὰν ὑποστείληται. See on 2 Cor. viii. 12’. 


-CHAP. XI. 


ἦν. 35. τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν. The proffered deliverance: the 
History is that of Eleazar, 2 Macc. vi. The deliverance was 
definite and specific, one obtained by submitting to an act 
of base dissimulation.—Mr. Wakefield understands the pas- 
sage exactly in the same manner. 


CHAP. ΧΙ]. 


V.2. ὑπέμεινε σταυρόν. Endured a cross. To have written 
TON σταυρόν, as one MS. reads, would have been improper: 
the cross on which Christ suffered, was not at the time of his 
suffering pre-eminent above any other cross; which, however, 
the presence of the Article would imply. We have, therefore, 
Philipp. 11. 8. “ the death of a cross.” 

V. 9. τῷ πατρὶ τῶν πνευμάτων. Macknight translates, 
“ the Father of our spirits,” I suppose because of the phrase, 
*‘ fathers of our flesh,” preceding. I consider both to be 
Hebraisms for fleshly and spiritual: so also does Mr. Wake- 
field ; which was not to be expected after what we have seen 
above at x. 29; nor is it probable that he would have adopted 
this interpretation, had it interfered with his known prejudices. 
“ Mihi res, non me rebus subjungere” is as much the principle 
of the criticism of Mr. Wakefield, as of the philosophy of 
Aristippus. The Syriac is very remarkable, “‘ to our spiritual 


1 See also Gal. iii. 11.—H. K. B. 

2 Also on John viii. 44. pages 347-8,—J. S. 

5 V. 7. κληρονόμος. See Chap. iii. Sect. iii, § 1, 2, and 3, and compare 1 Pet. 
ii; 13. — HS. 


CHAPTER XIII. 421 


Fathers :” Schaaf, however, refers us to the Notes of T'remel- 
lius, which I have not at hand. 

V. 24, παρὰ τὸν Αβελ. There does not appear to be any 
difficulty in this reading, though it has been the subject of 
conjecture. Παρὰ here, as in many other places, marks com- 
parison; and “ speaking better things than Abel” must mean, 
than the blood of Abel. I much prefer τὸν to τό, the various 


reading. 


CHAP, XIII. 


V. 14. τὴν μέλλουσαν. The Heavenly Jerusalem. See last 
Chapter, ver. 22. 


JAMES. 


CHAP. I. 


V. 11. ὁ ἥλιος σὺν τῷ καύσωνι. The word καύσων, which 
occurs in two other places of the Ν, T., Matt. xx. 12. and 
Luke xii. 55. is usually rendered heat: I understand it, how- 
ever, of a burning wind, the Hebrew OP, which in the LX X. 
is sometimes called καύσων, and sometimes Νότος. In the 
- passage of St. Matthew, if the mere heat of the day had been 
meant, it is probable that we should have found τῆς ἡμέρας 
placed after τὸν καύσωνα : and of St. Luke there is an apposite 
illustration in Maillet, as quoted by Burder, Orient. Cust. 
vol. i. No. 58, ““ If the north wind happens to fail, and that 
from the south comes in its place, then the whole caravan is so 
sickly and exhausted, that three or four hundred persons are 
wont in common to lose their lives by the fire and dust of 
which this fatal wind is composed.” This quotation is applied 
to Numbers xi. 1. to which, however, it is perhaps less suit- 
able. As to the verse under review, there is something un- 
natural in representing the sun to rise with its heat; which 
cannot be intense compared with that of noon; though a hot 
wind may as well blow at the rising of the sun, as at any 
other period. I conclude, therefore, that καύσων in the N.T. ὦ 
has been commonly misunderstood.—I should add, however, 
that Schleusner admits the meaning for which I contend to be 
possible in the present passage. 

V. 27. παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ καὶ πατρί. Many MSS.—re. This 
may be on account of the Preposition, and the rule will remain 
inviolate. 


CHAPTER 11. 423 


CHAP. I.° 


V. 8. νόμον βασιλικόν. Our Eng. Version, “ the royal 
law,” leads the Reader to expect in the Greek τὸν νόμον τὸν 
βασιλικόν. I suppose, however, that νόμον is here used as in 
Rom. ii. 25. for that St. James, as well as St. Paul, occasion- 
ally employed the word in this sense is evident from ver. 11. 
and from iy. 11. Βασιλικὸς I interpret excellent, in which 
case the Article is unnecessary. Wetstein quotes from the 
Meno of Plato τὸ μὲν ὀρθὸν νόμος ἐστὶ βασιλικός, which is 
very much to the purpose. Similar to the present passage in 
its general form, though without βασιλικὸν, is Romans xiii. 9. 
Michaelis (Anmerk.) explained νόμον βασιλικὸν to signify “a 
law made not for slaves, but for kings,” which I do not altoge- 
ther understand. 

V. 11. παραβάτης νόμον. That νόμος is here to be taken 
in the general sense of morality, is, 1 think, evident from the 
tenor of the argument: ‘‘ He, who said, Thou shalt not com- 
mit adultery, said also, Thou shalt not kill: if then thou 
abstainest from one of these crimes, yet committest the other, 
thou art a violator of that morality, which the whole and 
every part of the Law was designed to promote.” What im- 
mediately follows (ver. 12.) is a further confirmation; since 
it shows that* the παραβάτης νόμου does not act, as one, who 
shall be judged by the Law of Liberty: and this Law certainly 
is not the Law of Moses. Michaelis understands it of Law in 
the most general sense, the Law of morality and virtue *. 


1 The 14th verse of this Chapter is entitled to notice on account of the Ar- 
ticle. Πίστιν first occurs without the Article; and then on the Renewed Men- 
tion it is ἡ πίστις. The meaning therefore is, Can his faith save him—the faith 
which he possesses? And this the following argument shows to be merely a spe- 
culative profession of faith.—J. 5. 

2 V.20. ἡ πίστις χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων νεκρά ἐστεν. Winer observes, that the 
Article here shows that the works referred to are the works naturally pro- 
duced by a lively faith. In short, πίστις and ἔργα are here correlatives. Bishop 
Middleton has taught us, that in exclusive propositions the Article is omitted, 
and χωρὶς ἔργων would thus be, I think, without any works whatever, which is not 
what the sentence requires. The sense is, that faith, without the right or full 
performance of its proper works, is dead.—H. J, R. 

3 V¥. 13. See Heb. xi. 7.—H. J. R. 


424 . JAMES, 


CHAP. III. 


V. 18. καρπὸς τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἐν εἰρήνῃ σπείρεται. Mr. 
Wakefield would join ἐν εἰρήνῃ with καρπός, so as to mean 
peaceable fruit, and not with σπείρεται. But see above, 
2 Tim. i. 8. Many MSS.—rij¢, which is ἘΡΡΈΔΕΙΣ right, 


καρπὸς being anarthrous. 
CHAP. IY. 


V. 5. τὸ πνεῦμα. Whatever be the import of this passage, 
(and a multitude of interpretations may be found Βὴ Wolfius,) 
τὸ πνεῦμα appears to be used in the personal sense *. 

V. 11. καταλαλεῖ νόμου. On this passage Macknight A 
serves, “ In Bengelius’s opinion against the Law of Moses. 
But why may not the Law in this passage be the Gospel, called 
twice in this Epistle the Law of Liberty? Bengelius says, 
that this is the last time the Law of Moses is mentioned in the 
N.'T.” These very different opinions may justify a presump- 
tion, that neither interpretation is right: I believe that the 
argument of the Apostle is not confined either to the Law of 
Moses or to the Gospel, but extends to Religion or Moral 
Obligation in its most general sense. ‘‘To all religion,” says 
the Apostle, ‘‘ candour and good-will are essential, whether we 
be Jews, Christians, or even of the number of those, who are a 
Law unto themselves:” Rom. ii. 14. A rabbinical Writer in 
Schoettgen, Hor. Heb. has said, Nemo alteri detrahit qui non 
simul Deum abneget. I understand, therefore, that the word 
νόμος is used here as in Rom. ii. 25.  Rosenmiiller and 
Schleusner explain it of Christianity. 

V. 12. ὃ νομοθέτης. Mr. Wakefield remarks, that all the 
old Versions, except the Arabic, add καὶ ‘O κριτής. He 
should have omitted the Article, as do the very numerous 
MSS., of which he has not made mention: the Lawgiver and 


1 “ Do ye think that the Scripture speaketh in vain? And does the Spirit of 
God that dwelleth in us lust to envy?’ But if the passage be taken as in our 
own Version, τὸ πνεῦμα will signify the disposition which dwelleth in us; where 
the force of the Article is obvious. The passage has great difficulties, in what- 
ever way we understand it.—J. S. 


CHAPTER V. 425 


Judge must be taken of the same person. The addition καὶ 
κριτὴς is probably the true reading. 


CHAP. V. 


V. 6. τὸν δίκαιον. It is doubted, whether by this be meant 
the Just One, viz. Christ, as in several other places, or whether 
just persons generally y be intended: Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. ii. 
δ 2. Macknight is of the former opinion ; Rosenmiiller of the 
latter. I incline to the former of these: the address is to the 
rich and more powerful Jews, who had actually “ condemned 
the Just One:” on any other supposition, therefore, than that 
the passage was meant of the condemnation of our Saviour, 
terms so obviously applicable to that event would hardly have 
been employed. Besides, the hypothetic use of the Article will 
here be much too strong. To say that ye have condemned and 
put to death all the just, is more than the truth would autho- 
rize.—There is, indeed, a difficulty in ἀντιτάσσεται immediately 
following. Some would understand it tmpersonally, “ resist- 
ance is not made;” but this is not supported by any parallel 
instance, neither does the Greek language love Impersonals so 
formed. Bentley, Phileleuth. Lips. p. 74. very ingeniously 
conjectured ὁ Κύριος for οὐκ, i. 6, ΟΚΣ for ΟΥ̓Κ: and cer- 
tainly it is in favour of this conjecture, that in Prov. iii. 34, 
(which was quoted in the preceding Chapter, ver. 6. with the 
various reading 6 Θεὸς) we find ὁ Κύριος ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσ- 
σεται" still, however, no MS. is found to read ὁ Κύριος.---Ἰ am 
of opinion that he (meaning Christ), carried on from τὸν δίκαιον, 
is the Nominative to ἀντιτάσσεται: and that the sense is, ‘‘ The 
Saviour opposes not your perverseness, but leaves you a prey 
to its delusion.” The old Versions in part confirm this inter- 
pretation; they all have in the Latin, et non restitit vobis, or 
something equivalent: they have only changed the Tense, 
unless indeed this Latin Preterite be a too close translation of 
something in the several originals, which, like the Benoni 
Participle in the Hebrew, has the meaning of the Present 
Tense. Some Commentators appear to have perplexed them- 
selves by supposing that ἀδελφοὶ in ver. 7. is addressed to the 
same persons, who in ver. 1. are called πλούσιοι, and that thus 


426 JAMES. 


the discourse is continued from the beginning: a little atten- 
tion will show that this is a mistake. 

V. 9. κριτής. So many MSS. have Ὁ κριτής, that it ought 
to have been admitted into the received text. 

V. 10. ὑπόδειγμα ss... 2 « » τοὺς προφήτας. Part i. 
Chap. il. Sect. ii. § 4. ose 


427 


I. PETER. 


CHAP. I. 


V. 11. ἐδήλου τὸ ἐν αὐτοῖς πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ. A few MSS. 
have in one word ἐδηλοῦτο : there is, however, no objection to 
the Article, Χριστοῦ being frequently a Proper Name. See 
on Mark ix. 40. ; 

Υ. 23. Θεοῦ. Dr. Mangey conjectured τοῦ instead of Θεοῦ, 
but without any apparent reason. 


CHAP. 11.} 


Υ. 13. εἴτε βασιλεῖ. Most Commentators understand this 
of the Roman Emperor: the Article may be omitted by Parti. 
Chap. vi. ὃ 2. Below, ver. 17. where the same reason does 
not apply, we have τὸν βασιλέα. In the LXX. indeed, we 
find βασιλεὺς without the Article, though used in the most 
definite sense, as in Prov. xxiv. 21. φοβοῦ τὸν Θεόν, υἱέ, καὶ 
βασιλέα, an instance which some have supposed to invalidate 
the canon contended for by Mr. Granville Sharp. 'This ex- 
ample, however, is inconclusive, partly as being a close transla- 
tion from the Hebrew, and partly because the word βασιλεύς, 
even in the Attic Writers, may when definite reject the Ar- 
ticle. See Apollonius de Synt. edit. 1590. p. 90. | 

V. 24. iva ταῖς. Dr. Owen (ap. Bowyer) observes, ‘ Pro- 
bably a marginal Note.” Does he mean that the two words 


1 I have never been satisfied with the common translation of ver. 7. of this 
Chapter: ὑμῖν οὖν ἡ τιμὴ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν: “Unto you, therefore, which 
believe, he is precious.’ The Article seems to lead to a different construction: 
it refers to ἔντεμον in the preceding verse; and the force of it, if I mistake not, 
is, f Unto you which believe, is the preciousness,”’ viz. which I speak of.—J. S. 


428 I. PETER, 


ἕνα ταῖς are a marginal Note? But they are necessary to the 
sense. Or is it meant that the whole clause has been intro- 
duced from the margin? Of this I perceive no other probabi- 
lity, than that the passage is somewhat similar to Rom. vi. 11: 
but even in this similarity there is a remarkable discrepancy ; 
for ἀπογενόμενοι occurs in no other place than the present 
throughout the N. T. 


CHAP. III. 


V. 8. ὃ ἔξωθεν ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν . . . « « «- κόσμος. The 
Reader will perceive, that we have here a deviation from an 
usage, which has so often been noticed: according to which 6 
ἔξωθεν κόσμος cannot govern ἐμπλοκῆς: yet “O is indispensable : 
we should, therefore, have expected ΤῊΣ ἐμπλοκῆς ΤΩΝ τρι- 
xov. On turning, however, to the various readings, it will be 
found that the difficulty may not have originated with the 
Apostle, but in the error of some Copyist. We learn from 
Wetstein that six MSS., three Edd. and one Father, instead 
of ἐμπλοκῆς have ἐκ πλοκῆς : none, indeed, of these MSS. is 
in Uncial characters. From Griesbach, Symb. Crit. it appears 
that the same reading is found in his Cod. 60. and in some 
MSS. of Origen. Of Matthii’s MSS. likewise jive have this 
reading: among them is his Cod. f, of which he says in his 
Pref. to the Catholic Epistles, that ‘in Actis et Epist. Ca- 
tholicis cuilibet prestantissimo par haberi debet.” In his Note 
this excellent Critic remarks “ ἐκ πλοκῆς haud indocta est cor- 
rectio: retinut vulgatam, etiam ob similitudinem membrorum, 
que est in ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν, περιθέσεως χρυσίων et ἐνδύσεως 
ἱματίων. He then adduces an instance of ἐμπλόκιον and also 
of πλόκιον, but not of ἐμπλοκή : for this word see Harpocration 
and Hesychius voce κρώβυλος ; also Clem. Alex. Pedag. ii. 
p- 199: the want of authority, therefore, will not be a suffi- 
cient reason for rejecting ἐμπλοκῆς. On the other hand, πλοκὴ 
is not at all an unusual word, being found in the LX X. Exod. 
xxvill. 14. where our Version renders it wreathed work, and 
in Lucian’s Amores we have the very phrase ἡ πλοκὴ τῶν τρι- 
xov. The cognate πλέγματα occurs 1 Tim. ii. 9. The read- 
ing, then, ἐκ πλοκῆς is far from being “ indocta correctio,” 
supposing it indeed to be a correction; which is not very pro- 


iit wig 


“ὦ 


CHAPTER III. . 429 


bable: for it is much easier to conceive that ἐκ πλοκῆς written 
ἜΚΠΛΟΚΗΣ, should have offended a Copyist, who therefore 
wrote ἐμπλοκῆς, than that ἐμπλοκῆς should have been altered 
into ἐκ πλοκῆς : one of these corrections required only a know- 
ledge that the word ἐκπλοκὴ is without authority and without 
analogy, ἐκπλέκω not being found: the other indicates a better 
acquaintance with the language, and somewhat, perhaps, of 
critical skill; for ἐμπλέκω, as well as ἐμπλόκιον, is a legitimate 
word ; and even ἐμπλοκή, as we have seen, is not without ex- 
ample: the difficulty arising from the want of the Article 
would not occur to every Copyist. Matthai, indeed, retains 
the common reading merely ‘ οὗ similitudinem membro- 
rum: Ido not, however, perceive that this harmony is at 
all injured by the var. reading: ὁ ἔξωθεν ἐκ πλοκῆς τριχῶν καὶ 
(x) περιθέσεως, &c. appears to me to have all the regularity, 
which could be desired even in an Attic Writer. I am, there- 
fore, disposed to adopt the var. reading, unless it can be shown 
that no considerable difficulty attends the received one; and I 
have the greater confidence in proposing this emendation of 
the received text, from having observed, that scarcely in any 
instance, which seemed unfavourable to the rules laid down in 
Parti. of this Work, have the MSS. of the N.'T. unanimously 
withholden the assistance required. Some of them have either 
supplied or rejected the Article as the case demanded, or have 
exhibited a reading, which places the passage, as in the present 
instance, entirely on a different footing. 
ες It is scarcely necessary to observe, that the old Versions, the 
Latin of them at least, and probably the Versions themselves, 
afford no evidence either way, the sense being much the same: 
neither do I insist that the construction κόσμος ἐμπλοκῆς τρι- 
xv, the adorning of the plaiting of the hair, is somewhat un- 
natural: Swidas explains κρώβυλος by ὃ ἜΚ τῶν τριχῶν 
πεπλεγμένος KOZMO®: and Arist. de Repub. lib. vii. cap. 2. 
has καθάπερ ἐν Καρχηδόνι φασὶ τὸν ἘΚ τῶν τριχῶν ΚΟΣΜΟΝ 
λαμβάνειν. That a few authorities omit τριχῶν in St. Peter 
does not relieve the objection.—It may be supposed that the 
common reading is to be vindicated by Part 1. Chap. vi. ὃ 2: I 
have not, however, observed that this usage ever interferes 
with the law of Regimen. 


4.30 I. PETER, 


V. 4. τοῦ πρᾳίος καὶ ἡσυχίου πνεύματος. Of the disposition 
which is, &c. Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. ἢ. ὃ 1, 

V. 18. τῷ πνεύματι. Eng. Version, “ quickened by the 
Spirit.” So also Newcome, Macknight, and Wakefield, 1 have 
had occasion to signify (see on Rom. viii. 13.) that there is no 
indisputable instance in the N. T., in which any thing is said 
to have been done or suffered by the Holy Spirit, where 
πνεῦμα, Whether in the Genitive or Dative Case, is not go- 
verned by some Preposition. But not only is the Preposition 
here wanting; even the Article has so little authority, that it 
is rejected from the text by Wetstein, Griesbach, and Mat- 
thai; though the last, indeed, I know not from what cause, 
wished to retain it, had not the MSS., as he confesses, com- 
pelled him to abandon it. For what would happen, supposing 
the Article authentic? Not that the passage would speak of 
the Holy Spirit: the sense would be, in his Spirit, viz. the 
spirit or mind of Christ, as John xiii. 21. and elsewhere. And 
this is not remote from what I consider to be the true meaning 
“dead carnally, but alive spiritually :” the only difference is, 
that by retaining the Article, for which there is very little au- 
thority, we destroy the form of the Antithesis between σαρκὶ 
and πνεύματι, an Antithesis, which may be found in the next 
Chapter, ver. 6: also Galat. 11. 3. We find likewise ἘΝ 
πνεύματι, ἜΝ σαρκί, κατὰ πνεῦμα, κατὰ σάρκα: in none of 
which instances is the Antithesis ever violated by the insertion 
of the Article before one of the Nouns, while it is wanting 
to the other. 

Soon after the writing of this Note, (for it cannot be dis- 
sembled that my Work has been long in hand,) a Sermon on 
this and the two following verses was published by the late 
Bp. Horsley ; a man in whose death the Church of England 
has sustained a loss which it may not easily repair: to various 
and recondite learning, to nervous and manly eloquence, and 
to powers of reasoning which have rarely been equalled, he 
added a zeal and intrepidity of spirit which enabled him to 
prosecute a glorious, though an unpopular, career, in an here- 
tical and apostate age. In the Sermon alluded to, “ The 
descent into Hell,” this Prelate objects to the English Version 
of πνεύματι, on the ground that the Prepositions are not in 


a Ὁ 


CHAPTERS IV. V. 431 


the original, and that such a translation destroys the Anti- 
thesis. He thinks that the exact rendering would be, “ being 
put to death in the flesh, but quick in the spirit.” This accu- 
rately agrees in substance with what I had written.—I observe 
also, that Michaelis (in his Anmerk.) gives a similar interpreta- 
tion, and refers us to Matt. x. 28. Luke xii. 4, 5. The 
ancient Versions, with the exception of the Aithiopic, seem 
likewise to have understood the passage in the same manner. 


CHAP. IV. 


V.17. ὃ καιρὸς τοῦ ἄρξασθαι τὸ κρῖμα ἀπὸ τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ 
Θεοῦ. This is usually translated, “ the time is come,” &c. 
Thus we shall have a Proposition of Existence, Part i. Chap. 
ill. Sect. iii. ὃ 1. which would require the omission of 6, as in 
the Alex. and in a good MS. of Matthdi. 'The received read- 
ing demands a different construction; which, however, the 
context appears not to admit. 


CHAP. V. 


V. 8. ὁ ἀντίδικος ὑμῶν διάβολος. Markland (ap. Bowyer) 
observes, *‘ This seems to be meant of the Jews: it is not said, 
Ὁ Διάβολος." It is true that the word usually has the Article, 
but I do not see on what ground its omission could alter the 
sense in the manner supposed. Campbell, indeed, remarks, 
Prelim, Diss. p. 184. 4to. that when the Devil is meant, the 
Article is prefixed; and he instances as the only exceptions, 
Acts xiii. 10. and Revel. xx. 2. besides the present verse. 
The two former agree with usages established in Part i.: of 
the present example, I believe the translation should in strict- 
ness be, “‘ your opposing evil Spirit,” as if ἀντίδικος had been 
an Adjective. An instance of the same construction has been 
noticed above, Titus iii, 4, 


Il. PETER. 


CHAP, I. 


V. 1. τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος “Ins. Xo. The Note of 
Wetstein on τοῦ Θεοῦ is, ‘ scilicet πατρός, ut Tit. ii. 13. ef 
comm. 2.” ‘This indicates a knowledge of some different inter- 
pretation ; and that interpretation, it cannot be doubted, is the 
same which has lately been supported by Mr. Granville Sharp. 
In his examination of the Fathers, Mr. Wordsworth has not 
been able to collect any important evidence in behalf of the 
proposed explanation: but the reason has been assigned by 
him: the Second Epistle of Peter is rarely quoted by the 


1 On this text Mr. Winstanley is able to make a very weak case. He allows 
explicitly that the arrangement of the words suggests no objection to Mr. Sharps 
rendering; nay, that it agrees exactly with the arrangement in ver. 1]. τοῦ 
Κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, and this parallelism, he adds, would 
undoubtedly support Mr. S. as a mere Grammarian or Philologist; ‘ but on the 
broad principles of general criticism, there arise very strong objections to Mr. 8.5 
interpretation.’ The strength of these objections is equal to that usually found 
in objections raised on the broad grounds of general criticism, in opposition to 
the narrow grounds of grammatical accuracy. ‘ The Attributes Lord and Saviour, 
applied to the same Person, are usually connected by the Copulative; but 
the Nouns σωτὴρ and Θεὸς are as regularly connected without it, as in 
Tit. i. 4; ii. 10; 111, 4; and therefore the Copulative must appear to ren- 
der St. Peter somewhat ambiguous.’ The words σωτὴρ and Θεὸς occur toge- 
ther only five or six times in the whole N. T.! Does general criticism teach us 
to make Canons thus, and say that because two words, not necessarily connected 


at all, are used in one way five or six times, they cannot be used in another, when . 


that other is just as agreeable to nature and good sense? ‘It will be said,’ 
says Mr. W. ‘ why, then, do you not understand the writer according to the pre- 
vailing idiom of the language? I answer, because he appears to me to have 
explained himself in the very next verse, ἐν ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ Θεοῦ Kai ᾿Ιηδοῦ τοῦ 
Κυρίου ἡμῶν. It is not very probable that he would thus, in immediate conse- 
-cution, use the words God and the Saviour Jesus Christ, and God and our Lord 
Jesus Christ, first to signify one Person and then two, without. any assignable 
reason for so remarkable a difference.’ That is to say, Mr. W. does not think 
it very probable that two different meanings should be expressed in two different 


forms !—-H. J. R. 


et es 


VS pre ~» 


CHAPTER I. 433 


Fathers: their evidence, therefore, in a question like the pre- 
sent, is not easily obtained. ‘The only passage adduced by 
Mr. W. is from the Scholia, under the name of Gcumenius ; 
and the passage proves little or nothing, because it is rather 
in the way of reference or allusion than of actual quotation. 

As this instance differs not in any point of importance from 
Titus ii. 13. I can have little new to advance with respect to 
its interpretation. ‘The passage is plainly and unequivocally to 
be understood as an assumption, that “ Jesus Christ is our 
God and Saviour.” The only difference between the present 
text and Titus ii. 13. is, that ἡμῶν is here placed after the 
first Noun, not after the second: but for a plain reason, the 
position of the Pronoun does not affect the sense: in all such 
cases, strictly speaking, the Pronoun ought to be repeated after 
each and every Noun, (supposing more than two,) τοῦ Θεοῦ 
ἡμῶν Kat σωτῆρος ἭΜΩΝ καί, x. τ. A. and if it be only once 
inserted, for the repetition is unnecessary, it is wholly unim- 
portant, whether it be after the first or after the last Noun; if 
after the first, then it is understood after the remaining ones; 
if after the last, it comprehends those which precede: the only 
mode, in the present instance, of limiting the effect of ἡμῶν to 
τοῦ Θεοῦ, would have been to prefix an Article to σωτῆρος; 
and why that second Article, on the supposition that two per- 
sons were intended, was not employed, as (among a multitude 
of examples) in 1 John 11. 22. τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱόν, it might 
be difficult to show: in that instance, indeed, it may be said, 
that the very sense makes the distinction, and yet no MS. has 
ventured to read τὸν πατέρα καὶ υἱόν. 

Scholars, probably, will feel that this reasoning is altogether 
superfluous: but Scholars are not they for whom it was in- 
tended: the Unknown Writer was unable to comprehend this 
subtilty; and it is not impossible that some of his admirers 
may have experienced the same embarrassment. It is likewise 
for the same class of Readers, if into the hands of such this 
Work should fall, that I notice the 11th verse of the present 
Chapter, τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος ᾿Ιησοῦ Xo. and also 
ii. 90. Than the former, it is impossible to conceive an 
example more similar to that under examination: even the 
position of ἡμῶν is the same: the reason why it is not drawn 
into the controversy is, that no one doubts that ‘f our Lord 


Ff 


494 II. PETER, 


and Saviour” are there meant of the same Person: I have said 
no one; but perhaps the Unknown Writer ought to be ex- 
cepted; for he thinks that the present verse would be best 
rendered by “ the God of us, and Saviour of Jesus Christ:” 
and it is to be presumed that he would render verse 11. in the 
same manner. But thus he will be involved in a dilemma: if 
he mean that ““ God and Saviour,” or in verse 11. “ Lord and 
Saviour,” are to be taken of different Persons, who, it may be 
asked, even according to his own theology, is the Saviour of 
Jesus Christ, as contra-distinguished from God? Or if he 
mean them of the same Person, what was his Book designed to 
prove? Only, that a certain theory is ‘‘ fanciful and un- 
founded,” of which, however, he is glad to avail himself, when 
it suits his purpose: for it ought to be observed, that in his 
construction he virtually admits and applies the rule, though 
he chooses to divest Jesus of the title of Saviour: his transla- 
tion will differ from that proposed, only in making “Ine. Xp. to 


be in Regimen instead of Apposition, in which difference nei- - 


ther the rule nor the principle of the rule is at all concerned : 
the offence is merely against the uniform tenor of Scripture, 
which represents Christ as the Saviour of men, but has no 
where called the Father the Saviour of Jesus Christ.—The 
expression, τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος, occurs again at ill. 2. and 
that too, unless we regard three or four obscure MSS., without 
the addition Ino. Xo. There, perhaps, we shall be told that 
something is to be supplied. Still it will be necessary to 
understand them of one Person, and the mention of the Apostles 
Jeaves no doubt that the Person is Christ. But quorsuwm hee 
tam putida ? 

If the position of ἡμῶν be thought of any importance, though 


the contrary has been shown, it may be right to observe, that — 


in three of Wetstein’s MSS., and in the greater part of Mat- 
thai’s, including all his best, ἡμῶν is wanting.—The Syriac has 
““ of our Lord and our Redeemer,” the Preposition not being 
repeated before the second Noun. For the Coptic, see on 
_Ephes. v. 5. 

Clarke ( Reply to Nelson, p. 83.) says on this place, * I do 
acknowledge that these words may, in true grammatical con- 
struction, equally be rendered, either Zhe righteousness of our 
God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, or, The righteousness of 


SLU 


CHAPTER I. 435 


our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” Below he adds, “" that 
neither of these opinions can be demonstrably disproved:” and 
that “ the English Translation in our Bibles determines it 
according to my explication ;” i. 6. to mean fwo persons. I do 
not, however, allow that ‘neither of these opinions can be 
demonstrably disproved ;” the contrary, I think, has been 
shown: and as to ** the Translation of our Bibles,” if he mean 
the earlier Bibles, as well as that in present use, he appears 
to be exceedingly mistaken: for if we may rely on Mr. Cruté- 
_ well, as quoted by Mr. Sharp, the words were rendered, “ of 
our God and Saviour Jesus Christ,” in the Versions of Wick- 
liff, Coverdale, Matthews, Cranmer, in the Bishops’ Bible, the 
Geneva, the Rhemish, as well as by Doddridge, Wesley, and 
others who have lived since Clarke wrote. To the above-men- 
tioned English Translators may be added the name of Tindal, 
the author of the first printed English Version of the N. T., 
who has given the very same rendering. Or if Clarke meant 
to speak only of the authorized Version, I must repeat what 
was said above on Titus ii. 13. that even this is questionable : 
it is true that King James’s Translators have expressed them- 
selves incautiously, if they understood the words of one person ; 
but so they have elsewhere: and in Col, i. 3. “ We give thanks 
to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” it would be 
absurd to affirm that they distinguished between God and the 
Father of Jesus Christ, however the improved accuracy of 
modern writing might justify such an inference. At any rate, 
King James’s Translators are not to be regarded, to the ex- 
clusion of all who preceded them: nor is it a question in which 
the opinion of any Translator is of great weight. 

V.19. ἔχομεν βεβαιότερον τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον. English 
Version has “a more sure word of Prophecy,” as if βεβαιό- 
τερον were to be taken in immediate concord with what fol- 
lows. Subsequent English Translators have rightly rendered, 
** we have the word of Prophecy more firm, or confirmed’.” 
A good Note on this text; by Markland and Bowyer, may be 
found in Bowyer’s Conjectures. 

Same v. ἡμέρα. Many Editions have Ἢ ἡμέρα: the Editors 
did not consider that the day spoken of was not yet in exist- 


? Or, “ The prophetic word which we have is more sure.”’—J. S. 


Ff2 


486 il. PETER, 


ence, in which case the Article is more properly omitted.— 
Φωσφόρος is used as a Proper Name. 


CHAP. 11. 


V. 5. ἀρχαίου κόσμους The English usage, and that pro- 
bably of most nations, would lead us to expect TOY ἀρχαίου 
κόσμου: yet no MS. has the Article. How are we to explain 
the omission? I do not think that what was observed on the 
anarthrous use of κόσμος, Gal. vi. 14. will apply in the present 
instance. ἤάρχαιος κόσμος appears to be the same with κόσμος 
ἀσεβῶν in this verse, “ a multitude of wicked persons,” where 
the Article is not required. May not, then, ἀρχαίου κόσμου 
be regarded as equivalent to κόσμου ἀρχαίων: At one time 
I thought that ἄρχαιος might want the Article in the same 
manner as πρῶτος and other Ordinals: but the former solution 
appears preferable. 

V. 8. βλέμματι γὰρ καὶ ἀκοῇ 6 δίκαιος ἐγκατοικῶν, K. τ. A. 
It has been made a question whether βλέμματι καὶ ἀκοῇ de- 
pend on 6 δίκαιος or on ἐβασάνιζεν. Of the ancient Versions, 
the Vulg. and Aithiop. appear to have adopted the former 
opinion; the Syr. and Arab. the latter: the Copt. seems to 
have followed a totally different reading: which, howeyer, is 
not very intelligible. Among the moderns, I know of no 
Translator, except Mr. Wakefield, who makes βλέμματι to 
depend on 6 δίκαιος : but in this case, as Raphel has observed 
after Beza, the order would have been 6 βλέμματι καὶ ἀκοῇ 
δίκαιος" it may be added, that οὗτος would probably have been 
inserted at the beginning of the sentence. See on Gal. iii, 11. 

V. 15. τὴν εὐθεῖαν 6d6v.. The MSS. &c. almost with one 
eonsent omit τήν, which therefore seems to be spurious. In 
the LX X. Isaiah xxxiii. 15. I find λαλῶν εὐθεῖαν ὁδόν, where 
the Translators were under no restraint from the Hebrew. ‘‘ A 
straight road” appears to be equivalent to rectitude. I cannot, 
however, but remark, that the style of St. Peter is even more 
anarthrous than that of St. Paul, a circumstance which is not 
at all at variance with the vehemence of his character. See on 
Rom. i. 17. 

V. 20. εἰ yap ἀποφυγόντες. Three MSS. for εἰ have oi, a 
reading which is much approved by Abresch, (Paraph. in Heb. 


CHAPTER III. 437 


p- 385.) but which I do not understand. According to the 
common reading, the sense is very plain; the Apodosis begin- 
ning at γέγονεν. That proposed, seems to make the Apodosis 
begin and end with ἡττῶνται, while the clause which follows 
γέγονεν, k. τ. A. becomes wholly detached from the context. 


CHAP. III. 


V. 10. of οὐρανοί. Many MSS. want oi, and, I think, 
rightly: the Article is wanting before orofyea and γῆ, which 
naturally require it, as much as does οὐρανοί. Part i. Chap. vi. 
δ 2. Below (same verse) the Alex. alone—ra before ἐν αὐτῇ : 
but there the Article was indispensable; without it, ἐν αὐτῇ 
would not be connected with ἔργα. See on 2 Tim. i. 8. 


498. 


I. JOHN. 


CHAP. I. 


V. 2. τὴν ζωὴν αἰώνιον. Itis so printed in Wetstein: other 
Editions confirm the rule by having τὴν ζωὴν THN αἰώνιον. 
The omission may be an error. . 

V. 6. τὴν ἀλήθειαν. This I understand of the Gospel, or 
rather of its precepts: so the same Writer in his Gospel, 
ili, 21. 

CHAP. II. 


V. 1. "Ino. Χριστὸν δίκαιον. Mr. Wakefield would make 
δίκαιον to agree immediately with παράκλητον; in which, I 
perceive, that he is supported by the Arabic and the Aithiopic. 
I am not satisfied with the disjunction of δίκαιον from the 
Proper Name: at the same time, I think that our Version, 
“ Jesus Christ the righteous,” is rather beyond the original: 
the Writer might indeed so have expressed himself; as it is, 
he has said only “ Jesus Christ, a righteous person.”—Mark- 
land’s conjecture, TON δίκαιον, does not appear to be neces- 
sary. 

V. 13. ἐγνώκατε τὸν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς. This is the reading, so far 
as I know, of all the MSS.; and it might be thought impos- 
sible that so plain a sentence should be liable to misconstruc- 
tion. ‘* Ye have known the Person who was from the begin- 
ning, or, who has existed from eternity.” So 6 ἐν τοῖς ovpa- 
voice means Him who is in heaven: but it is needless to adduce 
examples of an usage which continually presents itself to the 
notice of all readers of Greek.—There have, however, been 
Critics who were dissatisfied with the received reading, and 
with the sense which that reading conveys. Dr. Mangey 
would for τὸν aw ἀρχῆς read AYTON ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς : this resem- 


“ὙΦ 


CHAPTER II. 439 


bles most of the emendations of the N. T.; or is, perhaps, 
somewhat worse than the greater part of the collection: for 
Dr. Mangey appears to have been the Davus, not the G:dipus, 
of conjecturers. Mr. Wakefield adopts the translation which 
such a reading would authorize: ‘‘ Ye have known Him from 
the beginning ;” where, as is evident, am’ ἀρχῆς is thrown upon 
ἐγνώκατε: and he does not even hint in his Notes that such a 
Version is not justified by the original, and that it entirely 
alters the sense of a very important text. His ardent love of 
truth might have been gratified by such an acknowledgment: 
he might have added, that all the ancient Versions, on which 
he usually lays so much stress, understand τὸν am’ ἀρχῆς 
according to its obvious sense, and that the Latin of his instar 
omnium, the AXthiopic has (quasi κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν) Primum: in 
short, it would have done him honour to have confessed that 
he had nothing to bear him out, but his prejudices and the 
conjecture of Dr. Mangey. I would not, however, be thought 
uncandid; I would speak of men only according to their pre- 
tensions; and I would not try modest merit by a criterion from 
which it shrank. It cannot be forgotten that Mr. W. was a 
philologist by profession ; the editor of Greek Tragedies; the 
author of a celebrated Diatribe; the projector of a Greek 
Lexicon; and a Grammarian, whose loss has been publicly 
lamented, si gua est ea gloria, by Mr. Horne Tooke. These. 
remarks will not apply to Macknight, who, indeed, has ren- 
dered the passage in the same manner. with Mr. W., but who, 
besides that he never professed any extraordinary degree of 
philological skill, has honestly and fairly told us what he knew. 
His Note is, “ So I translate τὸν am’ ἀρχῆς; because the 
Article is often put for the Pronouns Ὃς and αὐτός, see Ess. 
IV. 72. also because the Apostle is speaking of Jesus Christ, 
mentioned ver. 6.—If the Reader does not admit this use of 
the Article, he may consider the expression as elliptical, and 
may supply it in this manner; because we have known, rov 
Ἰησοῦν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, Jesus from the beginning ; have known. his 
disengagement from the world, and his contempt of its riches, 
honours, and pleasures.” On turning, however, to Essay IV. 
I do not find a single instance to support the translation: we 
there learn, indeed, that 6 δὲ εἶπεν signifies ‘‘ and he said,” and 
that ὁ ἀδικῶν is “ he that doeth wrong ;” and there are other 


440 I. JOHN, 


similar instances: as to Rom. vi. 10. I have no doubt that this 
excellent Divine is mistaken: ὃ there is the Neuter of ὅς, and 
signifies in that, or something equivalent. There is, therefore, 
no foundation for the rendering which he would adopt; and 
the only part of his Note to which I can accede, is, that τὸν 
ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς is Jesus Christ. This is to be inferred, not only 
from the context, but from the circumstance that there was no 
occasion to assert the eternity of the Father, and the Father is 
expressly mentioned (τὸν πατέρα) in this very verse. This 
text, therefore, is another of those which affirm the eternal 
pre-existence of Christ; and it harmonizes exactly with the 
language of the same Writer in the exordium of his Gospel, 
“Τὴ the hepimnang was the Word.” 

V. 22. ὃ ψεύστης. English Version, Who is a liar.” It 
is certain that something more is meant; and the context 
leaves no doubt that ὁ ψεύστης is the same with ὁ ᾿Αντίχριστος 
following. : 

Same v. tov Πατέρα καὶ tov Υἱόν. No MS. omits the se- 
cond Article. ‘There are, however, instances to be found in 
the writings of the Fathers, in which the omission is obsery- 
able, the word Υἱὸς applied to Christ having gradually become, 
in some sort, a Proper Name; besides, this deviation could 
not easily, from the very nature of the.case, be productive of 
ambiguity. 

V. 25. τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον. Erasmus, Editions 1 and 2. 
omits the latter Article. See on v. 20. 


CHAP. III. 


Vi A ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία. A convertible Proposition. 
Part i. Chap. i. Sect. iv. § 1. | 

V. 18. γλώσσῃ. A great many MSS. have τῇ γλώσσψ. 
This is preferred by Griesbach. The organ of speech is here 
meant: but the Article may be omitted by Part i. Chap. vi. 


§ 2. 


1 It is true that ἁμαρτία and ἀνομία have just been mentioned, but in that 
mention the Article serves the purpose of hypothesis, or shows that each word is 
taken in its fullest sense—all sin, &c. And it is clear enough that the Article is 
used in the same sense here, and not for renewed mention.—H. J. R. 


CHAPTERS IV. V. 44] 


CHAP. IV. 


V.9. τὸν μονογενῆ. Erasmus and some of his followers 
omit the Article, though it is necessary: no MS. supports 
this reading. See on Acts xxiy. 14. 


CHAP. V. 


Vy. 7, 8. Τρεῖς εἰσιν of μαρτυροῦντες [ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πα- 
The, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα" καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 
Καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ;] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ 
ὕδωρ καὶ TO αἷμα᾽ καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. Every one knows 
of how much controversy this passage has been the subject, 
and that the words which I have enclosed in brackets are now 
pretty generally abandoned as spurious. It is foreign from my 
undertaking to detail the arguments by which this decision has 
been established ; and as little is it my purpose to call in ques- 
tion their justness and solidity. He who would see the con- 
troyersy briefly, yet clearly, stated, may consult the Preface 
to Mr. Marsh’s Letters to Mr. Travis, and an Appendix to 
the second volume of Mr. Butler's Hore Biblice: and if he 
wish to enter more fully into the inquiry, the same Appendix 
will direct him to almost every thing of importance which has 
appeared on the subject. The probable result will be, that he 
will close the examination with a firm belief that the passage 
is spurious; more especially if he be of opinion that it rather 
obscures than elucidates the reasoning. 

It has, however, been insisted, that the omission of the 
rejected passage rather embarrasses the context: Bengel re- 
gards the two verses as being connected ‘‘ adamantind coheren- 
tid:” and yet, it must be allowed, that among the various inter- 
pretations there are some which will at least endure the 
absence of the seventh verse. But the difficulty to which the 
present undertaking has directed my attention, is of another 
kind: it respects the Article in εἰς τὸ ἕν in the final clause of 
the eighth verse: if the seventh verse had not been spurious, 
nothing could have been plainer than that TO ἕν of verse 8, 
referred to ἕν of verse 7: as the case now stands, I do not per- 
eeive the force or meaning of the Article; and the same difli- 


442 I. JOHN, 


culty is briefly noticed by Wolfius. In order to prove that 
this is not merely nodum in scirpo querere, 1 think it right to 
examine, at some length, what are the occasions on which, 
before cic, the Article may be inserted. 

The Article, when prefixed to cic, is not used in any pecu- 
liar manner, but is, as in all other cases, subservient to the 
purpose either of reference or of hypothesis. _ 

The passages of the N. 'T.-in-which εἷς or. ἕν occurs with the 
Article, are somewhat more than twenty; without the Article, 
it is extremely common. Of its hypothetic use, I have ob- 
served no instance: in the way of reference, we find it opposed 
to ὃ ἕτερος, Matt. vi. 24. Luke xviii. 10: sometimes to ὁ 
ἄλλος, Rev. xvii. 10: sometimes to εἷς, 1 Thess. v. 11: also 
to ὁ εἷς, Matt. xxiv. 40. Rom. v. 15. We find also ὁ εἷς 
used for one of two, Luke xxiv. 18. In like manner, in an 
Inscription preserved by Gruter, Ὁ. ccce. 1st ed. we have προ- 
ἕενιαν ἀναγραψαι εἰς χαλκωματα δυο καὶ TO ἑν Sovvat, k. τ. X. 
In these and similar instances, it is obvious that ὁ εἷς is pro- 
perly used in reference to some one other person; for where 
three or more persons or things are in question, there the 
Article is omitted: so Mark iv. 8. and xiv. 10: unless, indeed, 
in such instances as Herod. lib. iv. p. 152. ed. 1570, where, in 
speaking of a quadrangular temple, he observes, τὰ piv τρία 
τῶν κώλων ἐστὶν ἀπότομα, κατὰ δὲ TO ἕν ἐπιβατόν : here three 
sides are spoken of together, and thus we revert to the case in 
which only two things are mentioned.—The Article may like- 
wise be prefixed to εἷς where one person or thing has been 
recently mentioned: so Matt. xxv. 18. TO ἕν, the one talent . 
mentioned in ver. 15; 1 Cor. xii. 11. TO ἕν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ 
πνεῦμα, though some MSS. omit the former Article: in ver. 12. 
we have τὸ σῶμα ἕν ἐστι followed by TOY σώματος TOY ἑνός, 
though here several authorities omit τοῦ ἑνός : 1 Cor. x. 17. 
we have εἷς ἄρτος followed by ἐκ TOY ἑνὸς ἄρτου. Τὸ ἕν φρο- 
νοῦντες, Philipp. 11, 2. I have explained ad loc. From some 
of these instances, it is evident that, had the seventh verse 
been authentic, the usage would have allowed us to refer TO 
ἕν of ver. 8. to ἕν of ver. 7. and the meaning would have been, 
that the three earthly witnesses concurred in testifying the one 
thing testified by the heavenly witnesses. Since, however, the 
interpolation of the seventh verse has been proved, the difli- 

6 


CHAPTER V. 4-43 


culty remains, and it is not diminished by a comparison of the 
present with the other passages of the N. T., which most 
nearly resemble it: for in them we shall perceive that the 
Article is uniformly omitted. These passages are to be found 
principally in the Gospel of the Writer of this Epistle: for 
the phrase ἕν εἶναι see John x. 30; xvii. 11. 21, 22. 1 Cor. 
3.8; and probably Gal. iii. 28. for there the authorities differ : 
for sic ἕν see John xi. 52. ἵνα συναγάγῃ εἰς ἕν; xvii. 23. ἵνα 
ὦσιν τετελειωμένοι cic ἕν. If more examples of this kind be 
required, as being more exactly to the purpose than are the 
former, I will observe that five instances of συνάγειν, or 
ἀθροίζειν εἰς ἕν, collected from Plato, Aristoph., Dion. Hal. 
and Plotinus, have been adduced by Wetstein, on John xi. 52; 
to which may be added, Plato, vol. iii. 8vo. p. 255. συντιθέμενα 
εἰς ἕν δηλοῖ τὴν φύσιν Tov Θεοῦ. Xenophon, Athen. Polit. 
Opera, 1681, p. 405. ταῦτα πάντα εἰς ἕν ἠθροῖσθαι. Apost. 
Const. cap. ill. τὰς τρίχας ποιεῖν εἰς ἕν. St. Basil, vol. i. 
p- 620. εἰς ἐν συγκολλώμενοι. Suidas, (voce ἕνωσις), ἕνωσις 
δὲ εἴρηται διὰ τὸ εἰς ἕν συνωθεῖσθαι τὰ πράγματα" he instances 
ten kinds, among which are ἐπὶ τών ὑποστάσεων and ἐπὶ τῶν 
γνωμῶν. And this I believe to be uniformly the usage, where 
the reason of the case does not require that the Article should 
be inserted. | 

It is manifest, however, that I suppose ἕν εἶναι in ver. 7. to 
be expressive only of consent or unanimity, and not of the con- 
substantiality of the Divine Persons; for otherwise τὸ ἕν of 
ver. 8. could not be imagined to have any reference to ἕν in 
ver. 7; I mean here and throughout the Note, on the assump- 
tion of the authenticity of that verse. Now that ἕν εἶναι in 
the supposed ver. 7. would not bear any other sense, has been 
admitted by very zealous Trinitarians; of which number was 
the late Bishop Horsley. But not to argue from authority, 
let it be considered how the phrase ἕν εἶναι is elsewhere used 
inthe N.T. In 1 Cor, ii. 8. ἕν εἶναι is affirmed of him that 
planteth, and him that watereth: where nothing more than 
unity of purpose is conceivable. With St. John ἕν εἶναι was, 
as we have seen, a favourite phrase: in John xvii, 22. Christ 
prays to the Father, that the Disciples ἕν ὦσιν, καθὼς ἡμεῖς ἕν 
ἐσμεν. These passages, 1 think, decide the import of the ex- 
pression in John x. 30., and whereyer else it occurs in the 


4 


441: I. JOHN, 


N. T. That some of the Fathers used it in the other sense, 
does not affect my argument. 

I have asserted above, that of the hypothetic use of the Arti- 
cle before ἕν, I have seen no instance in the N.'T. In the phi- 
losophical Writers, especially in the Metaphysics of Aristotle, 
and in the Parmenides of Plato, this use is extremely common : 
so Arist. Met. lib. iv. cap. 15. τὸ πολλαπλάσιον πρὸς τὸ ἕν, 
that which is manifold, to that which is (supposed to be) only 
one, or Unity. That τὸ ἕν in this verse is not found in the 
LXX. the Reader will readily believe: if I may rely on the 
Concordance of 7rommius, there is not a single instance of τὸ 
ἕν, where the Article is not subservient to reference of some 
kind or other. The only passage at all deserving notice in 
the present inquiry is Exod. xxxvi. 18. καὶ ἐγένετο ἝΝ, 
applied to the various parts of the Tabernacle, forming one 
whole. The Hebrew of Job xxii. 13. TTN2 NW promises a 
very important illustration: but there the LX X. in alia omnia 
abeunt: and in the remains of the Hexapla the passage is not 
preserved. ) 


Out of τὸ ἕν, supposing the Article to be employed as in 
Part i. Chap. iil. Sect. i. § 6. seems to have arisen the use of 
the term as a philosophical name of the Deity. We are told 
by Maximus, the scholiast on the Pseudo-Dionysius the Areo- 
pagite, vol. i. p. 701. ed. 1634, that “EN ὠνόμασαν τὸν Θεὸν 
of πάλαι and we know that the Platonic Trinity had for its 
Hypostases ro ἕν or τἀγαθόν, Nove, and Ψυχή. This also is a 
sense of ro ἕν, which the Reader will hardly expect to find in 
the N. T. I was compelled, however, to notice it, as will be 
evident from what follows. 

The Complut. edition reads, ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν of μαρτυροῦντες 
ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατὴρ Kal ὁ λόγος καὶ TO ἅγιον πνεῦμα" καὶ οἱ 
τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν Eilat’ καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, 
τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα. The final close of ver. 8. 
is wanting. Mr. Porson (Letters to Mr. Travis, p- 51.) gives 
it as his opinion, that the Complutensian Editors “ trans- 
planted the clause καὶ of τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσι to the end of the 
seventh verse.” And (p. 53.) he observes, in answer to an 
objection of Mr. Travis, “ to me, I confess, the Complutensian 
εἰς τὸ ἕν appears full as orthodox as the more common ἕν 
alone; and may be thus paraphrased: of TPEIS τὸ ‘EN 


CHAPTER V. 445. 


ΘΕΙΟΝ ἅμα συντελοῦσιν, hi TRES conjuncti UNUM efficient 
DEUM; in the same manner as ἔσονται οἱ AYO εἰς σάρκα 
MIAN is exactly synonymous with οὐκέτι εἰσὶ AYO, ἀλλὰ 
σὰρξ MIA: Matt. xix. 5, 6.” That the Preposition makes 
no alteration in the sense, is well known; this usage is a 
common Hebraism; but, perhaps, it may still be doubted 
in what way we are to explain the Complutensian TO ἕν: Mr. 
Porson says, by supplying Θεῖον. But here two questions 
may be asked: viz. In ro ἕν, the name of the Deity, is Θεῖον 
the Noun usually understood? And further, Is it in the man- 
ner of the Sacred Writers to employ such an Ellipsis? To 
the affirmative of the former, the origin of the term may not 
seem to be very favourable ; and to that of the latter it may be 
objected, that τὸ Θεῖον, a Pagan appellation of God, is not 
found at all in the LX X., and only once in the N. T. Acts 
xvii. 29. where St. Paul, in addressing the philosophers of 
Athens, adopted their own phraseology. Neither does the 
term τὸ ἕν, whatever Noun be understood in it, (and in this 
respect I should have thought that it differed not from ro πρέ- 
πον, τὸ ἀγαθόν, τὸ ὄν, &c.) appear to have been very familiar 
to the Writers of the N. T. nor to the LXX.: for though 
they speak of God some thousands of times, and. of his Unity 
in particular very frequently, they no where call Him ro ἕν: 
they say of Him, that he is εἷς Θεός : the Fathers do the same ; 
they say also μία θεότης. 

But the point with which I am immediately concerned is, 
whether the Professor meant to give this explanation of εἰς τὸ 
ἕν, as it now stands in ver. 8. On this head I am justified in 
expressing a doubt, from his having alleged, that the clause 
which he thus interprets was transplanted from the eighth verse. 
At the same time, I am disposed to believe that Mr. Porson 
intended this explanation to apply to the seventh verse only, as 
we find it in the Complutensian, because, applied to ver. 8. of 
the common editions, it would require us to understand the 
Spirit and the Water and the Blood of the three Persons of 
the Trinity, a mystical interpretation adopted by some of the 
Fathers, but unwarranted by Scripture, and discountenanced, 
I think, by Mr. Porson. At any rate, if this explanation of 
εἰς τὸ ἕν in ver. 8. and of the Spirit, the Water, and the 
Blood be admitted, the rejected passage was never worth con- 


448 I. JOHN, 


tending for, inasmuch as the eighth verse will thus affirm all 
which Athanasius himself could have desired. 

There are, however, a few passages in the Fathers and else- 
where, which bear some resemblance to the final clause of ver. 
8: they have usually been adduced as citations of the seventh 
verse; they are now brought forward in order to ascertain the 
probability whether or not St. John would have written εἰς 
TO ν in ver. 8. supposing the seventh verse not-to have pre- 
ceded. The assumptions which I mean to make are, that as 
many of these passages as have τὸ ἕν, and are admitted, or can 
be shown, to be citations of the final clause of ver. 8. (for the 
seventh verse is here out of the question,) afford evidence only 
of the antiquity of the reading to which I object, not of the 
propriety or legitimacy of the phrase; because citations from 
Scripture are intended to be literal: and that as many as, 
without being citations, affirm three to be one, or any thing 
similar to it, yet omit the Article before ἕν, are evidence that 
the εἰς TO ἕν of St. John (supposing that there is no reference) 
is a deviation from the ordinary usage. If a third class exist, 
i. 6. if there be well authenticated instances, differing from — 
those last mentioned only in having TO ἕν, I admit that they — 
invalidate my objection.—In examining the passages I will 
adhere to the order observed in Letter 1X. of Mr. Porson. 

The first Greek authority examined by Mr. Porson is the 
Synopsis printed with Athanasius; by appealing to which Mr. 
Travis certainly did not serve his cause, since neither τρεῖς nor 
ἕν occurs in it, neither does τριὰς nor any thing of the kind. 
It is, therefore, no more to my purpose than it was to Mr, 
Travis’s; except, indeed, as it affords me an opportunity of 
expressing my surprise, that in default of the seventh verse no 
use was made of the mystical interpretation of the eighth.— 
The next also of the cited passages is found among the spu- 
rious works ascribed to Athanasius. The words are πρὸς δὲ 
τούτοις πᾶσι Iwavyne packet, Kat of τρεῖς τὸ ἕν εἰσι. Mr. Por- 
son says, that it is found in the Dialogue between an Athana- 
sian and an Arian, and that Cave believes it to be the compo- 
sition of some doating monk: ‘in general,” adds the Professor, 
‘it is attributed to Maximus, who lived in the seventh cen- 
tury.” In the works of Athanasius, 2 vol. fol. Paris, 1627, 
there is a Dialogue in five parts between an Athanasian and an 


CHAPTER V. 447 


Arian, in which, indeed, the passage does not appear; I find 
it, however, in the ‘* Disputation in the Nicene Council against 
Arius,” a work, of which Cave has actually said, that it is 
* figmentum monachi cujusdam delirantis.” This, therefore, 
should seem to be the Treatise alluded to; and yet, on the 
other hand, of the Dialogue between the Athanasian and the 
Arian, Maximus is named by Cave as being possibly the au- 
thor. In whatever way this apparent contradiction be ac- 
counted for, we have here plainly a citation of ver. 7. or of 
ver. 8, though, as Mr. Porson remarks, it is not in the exact 
words of either: he says, that it more nearly resembles those 
of the eighth; that the Preposition has been absorbed by 
τρεῖς ; and that the same omission has happened in the copies 
of Cyril, of Euthym. Zigab. and of Dionys. Alex. 'The Reader 
should know, that πρὸς τούτοις in the Disputation is precéded 
by an allusion to the baptismal formula at the conclusion of 
St. Matthew: hence it is evident that the Writer is speaking 
of the Trinity: still he might be one of those, who adopted 
the mystical interpretation; and in that case the eighth verse 
might be the passage, which he had in view. On this supposi- 
‘tion, the citation will show to a certain degree, that in the 
time of Maximus or of “‘ the doating monk” the final clause of 
the eighth verse existed nearly in its present form. I say, to 
a certain degree; for it is well known that such writers do 
not always cite Scripture very accurately, not to insist on the 
incorrectness, which some of them owe to the Copyists. 

Mr. Porson next considers a passage from EKuthym. Zigab. 
who has said τὸ ἕν ἐπὶ τῶν ὁμοουσίων λέγεται, ἔνθα ταυτότης 
μὲν φύσεως, ἑτερότης δὲ τῶν ὑποστάσεων, ὡς τὸ Καὶ τὰ τρία ἕν. 
Mr. Porson grants, that if this passage be a quotation from 
Scripture, it is from 1 John ν. 7. He discovered, however, 
that Euthymius took it from Greg. Nazianzen, who had said, 
“Ev γὰρ ἐν τρισὶν ἡ θεότης, KAI TA TPIA ‘EN. My infer- 
ence is, that Greg. Nazianzen, who confessedly is speaking of 
the Trinity, but does not cite St. John, considered ἕν without 
the Article, to be the natural expression of his meaning. He 
uses ἕν, it is true, of consubstantiality: but I do not perceive 
that, if it had been used of consent as in ver. 8. the Article 
could have been more wanted. 

The passage, which is next to be examined, is also from 


448 I. JOHN, 


Euthym. Zigab. where that Writer has given the seventh and 
eighth verses entire, as they stand in our common editions. 
Mr. Porson, however, objects, that Euthymius’s reasoning 
proves him to have been ignorant of the seventh verse, for that 
his argument derives all its force from the close connection of 
verses 6, 8, and 9. Euthymius, as translated by Mr. Porson, 
reasons thus: ‘* See now again how the Preacher of truth calls 
the Spirit by nature God and of God; for having said that it 
is the Spirit of God that witnesses, a little onward he adds, the 
witness of God is greater: how then is he a creature,” &c. So 
far as | understand Kuthymius’s argument, I do not perceive 
that he has made more use of the eighth verse, than he has of 
the seventh. Euthymius, however, derived all these argu- 
ments and testimonies from Cyril's Thesaurus; where Mr. 
Porson ‘‘ saw with his own eyes not a word more than, For 
there are three that bear record, the Spirit, the Water, and the 
Blood, and the three are one.” I can corroborate the accuracy 
of Mr. Porson’s statement as to the point, which he was con- 
sidering, viz. the absence of the seventh verse. It is, however, 
observable, that the words of Cyril are ὅτι OI τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ 


μαρτυροῦντες, 80 that the rendering should be, “ for the three 


are they who bear record:” the three are in reference to ver. 6. 
where Cyril has the reading of some extant MSS. δ ὕδατος 
καὶ αἵματος KAI TINEYMATO®X. This instance, therefore, is 
totally distinct from that which follows; for Cyril in this place 
has εἰς τὸ ἕν. In those words he appears to have cited accu- 
rately what he found in his copy; while in οἱ τρεῖς he wrote 
as from himself. It may be inferred, however, from Gries- 
bach, that even in the final clause of ver. 8. Cyril sometimes 
shook off the yoke, which the MSS. imposed on him, and 
wrote not merely TO ἕν, which is just as exceptionable, and in 
which, as Mr. Porson supposes, the Preposition might be 
absorbed in the preceding τρεῖς, but sometimes simply “EN : 
that is to say, Cyril has sometimes so far forgotten or disre- 
garded the precise words of Scripture, as, in quoting them, to 
have expressed himself according to the common usage. 


The Apostolos, which comes next in order, requires no . 


notice. 
The passage from Basil is, | imagine, for Mr. Porson has 
given only the Latin, that which I find advers. Eunom. lib. v. 


— ee 


CHAPTER V. 449. 


πιστεύουσιν sic Θεὸν καὶ λόγον καὶ πνεῦμα μίαν οὖσαν Θεότητα. 
On this I would merely observe, that μία Θεότης and εἷς Θεός, 
predicated of the Three Persons, are so common in all Trea- 
tises on the Trinity, that it is improbable that the Fathers had 
any knowledge of τὸ ἕν for τὸ ἕν Θεῖον as being a Scripture 
phrase. 

The Scholion ἐλεεινὰ to Origen, on Psalm exxiii. 2. εὐνᾶς 
with οἱ γὰρ τρεῖς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν᾽ and nothing is more evident, than 
that this is a citation from the eighth verse: the Writer had 
just said τὰ δὲ τρία (viz. the Spirit, the Body, and the Soul) 
κύριος ὃ Θεὸς ἡμῶν ἐστι he immediately subjoins ΟἹ TAP 
ΤΡΕΙ͂Σ, &c. the sudden change of the Gender and the γὰρ 
together demonstrate, that the words were borrowed by way 
of proof. These Scholia, though imputed to Origen, are gene- 
rally allowed to be sequioris evi. Many of them, like the pre- 
sent, are models of mysticism and absurdity. 

We next learn, that Andreas Cretensis has from Greg. 
Nazianzen the words τὰ τρία εἷς Θεός : and that the Nomo- 
canon, published by Cotelerius, has ἕν ταῦτα τὰ τρία, not TO 
ἕν. » Lastly, the Author of the Philopatris, published with 
Lucian, has said, in ridicule of the faith cf his Christian con- 
temporaries, ἕν τρία, τρία ἕν. 

Supposing, then, that these are all the Greek passages, 
which have any similitude to the controverted verse, (and if 
there were many more, the controversy could not easily have 
failed to bring them to light,) I think I may state it as the 
general result, that they belong either to the first or to the 
second of the classes above described: they are either citations 
of the words of St. John, and therefore afford no other evi- 
dence affecting my inquiry than that of the antiquity of the 
reading; or else they are instances tending to prove that the 
reading of the eighth verse, on the supposition that the seventh 
is spurious, is not authorized by ordinary usage. Of the third 
class, consisting of passages similar to the final clause of the 
eighth verse, not being citations of that clause, yet having τὸ 
ἕν so used as to form a vindication of the Article in the clause, 
I have not found any example. There is, however, in Origen, 
as quoted by Griesbach, Symb. Crit. vol. ii. p. 611. a passage, 
which is remarkable, as tending to show what would have been 
the meaning of εἰς TO ἕν in ver 8. if the seventh had not been 


Gg 


4δ0 I. JOHN, 


spurious. I transcribe Griesbach. “ Origenes, in transfigura- 
tione, ait, Christi, postquam ipse discipules attigisset, hi non 
viderunt, nisi Jesum solum. “EN μονον yeyove μωσης (ὃ νομος) 
kat ἤλιας (ἡ προφητεια)ὴ incov (τῳ εὐαγγελιῳ.) καὶ οὐχ ὥσπερ 
ἦσαν προτερον τρεῖς, οὕτω μεμενηκασιν, ἀλλα γεγονασιν οἱ 
τρεις εἰς ΤῸ ἕν." According to this account Moses and Elias, 
respectively emblematic of the Law and of Prophecy, became 
one with Jesus or the Gospel: there were no longer three, but 
the three were transformed into the one (before mentioned). 


The reference of the Article in τὸ ἕν is here as evident as it is 


in οἱ τρεῖς of the same passage. ι 

The difficulty, then, attending the final clause of ver. 8. re- 
mains thus far not only unobviated, but in some degree con- 
firmed ; and I do not perceive how the present reading is to 
be reconciled with the extermination of ver. 7. The only 
alternative left us, is the possibility, that the Article in εἰς τὸ 
ἕν may be spurious, or even that the whole final clause of 
ver. 8. may be an interpolation. All the evidence, with which 
I am able to support the former of these conjectures, consists 
in the reading of the Vienna MS. published by Alter, which 
has εἰς ἕν, in a var. reading of Cyril (ἕν for εἰς τὸ ἕν) already 
alluded to, as noticed by Griesbach ad loc. and in the same 
var. reading in the MS. of Euthym. Zigab. which once be- 
longed to Chrysanthus, as cited by Matthii. That MS. omits 
the rejected passage, and says of the Spirit, the Water, and 
the Blood, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι : such also is the reading (accord- 
ing to Griesbach) of the Armenian, and in one place of Gicu- 
menius. There is likewise a passage in Origen in his Com- 
mentary on St. John’s Gospel, which I give on the authority 
of Griesbach, Symb. Crit. ii. 610: ‘‘ Joannes τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ 
ὕδωρ kal τὸ αἷμα ἀνέγραψε, τὰ τρία EIS ‘EN γενόμενα." Lam 
not, perhaps, entitled to consider this also as a var. reading, 
because it seems to be intended to express the sense rather 
than the exact words of St. John: it is important, however, 
in another point of view, as it shows in common with some 
other instances already noticed, that εἰς ἕν, and not εἰς TO ἕν, 
is, where there is no reference, the natural phraseology. 

De Missy, in-his MS. Notes on his copy of Mill’s Test. pre- 
served in the British Museum, has a conjecture, which may be 
noticed in this place. Commenting on the words of Tertul- 


ἡ ee a «ιν 


CHAPTER V. 451 


han, ““ Qui tres UNUM sunt, non UNUS,” he supposes that 
Father to reject the reading of Some MSS. in which was δέ 
tres unus sunt: which, he says, might have arisen from the 
Greek καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἷς εἰσιν: for supposing such a reading in 
some copies, the rest admits a probable solution. Somebody, 
dissatisfied, for the same cause as Tertullian, with cic, wrote 
in the margin ἕν, either from authority or from conjecture: 
thence came the reading of the Lateran Council οἱ τρεῖς ἕν 
εἰσιν, by adopting ἕν for εἷς : in other copies, for the sake of 
emphasis, TO might be added: hence the reading of the 
Author of the ““ Disputation at the Council of Nice” repre- 
sents this part of the text to be καὶ οἱ τρεῖς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. 
Others, lastly, changing the accent and breathing of cic, out 
of the three readings made a fourth, or, if you will, restored 
the true one, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. See Mr. Beloe’s 
Anecdotes of Literature, vol. i. p. 116. The best argument 
which I have to offer in support of this theory, is the variety 
of readings in the clause: for in addition to those which my 
immediate purpose required me to notice, three or four au- 
thorities have οἱ τρεῖς ro ἕν εἰσι, thus omitting the Preposi- 
tion: it is not, however, at all evident that the passage of 
Tertullian, which is the basis of the whole, is to be so 
explained: nor has any extant MS. εἷς. 

It is, then, barely possible that the Article may be spuri- 
ous: the authorities are, in general, hostile to this supposi- 
tion. 

The other conjecture, that the whole clause may be spuri- 
ous, is scarcely more defensible; and indeed, if the last cited 
passage from Origen be authentic, (and, so far as I know, it 
has not ever been suspected,) it will, as does the Syr. Version, 
prove the clause to have existed at an early period. On the 
other hand, of the Latin MSS., which are the principal sup- 
port of the seventh verse, many omit the final clause of the 
eighth. Mr. Porson (p. 139.) has given us his collation of 
fifty MSS. of the Vulgate: ““ of this number,” he informs us, 
** thirty-two omit the final clause of the eighth verse: eighteen © 
retain it, but one has it in the text underlined with red lead, 
two in the margin, one from the first, the other from a second 
hand,” Further on, however, (p. 155.) the Professor has as 
follows: ‘‘ Abbot Joachim compared the final clauses of the 

Gg2 


452 . I. JOHN, 


seventh and eighth verses, whence he inferred, that the same 
expression ought.to be interpreted in the same manner. Since, 
therefore, said he, nothing more than unity of testimony and 
consent can be meant by tres wnum sunt in the eighth verse, 
nothing more.than unity of testimony and consent is meant in 
the seventh. This opinion the Lateran Council and Thomas 
Aquinas confuted, by cutting out that clause in the eighth 
verse. Thomas tells us, that it was not extant im the true 
copies, but that it was said to be added by the Arian heretics, 
to pervert the sound understanding of the foregoing authority.” 
What is here said of the Lateran Council derives some con- 
firmation from what the Professor has asserted, (p. 152.) that 
twenty-nine Latin MSS., ‘‘in general the fairest, the oldest, 
and the most correct,” have the clause of ver. 8.—Grotius sup- 
posed the clause to be spurious: in his Commentary, he speaks 
of a very ancient MS. in which it is wanting: this MS., how- 
ever, was no other than the Alexandrian, in which the words 
are found: see Mr. Porson, p. 71. It is wanting in Bryen- 
nius and in the Correctorium Biblicum.—I do not know whe- 
ther any inference can be drawn from a citation of the verse 


by Greg. Nazianz, Orat. xxxvii. p. 603. though the final. 


clause is there omitted. He is arguing against a sophism 
which turned on the difference between connumeration and 


subnumeration: it was contended, that persons or. things~ 


equal in dignity and homousian are connumerated; 6. δ: we 
say three men three Gods: whereas things unequal and. not 
homousian are enumerated, and that, which as being the 
lowest in dignity is placed last, was said to be subnumerated > 
thus from the formula, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, the ob- 
jectors inferred the inferiority of the last named Person, With 
this explanation the passage from Gregory will be intelligible: 


‘‘ What, then, are we to say of John, when in his Catholic 


Kpistles he affirms, that there are three, who bear witness, the 
Spirit, the Blood, the Water? Does he appear to you to 
write nonsense, in having in the first place ventured to connu- 
merate things not homousian, which you allow to be done only 
in things homousian? For who will pretend, that these are 
of the.same substance?” It may here be urged, that Gregory 
omitted the clause purposely, as not contributing to strengthen 
his argument. ‘The same may be alleged of a similar passage 


a EE eee Eee — 


CHAPTER V. 4.53 


in Nicetas, the Commentator on Gregory, as adduced by Mat- 
thai: Nicetas is there illustrating a different part of his author; 
but has evidently borrowed his reasoning, and almost his words, 
from that which I have translated. He too omits the final 
clause.—At any rate it is remarkable, that the clause in ques- 
. tion appears so seldom in the writings of the Fathers: con- 
nected with the sentence preceding, it was capable of being 
converted to some use by persons, who knew the mystical in- 
terpretation of Spirit, Blood, and Water, and who for the 
most part were not averse from that kind of exposition. If it 
be said, that the clause existed in the time of Origen and of 
the Syr. Translator, the little use, which has been made of it, 
will still leave a presumption, that some copies were without 
_ it: and when we remark in reading the Fathers, that in order 
to illustrate the Trinity in Unity they have collected all ima- 
ginable instances, in which three things in any manner coalesce 
in one, it becomes matter of surprise, leaving the mystical 
interpretation out of the question, that a Triad, the unity of 
which in some sense or other was asserted in Scripture, should 
not have been more frequently insisted on. 

In concluding this Note, I think it right to offer something 
towards its vindication. Iam not ignorant, that in the rejec- 
tion of the controverted passage learned and good men are 
now, for the most part, agreed; and I contemplate with ad- 
miration and delight the gigantic exertions of intellect, which 
have established this acquiescence: the objection, however, 
which has given rise to this discussion, I could not consistently 
with my plan suppress. On the whole I am led to suspect, 
that though so much labour and critical acuteness have been 
bestowed on these celebrated verses, more is yet to be done, 
before the mystery, in which they are involved, can be wholly 
developed. 

V. 19. ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ. ‘ Lieth under: the power of the 
Wicked One,” as translated by Macknight. See on Matt. 
ν. 37. 

V. 20. ἡ ζωὴ αἰώνιος. Some MSS. omit ἡ, and some in- 
sert a second Article before αἰώνιος. One of these emenda- 
tions is necessary: I prefer the latter, because of οὗτος pre- 


ceding. 


454 


I. JOHN. 


V.1. ὃ πρεσβύτερος ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ. Commentators and 


Critics have found it difficult to determine the meaning of the . 


address of this Epistle. Some, with whom agree Eng. -Ver- 
sion, Wakefield, Macknight, and Newcome, make ἐκλεκτῇ to be 
an Adjective, and render “ to the elect, or excellent, or chosen 
Lady.” Others, as Schleusner, making Κυρίᾳ a Proper Name, 
understand “ to Cyria the Elect ;” and a third class think that 
Ἔκλεκτῃ is a Proper Name, “to the Lady Electa.” A little 
attention to the position of the words and to the uses of the 
Article may, perhaps, contribute to remove the uncertainty. 
The first interpretation would require either τῇ Κυρίᾳ τῇ 
ἐκλεκτῇ or else τῇ ἐκλεκτῇ Κυρίᾳ, for these, as we have seen, 
are in such cases the only definite forms of expression. Ac- 
cording to the second explanation we should read Κυρίᾳ τῇ 
ἐκλεκτῇ : so the Epistle following is inscribed Γαΐῳ τῷ ἀγαπητῷ, 
and so Apollon. de Synt. p. 46. directs us to write Τρυφῶνι 
τῷ ἀγαθωτάτῳ. On the third hypothesis the phraseology is 
unexceptionable: for Κυρίᾳ being a title of honour belonging 
to others, as well as to Electa, would not admit the Article. 
So Παῦλος ἀπόστολος passim. One of the early Fathers, 
Clement of Alex., so understood the passage. To this expla- 
nation it may, indeed, be objected, that in the concluding 
verse we read τῆς ἀδελφῆς σου τῆς ᾿Εκλεκτῆς, which seems to 
intimate that the sister’s name also would thus be Electa. 
Grotius, who adopts the same interpretation with myself, tells 
us that “alii libri sine Articulo habent’EKAEKTHS, whilst 
others have Εὐδέκτης :” the latter reading he approves, and 
shows that both Electa and Eudecte are names acquired by 
6 


ee ae 


Il. JOHN. 455 


translation from the Hebrew. But where are these αὐλὲ libri ? 
I cannot learn that any extant MS. has either of the readings 
alleged. The words τῆς ᾿Ἔκλεκτῆς have, however, very much 
the appearance of being originally the Gloss of some one, who 
wished to mark the meaning of cov; and indeed, such informa- 
tion might not seem altogether useless, as the address had lat- 
terly been in the Plural form, comprehending both Electa and 
her children: at any rate, a Reader who had observed, that 
the Singular form had latterly been discontinued, might very 
naturally on its resumption, if he understood Electa in the 
Inscription to be a Proper Name, write τῆς ᾿Εκλεκτῆς in the 
margin of his copy opposite to cov. The probability that the 
words in question were a Gloss, is rather strengthened, when 
we remark that for τῆς ἐκλεκτῆς two MSS. have τῆς ἐκκλησίας: 
this was evidently the Gloss of some one, who interpreted 
ἐκλεκτῇ Kupia in ver. 1. mystically, as was done by. many, to 
signify the Christian Church; and who wished to give a mar- 
ginal explanation of cov, in the same manner as I suppose the 
other Annotator to have been contented with showing its re- 
ference to ver. 1. For the most part, indeed, I have endea- 
voured to defend the incorruptness of the Sacred Text: we 
are arrived, however, at a part of the N.'T. of which the MSS. 
were always comparatively few, and where, consequently, in 
suspected passages the genuine reading is less likely to be ex- 
tant. If we had as many MSS. of the 2d Epistle of St. John, 
as we have of the Gospel of St. Matthew, I think it highly 
probable, that in some of them the sentence would terminate 
with ἀδελφῆς σου. 

Michaelis in his Introd. to this Epistle conjectures Κυρία to 
be an Ellipsis of Kupia ’ExxAnoia, the Athenian Assembly 
meeting at stated times; and that since the Sacred Writers 
adopted the term ἐκκλησία from its civil use among the Greeks, 
κυρία ἐκκλησία might here mean the stated assembly of the 
Christians held every Sunday: thus τῇ ἐκλεκτῇ Κυρίᾳ with 
ἐκκλησίᾳ understood would signify to the Elect Church or 
Community, which comes together on Sundays. He admits, 
however, that he knows not of any instance of such an Ellip- 
sis; nor do I think that this explanation can very easily be 
established. As to his remark, Jntrod. vol. iv. p. 449, that 
ékAexrn cannot here be a Proper Name, “for, if it were, St. 


4.56 Il. JOHN, 


John would not have written τῇ ἐκλεκτῇ Kupia, but τῇ Κυρίᾳ 
᾿Ἐκλεκτῇ, or at least without the Article,’ ExAexry Kvoia,” there 
must be some mistake: what Michaelis alleges, that St. John 
would have written, is actually the reading of the MSS. viz. 
Ἔκλεκτῃ Kupia; and thus far at least, his opinion coincides 
with my own. It may be added, that on the proposed inter- 
pretation the Inscription of this Epistle corresponds with the 
Greek usage, in which the Name precedes, and the rank, cha- 
racter, or condition in life is subjoined. So St. Basil's Letter 
Ιχχχ, is inscribed Εὐσταθίῳ ἰατρῷ ; Ixxxili. Λεοντίῳ σοφιστῇ; 
Ιχχχυῖ. Βοσπορίῳ ἐπισκόπῳ ; ceccx. Μαγνημιανῷ κόμητι. 

V. 7. οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ πλάνος καὶ ὃ ᾿Αντιχριστός. Two good 
MSS. want the latter Article: the omission is not necessary, 
because the intention of the Writer is not to assume the iden- 
tity of the two characters, but to assert, that they are united 
in those, who denied that Christ had appeared in the flesh. 

V. 10. ταύτην τὴν διδαχήν. Erasmus and some of his fol- 
lowers omit τήν. This is contrary to Part i. Chap. vii. § 5. 
and to the uniform practice in all similar cases throughout the 
N. T. Icannot believe that any MS. justified this or many 
others of his deviations from the Greek usage. See on 1 John 
iv. 9. | | 


Ψ ee weer τὰς 


ee — 


lil. JOHN. 


ΟὟ, 7%. ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ. Very many MSS, omit 
αὐτοῦ : yet it is found in the Syr. and in the Lat. of the other 
ancient Versions, except the Coptic. Rosenmiiller tells us 
that ὄνομα is sometimes put κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν for Christ, and he in- 
stances James ii. 7. With this, however, no Reader will be 
satisfied: a less apposite illustration could not easily have been 
found.—The reading is of considerable importance: if αὐτοῦ 
be genuine, its antecedent must be θεοῦ immediately pre- 
ceding, and yet ὀνόματος. can be meant only of the name of 
Christ; and thus Christ will here also, as elsewhere, be called 
God. If αὐτοῦ be spurious, and the Article be used, as fre- 
quently happens, to signify Ais, the inference will be the same. 
To evade these consequences, it must be shown, that τὸ ὄνομα 
is used in the same sense with ἡ ὁδός, Acts ix. 2. which, 
however, may not be an easy task’. 


1 But see Euseb. Eccl. Hist. v. 18. Author's MS. 


458 


JUD E. 


V. 4. τὸν μόνον δεσπότην θεὸν καὶ Κύῤιον ἡμῶν “Ino. Xo. 
This is the last of the passages adduced by Mr. Granville Sharp 
to show that Christ is called God. There is, however, some 
difficulty in ascertaining the true reading, since very many 
authorities omit θεόν, and Griesbach has rejected it from his 
text. Yet of Matthdi’s MSS. all, except one, have θεόν: so 
also the Syr. Arab. and Aithiopic. Further, Mr. Wordsworth 
has remarked against Wetstein and Griesbach, that Gicume- 
nius, of whose works Mr. W. examined four Editions, has the 
word θεόν. Supposing the common reading to be the true 
one, I see no reason to doubt the proposed interpretation, 
which explains δεσπότης θεὸς (a form resembling σωτὴρ θεός, 
see on Titus ii. 4.) and Κύριος of one Person, Jesus Christ: 
for had two Persons been meant, we should have read TON. 
Κύριον ἡμῶν. That the Syr. Translator understood the pas- 
sage of one Person is most certain: he puts Κύριον in apposi- 
tion with δεσπότην θεόν, and renders ‘the only: Lord God 
(viz.) our Lord Jesus Christ.” The Copt. does the same. 

V. 11. τῇ πλάνῃ τοῦ Βαλαὰμ μισθοῦ. Many Commentators 
and Translators (among whom is Macknight) make τοῦ to be 
the Article of μισθοῦ; so that the sense may be, “ in the error 
of Balaam’s hire.” ‘This is, however, extremely improbable. 
It is true that Proper Names in Regimen frequently dispense 
with the Article: but then the arrangement would, I think, 
have been τοῦ μισθοῦ Βαλαάμ. Besides, before Proper Names 
which are indeclinable, I do not perceive that in this Epistle 
the Article is usually omitted: the clauses which are on each 


JUDE. 4.59 


side of the present, contain two examples of the contrary; viz. 
τοῦ Κάϊν and τοῦ Κορέ. It is scarcely necessary to observe, 
that μισθοῦ does not require the Article. Thus sch. de fals. 
Leg. ed. Reiske, p. 328. λόγους γράφοντα μισθοῦ. I believe, 
therefore, that the English Version is right. © 

V. 25. Θεῷ σωτῆρι ἡμῶν. The Reader might, perhaps, 
expect TQ σωτῆρι ἡμῶν: in apposition, however, the Article 
is frequently omitted: so in the phrase ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν 
passim. See above, p. 393. 


400. 


-REVELATION. 


CHAP. I. 


V. 3. τῆς προφητείας. Some authorities add ταύτης. This 
addition is unnecessary: the prophecy is that which is laid 
before the Reader: in the same manner St. Paul sometimes 
writes ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ. See on 1 Cor. v. 9. 


Υ. 4. ἀπὸ τοῦ ὃ ὧν καὶ 6 ἦν Kal 6 ἐέχόμενος. Many MSS. | 


omit τοῦ, which, however, appears to be requisite, though 
Griesbach has rejected it: a few for τοῦ have Θεοῦ, which 
Matthii justly regards as a Scholium. Of the Article in ὁ 
ἦν, 1 have to observe, that there are many peculiarities in the 
style of this work, which it may not be easy nor even possible 
to reconcile to the Greek usage. ‘The difficulty, however, in 


this place respects not so much the Article as ἦν, which is 


used as if it had been a Participle of Past Time. 

V. 11. ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος. See on 2 John 7. These 
words are wanting in some MSS.: they occur, however, 
repeatedly in other parts of the Book. 

V. 13. ὅμοιον υἱῷ ἀνθρώπου. It was remarked on John 
v. 27. that when our Saviour, in speaking of Himself, assumes 
the title, the Son of Man, the Greek is always ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ 


ἀνθρώπου : and a reason was assigned why the Articles in that 


particular instance were omitted. The same reason will not 
apply to the example before us, in which Christ is not directly 


and primarily meant. In the Apocalypse, as is well known, | 


many of the expressions, and much of the imagery, is bor- 
rowed from the Prophets; and this passage, as the Com- 
mentators have remarked, is taken from Dan. vii. 13: see 
above, p. 402, 3. 


a i lt ew al 


= 


CHAPTERS III. IV. VI. 461 


CHAP, III. 


V.17. σὺ εἶ ὁ ταλαίπωρος καὶ ἐλεεινός, κι τ. A. English 
Version, “ thou art wretched,” &c. Grotius thinks that the 
Article is here employed in the κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν sense: with this 
solution, supposing it to be founded on the Greek usage, I am 
not entirely satisfied, because I do not know of any thing 
similar in the Profane Writers, nor even in the N. Τὶ, But 
the Hebrew 7 is frequently so used before Adjectives: see 
Noldius, p..212. and it is not improbable that the Greek 
Article may, in this place, have the force of the Hebrew one. 
The Hebraisms of this book are so numerous, that some 
Critics have assigned it a Hebrew original: see below, on x. 7. 
Many MSS. have likewise Ὁ ἐλεεινός, which, in the same way 
of reasoning, may have proceeded from the Author. 


CHAP. IV. 


V. 2. ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου καθήμενος. Dr. Mangey conjectures 
Ὁ καθήμενος, whilst Dr. Owen thinks that we have here an 
uncommon Ellipsis of ric. Had the MSS. read ὁ καθήμενος, 
I should have been somewhat perplexed to explain the force 
of the Article, for it would not be subservient either to refer- 
ence or to hypothesis. That there is an Ellipsis of τὶς is true; 
but not that the Ellipsis is uncommon: the very same takes 
place in ἡγούμενος, Matt. 11. 6. and in many other instances. 
It is curious to observe, that these two Critics, while they: 
agree in discovering a difficulty in the text, in order to:remove 
it, adopt expedients which are diametrically opposite to each 
other. : 


CHAP, VI. 


V. 2. νικῶν. A. has Ὁ νικῶν. But this would not accord 
with ἵνα νικήσῃ following. | 

V. 8. ὄνομα αὐτῷ ὁ θάνατος. C. and one MS. of Matthdi, 
with the Complut. omit ὁ: their reading is confirmed by the 
general usage: so below, ix, 11. 
ΟὟ, 10. ὁ ἅγιος καὶ ὁ ἀληθινός. Several MSS, omit the 
second Article. It is properly rejected by Bengel, Griesbach, 
and Matthai. 


462 REVELATION, 


V. 14. οὐρανός. Ὁ οὐρανός, as in several MSS. is the true 
reading. 


CHAP. VIII. 


V.6. ἄγγελοι ἔχοντες. It should be ΟἹ ἔχοντες, as in many 
MSS. The angels had already been affirmed (ver. 2.) to have 
the seven trumpets. . ἢ 

Υ. 10. τὰς πηγὰς ὑδάτων. Many MSS. have ΤΩΝ ὑδάτων : 
it is surprising that Wetstein did not admit the Article into 
the text. We find it in Matthdi and in the new edition of 
Griesbach. 

V. 11. ἄψινθος. A great many MSS. have ὁ ἄψινθος, and 
the Article has found its way into the text of Bengel and 
Griesbach, and even of Matthai: yet nothing can be more 
certain than its spuriousness; I mean, on the supposition that 
the present Greek of this writing is the original. I have not 
observed any violation of the rule, Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. 
§ 2. In the next Chapter, ver. 16. we should read TQN 
στρατευμάτων. See the last Note. | 


CHAP. X. 


_ V.1. ἴρις ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς. The authorities which direct 
us to read ἡ ρις, are very numerous; and the best modern 
Editors have admitted the Article into the text. Compare, 
however, iv. 3. It is true that the names of the great objects 
of nature, the sun, the moon, the air, &c. usually have the 
Article: but these are permanent and monadic: the word ἶρις 
seems to have no other claim to it than have σεισμός, ἔκλειψις, 
and the names of other transient phenomena. | 

V. 3, 4. ai ἑπτὰ βρονταί. Why the Article is inserted in 
the former of these verses, I am unable to discover. It is 
somewhat remarkable, that a few MSS. and Editions omit it 
in both places. Were the Seven Thunders any thing well 
known and pre-eminent? If not, the omission must be right 
in the former instance, but wrong in the latter: if they were 
pre-eminent, then is it wrong in both. Bengel omits the 
Article in ver. 3. but has it in ver. 4. I am inclined to sup- 
pose, that ai ἑπτὰ βρονταί is in both places the true reading, 
and that there is a reference to some Jewish opinion, of which, 


. CHAPTER X. 463 


however, I find not any vestige either in Lightfoot, Schoetigen, 
or Meuschen.—Storr, in the Comment. Theol. (collected by 
Felthusen and others) vol. iv. p. 457, observes, that we are not 
here to seek for any Jewish notion; that nothing is to be 
inferred from the Article; and that in xii. 14. ὁ ἀετὸς ὁ μέγας 
signifies “ magnam QUANDAM aquilam, §c. equée ac si 
Articulus abesset.” But see on Matt. v. 1. | 

V. 7. καὶ ἐτελέσθη τὸ μυστήριον. Readers of the N. T. for 
the most part find a difficulty in rendering this passage: they 
are led by the context to expect, instead of ἐτελέσθη, a Future 
Tense to correspond with ἔσται in the preceding verse; and 
καὶ perplexes the sense, which requires the Apodosis to begin 
at ἐτελέσθη, whereas, if we retain καί, the Protasis is con- 
tinued. The various readings of this passage sufficiently attest, 
that great also has been the embarrassment of Copyists and 
Editors. A. 10.17. a pr. manu omit καί: some MSS. and 
Editions have τελεσθῇ, as more nearly approaching to a Future 
signification. Arethas and three Editions of Beza have τελεσ- 
θήσεται, which, with the rejection of καὶ would make the 
whole plain: the same reading is said by Griesbach to appear 
in some of the Oriental Versions: perhaps, however, they 
haye given the sense rather than the idiom: see on Matt. 
i. 16. Abp. Newcome observes, ‘if we omit καὶ and read 
τελεσθήσεται," (for which, however, there is scarcely any au- 
thority,) “‘ by the mystery of God, we must understand the 
glorious state of the Church.” That some ancient Versions 
are cited as omitting καί, | mean not to suppress: but the 
inference, I think, is not justified, that καὶ was wanting in the 
copies of those Translators, any more than that they found 
τελεσθήσεται. 

I have already remarked, that some Critics have been dis- 
posed to assign to the Apocalypse a Hebrew original: I do 
not know that in behalf of this opinion any stronger argument 
could be adduced, than that which might be founded on the 
present passage. The Hebrew language employs what Gram- 
marians call the Και Conversivum: that is, it uses the Copu- 
lative in such a manner, that one of its offices is to give toa 
Past Tense the sense of the Future; the Copulative itself very 
frequently becoming redundant. For the sake of those who 
have no knowledge of Hebrew, I will illustrate the usage by a 


464 REVELATION, 


single example. We read, Judges iv. 8. “if thou wilt go 
with me, J will go:” (*MD9M) literally, * and I went.” Now 
nothing can be more evident than the resemblance between 
the literal rendering of Judges iv. 8. and that of the passage 
under review: ‘in the days of the voice of the Seventh 
Angel, when he shall begin to sound, and the mystery was 
Jinished.” What is this, if we adopt the Hebrew idiom, but 
the mystery shall be finished? thus superseding the reading of 
Beza’s Editions, countenanced by Abp. Newcome, viz. τελεσ- 
θήσεται, instead of καὶ ἐτελέσθη. The ancient Versions which 
are cited to support the omission of καὶ, ought rather to be 
adduced in proof of the true construction: thus the Vulg. has 
‘cum caeperit tuba canere, CONSUMMABITUR mysterium 
Dei.” Whether the Translator adverted to the Hebraism or 
not, he plainly saw what the context required: that he read 


τελεσθήσεται is highly improbable, as it is not found in any. 


MS. extant. 

Of this Hebraism there is not, I believe, a single instance in 
the Gospels, the Acts, or the Epistles. Storr, indeed, (1. 1. 
p- 463) after remarking that the sense is the same, as if we had 
read τελεσθήσεται, refers us to xv. 1. where, however, a Past 
Tense is indispensable: he cites also John xv. 6.8; but there 
the Aorists are used, as frequently they are in purer writers, 
to mark, not a single act, which is all that can be supposed in 
the present instance, but the frequency of an act: besides that 
in those places καὶ does not appear. For καὶ he cites out of 
the N. T. only Luke ii. 21. καὶ ἐκλήθη, where indeed, as in 
some other places, it is equivalent to τότε: but there we have 
not κληθήσεται. 

As to the hypothesis of a Hebrew original of this singular 
composition, the Reader, probably, will not readily assent to 
it, unsupported as it is by the evidence of history: at the same 
time he will recollect, that if it could be established, it would 
relieve us from all difficulties attending the objection, that the 
style of the Apocalypse differs from that employed by St. John 
in his Gospel and Epistles... Without having any such theory 
in view, I notice a peculiarity, which, so far as I know, had 
hitherto escaped remark, that the Reader may feel the less 
surprise, if the Article be sometimes used in this book in a 
manner, which 1 am wholly unable to explain: if the style in 


—— ὦ. 


CHAPTERS XI. XII. AGS 


some instances deviate so widely from the Greek usage, it can- 
not be expected that rules founded entirely on that usage 
should in such a composition always apply. 

V.8. ἐν τῇ χειρὶ ayyéXov. The Greek practice requires 
Tov ἀγγέλου, with many MSS. and the best modern Editors; 
so also in ver. 8. of the next Chapter, it should be τῆς πόλεως. 


CHAP. XI. 


V. 11. τὰς τρεῖς ἡμέρας. Some MSS, improperly omit 
rac: it refers to ver. 9. 

‘V. 12. ἐν τῇ νεφέλῃ. Eng. Version, “a cloud.” No cloud 
had been mentioned, yet there is not any instance in the N. T. 
in which νεφέλη has the Article, where there is not reference. 


CHAP. XII. 


V. 1. γυνὴ περιβεβλημένη. The four first Edd. of Erasmus 
have Ἢ περιβεβλημένη. This is another of the instances, in 
which the MSS. of Erasmus, if indeed he always published 
from MSS., differed both from all those, which are still extant, 
and also from the exigency of the sense: for “H περιβεβλημένη 
would mean, that the circumstance of being thus clothed had 
been already signified. See on 1 John iv. 9. 

V.9. 6 Σατανᾶς, Very many MSS. omit the Article, as | 
was to be expected after καλούμενος. 

V. 11. ἄχοι θανάτου. I do not perceive why our Translators 
used the uncouth phrase “ unto the death,” especially as they 
were not led to it by the original. 

VY. 14. δύο πτέρυγες τοῦ ἀετοῦ τοῦ μεγάλου. Here it may 
be asked, Why TOY ἀετοῦ TOY μεγάλου, or else why not ΑἹ 
δύο mrépvyec? The latter difficulty, indeed, is removed, if we 
admit the reading of a few MSS. which have ai: but what is 
to become of the former? Michaelis (Anmerk.) corrects the 
Version of Luther, and observes, ‘‘it must allude to a parti- 
cular eagle already mentioned in the Apocalypse: yet I do 
not recollect any other than that, which (see viii. 13.) flew 
through the heaven and proclaimed the threefold woe, which 
now is past.” It is not improbable that the Great Eagle, a 
species so denominated, may be meant: we find in Ezek, 
xvii. 3. from whom the expression, as well as other things in 


Η ἢ 


466 REVELATION, 


this book, may be borrowed, ὁ ἀετὸς ὁ μέγας ὃ μεγαλοπτέρυγὸς; 
κι τ᾿ A. Bochart, vol. i. Part 11. p. 169, tells us, that the 
Great Eagle of Ezekiel was the ᾿Αστερίας said by Zlian to 


be μέγιστος ἀετῶν. 


CHAP. XIII. 


V. 8. τοῦ ἀρνίου topaypévov. With the best MSS. we 


should read TOY ἐσφαγμένου. 
V. 18. ἔχων τὸν νοῦν. With many MSS. we should reject 
the Article: νοῦν ἔχειν is the usual phrase. 


CHAP. XIV. 


V.1. ἀρνίον. Probably with several MSS. TO honda 
name of Christ κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν. 

Same vy. A. reads TO γεγραμμένον. See above, on xii. 1. 
unless indeed both be Hebraisms. 


V. 6. εὐαγγέλιον αἰώνιον. Our Eng. Veuas ‘the ever- _ 


lasting Gospel,” says rather more than does the original Greek, 
and more than the context requires. 
V. 14. vig ἀνθρώπου. See above, oni. 13. 


CHAP. XVI. 


V. 5. καὶ ὁ ὅσιος. Here many MSS.—xai 6, and many 
omit only καί. Wetstein, Maithii, and Griesbach, approve 
the former reading; 1 should more readily become the advo- 
cate of the latter: the former, indeed, I scarcely understand; 
the latter will mean, Just art Thou, the Being that is and that 
was, the Holy One: 80 1. 8. 6 παντοκράτωρ. The reading of 


the common Edd. καὶ ὃ seems to have originated with some 


one, who wished to make the whole passage agree with the 
form 6 ὧν καὶ ὃ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος : some Hdd. indeed, have 
this reading. 


CHAP. XVI. 


Υ. 4. ἡ περιβεβλημένη. The best MSS. for ἡ have ἦν, 
which the passage requires. 
Same v. γέμον βδελυγμάτων καὶ τὰ ἀκάθαρτα τῆς πορνείας. 


oe ae ὼς ἃ, 
νιν ΩΝ, ἀρνὸς 


CHAPTER XVIII. 467 


τῆς.γῆς. We have here another passage, which will probably 
for ever resist the powers of criticism: indeed the task of the 
Critic throughout this book scarcely yields in difficulty to that 
of the Expositor: there is, however, this difference, that the 
fulfilment of Prophecy will gradually dissipate the obscurities 
which perplex the one, while those, which bewilder the other, 
may possibly never be elucidated. The common text, it is 
true, has ἀκαθάρτητος τῆς πορνείας αὐτῆς, for which I find no 
other advocate than Schleusner; the Nominative ἀκαθάρτης 
being contrary to analogy, and the reading unsupported by 
MSS. On the other hand, ra ἀκάθαρτα after γέμον offends 
against grammatical construction, which, however, in this 
book seems not to be regarded; since the best MSS. in the 
verse preceding have γέμον ὀνόματα, a reading, the very singu- 
larity of which proves that it did not originate with the Copy- 
ists. But then why was it not also βδελύγματα ἢ My motive 
for noticing these difficulties has been stated above, on x. 7. 


CHAP. XVIII. 


V.17. πᾶς ἐπὶ τῶν πλοίων ὃ ὕμιλος. The Greek usage 
would require the Article to be placed before ἐπέ: the ma- 
jority of MSS., however, for ἐπὶ τῶν πλοίων ὁ ὕμιλος have 
6 ἐπὶ τόπον πλέων : which is preferred by Wetstein and 
Griesbach: a few have πᾶς ὃ ἐπὶ τῶν πλοίων πλέων. The 
ancient Versions exhibit vestiges of all these readings: the 
Vulg. has “omnis qui in lacum (some MSS. locum) navi- 
gant :” the Syr. “ qui ad locum navigat:” the Arab. “ qui 
maria sulcant :” the Copt. ‘omnes navigantes in mari :” 
and the Aithiop. “‘ turba navium.” Matthdt observes, “ Prima- 
sius” (who lived in the sixth century) ‘‘ has omnis per mare 
navigans. Forte ergo πόντον legit pro τόπον. Πᾶς ὃ ἐπὶ τόπον 
πλέων καὶ ναῦται, ut ego edidi, binis vocabulis nuncupantur 
vEcToRES et NAUTH. Hec ergo, ut videtur, aliquis Grece 
interpretatus est, πᾶς ἐπὶ τῶν πλοίων ὁ ὅμιλος. Ὅμιλος 
dubito, an idoned auctoritate nitatur.” Notwithstanding the 
opinion which I entertain of the critical acuteness of Matthii, 
I am not satisfied with these conjectures. With respect to 
ὅμιλος, not only are vestiges of it visible in some of the ancient 
Versions just cited; but, further, from the manner in which it 

Hh 2 


488 REVELATION, 


is here proposed to account for the origin of the reading ὅμιλος; 
we should not expect to find καὶ ναῦται immediately subjoined ; 
for, if I rightly understand Matthii, ὁ ὅμιλος was intended to 
comprehend both vectores and naute. ‘Then, again, the read- 
ing mare or πόντον seems not to depend wholly on the possible 
mistake of Primasius; it is observable in the lacum of the 
Vulg., or if we must allow that reading to be corrupt in the 
Arabic of the Polyglott, as well as in the Coptic, which could 
not well be affected either by the Vulgate or by the error of 
Primasius: and I am not certain that even ἐπὶ πλοίων may 
not have been considered as an equivalent to ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης. 
I suspect, therefore, that readings so discordant as those which 
this passage exhibits, are not thus easily to be accounted for, 
but are to be explained as being, the one of them (for they are 
resolvible into two) a supposed or really inaccurate rendering 


of some Hebrew phrase, and the other the correction. It is ~ 


well known, that a great part of this prophecy of the fall of 
Babylon is taken from Ezekiel’s prophecy of the destruction 
of ‘Tyre, Chap. xxvii. where, however, I do not find any thing 
at all applicable to the solution of our difficulty. The problem 
seems to be, to discover a Hebrew sentence, which, from its 
ambiguity, or from a slight, and therefore not improbable, 
variation in the reading, may explain the rise of the very dif- 
ferent readings in the present verse; that is to say, which may 
account for the difference of per mare (or ἐπὶ τῶν πλοίων) and 
ἐπὶ τόπον, and also show the origin of ὅμιλος. Now in the 
O. T. I do not recollect any passage which is better, however 
imperfectly, suited to our purpose, than is Isaiah xlii. 10. the 
Hebrew of which ΟΝ ΟῚ OY *T) the LXX. have rendered of 
καταβαίνοντες εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ TAEONTE®S αὐτήν. 
Here we observe that ἽΝ, which is equivalent to καὶ ὃ 
ὕμιλος αὐτῆς, is rendered by IIAEONTES, and it would not 
have been a looser translation than is very frequently found in 
the LX X. to have written either πᾶς ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης 
πλέων, or πᾶς ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης ὅμιλος. As to the differ- 
ence between πόντον and τόπον, it is much less in Hebrew 
than in Greek: the Copyist or Translator has only to con- 
found D% ad mare, and Ti ad locum. It is true that we 
have here nothing to correspond with ἐπὶ τῶν πλοίων : I think, 


however, that satling in ships and sailing on the sea are ex-— 


i ita ata ail naan! 


CHAPTER XIX. 469 


pressions which might easily be substituted the one for the 
other: in Psalm cvii. 23. we find the two united. 

I have here reasoned on the supposition that the passage 
was taken from the Hebrew of the O. T.; it is obvious, that 
on the hypothesis of a Hebrew original of the Apocalypse, the 
argument might be rendered much more conclusive. See 
above, on x. 7.—In this and the following verses I observe 
that future events are announced by ἔστησαν, ἔκραζον, &c. 
This has certainly a Hebrew air: so in Ezek. xxvii. 29, 30. 
which are parallel to the present and following verse, we find 
Past Tenses used in a Future signification by the help of the 
Vau Conversivum. The Latin of the Pol. Arab. has in the 
present instance stabunt, clamabunt, as if the Translator had 
noticed the peculiarity. 


CHAP. XIX. 


V.9. οἱ λόγοι ἀληθινοί. If ἀληθινοὶ be meant to be taken 
in immediate concord with λόγοι, the Article should be re- 
peated, as in A. 4. and Ed. Beng. 

V.10. ἡ γὰρ μαρτυρία τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐστι τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς προ- 
φητείας. The best interpretation which I have seen of this 
passage, is that of J. F. ἃ Stade, given by Wolfius : it supposes 
the angel to say, ‘‘ Do not offer me the worship due to God; 
I am unworthy of the honour, since I am not superior to 
yourself, but exercise the same function. We both testify of 
Christ; you to the present generation, I to posterity. Where- 
fore, love me as a brother and fellow-labourer, but do not 
worship me as God.” If this be the meaning of a text, which 
has created much dispute, and nothing, I think, can be more 
clear and satisfactory, we have here a convertible Proposi- 
tion. See Part i. Chap. iii. Sect. iv. ὃ 1, ““ Ἢ μαρτυρία τοῦ 
Ἰησοῦ, the office of an Apostle, which you fill,” says the angel, 
* and τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς προφητείας exercised by me, are not dif- 
ferent in value or dignity, but are one and the same thing.” 

V. 13. ὃ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ. Origen has omitted the former 
Article: it is contrary to the usage. 

V. 20. εἰς τὴν λίμνην. This lake had not been previously 
mentioned: it seems to be spoken of as a well-known name 
for a place of punishment. 


410 REVELATION. 


CHAP. XX. 
V. 2. καὶ Saravac. Some MSS. have 6 Σατανᾶς, which, 


however, the Greek usage will not allow. 


CHAP. XXI. 


V. 2. Ἱερουσαλὴμ καινήν. So in Strabo Καρχήδων νέα. 
V. 7. υἱός. Some MSS. improperly prefix the Article. 


CHAP. XXII. 


V. 2. ξύλον ζωῆς. Our English Version has ‘ the tree of 
life.” Yet it seems more proper to translate “ a@ tree of life.” 
‘Mr. Wakefield, indeed, makes ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ἐντεῦθεν to mean 
that “ the river flowed all around ;” whereas the words clearly 


signify that ‘‘a tree was on each side of the river:” in which 


case a plurality of trees is implied. This interpretation is cor- 
roborated by Ezek. xlvii. 12. It is also assisted by a citation 
in Schoettg. Hore Hebr. viz. “ that in the times of the Mes- 
siah God shall create trees, which shall produce fruit every 
month,” &c. Mr. W., however, is not the only Critic who 
has objected to our Common Version in this place. Dr. Owen 
(ap. Bowyer) asks, ‘‘ Can this translation possibly be right? 
How could the single tree of life, as here represented, possibly 
stand on both sides of the river? The difficulty, m my appre- 
hension, is somewhat considerable: nor can I think at present 
of any other way to solve it, but by inclosing the words kat 
τοῦ ποταμοῦ ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ἐντεῦθεν, scil. πορευομένου, in a paren- 
thesis; and rendering the passage as follows: in the midst of 


the street (and consequently of the river that flowed around) . 


stood the tree of life, which bare,” &c. The Reader must 
decide. ὰ 


Υ. 17. τὸ ὕδωρ ζωῆς. The best MSS. properly omit ré*. 


ιν. 19. ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων βίβλου. A very large number of MSS. (and some 
of the best) read rod βιβλίου.---Ἡ, J. R. 


END OF PART II, 


ee ee ee ee ee 


See 


APPENDIX IL. 


CONTAINING SOME REMARKS ON THE 


CODEX BEZL, 


OR CAMBRIDGE MS. OF THE FOUR GOSPELS AND 
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 


“BY BISHOP MIDDLETON. 


In the earlier pages of the Second Part of the preceding Work, I have 
sometimes had occasion, in my endeavour to ascertain the true reading or 
rendering of passages in which the Article was concerned, to condemn the 
Codex Beze. I soon found, however, that the deviations of this MS. were 
so frequent and so extraordinary, that to notice them as they occurred, 
would greatly swell the bulk of a volume which even then threatened to 
exceed the limits originally proposed, and that the subject could not be 
properly considered, but by being reserved.for an Appendix. 

- Before Biblical Criticism had made the progress which it owes princi- 
pally to the diligence and acuteness of men yet living, the Cambridge MS. 
though acknowledged to be of very high antiquity, was by many supposed 
to be a farrago compiled from various sources, but principally from the 
Latin Versions. Arnauld pronounced it to be a forgery of the sixth cen- 
tury; Mili insisted on its corruptness; Bengel held it in no esteem; 
Wetstein not only charged it with latinizing, but of this fact adduced 
proofs, which were for some time deemed conclusive; Semler adopted 
Wetstein’s opinion, though he afterwards revoked it. At the present day, 
no Critic of eminence, so far as I know, believes the Codex Bezz to be 
enormously corrupt, except Matthai, whose judgment on this subject, as 
it seems to me to come very near the truth, I shall give in his own words: 
** De Codice Wetstein. D. ita suspicor. Monachus quidam Latinus, Grecé 
mediocriter doctus, Greco Novo Testamento suo adscripserat marginibus 
loca Patrum, cum Grecorum, tum Latinorum, que locos s:ngulos N. Testa- 
menti spectare videbantur. Notaverat enim discrimina Codicum aliquot 
Grecorum et Latinorum N. Testamenti. Adjecerat etiam loca literarum 
sacrarum parallela. Ex hdc farragine deinde vel ipse, vel alius, confecit 
textum sibi probabilem. Id utrum per stultitiam, an per fraudem fecerit, 
incertum est. Ez hujusmodi exemplari autem, abhorrenti ab reliquis omnt- 


474 APPENDIX I. 


bus, ductus est Codex Cantabrigiensis seu Wetsteinii D.” See Matthai on 
Luke xiii. 24. Very different, however, is the opinion of Michaelis, Gries- 
bach, Adler, Professor Marsh, and the Editor of the MS., Dr. Kipling, the 
learned Dean of Peterborough. 

The defenders of the Codex Beze, for the most part, content themselves 
with endeavouring to repel the charge of its latinizing; though its very 
remarkable agreement with the Latin is a fact which, more or less, they 
feel themselves compelled to admit. It will be remembered that I am con- 
cerned only with its frequent and generally unsupported variations from 
the other MSS. in the insertion or omission of the Article ; and that whe- 
ther these variations arise from its being in many places unskilfully trans- 
lated from the Latin or from any other language, the conclusion will, in 
my view of the subject, be the same: viz. that the Codex Beze is entitled 
to little or no regard: if, on the contrary, this MS. be a tolerably accurate 
representation of the Autographs, then is the criticism of the Second Part 
of this volume extremely fallacious; and the canons which I have endea- 
voured to establish, however applicable they may be to the Orators and 
Historians of Athens, are not to be trusted in the Writings of the Evange- 
lists, nor probably in those of the Apostles. 

The Codex Beze is known to harmonize not only with the Latin, but 
in a great degree with the Old Syriac, with the Sahidic, and with the 
Coptic, that is to say, probably with the oldest Versions which exist. 
Hence its advocates would infer not only the value of its readings, but also 
their authenticity, which, however, appear to me to be two very different 
things, not sufficiently distinguished in the controversy: a reading is 
valuable when it preserves the sense which was originally expressed by the 
Writer of the work: to be authentic, it must be in his own words. I can- 
not, therefore, accede to the conclusion of Michaelis, (Introd. vol. ii. 

p. 168.) that ‘the remarkable coincidence with the Syriac and Coptic 
Ψετοίοία, is ἃ proof that such MSS. (viz. those which are suspected of 
latinizing,) instead of being corrupted from the Latin, were faithfully taken 
from very ancient copies, which had readings that are not extant in modern 
MSS.” From this circumstance I infer no fidelity, because that which is 
excellent, may yet be stolen. It is, indeed, possible, and by no means 
improbable, that the Codex Beze may have had for its basis a MS. 
older than itself by two or three centuries: in which case, some of its 
deviations from more modern MSS. may be authentic readings; and . 
unquestionably we ought so to conclude of all of them, if they exactly 
accorded in sense with the old Versions and with Origen, and if the words 
in which they are expressed betrayed no marks of their being re-translated 
translations. Every one will assent to the remark of Miinter (de Vers. 
Sahid. p. 6.) ‘‘ neque probaverit facile quis, lectionem ex Grecis Codd. deper- 
ditam IDEO esse latinizantem.” 

The warmest apologists of the Codex Beze are Griesbach in his Symb. 
Crit. vol. i. p. 111. and Professor Marsh in his Notes to Michaelis, vol. ii. 
p. 679. The latter observes (p. 683.) that ‘ the purity of a reading is no 
proof of its authenticity, in a work that is confessedly written in impure 


ΟΝ THE CODEX BEZ. 473 


Greek ; and that of these fourteen examples,” (adduced by Wetstein, Pro- 
leg. p. 32.) “‘ there are several which may rather be ascribed to accident 
than design. In short, there is no reason whatsoever for ascribing any 
reading of a Greek MS. to the influence of the Latin, unless it can be 
proved that it could not have taken its rise in the Greek, and that it might 
easily have originated in the Latin.’ I cannot otherwise enable the Reader 
to form an opinion where many of the readings of the Codex Beze pro- 
bably originated, and whether their impurity be merely a want of that 
classical elegance which we ought not to expect, than by laying before him 
the following Collation: the readings, where nothing is signified to the 
contrary, are, so far as appears from Griesbach, lectiones singulares. No- 
thing has been omitted, except that in a few instances, to save room, I 
have passed over readings differing from our common text only in the 
peculiar spelling of this MS. or in having the paragogic », which it con- 
stantly inserts before a consonant. 


ST. MATTHEW, CHAPTER V. 


Received Text. Codex Beze. 
3. πτωχοι τῳ πνευματι. “-- τω. 
τ τ ΑΞ! ΒΨΕΡ ο 0 'sie.0.2iv0.0 nb transposed. So also in 33. 


Vulg. Vere. Corb., &c. mostly 
Latin authorities. See Griesb. 


11. ὁταν ὀνειδισωσιν ὑμας και οταν διωξουσιν υμας και ὀνειδι- 
διωξωσι. σουσιν. 
Same v. εἰπωσι παν πονὴρον και εἰπωσιν καθ᾽ ὑμων παν πονη- 
ῥημα καθ᾽ ὑμων. ρον. Hoc ordine Syr. et Syr. 
Philox. ed. 
Same v. ῥημα. — ρημα. So B. Copt. 1. 


Syr. Hieros. the old Italic, the 
Vulg. The Latins, except the 
Opus Imperf. 


Same v. Wevdopevor. — ψευδομενοι. Several Latin 
Verss. and Fathers, with Origen. 

Same v. ἕνεκεν ἐμου. évecev δικαιοσυνης. Many Latin 
authorities. 

12. ἐν τοις ουρανοις. εν τω ουρανω. 

Same v. ovrw. ouTwe. 

Same v. rove προ ὑμων. + υπαρχοντας. 

13. sig οὐδὲν ἰσχύει ἐτι. — ert. Syr. Erp.-Arab. Latin 
Versions and Latin Fathers. 

18. ἑως ἀν παντα γενηται, εως ay γενηται παντα. 

19. ὁς ἐαν οὖν λυσῃ. ος οὖν λυσει. Av was added by 
a later hand. 

Same v. οὑτω. — οὕτω, 

BO. Vedsacess conver copents deest. 

21. ἐῤῥεθη. ἐρρηθη. KE. alii. It is usually 


so spelt in the Codex Bez. 


474. APPENDIX I. 


Received Text. - 
22. paxa. 
24. διαλλαγηθι. 
25. ἐν ry ὁδῳ per’ αὐτου. 


Same v. mapady, bis. 
Same v. βληθησῃ. 
26. κοδραντην. 

27. τοις ἀρχαιοις. 


28. ἐπιθυμησαι αὐτῆς. 


20. σου ὃ δεξιος. 
Same v. βληθῃ. 
30. “»δ.υ 9 ὁ ὃ 949 ἡ vp teeeeesevrenee 


31. ἐῤῥεθη δὲ dre. 
32, Aeyw ὑμιν dre de. 
Same v. μοιχασθαι. 


Samev. καὶ ὃς tay ἀπολελυμένην 
yapnoy, μοιχαται. 


36. οὐ δυνασαι μιαν τριχα λευκὴν 
ἢ μέλαιναν ποιῆσαι. 
38. και ὀδοντα. 


30. δεξιαν. 


Same Vv. σου σιαγονα. 
40. rw θελοντι, 

Same v. ἀφες. 

41, per’ αὐτου δύο. 


42. dWov. 

Same v. τὸν θελοντα. 

44. καλως ποιειτε τους μισουντας 
ὑμας. 

Same v. ἐπηρεαζοντων ipac. 


_ 46. ἔχετε. 
47. οὐχι καὶ οἱ τέλωναι οὕτω 
ποιουσιν. ᾿ 


. 48. 6 πατὴρ ὑμων ὃ ἐν τοις οὐρα- 
VIM. 7 


Codex Beze. 
Paya. 
καταλλαγήηθι. 
μετ᾽ αὑτου ἐν rnodw. 1,.1. 13. 
33. 124. Lat. Verss. and Lat. 
Fathers. Three at least of the 


above MSS. have been suspected 


of latinizing. 

παραδώσει. bis. 

βληθησει. 

χοδραντην. 

deest. A multitude of MSS. of 
all classes. Some old Verss. 

ἐπιθυμησαι αὐτην. A multitude 
of MSS. 

6 δεξιος σου. Ξ 

απελθη. Old Latin Versions. 

deest. Lost by the homeote- 
leuton. 

ἐρρηθη oe. BL. 1. 33. &e. 

AEyw vty ος. 

μοιχευθηναι. B. 1. 13. 33. &e. 
and some Greek Fathers. 

deest. 64. Two old Lat. Verss. 
Codd. Gr. et Lat. ap. Aug. Orig. 
ut videtur. 

ov δυνασαι ποιησαι τριχᾶ μειαν 
λευκὴν ἡ μέλαιναν. ι 

ὀδοντα. Old Lat. Verss. Latin 
Fathers. 

deest. Arab. pol. Other au- 
thorities mostly Latin. 

σιαγονα σου. B. 

ὁ θελων. Latin, Qui voluerit. 

apnoetc. 

per’ αὐτου ett adda δυο. Old 
Lat. Verss. and Writers. Ire- 
neus. 

δος. B. 124. Clem. 


rw θελοντι, 38. and two others. 


Kahwe 'ποῖειτε τοις μισουσιν vag. 
Many MSS. of different classes. 

ἐπηρεαζοντων. Vulg. Perse- 
quentibus. | 

e€erat, 1. 6. εἕετε. 

OUXL και OL εθνικοι TO αὑτὸ ποιου- 
ow. Many unexceptionable au- 
thorities for both variations. 

ὁ πατὴρ ὑμων ὁ ουρανίος. Very 
many authorities. 


a νυν 


ΟΝ THE CODEX ΒΕΖ,. 475 


Having proceeded to the end of the 5th Chapter, without any other 
omissions than those which I prepared the Reader to expect, and having 
thus given him an idea of the MS. generally, I will pursue the Collation 
somewhat further, noticing only the more remarkable deviations. 


CHAP. VI. 


Received Text. 


1. τῳ ἐν rove οὐρανοις. 

4. σου ἡ ἐλεημοσυνη. 

5. ὡσπερ. 
_ Same y. re φιλουσιν ἐν ταῖς γω- 
via των πλατειων ἕστωτες προσ- 
ευχεσθαι. 


6. τῳ ἐν τῳ κρυπτῳ. 
8. προ Tov ὑμας αἰτησαι αὐτον. 


10. ὡς. 


14, ἀφησει και ὑμιν ὁ πατηρ. 
17. ἀλειψαι. 
18. ὅπως. 


From vi. 20. to ix. 


CHAP. 


4, ειπεν. 
6. εξουσιαν ἔχει ὁ viog του ἀν- 
θρωπου. 


Same v. ἔγερθεις ἄρον. 
9. ὁ Ιησοῦυς ἐκειθεν. 


Same v. ἠκολουθησεν. 

10. και idov. 

Same Vv. συνανεκειντο, 

11. καὶ ἰδοντες. 

Same v. μετα των τελώνὼων και 
apaprwrwy εσθιει ὁ διδασκαλος ὑμων, 


Codex Beze. 


TW εν ουρανοις. 

ἡ εἐλεημοσυνὴ σου. 

ως. 

ore φίλουσιν στῆναι ἐν ταις συνα- 
ywya καὶ εν ταις γωνιαῖς των 
πλατείων εἐστωτες καὶ προσευχομε- 
νοι. One of the Latin Verss. of 
Sabatier. 

ev tw κρυπτω. Several MSS. 
chiefly those suspected of latiniz- 
ing, Arm. Arr. Slav. all the old 
Lat. Verss. and the Vulg. 

προ Tov vpac ανοιξε (1. 6. avor- 
Eat) ro στομα. One of the Latin 
Verss. of Sabatier, the same as 
above, ver. 5. 

deest. Three old Latin Verss. 
and two Latin Fathers. 

αφησει υμιν και ὁ πατηρ. 

ἄλειψον. 

va. 


2. is a chasm. 


IX. 


ειπεν αὑτοῖς. 

ὁ vic του avOpwrov εξουσίαν 
exe. Vulg. Filius hominis habet 
potestatem, 

eyewar (i. 6. ἐγειρε) Kat apov. 
Vulg. surge, tolle. 

exebev ὃ Inoove. Vulg. Inde 
Jesus. 

ηκολουθει. 

wov. Vulg. 6666. 

συνεκειντο. 

εἰδοντες (i. 6. ἐδοντες) de. 

ὁ διδασκαλος ὕυμων μετὰ των 
αμαρτωλων και τελωνων εσθιει. 


476 APPENDIX 1. 


Received Text. 


15. μη δυνανται. 
Same Vv. νυμφωνος. 


17. ῥηγνυνταῖι οἱ ἀσκοι. 

Same v. και ὁ οἶνος ἐκχειται και 
οἵ ἀσκοι απολουνται. 

Same v. ἀλλα βαλλουσιν. 

21. μονον ἁψωμαι. 


22. ὁ δὲ Τησους ἐπιστραφεις. 
25. ἐκρατησε τῆς χειρος. 


28. ἔλθοντι δὲ εἰς την οἰκιαν προσ- 
ηλθον. 


Same v. οἱ τυφλοι. 

29. ἡψατο των ὀφθαλμων αὐτων, 
λεγων. 

30. αὐτῶν οἱ ὀφθαλμοι. 


Same v. ὃ Inoove. 

33. ἐφανὴ οὑτως. 

Same v. ἐν τῳ ᾿Ισραηλ. 
OS. a0 0's alge δον ον δι ν εν 


30. ἐκλελυμενοι. 


Same v. ἐῤῥιμμενοι woe. 


Codex Beze. 


pyre δυνανται. 

γυμφιου. 1 MS. Ath. Goth, 
Sax. All the old Latin Verss. 
Vulg. Arnob. Aug. 

ρήσσει ὁ οἶνος ὃ νεος τους ασκους. 

και ο οινος ἀπολλῦύται Kat οἱ ασ- 
κοι. Arnobius, 

βαλλουσιν δε. 

αψωμαι μονον. Vulg. Tetigero 
tantum. 

ὁ δὲ ἐστη στραφεις. - 

exparnos τὴν χειρα. Vulg. te- 
nuit manum. 

καὶ ερχεται εἰς THY οἰκιαν Kat 
προσηλθον. Vulg. Cum autem ve- 
nisset domum, accesserunt. 

ot δυο τυφλοι. 

ἡψατο των ομματων αὐτων καὶι 
ειπεν. 

οἱ οφθαλμοι avrwy. Vulg. Oculi 
eorum. 

6 deest. 

ουτως Epavn. 

εν Ἰσραηλ. 

deest. An old Latin Version 
and two Latin Writers. 

ἐσκυλμενοι. A multitude of au- 
thorities. 

θεριμμενοι ὡς. Could ρεριμμενοι 
have originated in the Greek? 


The following variations are confined to the uses of the Article. 


CHAP. X. 


6. ra προβατα ra ἀπολωλοτα, 


13. ἡ εἰρηνη ὑμων. 


15. ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρισεως. 


τα mpoBara ἀαπολωλοτα. Con- 


trary to the Greek idiom. 


eonvy vuwy. Against the usage: 


ἡ added ἃ secunda manu. Kip- 
ling. 

ἐν Ty ἡμερα κρισεως. Contrary 
to the Greek idiom, 


CHAP. XI. 


7. ὁ Inoove. 
11. ἐν γεννητοις γυναικων. 


12. βιασται. 


Ἰησους. 
εν τοῖς γεννητοις των γυναικων, 


a pr. manu. 


ot βιασται. See above ad loc. 


eh ee 4. 


ON THE CODEX BEZ%. 477 


CHAP. XII. 
Received Text. Codex Beze. 
1. τοῖς σαββασιν. σαββασιν. Against the usage. 
12. προβατου. Tov προβατου. 
35. ὁ ἀγαθος. primo ἀγαθος. Kipling. 
42. Σολομωντος. - Tov Σολομωνος. & pr. Manu. 


The circumstances to which principally I would direct the attention of 
the Reader, may be comprised under the following heads: 1. Synonyms. 
2. Transpositions. 3. Compound for simple, and simple for compound, 
Verbs. 4. Wrong Moods and Tenses. 5. Alterations in the sense. 
6. Questionable Greek. 7. Latinisms. 8. The uses of the Article. The 
point which he has to consider is, whether all these phenomena can be 
satisfactorily accounted for on any hypothesis, which does not resemble 
that of Matthai: that some of them may be otherwise explained, is 
evidently insufficient. Mr. Marsh allows (Notes to Michaelis, vol. ii. 
p- 680.) that through the two first Chapters of Mark, which he had col- 
lated, ““ in most of the readings in which the Codex Beze differs from all 
the Greek MSS., it agrees with some one of the old Latin Versions pub- 
lished by Blanchini:” he adds, ‘‘ but shall we therefore conclude that 
those readings were actually borrowed from a Latin Version, and trans- 
lated into Greek? It is at least as possible that they might have had their 
origin in the Greek as in the Latin; and this very possibility is sufficient 
to defeat the whole of Wetstein’s hypothesis.” In examining the pheno- 
mena of the MS. let us keep in view this and the former remark of the 
same distinguished Critic. 

1. Synonyms. The Collation furnishes at least one striking example, 
(see on ix. 29.) ὀμμάτων for ὀφθαλμῶν. It will hardly be contended that 
this was the reading of the original (or Greek Translation from the 
Hebrew,) for then we should expect to find it in other MSS.; which, 
however, does not happen: besides, ὄμμα is a word not much in use with 
the Writers of the N. T.: the received text has it only once, viz. Mark 
Vili. 23: ὀφθαλμὸς is extremely common, and occurs in Matthew alone 
about twenty-five times. ᾿οΟμμάτων, then, must be considered as an error : 
and where did it originate? in the Greek, by a slip of the Transcriber? 
In a single instance, this solution might be tolerated: but in the Codex 
Bezz these slips are very frequent: in verse 24. of Chapter v. we have 
καταλλαγηθι for διαλλαγηθι: yet Al and KAT have not, to the eye, any 
great resemblance: I believe, therefore, that the oculi of the Latin pre- 
sented to the Translator of this passage two Greek words; and that, there 
being a right one and a wrong one, he unfortunately chose the latter. The 
passage has another mark which betrays its origin: instead of the reading 
of the MSS. ἥψατο λέγων, it has ἥψατο καὶ εἶπε, a variety of which the 
Codex Bezz furnishes probably an hundred examples: see the Collation 
on ix. 6. second instance. 2. Transpositions. I do not think that devi- 


478 APPENDIX I. 


ations of this kind, especially when they affect passages of considerable 
length, are likely to be the mistakes of a copyist; not, at least, of one so 
unlearned as the Transcriber of the Codex Beze is commonly allowed to 
have been. A man to whom Greek is very familiar, may indeed catch up 
a sentence, and during an interval of interruption, the words which are 
still floating in his mind may receive a new arrangement: but this could 
hardly have happened to the Writer of our Codex, who at ix. 36. has 
formed the Preterite of pirrw like that of τύπτω, and at ii. 1. has declined 
Ἡρώδης like Δημοσθένης. Add to this that the order of the words in the 
Codex Beze is frequently that of no existing MS., but the very same 
which is observable in the Vulg. or some of the old Latin Versions. 
3. Compound for simple, and simple for compound, Verbs, are explicable in 
the same manner with Synonyms: and, as it appears to me, where they 
are lectiones singulares, which very frequently they are, on no other hypo- 


thesis. 4. The same may be said of the use of wrong Moods and Tenses: 


thus, ix. 9. ἠκολούθει for ἠκολούθησε, i. 25. ἔγνω for ἐγίνωσκεν, iv. 8. ἔδειξεν 
for δείκνυσιν, may equally be made to represent secutus est, cognoscebat, 
ostendit, the last being supposed in the Latin to be not the Present, but 
the Preterite. 5. We come next to Alterations of the sense, whether by 
addition, omission, or substitution: thus in the Collation, v. 11. last 
instance, vi. 5. second instance, and vi. 8. How, for example, in the last 
case, could any transcriber give the reading of the Codex Beze? Was it 
by mere accident? but between the words of that reading, and that of the 
received text, there is not the least similitude. Is it the true reading? 
Then we should have expected to have found it in some other MS. besides 
the Codex Beze; or, at any rate, in the Syriac, Sahidic, or Coptic Ver- 
sions: yet, according to Griesbach, it is found only in a single Latin 
Version of Sabatier, the Claromontanus. If it be asked, How came it into 
the Claromontanus, if not from the Codex Beze, I answer, that I suppose 
the author of that Latin translation to have expressed himself loosely, and 
to have been contented, as translators often are, with giving something 
like the sense. This supposition is very much easier than the alternative 
of believing that ἀνοῖξαι rd στόμα, instead of αἰτῆσαι αὐτόν, was a mere slip 
of the copyist, and that the error passed from the Greek into the Latin. 
This, I think, would be true, if the present were a solitary example: but 
since the Codex Bezze contains many such, the conclusion is infinitely 
more strong.—There are instances also in which the reading of the Codex 
is not found, so far at least as appears from Griesbach, in any authority 
whatever: and yet even of these it can hardly be doubted that they are 
translations: thus John ix. 11. instead of the very natural Greek, ἀπελ- 
θὼν δὲ καὶ νιψάμενος ἀνέβλεψα, we have ἀπῆλθον οὖν, καὶ ἐνιψάμην, καὶ 
ἦλθον βλέπων. Can any one imagine this to have originated in the Greek, 
_ supposing the received reading to be authentic, which we are compelled to 
suppose, from the general consent of MSS. Versions, and Fathers ?—But 
our Codex has also, as is well known, numerous additions, consisting of 


whole sentences. Thus Acts v. 29. between αὐτὸ and μήποτε, it inserts 


the frigid gloss οὔτε ὑμεῖς, οὔτε βασιλεῖς, οὔτε ripavvor’ ἀπέχεσθε οὖν ἀπὸ 


6 


ΟΝ THE CODEX BEZA. ᾿ 479 


τῶν ἀνθρώπων τούτων. ‘The authorities for this reading are, besides the 
Latin Version of the Codex, the Syr. Philox. cum asterisco, and one MS. 
of the Vulgate. Now of this and similar interpolations, I would not 
affirm that they necessarily originated in the Latin: a single MS. of the 
Vulg. may have been corrupted from the Greek, or rather from the Latin, 
of the Codex Bezz: and as to the Philoxenian, if we may trust our great 
Orientalist, Professor White, (Philox. Vers. vol. i. p. 28.) the asterisk 
proves the reading to have been originally in the margin of that Version, 
and subsequently to have been admitted into the text by Thomas of Harkel, 
the editor of the Version. When we add, that there are strong reasons to 
believe that our very Codex was collated by Thomas for his new edition, 
(see Adler Verss. Syr. p: 130, and the evidence is stronger in the Acts 
than in the Gospels, which alone were collated by Adler,) the authority for 
the reading is reduced to that of one MS. of the Vulg. If, therefore, it 
was not taken from the Latin, and it betrays no marks of latinizing, then 
was it a mere marginal annotation written on the MS. which I suppose to 
have been the basis of the Codex Beze, and taken by the writer of the fair 
MS. into the text. Still, however, such interpolations, though of Greek 
origin, affect the integrity of the Codex, as much as if they were trans- 
lated from the Latin: and this want of integrity is the point for which 
chiefly I contend; though I believe that the Latin was the source of the 
greater part of its corruption. But this leads us, 6, to Questionable Greek. 
It must be conceded to Mr. Marsh, that “the purity of a reading is no 
proof of its authenticity in a work, the style of which is confessedly 
impure :” it is obvious, however, that this concession has its limits. The 
language of the Evangelists, unless we must, in deference to the Coder 
Beze, reject the evidence of all other MSS., if it rarely be remarkable for 
elegance, never solecizes ; and the evidence of ali the MSS., unless indeed 
in casual instances, which may be imputed to error, proves the same truth 
with respect to the writings of the Apostles : the Apocalypse I have already 
excepted. It may, therefore, be replied, that neither is the impurity of a 
reading any proof of authenticity in a work, the writers of which rarely 
express themselves awkwardly and unnaturally, and never ungrammati- 
eally and unintelligibly. Now he who shall examine the Codex Beze, will 
perceive, that in a very great number of its lectiones singulares, it differs 
from the other MSS. only in exhibiting a balder and more clumsy phrase- 
ology: I mean, to a person moderately conversant with Greek ; for to any 
other it might appear the more obvious and natural. Its perpetual resolu- 
tion of the Participle and Verb into two Verbs coupled by καί, as προσεὰ- 
θὼν εἶπεν (Matt. iv. 3.) into προσῆλθεν καὶ εἶπεν, falls under the present 
head: though very allowable Greek, it is inferior to the reading of the 
MSS. . The same may be affirmed of the addition of the Participle of exist- 
ence, v. 12. where to τοὺς πρὸ ὑμῶν of the MSS. the Codex subjoins ὑπάρ- 
xovrac: so in Mark v. 40. to τοὺς per’ αὐτοῦ it adds ὄντᾳς. Still more 
glaring is its very frequent use of ὅταν before the Indicative : see Collation 
y. 11; x. 19.23: though in the Greek even of the N. T. this Conjunction, 
if we may trust the MSS., usually prefers the Subjunctive. By the same 


480 APPENDIX I, 


writers, as well as by others, Neuters Plural are placed before Verbs 
Singular: but the Codex Beze, xv. 27. instead of τὰ κυνάρια ἐσθίει has τὰ 
κυνάρια ἐσθίουσιν : so also twice xiii. 40. In John ix. 19. for the well- 
known Grecism πρὸς τὰς περὶ Μάρθαν καὶ Μαρίαν, we read πρὸς Μάρθαν kai 
Μαρίαν. This, according to Griesbach, is the reading of no other MS. 
than D., though πρὸς τὴν Μάρθαν καὶ Μαρίαν is in B, C. L., &c. but is not 
adopted by Griesbach: but τὰς περί, we learn from Griesbach, is omitted 
in Versionibus omnibus vel plerisque: so I should have conjectured, for the 
plain reason, that probably no version was capable of expressing the Greek 
idiom; and thus it was wanting in the Latin or other Version whence this 
passage was rendered. All these are improbable readings, considered as 
having originated in the Greek: but as re-translations, they are discre- 
pancies of precisely the same sort which are observable in the exercises of 
school-boys, (and for the most part of ill-taught or half-taught boys,) who 
re-translate into Greek what they have translated from the Latin.—But 
there are passages in the Codex Bezz which are really solecisms. What, 
for example, are we to say of Mark xi. 12? where, instead of ἐξελθόντων 
αὐτῶν, the Syr. and some old Versions have in the Singular ἐξελθόντος 
αὐτοῦ: but D. has ἐξελθόντα ἀπὸ Βηθανίας ἐπείνασεν. On this Mr. Marsh 
(p. 684.) observes, that ‘‘ the writer of this passage has converted ἐπεί- 
vacev into an Impersonal Verb, and made it to govern ἐξελθόντα ;” but he 
thinks ‘‘ that the alteration may be ascribed rather to error or carelessness, 
than to actual design.” I cannot dissemble that I am of a different 
opinion; ἐξελθόντα appears to be here purposely employed in the sense of 
a Genitive Absolute: and the following passage is similar in a degree 
which can hardly be imputed to accident: in Luke ix. 37. instead of the 
reading of the MSS. κατελθόντων αὐτῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄρους, συνήντησεν αὐτῷ 
ὄχλος πολύς, we find ΚΑΤΈΛΘΟΝΤΑ AYTON ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄρους, συνελθεῖν αὐτῷ 
ὄχλον πολύν. Here the latter clause is changed into the common Latin 
form of the Accusative with an Infinitive Mood, in consequence of ἐγένετο 
preceding: but if ἐξελθόντα αὐτὸν do not mean quum descendisset, I can 
make nothing of the place. Now these appear to me to be egregious sole- 
cisms; for no Critic, I imagine, will wish to consider them as examples of 
the elegant Attic Accusative Absolute: he who would adopt this solution, 
may consult Brunck, Aristoph. Ran. 1437, and Duker, Thucyd. viii. 66. 
and iv. 2. These instances, perhaps, will in some measure reconcile us to 


the famous reading, Matt. ili. 16. τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαίνοντα. A most inge- 


nious conjecture by Knittel, by which he would account for this peculiarity, 
has been given by Mr. Marsh, p. 683. Mill supposed it to be a Latinism 
arising from the Masculine Spiritum: I think that this solution is con- 
firmed by the remainder of the reading, καταβαίνοντα ἐκ rod οὐρανοῦ we, 
which is preserved in many Latin authorities, but no where else!. 7. We 


1 Yet such a reading, if genuine, might be defended as an instance of the 
σχῆμα πρὸς τὸ σημαινόμενον, and would not be very unlike John xvi. 13. ὅταν 
ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, K. τ΄. & followed by ἐκεῖνος ἐμὲ δοξάσει in 
the next verse: in which passage, though the gender οἵ ἐκεῖνος might through- 


ON THE CODEX BEZ&. 481 


next proceed to Latinisms ; which, however, have in part been unavoid- 
ably anticipated. Of Latinisms so flagrant that they could not possibly 
have arisen in the Greek, the number, perhaps, is small: but it may be 
questioned whether the criterion be not, by such a condition, too closely 
restricted. If the Codex Beze, in almost every page, present us with 
variations from all existing MSS., and yet in Latin authorities, and most 
commonly in them alone, we find passages which, being closely rendered, 
give us the Greek of the Codex in such cases, even if that Greek be not 
absolutely intolerable, we may still, I think, safely infer in what quarter 
the variation originated. It is asked, Why, in any single instance, may 
not the Latin have been taken from the Greek? In some instances, this is 
not impossible; but in many, it is highly improbable, for this reason; a 
transcriber, notwithstanding that he may and must sometimes err, is not 
liable so frequently to deviate from the text, as is the re-translator of a 
translation: and if we add to this, (allowing to a transcriber a much 
greater number of errors than experience requires us to allow,) the extreme 
improbability that his errors should commonly be precisely such as a 
re-translator, from still existing translations, might easily commit, either 
the inference which I would deduce is natural and reasonable, or no con- 
clusion can safely be drawn from the doctrine of chances. I mean not to 
deny that the Codex Beze, like other MSS., has traces of the haste or care- 
' lessness of the Copyist: in Matt. x. there are two instances of passages 
being lost by the homeoteleuton ; viz. a clause in verse 19, and the whole 
of verse 37: there are examples also of a letter or a syllable being omitted, 
and supplied by a later hand: but these are mistakes to which all copyists 
in all languages are subject : to give synonyms—to alter Tenses—to trans- 
pose the words of whole clauses—and to add whole sentences, are not the 
faults of the most blundering copyist. We may, therefore, include under 
the head of Latinisms passages which, varying from all the MSS., Greek 
Fathers, and Oriental Versions, and being wholly inexplicable as the usual 
errors of copyists, are yet easily accounted for as translations from the 
Latin; especially if any thing of the Greek idiom be lost, aud something 
of the Latin be introduced into its place. The following will serve as 
examples: In the Collation v. 40. instead of τῷ θέλοντι depending on ἄφες, 
we have ὁ θέλων : this has strongly the appearance of being a rendering 
from qui voluerit, by some one who did not look forward to the end of the 
sentence; and ἀφήσεις for ἄφες rather corroborates the suspicion. In a 
work of so stupendous labour as the N. T. of Griesbach, no man who 
knows the toil of collating, will expect that every reading of every MS. 
should be noticed. This reading, however, is remarkable; and Matthai 
commends the prudence of Griesbach in passing it over: ‘‘ quis enim sane 
mentis homo Cod. D. sequatur?’”? If this were prudence in his new edition, 
Griesbach is equally discreet; for of this reading οὐδὲ ypt: however, I 


out be referred to παράκλητος, I confess that the structure of the whole 
appears to me to furnish a strong argument for the personality of the Holy Spirit. 


—J.S, 
11 


482 APPENDIX I. 


have seen it with my own eyes. That it is the mistake of a re-translator, 
and not of a transcriber, is pretty plain; since in iv. 16. we have its exact 
parallel, οἱ καθήμενοι for τοῖς καθημένοις : the former of these is the reading 
of six Latin Versions. In v. 42. for τὸν θέλοντα, which is right after ἀπο- 
στράφῃς, we have τῷ θέλοντι to express volenti of the Vulg., which is equally 
proper after avertaris. It should be observed, however, that two or three 
inferior MSS. have the same fault: yet it could not originate in the Greek. 
—Mark iv. 31. for τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς D. has & εἰσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς : this was 
very natural to a man not conversant with Greek, and who had before him 
the rendering of the Vulg. and of all the old Latin Versions, ‘‘ gue sunt in 
terrd.”’—Mark vi. 2. for γενομένου σαββάτου D. reads ἡμέρᾳ σαββάτων : 
this, in form, little resembles the Greek of the MSS., but perfectly well 
expresses the meaning of two old Latin Versions, die sabbatorum.—Mark 
Vili. 2. instead of dre ἤδη ἡμέρας (ΟΥ̓ ἡμέραι) τρεῖς προσμένουσί με, D. has ὅτε 
ἤδη ἡμέραι τρεῖς εἰσιν, ἀπὸ πότε ὧδέ εἰσιν ; this reading has for its corre- 
sponding Latin, tridwum est, ex quo hic sunt in five old Latin Versions ; and 
there surely no one will doubt that it took its rise, especially if he attend 
to ἀπὸ πότε: the Latin is a loose rendering of the received text, and the 
Codex a very bad rendering of the Latin.—s8. Under the eighth and last 
head, I must advert to the very remarkable manner in which the Cam- 
bridge MS. employs and rejects the Greek Article. Here, however, I am 
scarcely authorized to give an opinion. ‘To condemn a MS. because it 
violates the rules, is to suppose that the rules are true; and yet the whole 
inquiry proceeds on the ground, that to the truth of the rules, so far as the 
N. T. is concerned, the evidence of this MS. is wanting. I am permitted, 
however, to state, that in respect to the Article, the Codex Beze averages 
probably, in every chapter, two or three lectiones singulares ; and that, 
consequently, if it be right, all other MSS. must be wrong. © I may also 
remind the Reader, that many of these variations are contrary not merely 
to the usage, but to principles which have been demonstrated: and I may 
add, that on the: hypothesis of re-translation, this variation is very expli- 
cable; since from whatever language those re-translations were made, 
especially if from the Latin, such errors, however numerous, were to be 
expected. 

All Scholars know more or less of the famous Velesian Readings: but 
the fullest, and by far the best, account which I have seen of them, will 


be found in the Appendix, No. III. to Marsh’s “ Letters to Mr. Travis.” 


In 1540, R. Stephens published a splendid edition of the Vulgate, and in 
1550, an edition of the Greek Testament. Many readings of the latter 
were observed to vary from the Latin of the former: in order, therefore, 
to support this edition of the Vulgate against the Greek, Peter Faxard, 
Marquis of Velez, from whom the readings are called, took the pains of 
translating the Latin of the Vulgate into Greek, wherever the Greek 


Testament differed from’ the Vulgate, except, indeed, where Stephens’s - 


Greek margin supplied him with the readings which he wanted ; and there 
he had only to transcribe. ‘These translations purported to be a collection 
of various readings, and for a long time imposed upon the world: they are 


ee a δΣα 


᾿ς ἄμε. a ..« 


ON THE CODEX BEZ®. 483 


said to be still of some authority in the Romish Church, and are quoted as 
such even by Sabatier. Now Mr. Marsh has clearly demonstrated that 
the whole is a forgery: but I think that much of his reasoning, muéatis 
mutandis, will apply to the Codex Beze ; I allude to his 3d, 11th, 12th, 
and 13th heads: of proof. The third is, that “The Velesian readings 
agree in general with Stephens’s Vulgate text of 1540. Mr. Marsh (as 
quoted above) admits that the readings of the Coder Beze commonly 
coincide with the Vulgate, and with the Latin Ante-hieronymian Versions 
published by Blanchini: and of this every one must be sensible, who turns 
over the new edition of Griesbach, where he will find D. in company with 
Vulg. It. (the old Italic,) or with some of the old Versions, Veron. Vere. 
Vind. Corb. Colb. Brix. Germ. &c. and the Latin Fathers continually.— 
His 11th proposition is, that ‘‘ though upwards of 450 MSS. of the Greek 
Testament have been collated, yet all these Greek MSS. put together do 
not contain one-half of the Velesian readings.’’? Without having made 
the inquiry, which, however, in a portion of the Codex I might easily 
make, 


exiremo nt jam sub fine laborum 
Vela traham, et terris festinem advertere proram, 


I suspect that neither do all the collated MSS. put together contain one- 
half of the readings in which the Codex Beze varies from the received 
text.—The 12th proposition is, that “the greatest part of those Velesian 
readings, which have never been found in a Greek MS., evidently betray a 
Latin origin.” Mr. Marsh then refers us to his ample lists of Velesian 
readings, and observes, that ‘“‘ many of them bear on their very forehead 
the certificate of their birth.” He who has examined the brief specimen 
of the readings of the Codex Beze given above, will probably have little 
difficulty, in the case of some of them, in ascertaining their parentage : 
their speech bewrayeth them.—As a 13th proof, Mr. Marsh shows, that “ in 
many of the Velesian readings, the Greek Article is neglected, where a 
native Greek would have used it.” I mean not to deny, that in this 
respect the Marquis was a little unlucky; nor that we have here good 
evidence “ that the translator was an inhabitant of the west of Europe, and 
not a native Greek ;”” but I cannot allow the Marquis to be condemned, 
and the Translator of the interpolations in the Codex to be acquitted : this 
would be dare veniam corvis. Velez has been guilty of certain omissions ; 
but the Codex not only omits, but inserts the Article without rule or mean- 
ing, so far as I can discover, and certainly in defiance of the usage which 
prevails every where else. 

I believe, then, that our Cambridge MS., though a most venerable 
remain of antiquity, is not to be considered, in a critical view, as of much 
authority. It is of use to the translator and to the dogmatical theologian, 
but not, I think, generally speaking, to the editor of the N. T., whose 
object it is to give a text approaching as nearly as possible to the Auto- 
graphs. But here I would not be misunderstood. If we had at the present 
day no other Greek MS. of the Evangelists and Acts than the Codex Beze, 
the truth of our Religion would, indeed, be as evident as if we had only 

ἘΣ 


484. ; APPENDIX I. 


any other single MS. of the same writings, viz. either B. (the Vat. 1209) 
or the H. of Matthai, supposing it to extend so far: we should still have a 
record of the same miracles, of the same Divine doctrines, of the same 
death and resurrection of Christ, and of the same miraculous gifts im- 
parted to the first Teachers of Christianity: but in the view of criticism 
the case would stand very differently: almost every thing which the 
learned have determined respecting the style and language of the Evange~ 
lists, would be wholly unfounded; and Hardouin’s hypothesis of a Latin 
original, of the Gospels and Acts at least, would not be altogether chi- 
merical.—But not only the question which is the subject of this work 
makes it important to ascertain what is the degree of faith due to the read- 
ings of the Codex Beze: another consideration arises, which all readers 
will think of much greater moment; it respects the inviolate integrity of 
the Oracles of God. Now here we have no alternative, but to confess that 
the Codex Beze has been much corrupted ; or else to prove that it alone is 
pure, while the rest have been tampered with by critics and transcribers : 
either this MS. Latinizes, or the others Grecize, i. e. have been corrected 
and modelled to the Greek idiom by persons who wished to mend the 
Sacred Text: between these opinions the Reader can have little hesitation 
in deciding. It is true, indeed, that our Codex is not the only one which 
has been suspected: some others, though, I believe, in a less degree, share 
the accusation. It ought, however, to be understood, that in the latin- 
izing readings those MSS., for the most part, agree with the MS. of Beza: 
D. L. 1. 13. 33. 69. &c. will commonly be found together in Wetstein. 
But we are not by this circumstance driven to the necessity of supposing 
that many MSS. have been corrupted in the same manner with Beza’s; 
which, of course, would proportionally weaken the probability that any 
had been so corrupted. The Codex D., from its very great antiquity, may 
be imagined to have had considerable influence on subsequent copyists ; 
and this hypothesis will go far to account for the latinizing of some 
other suspected MSS., without our supposing that in so many instances 
they were corrupted immediately from the Vulgate. To me, indeed, it 
appears that the influence of this MS. has been even less than might 
reasonably have been expected. 

As to the goodness of its readings, considered with regard to the sense, 
I have already observed, that for this fact we may in part account by the 
natural supposition of the great antiquity of the MS. which was the dasis 
of the Codex Beze: we may add, that admitting it to latinize, we have no 
cause to infer that its readings, considered in the same light, are therefore 
faulty. Perhaps no translations come nearer to the sense of the Auto- 
graphs than do the very ancient Latin Versions, the Veronensis and the 
Vercellensis.' A great part of the defence which is set up in behalf of the 
integrity of the Codex Beze, really goes to the fidelity of the Latin Versions, 
which is not involved in the dispute. 

The agreement of the Syriac and some other Oriental Versions with our 
Codex, has also been insisted on: but this too may be safely conceded by 
its opponents, for a reason already alleged. The Dean, indeed, to repel 


ΟΝ THE CODEX BEZA. 485 


the charge of latinizing, observes, that we may as well affirm that the MS. 
Syriacizes, or that it is modelled to some other Oriental Version. Cer- 
tainly, if the same proofs can be adduced of its corruption from other 
sources besides the Latin, they ought not to be suppressed : I have noticed, 
however, that where D. agrees with Sahid. Syr. Copt. Origen, &c. we 
there commonly find it agreeing also with some of the old Latin Versions : 
to these, therefore, it may immediately be indebted. Besides, the basis of 
the MS. is a part of the hypothesis which ought to be kept in view. 

I conclude with subscribing to the opinion of Matthai, somewhat modi- 
fied. I believe that no fraud was intended; but only that the critical 
possessor of the basis filled its margin with glosses and readings chiefly 
from the Latin, being a Christian of the Western Church; and that the 
whole collection of Latin passages was translated into Greek, and substi- 
tuted in the text by some one who had a high opinion of their value, and 
who was, as Wetstein describes him, *‘ καλλιγραφίας quam vel Grece vel 
Latine lingue peritior.” 


APPENDIX IL. 


(BY THE PRESENT EDITOR). 


A TABLE 
SHOWING 


THE USAGE OF THE VARIOUS APPELLATIONS 


OF 
OUR BLESSED LORD, 
IN THE 
FOUR’ EVANGELISTS, ACTS, AND ST. PAUL’S EPISTLES. 


Usage of ᾿Τησοῦς and Χριστός. 


I. 


MarrHew uses only (1) ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς, (2) ὁ Χριστός, or (3) Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγό- 
μενος Χριστός. 


eighteen 1 ἴῃ 411: ὃς , it 
il. 16. 18. 91. 25; viii. 29; xiv. ἥ1 Ls xvi. 20; xx, 30; xxl. 11; xxvi. 51, 
52. 69. 71; xxvii. 17. 22. 37; xxviii. 5. 

Of these, some are not real exceptions. I will mention first those which 
fall under certain rules. Nos. 2, 15, and 16. belong:to class (3). Nos. 4. 
and 5. are regular, ᾿Ιησοῦν being the Predicate. No. 6. is no exception, 
᾿Ιησοῦ being the Vocative. No. 7. is according to a well-established licence, 
viz. that the Article is often omitted before the Genitives of Proper Names 
following another Substantive. See Matt.i.11. and 16. Lukei. 5. and 
Gersdorff, pp. 48 and 305. Nos. 8, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18, as well as all 
class (3), belong to a given rule. Winer (Dis. II]. Syntax, c. 1. ὃ 12. 
1. Obs.) says, that the Article with Proper Names is regularly omitted, 
when any word of particular description is added, as Δαβὶδ ὁ βασιλεύς. 
Nos. 11. and 12. likewise belong to a fixed rule, viz. that the Article is often 
omitted after a Preposition. 

Thus the only exceptions not belonging to a rule are, Nos. 11, 3, and 9; 
and in Nos. 1. and 3. the reading is quite uncertain. 9. ph) qameine - 


1 In No. 1, if the common reading be right, not the omission of the Article, 
(which is by rule,) but the addition of Χριστοῦ forms the exception. 


ἣν PS caded 


(1). I find from Schmidt and other sources the following exceptions, | τ 


a 
— πὰϑ 


USAGE OF THE APPELLATIONS OF CHRIST. 487 


There are 155 instances, besides these, of the occurrence of Ἰησοῦς, and 
in all these it has the Article. 


(2). The word Χριστὸς occurs only sixteen times in St. Matthew, 


The exceptions to the remark are, i. 1. 16. 18; xxvi. 68; xxvii. 17. 92. 
But of these Nos. 2, 5, and 6. belong to class (3). No. 4. is a Vocative, 
and therefore no exception. In Nos. 1. and 3. the reading is uncertain. 


(3). Finally, the third form occurs as above, i. 16; xxvii. 17. 22. 


I. 


St. Mark uses only (1) 6 Ἰησοῦς, (2) ὁ Χριστός. 
(1). The exceptions are, (nine in all), 


i. 1.9. 24; v. 7. 13; x. 47. (twice); xiv. 67; xvi. 6. 


_ Of these, Nos. 3, 4, 7, are no exception, Ἰησοῦ being the Vocative. 
Nos. 6. and 9. fall under the rule noticed in (1), as to the addition of a 
word of definition; and in some MSS. No. 8. stands, ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ NaZa- 
pnvov ; in some, ᾿Τησοῦ is wholly omitted. In No. 1. it seems not unlikely 
that the words ’I. X. v. τ. Θ. are an interpolation; see Gersdorff, p. 319. 
In No. 2. many MSS. supply the Article. 

The word occurs with the Article eighty-four times. 


(2). The exceptions are, i. 1; ix.41. Of No. 1. 1 have spoken above. 
No. 2. is wanting in one MS, The word occurs five times with the Article. 


ΠῚ. 


St. Luke in his Gospel uses only (1) ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς and (2) ὁ Χριστός. 
(1). The exceptions are, (fifteen in all), 


1.31; ii. 21.27.43. 52; iii 21; iv. 1. 4.345 vill. 28; xvii.135 xviii. 37, 
38; xxiv. 3. 19. 


Of these, Nos. 1. and 2. are no exceptions, ᾿Ιησοῦν being the Predicate, 
Nos. 4, 12, 15. fall under the rule as to the addition of a definition. Nos. 
9, 10, 11, and 13. are instances of the Vocative. In No. 14. some MSS. 
omit the words τοῦ K. ’I. altogether, and others omit K. 

The word occurs with the Article eighty-three times. 


(2). The exceptions are, ii. 11; xxiil. 2. 


In both of these the reading is uncertain. 
The word occurs eleven times with the Article. 


} y 


s57 


488 APPENDIX IL. 


IV. 


St. John writes (1) ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς usually, (2) ὁ Χριστός, and (3) ᾿Ιησοῦς 
Χριστός. 


(1). The exceptions are, (twenty-six in all), 


i. 17. 46. 49. 51; iv. 1, 2. 10. 47-3 v.15; vi. 15. 24; viii. 1. 14. 54. 59; 
ix. 11; xi. 33. 38. 545 xii. 44: ΧΗ 7; xvill. 4, 5.7; xix. 19. 26; xxi. 4. 


Of these, Nos. 1, 21, 22, 24, fall under the rule as to the word of defini- 
tion. No. 8. is an instance of the Predicate. 
_ The word occurs with the Article 226 times, or 225, if in xxi. 12. we 
adopt the reading ὁ Κύριος. We ought, in deciding, perhaps, to compare 
xx. 14. 


(2). The exception is ix. 22. 


In i. 42, many MSS. omit the Article; but others, of good authority, 
(though fewer,) retain it. It may be doubtful whether, even if the Article 
be omitted, this place forms an exception, as X. there is given expressly as 
the Greek rendering of an Hebrew word, and is therefore taken out of the 
common laws of construction. 

The word occurs eighteen times with the Article. 


(3). This form occurs i. 17; xvii. 3. 


V. 
St. Luke, in the Acts, has the following varieties : 
Times. 
(1). ὁ Inoove occurs eseeeeeweveoeeeaeee eee eaeeeeeoeeeree *ezereeeeeeeve 16 


Regular exceptions, ἢ. 6. 
1. Ἰησοῦς with words of definition, viz. 11. 22; v. 42; vi. 14; 
IX, θές 2098: 20 8s Xavi 0, iavaadneasseeenn chee 
2. v. 30; ix. 5; xxvi. 15. are nearly of the same kind...,... 3 
3. Vocatives. 
4. "Inoove with ric (a certain Jesus) xxv. 19. ...... Ὁ νον νον 1 


(2). Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸν OCCUTS ....0.....--05 Sach awd oc ea ate a:e ms ne 
(3). ὁ Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς (xvil. 3; xviii. 5. 28; xix. 4.) ....-....00. 4 
In (1) A. D. and other MSS. omit the Article. In (2) the 
reading is doubtful. Soin (3). In (4) A. B. E. and other 
MSS. omit Χριστόν. 
(4). ὁ Κύριος Ἰησοῦς (including one Vocative without the Article, 
CEO τ ee dint ere ὙΚ wi pipe late SOD er 8 ΣΕΥ, τ. a elaceid’ se 
(5). ὁ Κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός " . cc. cece cee cece cb wigeae Hage ἃ, Ὁ 


1 In two of these, viz. xv. 26; xx. 21. we have Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰ. X. 
In xv. 11. the form is K. ’I. X.; but I suppose that the Article is left out from 
the word following a Preposition. 


————————————EE—=<— SS oe 


USAGE OF THE APPELLATIONS OF CHRIST. 489 
(6).. Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς occurs twice, v. 42; ix. 34. See (1) me 
above. 
(7). ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός, viii. 37; but the reading is doubtful...... 1 
Tn viii. 12. only some editions have the Article. 
νυ ὁ Nalepatog - αξῶσος εις cusidecadecdatay πάν 
(9). ‘Incove with ὁ παῖς and a Pronoun, viz. τὸν παῖδα αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦν, 
EDs ον ἀν BT NY τς, slo alee ota aac evo εν ΣΟ, coves 4 


VI. 
St. John, in his Epistles, uses 
ΝΕ νι κι ον ecw ail RE ble le wok Bie ΔΙ χὰ τ Β 
It is singular that in four of these the form is, ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστιν 
ὁ Χριστός, or ὁ vide τοῦ Θεοῦ. In the Gospel we have ὁ 
᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, Viz. XxX. 31. ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ ποιή- 


σας, ν. 15. 
(2). Ἰησοῦς Χριστός 1. “οὐ νν“ον.νονννονν του τ 0» ry ee ee ee ee ey 6 
Εν τησοῦς Χριστός (ἃ; 4. 3:).2% RAR ἘΞ deed 1 


But some editions omit the Article (the Compl. Plautin. ) 
ΝΕ βέτὰ (1.5; 6.) oes ἐς αν ἘΣ ον ὅς ἘΠ ὩΣ J 


ον ν  Τησύῦς Χριδτός (11. 9.}". ως οοςο tees secs cvccvcsecees 1 
Where probably the Article before K. is omitted from the 
word following a Preposition. 


(6). ὁ Χριστός (ii. 9. bis) ae be.s cee en be Ce pale se δόμου Sew οι, Φ 


VIL. 
St. John, in the Revelation, uses 
(1). ὁ ἸΙησοῦς (xix. 10. ἡ paprupia tT. *T.).. 6. ce eee eee Vevewvesees (8 
EE Ovo hy b0 ees Cound eve Oe 6.cceaeenerdpin sedeuevesa. & 
Of these, however, two may perhaps be reckoned legitimate 
exceptions from (1), viz. xiv. 12. τὴν πίστιν Ἰησοῦ. 
xvil. 6. τῶν μαρτύρων Inood. 
xx. 4. τὴν μαρτυρίαν ᾿Ιησοῦ. 


See I. under (1), No. 7. 
(3)... Ἰησοῦς Χριστός ....... eaten shin τὴ a Ga, SRE ων τὰ ἐὺς 5 
ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, i. 2. and 9. 
Tn these ἀπὸ Ἶ. X. erry wae Ch 
wa ἐμὰ νον 1 > Sarr yee ae e 
4 and 
ὑπομονὴ "I. X. eecevese 1 ὃ. 


And perhaps all these may be reckoned legitimate excep- 
tions from the next Number, but the instance under that 
Number will at least show that there was no uniformity. 


1 These are, ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός, 1.1. 3; iii. 23; v. 20. 
Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ, 1. i. 7. 
᾿Ιησοῦς XPlOTOC re esvevecese L. ii, J ; iv. 2, 


490 UE TO) Se PRR a, 


(4). ὁ Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. xii. 17. ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. .... 
(5). ὁ Κύριος Ἰησοῦ: xxil, 20. the Article being omitted in the 

Vocatives δ εἰ χεονοις Sak Jad. Se Sales grees SUNS ἂς 
(6). ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός ....., νον ον σον cece: 
7). δ' Xptordc. ἐόντος ὁ eiete'steeeree'e δι τ Φιφήντο ἐν es 


(8). ὁ Χριστὸς abrov τ πο λονογ ον ψον νιν ὑὸς 


Times. 


1 


won ν"ν»"»- 


N.B. In the following Table of the Oe in St. Paul's Epistles, the first 
column shows those cases where the instance of the usage is a fair one, i. e. 
where it cannot be accounted for by the word being one of two Correlatives, 
(in which case the presence and absence of the Article may be accounted 
for,) or by its following a Preposition. The second column contains those 
cases where the word is one of two such Correlatives, the first of which has 
the Article. The third shows the cases where the word follows a.Preposi- 
tion; the fourth, those cases where the word is one of two Correlatives, the 


first of which has not the Article. 
VIII. 


. ΠΣ ΣᾺ τὰ ἃ | fier ἐν 
i 1; vin | Aber oe 
St. Paul has the following forms !: ES veep with. | gotat 
(1). 6 Ιησοῦς (occurs 4 times). 
2 Cor. ἅν. 10... 6.42 ccacce eet eres 1 ΩΣ 
ἀν δ λει toc nee ἡ A eee 
PPR AGRs a's 6 vis.nenes wane ities ae ἢ Fe: 
1 ΓΗ εν, 2.4. sin neko Ra cake τ 1 ΝΣ 
(2). ᾿Ιησοῦς (occurs 9 times). ; 
Rom. lil. 26..0000seseaceeneese ness : ἢ 
1 ΟΕ xii. 3.00.30: Ze hore SE ΤΟΥ sade ἢ cao A 
POG WV. Occ e oe na Fos cok coon Geeks ee wer 
TES Sie. Web λον: Reet e aw ate Ase 
14.. Sain ae RES ὦ ὡς ame i 
wid, This, however, is no 
real exception to (1). The ‘phrase 
is, ‘ To preach another Jesus,’ ; 
where the Article is inadmissible... 
Phil. ii. 10.. See No. 7. in Matt. .... ‘Or + 
1 Obes, 1s 10.50. > ks τς {πε cance 4 ‘ Pe 
(3). ὁ Χριστός (occurs 95 times). 
Rar 18S. 6 os sctue's οὐρα nal cia hein a leo aos ἀπ᾽ eee τς. 
vil. 4. οοονοοοον »οοοῦ veresees 1 ee . 
BGs. ie Se Ge plat Mats dive ᾿ς cae δ, 
ἄχ, Ὥς κοὐ δὰ πώ δον Vernles sis 4. τὸς 


1 None of them occur in the Hebrews. ‘There I find once one form, Κύριος 


ἡμῶν Inoode, (xiii. 20.) which [ have not yet found in St. Paul. 


— 


Se Δ. 


USAGE OF ΤῊΝ APPELLATIONS OF CHRIST. 491 


After 


Real, | With with- | Totul. 
the | PrePo-lout the] ἢ 
Article. Article. 


(3). ὁ Χριστός. (Continued). 
παν LOL eee es eeu so eee 
| "RW Sa cca boule os aia bmw Odean ὃν 


* 
- ὃ 


TBST Eas  ΟΣ ΣΣ 
13 


ἘΘυξ εξ ὐα ωνινω οἰ ριον », γὼ ik Ἐν τῷ 

| See rey eer ery ew el νὴ...» 1 

1 Cor. i. 3; x. 4.9; xi.3; xil. 12; - 
XV. LOS τ ie sk cvdicesnveus 

i. 6.163 vi. 153; ix..12.18; 

x 16.(2). On vi. 15. observe, 

we have μέλη Χριστοῦ and ra\}.. 7 

μέλη τοῦ Χριστοῦ in the same 

ψοξόθου ἐν τὺ βοῶ 2.56 SR) 

EV. Boo os dclnwicsces αν νον 0d [Bis 1 

πε 21.9. το δε α χὰ νος εἶνε A. 

i. 5. 11,123 ἵν. 4; v. 10.14; 

ix. 133 x. 1. 6;(249: κέ τθν τις 

τ. 14 ἘΠ᾿ 45EL Bixvciaveds ellis: 1.Σ, 3 

τε πων δά 7128033) 4). 1s τῆς 4 

See εν ἐδ νος Ail baz 1 

ΠΝ li. 5; ili. 17; iv. δ, 20; v. 2. 10 

14.'23, 245-25; wi διχῶς i aw Στὸ 

ii. 13; iii. 4. 8. 10; iv.7. 12, 

ἘΣ Cit « be hawcens’ sevnwude 

1. 10. 12, 20%, δὲ δὲς εξ eS TROY SE μν.. 

Phil. 1. 16, 16... ....eeeeeewenecee-| 2]... 

ii. 30 ; πὶ; 19... Ss cle ee ΣΡ ~ oe 

ΠΥ; (ὅλ... 13... 008d. {π 18» 

i. 24; ii. 2.11. 175 iii, 16; ἵν. 8... |- 6 ; 

il. 20 ; De” ES CAT eee Mee & St eae 

ἘΣ Μά, ἃ. see eb πο Ὡς ἘΝ ΘΠ Ki 5 ck 1 

NUS THN) SBS 5. bch inh ch nie 5. 6 oe arie cola nies pee 

δ, τοῦδ πὸ δι, ἀξ 80. 2 

Be Ve A. sevens ἈἘ Ἐ ΘΡΟΘΕΥ. ἘΠ ΟΣ ai BROS 

In 2 Tin., Titus, and Philemon ὁ Xpardg 

does not occur. 


15 


15 


23 


a. ? 
ee ed ee ee Oe ee ee _ eee 


“μ᾿ τῷ μα 


(4). Χριστός. (occurs 122 times.) 


ΠΟΥ, δου daw. dears enils δίας 

ἢ, Bd doccobnescictaceseniaeaunas Btn 

Wis & ἃ oto δια ve ace λιν υὐθί ced Uaioe d 1 -,ε ,.ε 
Ge Wada amides ερες ο ὅπι Δ wieeta eo μὲ ] 
S14. dik σα οι ὦ μεν ϑνώδμονν» 1 *“* . . 
10... ὲπ tk cee A etek ar ἡ ΝᾺ 
LZ ccva νυ θυ νον ἐς oe e* ee 1 
δοιοὺς δ οόοοῤοθοννν ] 


492 APPENDIX II. 


(4). Χριστός. seen ns 
Rom X. e#oeoeoeeseteeseeereeeesreaeve 8 eee 
gi BS 1. εἷς ssn guide ὑείῳ ὁ Say Cena 
αν, Οἱ ve voce μόνοις νι δ" 


1D coe ἐπὶ κ υνόξοςνς ιν νῷ . 


ΧΥ. 20, «cco HER SWE SEAS OS φόο lees 
avVE. 5. eeor*e eee weeaeeseeeeee SEH e 


cer ener δυ.99ὺ9 ὶὺ 9 ὁ ὁ ὃ ὁ eee 


᾿θιξεπιξνυς υννε CaN 


1 Cor. i. 12. 17. 23, 245 v. 73 Vili. 11; 
ix, 21-5. x1,-1.9 20013222,43, 14. 
16, 17. 20. a ““4φΦὉ δ ὁ ὁ ὃ ὁ ὁ ὁ ἃ ὁ ν᾿ 


τ vont 
or wor 
Real, — repo With Total. 
Article sitions rticle 
1 ΕΣ ΧΑ ΕΝ 
on αὶ να + Wir 
Lib ιν ὩΣ 
ΤΕΣ Dea ΉΣΕ 9 
τς Ἴνα 
oes πὰ Bae 21 
woth. op 1 ts 
o¥ Dees ht 
° te [ἴα 


16 


iil. Be iv. 10. (2) 17 ;- viii. 12; 
XV. 18, 19. .eseeeceeeceseere 
ἢ. 16; iv.-l; vi. 16; xi. 3; 
Xi. 27. ie tre νι 3b See 
2 Cor. v.16; εν. 1δ; x. 7. (thires times); 
xiii. 3. (The three in x. 7. beef 
long rather to Col. 4.)... .... 
i. δ. 21; 1.175 ill. 14; v.17. 
19, 20. (twice); xii. 2. 10. λων, 
ii. 10.15; iii. 3; viii. 23; xi: 
10.132 23 δὲν τ οὶ τὸ ον τὴν 
Gal. ii. 17. 20 (2), 21; iii. 13. 16. 27. 
29. Gig IV. τού, 1, 8.5655. 
1 ον, -16, 175, ili. 17. 24; 
Te Mk ke +44 bamnns oe ee 
i. 6. 10, 11. 16. = aisha teeite manera 
Eph. i. 3; ii. 12; iii. 21; iv. 32; 


ΣΟ vie ove rie We Bre νου Φόυν 
Phil. i. 18. 20, 21. (Ὁ); ili. 8; iv. 13. (?) 
i fe a δόντος ἐν » wine's τς 


ἜΠΗ ΠΡ BB nein os 
1.10; ii. 16; Sens θά τ ἀν 
Col. i. 27 5 iii. The ihe Sielehors de συν 
Lows Me. De Ba 6% sean seeane 

1 Thess. iv. 16..... PEN es 8 eat TRA eee 
H. 11G. Ubwacums eects hueede 

2 Theas.. none ΘΗ συ ss: Keb wiebeeek 
ΤῊ ΤῈ ἢν sb προ νκενοο Secemens 
ρ δὰ age TR | PERG AP a Del pee Ong SI τ 
UE BONG Jo οἰ σον ρον ὼς sed ΚΑΙ 
MN B.S 0 «i, b Geetha sente wiitalebeiie 


(5). ὁ Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς does not occur. 


(6). ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ Χριστός. 
] Cor. ill. rt ieee ΨΕΟ. eevee er-seeeoe renee 


12 


11 


28 


24 


21 


οι 


Ne em ma ee (ee 


KOK OC bd 


USAGE OF THE APPELLATIONS OF CHRIST, 493 


the | -F°P-\out the 
out 


(7). ὁ a Ἰησοῦς. oer 
Phil. ii. 21. A great eres ἢ 
against this reading.......... F 
Eph. iii. 1. (?.as to reading). There 


is a great preponderance against >| .. τς 
this reading... ....-.00..00s. 


Phil. iii. 12. . Several of the best) 1 
MSS. have not this reading .. en 

Col. ii. 6. (ὁ Χρ. Ἰ. ὁ K.) D. E. have} 
a different reading ........... 


(8). oe Χριστός. (Occurs gy eg times). 


WL SV. Si: . Seach sae Se ad ea ee 
i. 1.63 iil. 22; xv. 16. ΕΙΣ ΈΟΝ τ ~ |e 4 
i: ig Sis Wehpeb cares ch ον bt pom. 8 
Xvi. Σ σα eae ote etwrs we ] 
We have also ὁ εἷς ἄνθρωπος Ἰ. X. inv. 15. 2 
and ὁ εἷς I. Χ. inv.17.. wale 


τῇ 
ποὺ oF : : : a 
ah Ub th 

j 

) 


ὃ. υἱὸς αὐτοῦ I. X. 1.9. seccceces 


Vs TGs ser detcidcsfetale or rary 1 3 
i. 13 iv. 6 yb eiers hivrohterith jhiste th Mbox 1 
ὁ Θεοῦ υἱὸς ἜΧΟΙ, — i wea cele'e sed) os 1 
coast Rl RUE eee an Areatore ae i 
Maths ct ita. ἢ τι οὐδ οἱ οἰ εἰτς γα  τϑ an | 5 
1.123 i. 163 iii... 220-0003 ether Cal Wares <i Gy 3 
Eph. tt a aan “eee, We Gadde hs ΤΠ ΡΝ Meas 
ee he Ἐπ 6c\tleisiam ood SOT χοὸς "Ὁ 2 4 
δ a, eae ee eee ee ee ats 1 
Phil. ji. 11... pie totes Seed ie aah Beat 
19s cic See PP ae abweled hate RS 
a ii aan aa iinadelanaek alll ated EE ee 
δ 1 8. δ. Kaveh wn dds uneaeed Way 3 
MES BL Scum parton ee ΠΥ; ἢ ὅτ re 1 1 
1 and 2 Thess. none. 
orem: Σ 1G. τὰς οὐκ ἐφ ἐπ ν Savage. She 5 
SE Oe Pree e eee a τονε ον “+ ."- 2 ; 
ΝΠ Ee Sin a ree beige ae os soa 9 
i hap Bo oe, Cee ere See erie er) tn bee 1 l 
Piblemon 1. δι ρνῖςτιν να ΡΝ δι τα ΣΌΝ Ὁ τον 2 2 


(9). Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς. (Occurs 58 times, of which 
54 are after Prepositions.) 


Rom. iii. 24; vi 3. 11. 23; viii. 1, ἌΡ; A 
2.39; xv. 5..17-5 XVii Bervseos ede te {7 
1 Cor. i. 2. 4. 30;.iv. 153 xv. 31; 
ὃ . oh he 6 
XV1. 24. . reve se doeceecesees 
2 Cor. none. Χ. Ἰ. Κύριος occurs 


iv. : oe only there. 
Gal. iv 


494. APPENDIX II. 


words words 
Σ After 
Real. | with Prepo- with- | Total, 


e |... jout the 
Article rticle. 
(9). Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς. (Continued). 
Gal. 11. 4. 163; ili. 14. 26. 28; esha: 
δ. 16. wes didi demnen as eee Ὶ δῷ 5 


Eph. 1.1; ii. 6, 7. 10. 13; Ὁ. 11.341. ων hae 
Phil. i. 1. 26; ii. 5; iii. 3.14; iv. 7. 
19. 21: eeeee se @eoeee erereee ver ἣν τὸ ᾿ 


ow wT 
.Ψ 


wo bdo « 


iil, 8. ἴχ. Ἦ 6 Kop inisn na φως «> 91 ἢ 
Col. 1.14 88, ιν dee beet sae bad Sen ate 
L Thess. 1:14.35 Wi 1Gans ci elec dede’ off ne. fies 
: 2 Thess, none. 
1 Tim. i. Day ee TR A aE me MED a 
1.143: HE Le ϑδολθδ,οκῦ ες σον τυ} οἱ; 

᾿ ἄνθρωπος "I, X. occurs ii. 5. 
2 Tim. i. 9.13; ii. 1. 10; iii. 12. 15.. 


Pier. δὶ δ ὑπῆν coke 4k c aoe ee ee Ὰ 
Ds Meets ges bie ib i i hs i Ae eee ee ee. ee 1 } 


(10). ὁ Κύριος "Inoodc. 
Romans, none. 

τ δέν, δὲ We Ric A dade Baar eed eke . 

xi. 93. πεν σι dln Noe Lid stecthis οὐ κῶν 

SRO CIN. WA hus badcian weecannhe a EN ] 

iv. TAs cas. 4) toscana sate ened 1 ee 

Gab. DT) tricks cctbabadth sda χα | re 

ώ Bpb, τ ἀδεῖ 2.0. aanic καρ Geae eens ed Bed) ae ia ὩΣ 
F  Phesa.002 Se. κοι κοι RES ee, ee, ee? 

2 Vea 2s id Δ habla Στὰ ie ἐν ἐπ τὴν 
ῬΕΙ͂ Bids ον ἀχνὰ νας τ Ὁ 1 ἈΠ Vo 


ΣΙ We 
-ΣΪ 


(11). Κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς. 
m. Χ. 9. eeoeteveeeeeee ὃοο οθ Ὁ 695 δυο 1 er . 


Col. 111. 17. eee eer +se*eeseeeevese eees ee ee . 
1 TRAV its She ΎΥΕΤΨΗΣ 
N.B. Κύριος Χριστὸς occurs Col. i. 24. 


» ve 1 ΕΓ 
2 Cor. iy. ὩΣ... SOE ee νο  να! 1: pera a ee 5 
1 


(12). Ἰησοῦς ὁ Κύριος. 
Rom. iv. 24. .... eraeseenee eee eecreeteve- 1 ee “- ee ] 


(13). ὁ Κύριος ᾿Τησοῦς Χριστός. 
ποῦ, εν © ee ς του eee Ae ΡΝ 

τ ον νι δ ον λον, ΝΠ τ τ 

hs. ath cle ας τς κακὰ be ] aA ee 5 

LE CL ἐμ IRs ee De ORES ΟἹ γι 1 


a2. Py Pie ee ee ων ee ef νυ 


(14). Κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός. 
ΤΟΥ. Ἰ. δδινοὗ ἐρενδη VE ν  εὐδέτλδλν τὺ 
COL UBT, ἐετ τ tues ee ΑΚ 0 ν 
Eph. i. 2; vi. 23....... RES) ΣΡ νὸ 
ig) δ ee ee πα ον 

MI. QOS ΘΣΝ ee ΤΥ ΜΠ 
9 


~~ Oe ee 
“ 


a, eee ee ee. 


USAGE OF THE APPELLATIONS OF CHRIST. 495 


After After 
ἌΝ "with Propo with | Tota 
ὉΠ 8. 4 rticle. 
(14). Κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός. (Continued). --- 
ΠΝ τ αι τ δ νυ ς Ἢ wd Se) 4. 
1 Thess. 1. DOOR Staves oeentey Geb eke et wee 
Sm héss, 3.15 9.1 ἡγεῖ πος κὖ ὁ νὰ ον τ OF ele 10 
Ἔ i, 12. ας covecauswessban Δ aes Cree bt Nad 
DWE, 5 Loos cu male kdetewen.cnatomoulit’ δῷ 1 
VW. ἘΠΕ tees se awe own wee δυν <4 ν᾿ ; a ee 17 
RT Mh cap dane dels τ λον pera AA 5 0. 
Belem. 3... 25 5s 20s Ve ΤΣ, ΠΣ ΜΝ Ll se 


I do not find ὁ Κύριος ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός. 
ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ Κύριος. 
᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ Κύριος. 


(15). ὁ Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ Κύριος. 
Col. ii. 6. eeteoveereeeeeeveeeeeeeveeee ee 1 ae ee l 


(16). Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς Κύριος. 
2 Cor. iv. 5. esree eee eet eoeseeee ee ee 1 *. ee ec l 


(17). Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν. 


Rom. i. 4 ἐφ ΣῊΝ ΡΥ ΤΡ ὟΝ ΜΕΥ ΔΑ ΡΥ ΠΣ 
Wh, QRS oe cman Petes a Deel δ ye’ pa eae 3 
ΟΡ Ss Dax sh dw psa oes F oe 1 Ἶ 


(18). ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός. 
ΤΕΣ op ae erwin ch sell gates aed Se 2} oe |) 


xv. 6. (In this place and Col. 
i. 3. the expression is, ὁ Θεὸς cit 1 
πατὴρ τ. Καὶ ἢ ‘I. X.) . 20-08 mes 
XV. 30. 0. slees etecees sees 1 
SW SO B46 se estonia as 21. 
1 Cor. i. 2. 7, 8. 10; v..4. (bis)... spied Ξ 6 : 
BV. OF. swansea ew τς να ses coves « ° ἄγγος 
Re Ben ρος te dipt'siaiiel nt 1 
VIL 9.....69 5560 - 1 
AMEE Wh. 1G oni vas cite ges οὐδ debe eS 1 
Eph vi. 24. ...... secncccceccceeee| Ὁ δὼ [we | oe [\ 
ΕἸΣ TV. 23. πιο χρυ ὁ. ἃς το μδδθην ναὶ δ tee Gere ΤΡ 
ΠΥ ΣΟΥ ek wee meae Pee, UPR ιν τ τ 
1 Thess. i. 3; ii. 13; Vv. 28. ....+4-. τ Ὁ Pg Νν 
ii. 19; Vi DS wees π α ἡ sew ὌΝ ee ᾿ ΠΣ 
ἮΝ ΕἸ τ νου “ὁ οδοτδο ery ee el ee oe ee 
2 Thess. i. 8. 12; ii. 1; iil. 18. ἀπὸ τ 4 
ii. 14; ii. δ. (N.B. In 
each case the omission of thet 
Article in question occurs after 4 cia NC δώᾳ ἐς 
ἃ Preposition) ..... «0 «τ νειν κεν 
Ἂ, Witenes ν τοὺ νεενρηρν εν ὁ ἐκ 1 
iii. 12 ¢ eveboerse nee ee 1 
Bint: Vi. δὲν ελυζάνο e660 64886 verdes! tnd ͵ 


N.B. Κύριος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς occurs 
after a Preposition Gal, i. 3. 


APPENDIX II. 


(19). Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν. 


m.! Vis, 11:9: WEE BOs πίνω <a νὸν 
1 Gor: χν 91: σα Εν τὰ ἢ alter 
Koh, Ἧϊ. 11. cau mere τς ματι θ δὲ 
Ph |. HS} io δύο σον πε φς ie lace 


4. PDS aaa ene e@eee seers eevee 


2 Ti: ἀοράτοις ἀρ δι 


oad poet ot 
byt After 
Neal | the ἘΠ lout the] " 
: 2 
+2bLAS 1 
ΜῈ 
Seite hee Ὁ 8 
᾿Ξ ase 
1 i 
l 


I do not find 6 Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν. 
ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός. 


Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς Κύριος ἡμῶν occurs Rom. vi. 23. after a Preposition. 


IN DEX. 


The ae scens pages will be found to contain Hints on the 
following subjects. 


A. 


᾿Αββᾶ, a familiar appellation . . 
Abstract Nouns, anarthrous in 

Homer... 
TE π᾿ :ε 'ὕἜ ove acess - 170, 237 
AMthiopic Version .. 317, 392, 439 
ἀμφότεροι, whether it can have 

the Article........ τ φὴς ἐγ: 207 
Apocalypse, perhaps written in 


PAGE 
200 


ον erveeeeve 


EE ahah 4 o.6 6 0:5 bts 464 
Critical difficulties 
OS Se 7 
Apollonius .......... 3, e¢ passim 
Appellations, National, take or 
reject the Article...... yeee. + Ὁ 
Aquila, Version by sernees Ὁ. ὡς 
ἄρθρον, etymology οὗ ........ 20 
Aristo) "aches afin he prefixes 
Articles to Proper Names .. 80 


passage in, con- 
sidered , ὁ ον 2........ 87 


ΟΝ στρ τουτὶ σοναυς 370 
Articles, French, not used arbi- 
I ede 4.0 ces enn sets 1 
English one, (THE), 
whence derived ........+.. 4 
Greek, defined ..... ag te 
Article and Pronoun not essen- 
tially different ..........++. 13 
difference 
between unknown to Homer 10 
Article without its Noun pro- 
nounced vehemently....... 12 


ei in cases beginning with 
its reference always an- 
ticipative- 2.12.00 εὐν τοῦ, 
not merely a Definitive 
uses of, reducible to 


eer eee enweeaeee »»ΆἌἊἪἊν" Κ᾽ ".ν." "Ὁ 


----- arising out of one pro- 
PETtY eee ee eeereee 
its inclusive SENSE 20 
its hypothetical use 
known to Homer.........+- 
‘prefixed to Proper 
Nain?) i wos idaee ve eeu 
not used to distinguish 


in N. T. never redun- 
.. 137, 158, 229, 261, 
a remarkable use οὗ... 
marked by the Aspi- 


cess 

ag used for ὀδέος eat 
importance of its posi- 
Mee p ee wee ee «668 . 348, 
Canons respecting, neg- 
lected in the Codex Beze.... 
Hebrew, differently 
used from the Greek 
an use of.... 
ἀρχή, well explained .. 
ἀρχιτελώνης 

Kk 


eevee revreere reese 


PAG. 
14 


23 
24 


25 


31 
4] 


ib. 
71 
72 


298 
231 


388 


391 
410 


436 


471 


498 

PAGE 
Assembly of Divines ........ 396 
Agwamtion ἐς, νι ρον ἀν Ὁ 23, 27 
Athanasian Creed........... 240 
Attributives, what assumible 56 

B. 

Bacon, Lowa, < ssa @ 485 tees 172 


FORUB. bs esse atnn hoe neds 
Bartimeus, conjecture respect- 
ing his name 
Basil, St., a passage from, con- 
sidered 
Βασιλεύς, though definite, see 


352 


ereeeer seer eee reneene 


reject the Article ...... 36, 427 
Beauty of Holiness.......... 416 
Bengél is s.%.. ..-- 142, 202, 441 


Benoni Participle without Ar- 
ticle 
Bentley, Conjectures by 


@eeeenes BDeveeeeee ersneene 


11, 91, 418, 425 
Bicod OF God: ii). ρος κω νὼ ὡς 295 
BONG tee en disiena ρῶς oon, 124, S07 


Books, Titles of, when they take 
the Article. .....+++eeeess 
of the N. T. carefully 


204 


PVeReyv VOU WU. ἡ piss νοι» ἐκ: 239 
Canonical, none proba- 
bly lost <.ic6 δον νειν Ὁ τὰ τς 326 
Brother, a Christian "Appella- 
θη. . . arene aes ceececes 322 
Bruce, Σιν sea «sib ss . 229 
. Burder’s Oriental Customs.... 217 
Butler,i(Me 3365 sca ieee ae 441 
C. 
Campbell.......... 193, et passim 
Canon, a Coptic one......... 365 
Casaubon. . «.o/.< 08's ot ee Mets 10 
Caution, extreme....... np EI § 


Centurion, his Confession. . 237, 275 


CATA: 5 oo iy ees τὸ τ ρδο νὸς 226 
Children, Christ’s Disciples 

COMpPAFE, 10...'. << 00:6 d90 nis 172 
Christ, pects as the Son of 

δ βρύον hues 166 

his early occupation .. 191 

place of his Nativity.. 215 
number of his Pass- 

OVETS oe ee necccerseceesess 245 

the Creator.....s.e.+ 374 

the Saviour God...... 396 


INDEX. 


PAGE 

Christ, ὁ dm’ ἀρχῆς. «....... 439 

- called Θεός, 240, 266, 314, 

367, 370, 393, 402, 432, 457, 458 
Χριστός, whether a Proper Name 


mW Pe ose seccccccscscne 193 ~ 
OUarkG ns scasucaseae -- 394, 453 
Cocks, not commonly kept in 

Jerusalem.......\<c0sssuaee -. 186 


Codex Bezz, or D. of Wetstein, 
165, 228, Appendix. 
Complutensian, a Cope en 


MS. agreeing with ....... ~ 221 
Connumeration......... oves 463 
Convertible Propositions ..... 54 

with 

Pronouns, νον τον .. 44 
Coptic Version -....¢0ceseses 413 
Copulla .. cece. see nes ek eee 


Corning how many Epistles 


Ἔν a sno ok be o oa's's Make 
Crellius and Socinianism..... 259 
Crown-Imperial .........0+. 141 
Cup of oe ἜΣ “Φ νον 185 

D. 
Ἐν ὁ πον ΕΝ ΣΝ 


David’s, St., Bishop of .... Preface. 
Day of J udgment, received doc- 

tring Of 5... ον τος sso ee ogee 
De Miss ~+. 450 
Demosthenes, when he prefixes 

Article to Proper Names.... 84 
Difference in the Greek of the 

two Genealogies .......... 124 
Doctors, Jewish, titles of ..... 242 
Dodson; Me eS, ΟΣ Mp Red! 
Δυνάμειξ τῶν τ τὸς 2 Bes ace omen 164 
Durham, Bishop of...... 349, 378 


eevee eeeer eer eueene 


E and ». 


Eagle, the great ........s.. 
ἐγένετο, a sense Of...... es 
εἷς and ὁ εἷς 
ἔκτρωμα 335 
Electa, a Proper Name....... 454 
Emendations, conjectural, of 
N. T. gratuitous........ passim. 
ἥλιος almost a Proper Name, 35, 160 
ἡμέρος and aoc, Adjectives end- 
ing in 
ἕν τό, a name of the Deity.... 


372 
542 


“eevee eeeeene @eeoeoeve 


INDEX. 


PAGE 
English Version of the N. T., 
revision of the .......... .. 229 
Ephesians, a Parenthesis in the 
pastic to'the 2). ΣΡ Σ δὲ 360 
ἐπὶ marking a date, its Noun 
SMMEINTOUS.. . ivicnccevcces . 189 
Epistolary Address, form of, in 
GR iin sore aie'n edi ais os. 456 
od oinhe cibiwitts 395, 456 
εὐαγγέλιον, not used in N. Τ᾿. 
to signify a Gospel ..... .. 346 
Evil One, in the Lord’s Prayer.. 139 
εὐλογητός, its place in Doxolo- 
0 aS ee ee 316 
αν 2. ς 0s camara 2.5 S058 329 
F. 
Faith not all-sufficient........ 350 
Fast, the great one .......... 299 
Figs, seasons of ........ sees 197 
G. 
Gadara, its situation......... 144 
Gaza, Theodore ........ 3, 19, 26 
Gehenna, the Hebrew........ 181 
Gospels, order of the Four.... 202 


Governing Nouns anarthrous on 
account of preceding Prepo- 
sitions, &c..... note on p. 49, 161 

Greek spoken Westward of the 
0” “re rye 

the native language of 
St. Luke and St. Paul...... 

Greeks, the, altered foreign 
ΝΕ ἼὄξἜ τς τι ον #30 :¢ ye on 260 

Grotius ... 245, 253, 261, 395, 454 


117 


H. 

oy AS | 3, 9, 27, 297 
Hebrew status constructus .... 123 
ΝΥ ΡΥ τὰν 293 
ΡΟ ον ΣΟ ΝΥ οὖ. 169 
Hermann ........ . 87, 113, 325 
Herodotus, when he prefixes Ar- 

ticle to Proper Names...... 83 


Hesychius, sacred Glosses in.. 205 
Heyne.. 7; 10,943 


ees eve ev eevee ee 


499 


PAGE 
Homer, whether he uses the 
Article........ | se ce 7, et seq. 
whether he prefixes the 
Article to Proper Names. . 72, &c. 
passage of; considered.. 90 
Horsley, Bishop ........ 430, 443 


I, 


Idiom, English, wherein differ- 
ent from the Greek .... 36, 163 


Ἱεροσόλυμα, its gender ....... 128 

Ἰησοῦς with and without Ar- 
GIS το κίον HAA ae Bae 218 

Had 802.4 eae a: RUS 11, 90 


Inscriptions, on the Article in.. 286 
John, St., alludes to the Descent 

of the Holy Ghost 
and St. Peter, friend- 
Iscariot, probably asurname.. 272. 
Just One, the, a name of Christ 272 


seep eeree 


K. 
ἄδειο. orate rin es 90.50% αὐ ΤΑ ἀξ . 292 
καύσων" «,.ς..0. 5 sac veustiqe de yan 
WWI, no igene saa wees 272 
Killaia, Bishop of..... Scinse ee Dae 
SSMU? BAY’ s « 013.0. vend nin αὐ ὁ ρον ae 
Raping, Dean's... sce sae ἐν 472 
Bint, Areas ae. «ak Pref. 
κοσμικόν, a Substantive....... 415 
κόσμος sometimes anarthrous.. 350 
Krebs and Loesner.......... 269 
KOWBUAOC . ee ee eens covseces 429 
Κύριος, how used.........--. 206 


᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός, a title 


of Christ οτος ἐόντος... 366, 458 
Kypke ..... iv's'e's'y > eaeedae’ 128 
L. 

Pe ee Pe Per rears . 217 


Laodiceans, Epistle to the.... 352 
LePOner. τονε λό ἐξ σον θῖν 
Law, the Just not objects of .. 
Lemnep.scce sccccces δεουὶ 
Lessing, a conjecture of...... 4 
Lightfoot.......... 135, 147, 248 
Lincoln, Bishop of ...... 352, 371 
Kk2 


500 INDEX. 


PAGE 
Loaf, one used in the Eucharist 183 
Loaves, two in the Passover .. 182 
Lockey ες νος ivi. saben 63, 6 
London, Bishop of (Porteus) .. 221 
Lowth, Bishop......--..-. ». 186 


M. 


pa and vy, their Nouns have 
the. Afticle inaid ss abana we Bll 
Macknight on the Epistles 
- 309, 403, et passim 
Man of the Mountain of the 
House ....... 270 
MS. of Kennicott, ‘remarkable 
reading 0f (44.805 6%.sse0n0 179 
— the Alexandrian. . 277, 328, 397 
— of Profane Greek Writers, 
variations in, respecting the __ 
WPCC isk s sanan ἐν ρον sh 79 
Article, how 
interpolated in.........+-- ib. 
—— of N.T., Uncial not always 
thG TORE ἐτῶν ces οὐδὲ Ce 297 
the Moscow (or 
Matthai’s).... 236, and Addenda 
their excellence 
162, 242, 262, et passim 
Markland. . 141, 320, 369, et passim 
Marsh, Professor Herbert 
136, 168, 204, 224, 245, 441,472 
Mary and Zacharias, Songs of, 
from the Hebrew.......... 210 
Matthai, 224, 244, 338, 429,467,471 
a conjectural Criticism 
ce aa a - awa eee 
Michaelis, the Father Sed ss ae 124 
— John Dayid, conjec- 
tural Emendations of 35 227. 300 
Anmerkungen (Anno- 
tations) of... 131, 311, et passim 
Monboddo, Lord .......... 4, 35 
Moschopulus........ saver 90 


WeetOriane: ox ine-.eiccvecexn 282 
Newcome, Archbp.. on "137, et passim 
‘Newton, Bishop ..........-. 383 
Nineveh, its situation........ 287 
νομίζειν θεούς ΤΠ Πῶς" 
νόμος and ὁ νόμος... ...... 303, 305 


PAGE 
Nouns, same used for Sub- 
stances and Attributes..... - 62 
though definite, anarth- 
rous after Prepositions. .... 98 


O and w. 


Old Testament, double sense in 403 
ὧν has only a present significa- 
i ere pete ah Fe coee 28, 29 
— incorporated with Active 
Greek Participles.......... 29 
ὧν understood after the Article. 30 
Oriental Tongues, usage in the 419 
Origen .... sees eaeee ne nn 
ὃς why denominated a Sub- 
junctive Article® πο ae 


Paley, Dre. as sexes cece SDS, 354 

Partidicle with Article for Sub- 
stantive...... 160 

———— and Verb, “how they 
ΤῊΣ eter Εν Ἐν 27 


Particles much used by Plato.. 118 


Paul, St., his style anarthrous.. 302 
Pearson, Bishop ........++ . 207 


PATVNs cae sesie “φφόνεφφνφννυδν» νυ 9216 


Philo Judzeus. ... .eesse0: 38, 249 
PILATE a's,i0 2 sie Pp ie ὅτις Sp toe 
πνεῦμα, its senses deduced... 125 


when it requires a Pre- 
ῬΟΒΙ ΘΝ ὁ 5.62 ν τὸ ΑΗ τυ τ 
πνεύματι used Adverbially, 
313, 333, 348, 349, 430 
Poetry anarthrous............ 78 
Porson, Professor .... 74, 78, 444 
πρᾶγμα τό, an Euphemism.... 378 


oo 245 


WOOLY WY seid swe awe ss δι οἢ 
Prop het, the expected one.... 254 
Prahemtion Assumptive .... . 30 
— convertible, its va- 
TIOUS fOTMA ὁ ὁ...» οὐ Ὁ 
προσευχή oe ὠξαφιδ ον wie et W's SP 
πρωτύτοκος.. ecesseceseaves ve ane 
Proverbial allusions, subjects of 
them definite .,... +... ow RET 
Psalm viii , its import examined 403 
ψεύδομαι, what Case it governs. 271 
πτερύγιον wooces doses vevces 135 


Punctuation of the N. T,..... 168 


——————— κα 


INDEX. 


Q. 
PAGE 
Qui, its reference explained... 18 
irinius, enrolment under... 213 
R. 
ῥά κτλ εκ εκ σκ κε κεν κε κε κ κε σο 76 
dings, Various, in N. T. 
supposed ones ..........-. 124 
NGIMAN vcccasivens 482 
Reference obscure........... 18 
SESE Tey . 285 
| 137, 186, 260 
ῥηθὲν τό, what meant by, in 
| eR RE ad ae 178 


Romans, Epistle to, its subject. 303 
Rosenmiiller. ... 128, 201, et passim 
Routh, Dr. 282 


S. 
Schleusner.......... 2, et passim 
Schlictingius, a conjecture of.. 314 
Schoettgen ........ 186, et passim 


Scripture, Rabbinical mode of 
citing 


ΠΥ 198 
I ΤῸ 
LXX. not good authority for the 


uses of the Article 


how they read Ps. lviii. 9. 336 

Sharp, Mr. Granville, 60, 289, 362, 
372, 379, 389, 392, 393, 432,458 

Ship, the, (rd πλοῖον,) what 


meant by .......... ρος 289 
SMEG Dip aise ριον wane 29 
Son of Man, how applied to 

Soe 247 
Sons of God, who ...... 133, 263 
Sophocles, a passage of ...... 111 
PS re ree 177 


Spirit, the Holy Personality of. 127 
Stoics, how the Sse 


Articles and Pronouns. 9,13 
Stoning, manner of,......... 251 
ΝΥ οὐχ Sho ttia aes TT PS "ΘΒ 
Style of the N. T.... 115, 191, 479 
Suicer’s Thesaurus .......... 139 
σύν, Ellipsis of,...... oseeens 375 


501 


Sunday celebrated by the fone. 
Christians τον «τον εὐ θα. 
Surenhusius ....... 128, 178, 220 
Swearing elliptically. ........ 15 
Syriac and Chaldee.......... 119 
status Emphaticus ..... 276 
- Version, remarkable 
readings of ........ .. 345, 409 


Tabor, Mount ...... tee a9 - 137 
Temptation of Christ, the scene 
OEMS i 6c Cek tite cutee ΤΡ Ἐ 
Tent, how applied by the 
A TANS... eee eee e eens 
Texts, 260, 418 
Θεῖον τό, ἃ ene name of the 
RIG ois caked ox cess eee 445 
Θεός, how used . τυ ρα S00 
---- its rejection of ‘the Article, 
how limited... μους ἐς πότοις 202 
—— no lower sense of in N. T. 317 
Thesaurus Theol. Philol.. 179, 183 
Thomas, St., his Confession of 


RR ss Sa oes de Ree 265 
Thunders, the Seven ........ 462 
AINE? Giz ink a de Wig wits ΛΟ 435 
Fe, MANDGIS So yes τα des 253, 343 
Tooke, Mr. Horne.......... 4, 28 
TOMO BYE 535.06 onsen sts oS 177 
του for τινὸς (Atticé) not found 

oS Sele Se Rey BEES eee 324 

Feminine 

as well as Masculine....... ib. 
Transubstantiation .......... 184 
ren ὍΝ LANE Soi oa ko ferme 470 
Trinity, the Persons of the... . 330 

Jewish. . 164 
Trinity, Platonic . ΑΕ ΦΈΝτΥ 
Trypho, his Treatise on the 

Greek Article ..........+- 3 

Twintng, ΜΕΥ, τος τ ¢asssesaes 2 
V, U, and υ. 
Valckender ...... 74, 79, 264, 280 
Vau Conversivum. ἀνούσιον 463, 460 
υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου .... cere rece ον 240 
υἱὸς Θεοῦ and ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ... 134 
ὑπάρχειν........ «60.669. e+eee 370 
ὑπερείδειν, what Case it governs 287 


502 
Ww. 


Wakefield, Mr. Gilbert, 
133, 136, 163, 190, et passim 
Wells, places of resort for the 
profligate ..4. 2 cee 244 
Wetstein .. 165, 314, 402, 432, 485 
White, Professor... .. 479 


PAGE 


PAGE 
Windet........ Pie KSEE 181 
Wolf οὐ ρον μάν 4 seieeue them eae 
Weolfius. . tb ipaneaet 313, et passim 


Wordsworth, Mr... ..56, 364, 380, 
389, 394, 432, 458 

Writer, an unknown, 
152, 193, 362, 382, 395, 433 


THE END. - 


GILBERT & RIVINGTON, PRINTERS, 
ST. JOHN’S SQUARE, LONDON. 


ERRATA. 


In p. 50, add ἢ. J. R. at the end of the note. 

In p. 57, note 1, line 9, after Chapter, the reader is particularly requested to add 
the following words, which are omitted :—the first of them being of the same de- 
scription as Proper Names, (see p. 63); the second belonging to that class :—and at 
the end of the same line to insert (See p. 69). 

In p. 111, line 11, for p. 115, read p. 87." 


ree 
as 


ἊΨ 


τὰ 


Ato 4 at to δ; 4 sib ie ME 


“ite yt ~ api vee om alsin a 


151) sath ot 


ie: δά 


1) i! pit) edo Ὑ 
iraqi’ ‘of anit sine οἱ 


= 
. 


τος, 2 
She νυ r 
4 


Pas 


or 


< 


i 


“routs 


ἢ yh 


᾿ς deca 


» 
Bru 
fa 


ty of Tor 


ie 
QV 
= 

lite 


Acme Library Card Pocket 
LOWE-MARTIN Co. LIMITED 


*pe mon 
*@TOF IIe Yeerp 94} Jo euyazqo0p ayy PEZON 
°dg ‘meysuest Seuoy I, “πΟΖΘΤΡΡΤῇ ΤΌ" INeT 
62S0T