the effect. This all the La. versions also do. The expression, ch. vi. 1. pos ro beadnva: avtois, here rendered in order to be observed by them, is perfectly similar, and is manifestly employed to express the intention from which the Pharisees act. Ilpos TO means, therefore, in order to, to the end that; whereas are, which we have ch. viii, 24. and L. v. 7. signifies so as to, insomuch that, and marks solely the effect. When an expression, with either of these prepositions, is rendered into Eng. simply by the infinitive, it may be doubted whether we are to understand it as expressing the intention or the effect, and whether we should supply before the sign of the infinitive the words in order, or so as. Hence it is evident, that the common version of this passage is not so explicit as the original. 29. Insnare thee, σκανδαλίζει σε E. T. Offend thee. Vul. Scandalizat te. Nothing can be farther from expressing the sense of the Gr. term than the Eng. word offend, in any sense wherein it is used. Some render the expression cause thee to offend. This is much better, but does not give fully the sense, as it does not hint either what kind of offence is meant, or against whom committed. The translators from the Vul. have generally, after the example of that version, retained the original word. Sa. says, Vous scandalize; Si. no better, Vous est un sujet de scandale; the Rh. Scandalize thee. This I consider as no translation, because the words taken together convey no conceivable meaning. The common version is rather a mistranslation, because the meaning it conveys is not the sense of the original. The word exavdanov literally denotes any thing which causes our stumbling or falling, or is an obstacle in our way. It is used, by metaphor, for whatever proves the occasion of the commission of sin. The word wayıs, snare, is another term, which is, in Scripture, also used metaphorically, to denote the same thing. Nay, so perfectly synonymous are these words in their figurative acceptation, that, in the Sep. the Heb. word wp mokesh, answering to way, laqueus, á snare, is oftener translated by the Gr. word navdaλov than by ways, or any other term whatever. Thus Josh. xxiii. 13. What is rendered in Eng. literally from the Heb. They shall be snares and traps unto you is, in the Septuagint, εσονται ύμιν εις παγίδας και εις σκανδαλα. Jud. ii. 3. Their Gods shall be a snare unto you 'Οι θεοι αυτών, εσονται ὑμῖν εἰς σκαν danov. viii. 27. which thing became a snare unto Gideon, EYEVETO τω Γεδεών εἰς σκανδαλον. 1 K. xviii. 21. that she may be a snare to him, xaι 15α1 auta eis oxavdahov. Ps. Gr. cv. cvi. 36. which were q snare unto them, και εγεννήθη αυτοίς εις σκανδαλον. The word xλov, which is equivalent, is also used by the Seventy, in translating the same Heb. word. From the above examples, which are not all that occur, it is manifest that, in the idiom of the synagogue, one common meaning of the word xxvdaλov is snare; and that, therefore, to render it so in scripture, where it suits the sense, is to translate, both according to the spirit of the writer, and according to the letter. The anonymous version uses the same word. E. T. sav 32. Except for whoredom, agent & Loys RogVeras. ing for the cause of fornication. The term fornication is here improper. The Gr. word is not, as the Eng. confined to the commerce of a man and a woman who are both unmarried. It is justly defined by Parkhurst," Any commerce of the sexes out of lawful marriage." To this meaning of the word og etymology points, as well as scriptural use. It is the translation of the Heb. word and a which are employed with equal latitude, as one may soon be convinced, on consulting Trommius' Concordance. The word, indeed, when used figuratively, denotes idolatry, but the context manifestly shews that it is the proper, not the figurative sense that is here to be regarded. Though Togveld may not be common in classical Gr. its meaning is so well ascertained by its frequent recurrence both in the Septuagint and in the N. T. that in my opinion, it is as little to be denominated ambiguous, as any word in the language. 37. But let your yes be yes, your no no ; esw de ó do7/05 Upco val val, 8 8. E. T. But let your communication be yea yea, nay nay. I take this and the three preceding verses to be quoted James v. 12. I suppose from memory, as conveying the sense, though with some diference of expression, μη ομνύετε μητε τον sρανον, μήτε την γην, μητε άλλον τινα όρκον ητω δε ύμων το ναι, ναι, και το 8, . It is but just that we avail ourselves of this passage of the disciple, to assist us in explaining the words of his Master. It was a proverbial manner among the Jews (see Wet.) of characterising a man of strict probity and good faith, by saying, his yes is yes, and his no is no; that is, you may depend upon his word, as he declares, so it is, and as he promises, so he will do. Our Lord is, therefore, to be considered here, not as prescribing the precise terms wherein we are to affirm or deny, in which case it would have suited better the simplicity of his style, to say barely va xa 8, without doubling the words; but as enjoining such an habitual and inflexible regard to truth, as would render swearing unnecessary. That this manner of converting these adverbs into nouns, is in the idiom of the sacred penmen, we have another instance, 2 Cor. i. 20. For all the promises of God in him are yea, ad in him amen ; εν αυτω το ναι, και εν αυτω το αμην" that is, certain and infallible truths. It is indeed a common idiom of the Gr. tongue, to turn, by means of the article, any of the parts of speech into a noun. And, though there is no article in the passage under review, it deserves to be remarked that Chr. in his commentaries, writes it with the article, to vai, vai' xai to 8, & as in the passage of James above quoted. Either he must have read thus in the copies then extant, or he must have thought the expression elliptical, and in this way supplied the ellipsis. Whichsoever of these be true, it shows that he understood the words in the manner above explained. Indeed they appear to have been al ways so understood by the Gr. Fathers. Justin Martyr, in the second century, quotes the precept in the same manner, in his second apology, εσω δε ύμων το ναι, ναι και το 8, 8. And to shew that he had the same meaning, he introduces it with signifying, that Christ gave this injunction to the end that we might never swear, but always speak truth, μη ομνύειν όλως, τ' αληθη δε λεγειν αει. Now, in the way it is commonly interpreted, it has no relation to the speaking of truth; whereas the above explanation gives a more emphatical import to the sentence. Thus understood, it enjoins the rigid observance of truth as the sure method of superseding oaths, which are never used, in our mutual communications, without betraying a consciousness of some latent evil, a defect in veracity as well as in piety. In like manner Clemens Alexandrinus, in the beginning of the third century, Stromata, lib. v. quotes these words as our Lord's: iμav tovai, vai nai to 8, 8. The same also is done by Epiphanius in the fourth century, lib. i. contra Ossenos. Philo's sentiment on this subject (in his book Пɛ Twv dexx dowv) is both excellent in itself, and here very apposite. It is to this effect, that we ought never to swear, but to be so uniformly observant of truth in our conversation, that our word may always be regarded as an oath. Καλλισον, και βιωφελέςατον, και όσα των CH. V. 53 μοντον λογική φυσει, το ανώματον, ότως αληθεύειν εφ' έκας» δεδιδαγμένης ὡς τὰς λογος όρκες είναι νομίζεσθαι. Some render it com 2 Proceedeth from evil, ex т& Tovnps 8511. eth from the evil one, supposing To Tovnpov to be the genitive of nonpos, the evil one, that is, the devil. But it is at least as probably the genitive of To Topov, evil in the abstract, or whatever this epithet may be justly applied to. The same doubt has been raised in regard to that petition, in the Lord's prayer, DeI consiliver us from evil, año ry moves, or from the evil one. der it as a maxim in translating, that when a word is, in all respects, equally susceptible of two interpretations, one of which, as a genus, comprehends the other, always to prefer the more extensive. The evil one is comprehended under the general term evil. But in the phrase the evil one, the pravity of a man's own heart, or any kind of evil, Satan alone excepted, is not included. If we fail in the former way, the author's sense is still given, though less definitely. If we err in the other way, the author's sense is not given, but a different sense of our own. It has been affirmed that this adjective with the article ought always to be rendered the evil one; but it is affirmed without foundation. To ayadov denotes good in the abstract, and to rovnpov evil. L. vi. Nor are these the only places. 45. See also Rom. xii. 9. 39. Resist not the injurious, un avtinval v rovnρa. E. T. Re. It is plain here from what follows that rovno sist not evil. is the dative of ὁ πονηρος, not of το πονηρον. It is equally plain that by Tompos is not meant here the devil; for to that malignant spirit we do not find imputed in Scripture such injuries as smiting a man on the cheek, taking away his coat, or compelling him to attend him on a journey. 40. Cout, XITY-mantle, iuatiov. Diss. VIII. P. III. § 1, 2. 42. Him that would borrow from thee put not away, Tov beλOVτα απο σε δανεισασθαι μη απογραφής. Ε. T. From him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Of these two the former version is the closer, but there is little or no difference in the meaning. Either way rendered, the import is, Do not reject his suit. 44. Bless them who curse you. This clause is wanting in the Vul. Sax. and Cop. versions, and in three MSS. of small account. VOL. IV. 7 2 Arraign, enpeaZOVTOV. E. T. Despitefully use. Vul. Ca lumniantibus. This suits better the sense of the word 1 Pet. iii. 16. the only other place in Scripture (the parallel passage in L. excepted) where it occurs, ο επηρεάζοντες ύμων την αγαθην εν Χρισ sw avas pony, which our translators render, who falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ. Elsner justly observes, that the word has frequently a forensic signification, for bringing a criminal charge against one. Its being followed by the verb diwww makes it probable that it is used in that sense here. I have translated it arraign, because it suits the meaning of the word in the above quotation, and is equally adapted to the original in the juridical and in the common acceptation. 45. That ye may be children of your Father in heaven; that is, that ye may shew yourselves by a conformity of disposition to be his children. 2 Maketh his sun arise on bad and good, and sendeth rain on just and unjust, τον ήλιον αυτ8 ανατελλεί επί πονηρός και αγαθός, και βρεχει επι δικαιος και αδίκες. Ε. T. Maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. An indiscriminate distribution of favours to men of the most opposite characters is much better expressed, in the original, without the discriminative article, and without even repeating the preposition unnecessarily, than it is in our common version, where the distinction is marked by both with so much for. mality. Another example of this sort we have ch. xxii. 10. I am surprised that Sc. who, in general, more in the taste of the synagogue than of the church, is superstitiously literal, has, both here and elsewhere, paid so little regard to what concerns the article. 46. The publicans, di reλwval. The tollgatherers, a class of people much hated, not only from motives of interest, but from their being considered as tools employed by strangers and idolaters for enslaving their country. Besides, as they farmed the taxes, their very business laid them under strong temptations to oppress. Johnson observes that publican, in low language, means a man that keeps a house of general entertainment. This is a manifest corruption. The word has never this meaning in the gospel: neither is this ever the meaning of the Latin etymon. |