ADVERTISEMENT.

THE Editions of the Greek Testament, which have been consulted in the course of the following Annotations, are

Griesbach's, 2 vols. 8vo. Hala, Sax. 1796 & 1806.

Matthäi's, 12 vols. 8vo.

Alter's, 2 vols. 8vo.......

...

Riga, 1782, &c.

Vienna, 1787.

Birch's Quatuor Evangelia, 1 vol. fol. Havniæ, 1788.

The Text, which I have adopted, is that of WETSTEIN. The mark denotes the insertion of a word or passage, and the omission.

PART II.

NOTES

ON THE

NEW TESTAMENT.

ST. MATTHEW.

CHAP. I.

VER. 1. γενέσεως ̓Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, υἱοῦ, &c. Both Campbell and Wakefield translate "a son of David, a son of Abraham;" and the former remarks "the modesty and simplicity" with which the historian introduces his subject. However ready the reader may be to acquiesce in this commendation, it will be prudent to pause, till he shall have taken into the account some subsequent applications of the same principle of criticism. In this very Chapter the Angel says, 'Iwon'p vios Daßid, not 'O viós, where "modesty and simplicity" are out of the question: and indeed it has been shewn (Part I. Chap. III. Sect. iii. 6.) that the Greek usage will readily admit vioù to be anarthrous. Or if we are to consider the passage as a translation from a Hebrew original, vioù without the Article will be an accurate version; for it is well known, that the Hebrew in the L

status constructus does not usually admit the emphatic and thus we find viòs used by the LXX. Num. i. 5, 6, 7. et passim.—In the German translation by Michaelis (Göttingen, 1790) we find what is equivalent to the son, as in the English Version.-The want of the Article before yevéσews may also be explained by Part I. Chap. III. Sect. iii. § 6. Bißλos yevéσews is, however, exactly rendered from the Hebrew An D, used Gen. v. 1. for what we should call a pedigree.

V. 2. et seqq. Throughout the whole of this genealogy there is an use of the Article, which is wholly foreign from the Greek practice, and which in some degree favours the historical account of the Hebrew original of St. Matthew's Gospel. The Greek usage would require Ἀβραὰμ ἐγέννησεν Ἰσαάκ· Ὁ δὲ Ἰσαὰκ ἐγέννησεν Ιακώβ· Ὁ δὲ Ἰακώβ, &c. See Part I. O Chap. IV.) thus introducing the Article on the repetition of each Proper Name: the very reverse of which here takes place. The Article, therefore, in this genealogy represents the Hebrew s or the Chaldeen, and it is thus that the LXX. render the Particle marking the objective case. Compare LXX. with the Hebrew of Ruth iv. 18. 1 Chron. vi. 4. et passim.-In the genealogy by St. Luke the use of the Article is strictly Greek, Toù being every where an ellipsis of τοῦ υἱοῦ.

V. 16. ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός. Not Ὁ Χρ. Part I. Chap. III. Sect. iii. § 2.) and yet the Coptic Translator read 'O Xplorós: (See Alter's N. T. vol. I. p. 752.) unless, indeed, which I suspect to be the truth, he attended to the sense of the passage, where, no

doubt, Xporos is equivalent to 'O Xp., rather than to the exigency of the Greek idiom. It is certain, that in many other places, in which in the Greek MSS. the Article is wanting before the name Christ, the Coptic has prefixed its Article: as John iv. 25. Romans viii. 10. 1 Cor. xv. 3. and elsewhere. That inattention to the difference of idiom has been a fruitful source of alleged various readings in the MSS. used by the Oriental Translators, has been proved by D. C. B. Michaelis, the father of the late Professor at Götttingen, in the valuable Tract de Variis Lectionibus N. T. Hala, Magd. 1749, and more fully by Bode in his Pseudocritica Millo-Bengeliana, Halæ, Magd. 1767.

V. 17. A few MSS. want ai. It should be inserted. See Part I. Chap. vII. § 2. The mistake probably arose from the uncertain use of was in the Plural, where there is not reference.

V. 18. éк πveúμatos ȧyiov. Wakefield, both in his St. Matthew, and in his New Testament, 1795, translates "a holy Spirit." There is reason to believe that he laid some stress on the absence of the Article; for I have observed that he generally in such cases adheres to the letter of the original: whence it is plain, that he did not advert to the anomaly noticed in the Preliminary Inquiry, Chap. vI. § 1. In whatever manner we are to render this passage, it is certain that the absence of the Article after a Preposition does not affect the definiteness of the sense. Since, however, the phrases πνεῦμα and πνεῦμα ἅγιον, both with and without the Article, are of frequent occurrence in the New Testament, it may not be

amiss in this place to inquire generally into the meanings which they bear, and especially on what occasions the Article is taken or rejected.

I. The primitive signification of veûμa is breath or wind: in which senses, however, it is not often found in the New Testament. In the sense of breath vevμa takes or rejects the Article, as the circumstances may require. Thus, Matt. xxvii. 50. ápке TO πvevμɑ, his breath or life: (Part I. Chap. III. Sect. 1. §. 4.) but Apoc. xiii. 15. we have douvaι πveûμa, to give life, where To would be inconsistent with the sense: for that, which was possessed already, could not now first be given. In the meaning of wind we find, John iii. 8. τὸ πνεῦμα πνεῖ, ὅπου θέλει where the Ar

ticle is requisite by Part I. Chap. III.

Sect. 1. § 5.

II. Hence we pass by an easy transition to πveuμa, the intellectual or spiritual part of man, as opposed to his carnal part. Thus, Tveûua is frequently contradistinguished from cáp. In this sense also it may be used either definitely or indefinitely: examples of each will be noticed in the sequel.

III. A third meaning arises by abstracting the spiritual principle from body or matter, with which in man it is associated: hence is deduced the idea of the immaterial agents, whom we denominate Spirits. Thus, Luke xxiv. 39. πvevμa σáρka kai óootéa οὐκ ἔχει. John iv. 24. πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός. Acts xxiii. 9. πνεῦμα ἢ ἄγγελος. The πνεύματα also of the Demoniacs are to be classed under this head. It is evident that the word, in this acceptation, must admit both a definite and an indefinite sense.

IV. But the word Trevua is used in a sense not