CHAPTER II. 4. Woman. That this compellation was not, in those days, accounted disrespectful, has been fully evinced by critics from the best authorities. We find in this Gospel (ch. xix. 26.) our Lord addressing his mother by this title on a very moving occasion, on which he shewed her the most tender affection and regard. 2 What hast thou to do with me? Mt. viii. 29. N. It was no doubt our Lord's intention, in these words, gently to suggest that, in what concerned his office, earthly parents had no authority over him. In other things, he had been subject to them. Some translators have been rather over-solicitous to accommodate the expression to modern forms of civility. The An. Leave that affair to me; is not that my concern? Hey. What is there between me and you? This, I suppose, has been thought a softer expression of the sense than that which is given in the E. T. It is certainly more obscure, and does not suit our idiom. But it is a literal version of the phrase, by which the Fr. translators render our Lord's expression-Qu' y a-t-il entre vous et moi? Wes. What is it to me and thee? This, at first sight, appears preferable to the rest, because the most literal version. But, as Bishop Pearce well observes, had that been the Evangelist's meaning, he would have written Ti πρos Eμɛ naι σe; as in ch. xxi. 23. ri xgos ve; what is that to thee? and, Mt. xxvii. 4. i węos ή μας; what is that to us? Let me add, that Ti si ai vol, as it is elliptic, is evidently a proverbial or idiomatic expression. Now, the meaning of such is always collected from the customary application of the words taken together, and not from combining the significations of the words taken severally. The common version suits the phrase in every place where it occurs-Wesley's does not; accordingly, in all other places, he renders it differently. Another reason against this manner is, because the sense conveyed by it is a worse sense, and not suitable to the spirit of our Lord's instructions. 'What is it to us, that they want 'wine? That concerns them only; let them see to it.' This way of talking appears rather selfish, and does not savour of that tender sympathy which our religion so warmly recommends, whereby the interests and the concerns of others, their joys and . and their sorrows, are made our own. 6. Baths, μerpras. E. T. Firkins. As to the impropriety of introducing into a version of Scripture, the name of a vessel so modern as firkin, see Diss. VIII. P. I. § 9, &c. I have preferred here the Heb. measure, bath, as the common standard used in reckoning the capacity of their vessels; especially as I find the Heb. word na rendered μgs, in the Sep. 2 Chron. iv. 5. I acknowledge, at the same time, that this evidence is not decisive; but I have not found any thing better, in support of a different opinion. The Seventy, indeed, have, in 1 Kings, xviii. 32. rendered AND seah, which was equal to one third of the bath, in the same manner; but, as the words seah and ephah were, with the Hebrews, peculiarly the names of dry measures, and never applied to liquids, we cannot have recourse to that passage for the interpretation of an expression relating solely to liquors. Some think that, as μers was also the name of an Attic measure, the Evangelist (most of whose readers were probably Greeks) must have referred to it, as best known in that country. There are other suppositions made; but hardly any thing more than conjecture has been advanced in favour of any of them. It ought not to be dissembled, that, in most of the explanations which have been given of the passage, the quantity of liquor appears so great, as to reflect an improbability on the interpretation. I shall only say, that the E. T. is more liable to this objection than the present version. The firkin contains nine gallons; the bath is commonly rated at seven and a half, some say but four and a half; in which case the amount of the whole, as represented here, is but half of what the E. T. makes it. The quantity thus reduced, will not, perhaps, be thought so enormous, when we consider, first, the length of time, commonly a week, spent in feasting on such occasions (of which time, possibly, one half was not yet over), and the great concourse of pecble which they were wont to assemble. 2 For the Jewish rites of cleansing, κατα τον καθαρισμόν των Idalar. E. T. After the manner of the purifying of the Jews. This expression is rather obscure and indefinite. There can be no doubt that, in such cases as the present, xava is equivalent to , and denotes the end or purpose. So the Sy. interpreter has understood it. 10. When the guests have drunk largely, órav pelvoĴwoi. Vul. Cum inebriati fuerint. The Gr. word, frequently in Scripture, and sometimes in other writings, denotes no more than to drink freely, but not to intoxication. 14. Cattle, Boas. E. T. Oxen. By in Gr. in like manner as bos in La. is the name of the species, and therefore of the common gender. It includes alike bulls, cows, and oxen. Thus, Gen. xli. 2, 3. the kine in Pharao's dream are termed Boes by the Seventy-έπτα βοες καλα-αλλαι έπτα βοες αισχραι—and in the Vul. they are named boves; but no person who understands Eng. would call them oxen. And though a herd may sometimes be so denominated, because the oxen make the greater part, it could never, with propriety, be used of cattle amongst which there was not even a single ox. Let it be observed, that the merchandize, which was carried on in the outermost court of the temple, a very unsuitable place, without doubt, was under the pretext of being necessary for the accommodation of the worshippers, that they might be supplied with the victims requisite for the altar; and, where payments in money were necessary, that, in exchange for the foreign coin they may have brought from their respective places of abode, they might be furnished with such as the law and custom required. Now, by the law of Moses, no mutilated beast, and consequently no ox, could be offered in sacrifice to God. Yet all the English translators I have seen, render Boas here oxen. In like manner, all the Fr. translators I am acquainted with, except Beau. who says, des taureaux, fall into the same mistake, rendering the word des bœufs. 20. Forty and six years was this temple in building, teσrapa. κοντα καὶ ἐξ ετεσιν ωκοδομηθη ὁ να στα Dod. Hey. and Wor. say, hath been, instead of was, proceeding on the supposition, that those who made this reply alluded to the additional buildings which the temple had received, and which had been begun by Herod, and continued by those who succeeded him in the govern. ment of Judea, to the time then present. But let it be observed, that the Jews never did, nor do, to this day, speak of more than two temples possessed by their fathers; the first built by Solomon, the second by Zerubbabel. The great additions made by Herod, were considered as intended only for decorating and repairing the edifice, not for rebuilding it; for, in fact, Zerubbabel's temple had not then been destroyed. Nor need we, I think, puzzle ourselves to make out exactly the forty-six years spoken of. Those men were evidently in the humour of exaggerating, in order to represent to the people as absurd, what they had immediately heard advanced by our Lord. In this disposition, we may believe, they would not hesitate to include the years in which the work was interrupted, among the years employed in building. 22. That he had said this, ori TT thy. In the common edi. tions, avros, to them, is added. But this word is wanting in a very great number of MSS. amongst which are several of the highest account. It is not in some of the best editions, nor in the following versions: the Vul. either of the Sy. Cop. Arm. Sax. Ger. Tigurine, old Belgic. It has not been admitted by the best critics, ancient or modern. 2 They understood the Scripture and the word, exigeutav ty γραφη και του λόγω. Ε. Τ. They believed the Scripture and the word. Пisevery, in the sacred writers, sometimes signifies, not so much to believe, as to apprehend aright. In this sense, it is once and again employed by this writer in particular. It is not insinuated here, that the disciples did not, before this time, believe the Scripture, or their Master's word; but that they did not, till now, rightly apprehend the meaning of either, in rela. tion to this subject. Another instance of this application of the verb #is, we have, ch. iii. 12. 24. Because he knew them all. Δια το αυτον γινώσκειν παντας. The Gr. expression is an apt example of ambiguous construction, for it is equally capable of being rendered, because they all knew him. Yet interpreters, if I mistake not, have been unanimous in rendering it in the former way. This unanimity is itself a presumption in favour of that way; but when to this is added the scope of the context, it is rendered indubitable. We can easily understand how a man's knowledge of some persons should hinder him from trusting them, but not how he should be hindered by their knowledge of him. Besides, the words in the following verse, show that it is solely of our Lord's penetration into the characters of men, that the Evangelist is speaking. CHAPTER III. 3. Unless a man be born again, sav un rss yevvren avwbev. Hey. Unless a man be born from above. The word avey will, no doubt, admit either interpretation. But that the common ver. sion is here preferable, is evident from the answer given by Nicodemus, which shows, that he understood it no otherwise than as a second birth. And let it be observed, that, in the Cha. language, spoken by our Lord, there is not the same ambiguity which we find here in the Gr. The word occurs in this sense, Gal. iv. 9. The oldest versions concur in this interpretation. Vul. Nisi quis renatus fuerit denuo. With this, Cas. and Be. perfectly agree in sense. Er. indeed, says, Nisi quis natus fue rit e supernis. In this he is followed, as usual, by the translator of Zu. The Sy. is conformable to the Vul. So are also the Ger. the Itn, and all the Fr versions, Romish and Protestant. All the Eng. translators also, except Hey. render the words in the same manner. ४ 2 He cannot discern the reign of God, & duvara idav Tay Bariλειαν το Θεό. E. T. He cannot see the kingdom of God. The common explanation that is given of the word see, in this passage, is enjoy, share in. Accordingly, it is considered as synonymous with enter, verse 5. Though I admit, in a great mea the truth of this exposition, I do not think it comprehends the whole of what the words imply. It is true, that to see, often denotes to enjoy, or to suffer, as suits the nature of the object seen. Thus, to see death, is used for to die; to see life, for to live; to see good days, for to enjoy good days; and to see corruption, for to suffer corruption. But this sense of the word seeing, is limited to a very few phrases, of which those now mentioned are the chief. I have not, however, found an example, setting this passage aside as questionable, of iden Barihesav, for enjoying a kingdom, or partaking therein. Let it be observed further, that the form of the expression is not that used in threatening, which is always by the future, or by some |