« AnteriorContinuar »
punctuation, whereas he ought rather to have adopted the latter, as appears from what is related by the two other evangelists.Ch. xi. 12. ἡ βασίλεια των ερανών βιάζεται is so harsh and obscure, and the expression used by St. Luke on the same occasion, Barista ret DEB EVAYYEXIZETal, is so easy and natural, that there is reason to: doubt whether St. Matthew's original was in this passage rendered properly. Now suayyew is in Hebrew : but if this word be written, with Samech instead of Sin, as it is in Syriac, a translator might render it by Bix3w, especially if Don followed in the same sentence. For both and Dan signify, 1.. Crudus fuit, 2. Violavit; and the corresponding Arabic word signifies also intempestive fecit, and vim intulit. If then St. Matthew wrote
the translator מלכות השמים תבסר ואנשי המס יגזלוה
might explain 01 by Don, and consequently render the three words by ἡ βασιλεια των ερανων βιαζεται. I will not affrma however that this solution is the true one, as it is rather too artificial.-Ch. xxi. 33. wgute Anvoy, he dug a wine-press', is an incorrect expres-sion, for it was properly the or which was dug, and hence St.. Mark has wouter Toλnov, which is correct. St. Matthew wrote. probably pay, an expression used by Isaiah, ch. v. 2. on which I refer the reader to Lowth's note on that verse.-Ch. xxi. 41. Asyaσ aurw seems to be a false reading, not only because the words which follow were, according to St. Mark, uttered by Christ, but because it is improbable that the Jewish priests, who certainly understood the import of the parable which Christ had just delivered to them, would have answered xanes nanws aтoheσa auras: and from the account given by St. Luke, it appears that they actually gave a very different answer. In this passage, therefore, St. Matthew wrote
ויאמרו he said, which was mistaken for : ויאמר probably
they said,' perhaps by the transcriber, who wrote the copy, from which the Greek translation was made. Further, if this mistake was made in the verse in question, the translator must have considered, ' ver. 42. not as a continuation of Christ's discourse, but as a reply to what the Jewish priests had said. Perhaps objections may be made to this solution: but I know of no other method of reconciling, in this instance, St. Matthew with St. Mark and St. Luke and it is surely better to suppose that St. Matthew's translator made a mistake, than to ascribe the mistake to the evangelist himself. In is true that the difficulty may be removed by saying that Aey801)
UT is an interpolation: but for this assertion we have no authority, since these words are found in all the Greek manuscripts, except the Codex Leicestrensis, which cannot be put in competition with the united evidence of all other manuscripts.
To the example which now follows I believe no objection will be made. Immediately after Christ was fastened to the cross, they gave him, according to St. Matthew, ch. xxvii. 34. vinegar mingled with gall; but according to St. Mark, ch. xv. 23. they offered him wine mingled with myrrh. Here is a manifest contradiction, and, of course, in one of the two accounts there must be an inaccuracy. That St. Mark's account is the right one, is probable from the cir
cumstance, that Christ refused to drink what was offered him, as appears both from Matth. xxvii. 34. and Mark xv.23. Wine mixed with myrrh was given to malefactors at the place of execution, in order to intoxicate them, and make them less sensible to pain. Christ therefore with great propriety refused the aid of such remedies. But if vinegar was offered him, which was taken merely to assuage thirst, there could be no reason for his rejecting it. Besides, he tasted it before he rejected it, and therefore he must have found it different from that which, if offered to him, he was ready to receive. To solve this difficulty, we must suppose that the words used in the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew were such as agreed with the account given by St. Mark, and at the same time were capable of the construction which was put upon them by St. Matthew's Greek translator. Nor is it difficult to conjecture what these words were. Suppose St. Matthew wrote in, which signifies sweet wine with bitters, or sweet wine and myrrh,' as we find it in St. Mark, and St, Matthew's translator overlooked the Jod in 7, he took it for, which signifies vinegar:' and bitter' he translated by xoλn, as it is often rendered in the Septuagint. Nay, St. Matthew may have written, and have still meant to express sweet wine: if so, the difference consisted only in the points; for the same word, which, when pronounced Halé, signifies sweet, denotes, as soon as we pronounce it, Hala, vinegar.' The translator of St. Matthew's Gospel misunderstood the words of the original; but St. Mark, who had been better informed by St. Peter, has given the true account.' Vol. iii. Part. i. r. 155.
The subject of the fifth chapter is the Gospel of St. Mark i and before the author enters on the historical accounts which relate to it, he presents to his readers, as in the instance of St. Matthew, an inquiry concerning this evangelist, and the circumstances of his life. Having estimated how far the statements adduced, respecting the contents of St. Mark's Gospel, agree, he proceeds to prove that St. Mark derived his information, not only from St. Peter, but likewise from written documents: and, after instituting distinct inquiries, whether St. Mark made use of St, Matthew's, or St. Luke's Gospel? as also, whether St. Mark's Gospel were written first, and used by St. Luke? he concludes with an induction of evidence, maintaining that the Gospel of St. Mark was written in Greek, in opposition to the opinion of some modern crites, especially Baronius, who have asserted that it was originally composed in Latin. On the style and particularities of this evangelist we have the following ob
No writer of the New Testament has neglected elegance of expression, and purity of language, more than St. Mark. The word Evews occurs incessantly, and he abounds likewise with numerous and harsh Hebraisms. Yet his Gospel is very valuable, because it contains several important though short additions to the accounts given by St. Matthew. For instance, the answer of Christ, which St.
Matthew has recorded, ch. xii. 48-50. would be thought very extraordinary, unless we knew what St. Mark has related, ch. iii. 21. but from this passage we clearly perceive the reason of Christ's answer. Sometimes he has additions, which more clearly ascertain the time in which the events happened, as in ch. iv. 35. vi. 1, 2. It is therefore unjust to suppose that St. Mark neglected the order of time more than the other evangelists, and still more so to reject his arrangement for that of St. Matthew or St. Luke, in places where the time is positively determined by St. Mark.' Vol. iii. Parti. P. 227.
The discussions on THE GOSPEL OF ST. LUKE, which constitute the subject of the sixth chapter, open with a view of his life and character. The questions are then examined, whether St. Luke's Gospel, though it contain on the whole a credible history, be perfectly free from inaccuracies? and if St. Luke were the same person as the Lucius mentioned in the Acts and in the Epistle to the Romans? An investigation succeeds concerning the person of Theophilus, to whom St. Luke wrote his Gospel, and the time when it was written; as also the opinions that have prevailed in reference to the place where St. Luke wrote it, and the result of inquiries thence arising. To this, considerations are added on St. Luke's motive in writing his Gospel, which thus terminate the chapter.
In this manner St. Luke improved and corrected the accounts, which were then in circulation, of the history of Christ. For this undertaking he is entitled to our warmest thanks: as, in consequence of the accurate inquiries which he made, he was enabled to distinguish truth from falsehood, and to communicate a history on which we can depend. It is true that the accounts contained in the histories which it was St. Luke's object to correct were not wholly fabulous, and the mere inventions of the authors who recorded them; but they contained so much falschood intermixed with truth, that a correction of them was absolutely necessary. The same thing happened to these histories as happens to our modern gazettes, when a hattle or a siege is described. The main story is true, but, in passing through different hands, it generally acquires an accession of circumstances, which are totally devoid of truth. Official intelligence alone is certain; and such certain intelligence we have received from St. Luke. Vol. iii. Part i. P. 270.
Advancing to the Gospel of St. John, as the subject of chapter the seventh, and subjoining a suctinct view of this evangelist's life and character, Michaëlis proceeds to the various opinions which have been espoused in respect to St. John's object in writing his Gospel. The opinions of Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius, who supposed that this Gospel was designed as supplementary to the three others, is contested as but partially applying, in the instance of Clement, who states that, as in the former those things were related which concern the humanity of Christ, it was the intent of St. John to write a spiritual Gospel,
which should explain at full length his divinity; while Eusebius, on the contrary, relates, that St. John's intention was to supply what his predecessors had omitted concerning the first parts of Christ's ministry, their accounts having been chiefly confined to the last year of it: but to this also Michaelis expresses his dissent; adding-
That it was not his' (St. John's) design to record even all the miracles which Christ had performed, is evident from what he himself says, ch. xx. 30. xxi. 25.; and therefore, though his Gospel cons tains a considerable quantity of very important mauner, of which no mention is made in the three first Gospels, yet this matter was intro duced with a different view from that of merely supplying the de, fects of his predecessors. If this had been his sole, or even his principal, object, he would not have passed over in silence the whole history of Christ's early life, of which, as I observed in the preceding section, he had the best opportunity of procuring information: nor would he have neglected to confirm by his own testimony the account of Christ's transfiguration on the mount, his agony in the garden, and other important events, at which St. John was present, but St. Matthew was not. However, it is far from my intention to assert. that St. John intended no part of his Gospel as a supplement to the preceding Gospels: I mean only that this was not his sole or his principal object.' Vol. iii. Part i. P. 275.
The very different opinion from that of Clement and Eusebius, which was suggested by Lampe and defended by Lardner, is next proposed; and, having been acutely examined, it is inferred from John xii. 37-43, on which Dr. Lardner mainly rested as matter of doubt, that this passage intended nothing more than an answer to an objection founded on the Jewish rejection of Christ's miracles.'
The apostle had probably heard the following argument brought against the truth of the evangelical history: If so many miracles had been performed, as is pretended, and that too in so public a manner, it is inconceivable how the Jews could refuse to believe, after they had seen those miracles with their own eyes. If it were true that a person really dead was restored to life in the presence of many witnesses, and in a village which was only a mile and a half from Jerusalem, it must have been known to the whole city; and the necessary consequence would have been, that the Jews would have acknowledged the person who could perform such miracles to be the Messiah, whom they expected. But since the contrary is true, the wonders related by Christ's disciples are entitled to no credit.' An objection of this kind St. John probably intended to answer, when he wrote the passage in question. He admits that the incredulity of the Jews might afford just matter of surprise: but he denies that any inference can be deduced from it, prejudicial to the credibility of the Gospel history. For the prophets had foretold that their eyes would be blinded, and their hearts hardened: and therefore, as they were incapable of conviction, their rejection of Jesus could afford no
proof that he was not the Messiah. St. John however adds, that many were really convinced in their hearts, and that only the fear of expulsion from the synagogue deterred them from an open cons fession.' Vol. iii. Part i. P. 277
Having thus disposed of the hypotheses of others, Michaëlis advances his own; which is, to evince that St. John wrote his Gospel to confute the errors of Cerinthus and the Gnostics; as also those of the Sabians, a sect which acknowledged John Baptist for their founder. The tenets maintained by the Gnostics and Sabians are distinctly stated, and also the manner in which St. John had confuted them. We wished to present to our readers this very learned and masterly disquisition, as having given us the fullest satisfaction: but the whole is too long for insertion; and to abridge, would be essentially to injure it.
It having been mentioned before, that, according to a passage in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, St. John had read the three first Gospels, and supplied what his predecessors had omitted, Michaëlis reverts to that opinion as well as to Clement's; and thence offers his reasons to prove that the first three Gospels had been read by St. John before the writing of his own. The appropriate mode of this evangelist's narration is next judiciously treated, and the peculiarities of his Greek style pointed out, in reference also to his Epistles. The contents of the last chapter of St. John's Gospel are then distinctly considered; and the notion of Grotius, who, with other critics, contended that this chapter was added by the elders at Ephesus, having been judiciously set aside, after adverting with great pertinence to the date and place when and where this Gospel was, written, the Introduction to the four evangelical books is concluded, with a brief notice of the heretics who rejected the Gospel of St. John.
We have thus far exhibited a distinct view of the original work, that the reader may judge of its plan and contents. In our next number we shall revert to it, and to the notes that Mr. Marsh has subjoined.
(To be continued.)
ART. II. — Observations on the Winds and Monsoons; illustrated with a Chart, and accompanied with Notes, Geographical and Meteorological. By James Capper, formerly Colonel and Comptroller-General of the Army and Fortification Accompts on the Coast of Coromandel. 4to. 155. Debrett. 1801.
To colonel Capper we seem to have been formerly obliged for a very interesting and entertaining account of a Journey