which the article "he of Arimathea," used by Mark, explains very clearly.

"Honourable."] The Greek word has three significations, which all apply to Joseph rich, respectable, virtuous." I prefer "rich," because Matthew, whom Mark generally follows, calls him so. It has been said, that the unlearned translate the word into the two first meanings, the learned into the last. In this respect, I think the saying wrong, but it is of no great import, because Mark is the least refined Greek writer in the New Testament.

"Counsellor."] It is a received opinion, that Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the sanhedrim of Jerusalem; I own this does not appear to me probable. If I read in a Roman author, "Sempronius of Capua, an eminent counsellor," I should not suppose he was a counsellor of Rome, but of Capua; why should I think otherwise of Joseph of Arimathea? but the word "counsellor" applied both by Luke and Mark to Joseph, is applied to no other in the New Testament; the members of the sanhedrim are frequently mentioned, but always in a different way. It is rarely used to express a dignity, except in the Septuagint (Job iii. 14, and xii. 17.) It would seem to

apply to a city more than a nation, and the letters of Pliny give it to the civic counsel in the cities of Asia. From the Greek, it travelled into the Asiatic languages, so that Joseph may have had this distinction in his own. The old Syriac translation retains it, and the Jews use it for the great officers of a city, but not for the great council of a nation. The circumstance of all the evangelists calling him Joseph of Arimathea, makes me think him to have been counsellor of that place, or perhaps of the adjoining district. This supposition has been opposed upon a passage in Luke xxiii. 51, but the authority of Luke speaking humanly, who wrote from tradition and inquiry, is not to be considered as valuable as Mark's whose home was in Palestine. But more of this hereafter.

"Which also waited for the kingdom of God."] He believed Jesus to be the Messiah, and expected his kingdom soon to begin. Upon this he would probably have as erroneous notions, as the apostles themselves. Some have translated it, "who received the word of God," but, as the Jews actually expected the kingdom of the Messiah, and it was represented as approaching in the discourses of

Christ, and of John, I prefer the ordinary translation.

"Went in boldly."] There was no necessity to use this boldness with respect to Pilate, who, in his judgment seat, had not conducted himself with hostility to Jesus, but it required some courage to act in direct opposition to the high priest, and the whole sanhedrim, and to solicit the privilege of giving an honourable burial to him, whom they had just crucified as an impostor. There is some trifling attention due to this reading. The common one stands thus, "Came and went in boldly." Some manuscripts have it," Joseph having come, he dared and went in ;" some few " Joseph came and having dared, went in." But both appear to have suffered from transcribers.

44." Marvelled if he were already dead."] A crucified man dies not quickly-he generally remains alive to the third day. This we are not acquainted with, because this horrible mode of punishment is not in use amongst us, but in the mind of a Roman governor, it was a natural reflection. I find several learned men have been desirous of giving another illustration to this passage, and think it surprising Pilate should have had any doubt upon the

But

subject. There are some passages, I allow, but they are few in number, in which the word “if” is not introduced in a doubting manner. I see no reason why the text should be thus tortured, for if Pilate was only a moderately reasonable man, he may have well doubted the existence of the fact, as the Jew was unknown to him, and he, who could have begged for the body of Jesus, must have been a warm disciple. Would, for instance, any prudent magistrate deliver to the friend of the crucified person, the body for interment, which, according to experience, ought to have lived at least until the ensuing morning, without making more accurate inquiries into the truth of his death? I know that it has been said, that Pilate did not inquire of the Centurion, whether he was really dead, but whether he had long been dead, assuming the fact of his death, as either known to him, or probable. Putting out of all question, the Complutensian, the Cambridge, and another manuscript, quoted by Erasmus, all of which use the word "already," and the belief that Pilate might have in the truth and earnestness of Joseph, I will only remark, that Pilate asks whether he had been any time dead? For if he had been but a short time dead, he might

conceive it was only a fainting fit, and not ac-. tual death. I am aware this is but a trifle, but the minutiæ, into which learned men descend, force me into it. There is, however, a difficulty. which, I find, generally overlooked. How could Pilate, who, according to John xix. 31, 37, had ordered the bones of the crucified persons to be broken, preparatory to giving them the fatal. blow, be astonished that Jesus was dead, doubt the fact, and call upon the Centurion to report the real case to him? The doubt would certainly be inexplicable if we read the evangelists, as we read the minute transactions of a diary, and if we concluded from John xix. 38, writing" after this," that Joseph had obtained access to Pilate, subsequent to the order being given for the breaking of the bones. But it is not thus that we read histories, compiled by others, and indeed no historian would venture such an accuracy of detail. It would be more in character, with astronomical precision. In a general view, the case would appear to stand thus; Jesus dies between three and four in the afternoon; Joseph immediately goes to Pilate, and requests the dead body; Pilate doubts the fact of his being dead, and orders the Centurion to be called. The Jews soon afterwards appear