and independent Greek translators of the Hebrew text at Zech. xiii. 7. would not have agreed perhaps in the very words. Yet it is no necessary consequence that St. Mark copied from the Greek Gospel of St. Matthew, since the agreement may be equally well explained on the supposition that the Greek translator of St. Matthew's Gospel copied from St. Mark'.

SECTION VIII.

Observations on several Passages in the Greek Gospel of St. Matthew, where the Translator appears to have rendered inaccurately: with Conjectures relative to the Words of the Original, and the Causes, which might lead a Translator into Error.

IF the Greek Gospel of St. Matthew is not the original, which was penned by the Evangelist, we cannot ascribe it to a verbal inspiration, and it is moreover not impossible that the translator in some few instances mistook the sense of his author. We have no reason however to be alarmed on this account, be-. cause the most material parts, or those in which we are chiefly interested, are recorded likewise by one or more of the other Evangelists. Besides, as the Greek translation is really half Hebrew, it is manifest that it is a very close one. Nor is it difficult for those who are well acquainted with Syriac and Chaldee, which are absolutely necessary to a right understanding of St. Matthew's Gospel, to discover in dubious passages the words which were probably used in the original.

Before I venture to offer any of my own conjectures, I will mention one, which was made by Jerom on

This solution is given by Grotius *.

h See for instance ch. ii, 6. iv. 15. xxi. 32. xxviii. 1,

ofε de σabbaτwv, Matth. xxviii. 1. The word of is somewhat unsuitable to this passage, because the events which immediately follow, took place not late in the evening, but early in the morning, or between midnight and day-break. Jerom therefore says, Mihi videtur evangelistam Matthæum, qui Evangelium Hebraico sermone conscripsit non tam vespere dixisse, quam sero. Now I perfectly agree with Jerom, that St. Matthew did not use a word expressive of vespere: but I doubt whether he used a word expressive of sero. My conjecture on this passage the reader will find in my History of the Resurrection'.

Having premised the authority of Jerom, I will now propose some conjectures of my own. Ch. iii. 15. πασαν δικαιοσυνην is not so suitable to the context, as яаνта та diкaιuara, which signifies all commandments relative to religious ceremonies*.' Perhaps pn was used in the original3.-Ch. iv. 8. the tempter conducts Christ to the top of a lofty mountain, and shews him πασας τας βασιλειας το κοσμο. Now if we take these words in a literal sense, the fact is utterly impossible and if it was a mere illusion, there was no necessity for ascending a lofty mountain. Here some word must have been used in the original, which was capable of more than one translation: perhaps, which signifies the land,' as well as the earth;' or ban, which as well as oiksμεvn, may denote the land of Palestine'. Or, thirdly, what is perhaps the most probable conjecture, it is not improbable that St. Matthew wrote a ha ha, that is, all the kingdoms of the Holy Land ",' and that the translator mistook y for 33, which in the Septuagint is sometimes rendered by κоoμоç". It is even possible, as a signifies literally

་

i Hædibiæ Quest. 4. Tom. IV. p. 173. ed Martianay. See my Note 2 to Maccab. i. 13.

1 Open is used in this sense, Luke iv. 5. Acts xi. 28. See Daniel viii. 9. xi, 16. 41. Jerem. iii. 19.

See Gen. ii. 1. Deut. iv. 19. xvii. 3. Isaiah xxiv. 21. l. 46.

beauty,' and Kooμoç has likewise this sense, that the translation in question was occasioned by a too literal adherence to the original. Now all the kingdoms, which existed in Palestine in the time of Christ, could be seen from the top of Mount Nebo: St. Matthew therefore meant all the kingdoms of Palestine, which his translator converted into all the kingdoms of the world. Ch. v. 18. εως αν παντα γενηται is not very intelligible, for the question relates to the laws of God, and the laws of God are not universally fulfilled. Per-·

,עד כי יעשה הכל haps the words of the original were

which are capable of a different translation from us av Tavra Yevntaι; for Ty may denote for ever,' and ', if was used in the preceding clause, would signify 'but.' The meaning therefore of Christ was, As long as heaven and earth remain, they shall not be abolished, but every thing shall be executed .'-Ch. v. 48. înduioi is somewhat obscure. A word expressive of peace or reconciliation, would be more suitable to the context, than a word expressive of perfection. Perhaps h was used in the original, which admits both senses.→→→ Ch. viii. 28, 29. mention is made of two demoniacs, whereas St. Mark and St. Luke mention only one. Now, if the dialect, in which St. Matthew wrote, was the Syriac, this contradiction may be ascribed to the translator. For in Syriac, when a noun is in what is called the Status emphaticus, it has the very same orthography in the singular, as it has in the plural"; and even in the verb, the third person plural is sometimes written like the third person singular, without the Vau, namely for. However I shall not insist on this explanation, because I much doubt whether St. Matthew wrote in Syriac.-Ch. ix. 18. Jairus says of his daughter αρτι ετελεύτησε, she is already dead, whereas, according to St. Mark, he says Exarwe EXEL, 'she is at the point of death, and receives the first

9 See Deut. xxxiv. 1-34. From the top of Nebo, even Mount Sinai may be discerned.

intelligence of her death, as he was returning home accompanied by Christ. Various artifices have been used by the harmonists to reconcile this contradiction, and with very little success: but as soon as we reflect on the words, which must have stood in the original, all difficulty vanishes on this head. For nn nny may signify either she is now dead,' or 'she is now dying.' St. Matthew's translator rendered the word. according to the former punctuation, whereas he ought rather to have adopted the latter, as appears from what is related by the two other Evangelists?.-Ch. xi. 12. η βασιλεία των ερανών βιάζεται is so harsh and obscure, and the expression used by St. Luke on the same occasion, η βασιλεια τ8 Θες ευαγγελίζεται is so easy and natural, that there is reason to doubt whether St. Matthew's original was in this passage rendered properly. Now Evayyedw 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 Bial, especially if Don followed in the same sentence. For both and Don signify, 1. Crudus fuit, 2. Violavit; and the corresponding Arabic word signifies also intempestive fecit, and vim intulit. If then St. Matthew wrote

בסר

the translator,מלכות השמים תבסר ואנשי המם יגזלוה

might explain 03 by Don, and consequently render the three words by η βασιλεια των ερανων βιαζεται, I will not affirm however that this solution is the true one, as it is rather too artificial.Ch. xxi. 33. wpuže Anvov, ‘he dug a wine press,' is an incorrect expression, for it was properly the voλnvov which was dug, and hence St. Mark has woučev vroλnviov, which is correct. St. Matthew wrote probably pan, an expression used by Isaiah, ch. v. 2. on which I refer the reader to Lowth's note on that verse.-Ch. xxi. 41. λeysow auty 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 κακός κακως απολέσει αυτός, and from the ac count given by St. Luke it appears that they actually gave a very different answer". In this passage therefore St. Matthew wrote probably ", he said,' which was mistaken for "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. It is true that the difficulty may be removed by saying that dɛysoi αυτή 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 circumstance, that

• Ακέσαντες δε ειπον μη γενοιτο.

What is now the object of consideration must be carefully distinguished from that which took place several hours afterwards, shortly before Christ expired.