exception he says that the reason is obvious, meaning, I suppose, that the addition makes the Article superfluous. It should be observed, however, that 'Inooûs XpioTos is admissible, when Xporos is not an Appellative, but a Proper Name: which, as was shewn on Mark ix. 40. is sometimes the case. See Matt. i. 18. and Acts viii. 37. V. 23. υἱὸς Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἡλὶ τοῦ, κ. τ. λ. Lightfoot, in order in some measure to lessen the difficulty attending this genealogy, tells us, that vios and not vioù should be supplied throughout, so that the sense may be "the son of Joseph, consequently the son " of Heli, and therefore ultimately the son of Adam "and of God." Now this is to suppose that the Article Tou is every where, not an ellipsis of Tou vioù, but the Article of the Proper Name subjoined: in that case, however, we should certainly have found TOû prefixed to 'Iwonp, for no reason can be imagined, why it was not as necessary there as elsewhere; and further on in the Genealogy we actually meet with TOU 'Iwon twice. But on the usually received construction, the first-named Joseph is rightly without the Article, since such an omission guards the Reader, so far as it is possible, against the very mistake, into which Lightfoot and others after him have fallen. Raphel has given from Herodotus a Genealogy, which in form exactly accords with this of St. Luke ; Λεωνίδης ὁ Ἀναξανδρίδεω τοῦ Λέοντος τοῦ, κ. τ. λ.......τοῦ Ἡρακλέος. The ancient interpreters, the best judges in a question of this kind, explained St. Luke in the same manner. With the various hypotheses invented to reconcile the Genealogies by Matt. and Luke I have no concern: they may be seen fully detailed in the Βίβλος καταλλαγῆς of Surenhusius. CHAP. IV. V. 1. év τ TVεvμaтi. It is not universally agreed, in what sense TVEûμa is here to be taken. Wakefield renders "by that spirit," meaning Tveμa ayov just mentioned, which, according to the rule of interpretation laid down Matt. i. 18. must mean the influence of the Spirit: I think, however, that in this case the Evangelist would have written év T πνεύματι ἐκείνῳ οι ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ πνεύματι. As the reading now stands, I am inclined to interpret vεvμа of the Person called the Holy Spirit, and to make év equivalent to vπó, signifying through the agency of, a common Hebraism: once, indeed, I was of opinion, that the hypothesis, which some Critics have adopted, of our Saviour's Temptation being a visionary, not a real transaction, was favoured by this expression of St. Luke; for T TVEÚμаTI frequently signifies in his mind or spirit. This inquiry, however, has led me to observe, that then the Preposition is always omitted; as in Mark viii. 12.; John xi. 33. xiii. 21.; Acts x. 20'. Besides, of év T TVEÚμаTI meaning "by "the agency of the Holy Spirit," we have an instance in this Evangelist, ii. 27. If to these considerations we add that Matt. and Mark in the parallel passages 1 There is a mistake in this reference. It has been suggested to me that it should be Acts xx. 22. but I think rather xviii. 5. or 25. J. S. have expressed themselves less equivocally, we need not hesitate to understand ἐν τῷ πνεύματι in the personal sense. Many cogent arguments against the doctrine of a visionary temptation are detailed with great perspicuity in the fourth of the "Lectures on St. Matthew" by the Bishop of London, a work, which would have done honour to the better ages of Christianity. V. 4. ò aveρwπos. Griesb. on the authority of several MSS. prefixes to the mark of probable spuriousness. But see on Matt. iv. 4. V. 38. ἡ πενθερὰ δὲ τοῦ Σίμωνος. A great majority of the MSS.-, and it is rejected both by Wet. and Griesb. I do not perceive on what principle the Article can here be omitted: it is true, that the received reading can hardly be right, since it throws de too far from the beginning of the sentence: but Wetstein's C. and 106. Birch's 360. and Matthäi's x, which are mostly MSS. of repute, have ǹ de πevÐepá, which, I doubt not, came from the Evangelist. CHAP. V. V. 29. καὶ ἦν ὄχλος τελωνῶν. Complut. has 'O ὄχλος, which before τελωνῶν without the Article, is so gross a deviation from the usage, that supposing it to have been found in any MS. it excites some curiosity respecting the history and quality of such a MS. The Cod. Esc. 8. of Birch, according to Moldenhawer, by whom the Escurial MSS. were collated (See Birch's Proleg. p. 79.) " abundat otiosis Articulorum "additamentis," but I do not know of any affinity 66 between this MS. and the Complut. Between this celebrated Edit. and the Cod. 1 Havn. the agreement is said to be very remarkable. See same Proleg. p. 90. CHAP. VI. V. 12. eis To opos. See Matt. v. 1. προσ Same v. ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ. There exists a difference of opinion, whether this mean "in prayer "to God," as our Eng. Version renders it, or "in "the proseuche or oratory of God," which is the interpretation of Camp. and others. The following are the reasons, which induce me to prefer the common explanation. 1. It is well known, that the poσevxai of the Jews were not usually situated among mountains, to which, however, Christ is here said to have retired. It appears from Acts xvi. 13. and from the well-known decree of the Halicarnassensians recorded in Josephus Antiq. XIV. 10. 23. that πрoσevxal were always situated near water, either that of some river or of the sea: the mountain district was not likely to afford the requisite convenience. 2. If an oratory had been meant, it is not likely that TOU OeOû would have been added, for all oratories were τοῦ Θεοῦ. 3. It is objected, that if prayer to God were here intended, the idiom would require pos Tov Ocóv: but this may be doubted. At least it is certain that the genitive of the object after eux is unexceptionable Greek: see Eurip. Ion, 638.; Troad. 889.; Soph. Ed. Tyr. 239. Οι προσευχή, indeed, the compound, I do not find any similar use: but the word is of rare occurrence in profane writers. 4. To pass the night in prayer, without (so far as I know) going to an oratory, appears to have been a common act of Jewish devotion. This is noticed by Schoettgen, Horæ Hebr. 5. Some stress has been laid on the presence of the Article in this place but this is not unusual before рoreυxy in the sense of prayer: see Matt. xxi. 22.; Acts i. 14.; 1 Cor. vii. 5. Ver. 35. viol Toù vioтov. Griesb. on the authority of many MSS.-TOû. See on i. 32. V. 48. ETI TV Téтраv. See on Matt. vii. 24. 66 CHAP. VII. V. 5. Tηv ovvaywynv. Eng. Version "a synaτὴν συναγωγήν. gogue." But this implies, that there were several synagogues in Capernaum; which is contrary to the spirit of the original. The Article, as is observed by Campb. and Markl. (apud Bowyer) shews that there was at that time only one synagogue in the place. V. 28. ὁ μικρότερος. That the Comparative is here by an Enallage put for the Superlative, is generally admitted: the only question is, whether Ó MIKρóтepos here refer to any person in particular. Some have thought, and of this number are a few of the Fathers, that we are by o μspóτepos to understand Christ, from his being junior in ministry and indeed in age to John. I cannot but suspect that in this decision, as in so many others, the force of the Article has been mistaken. See especially on Matt. xii. 29. The tenor of the argument seems |