Ger. gefangnils, Itn. cattivita, and Eng. captivity, express the state of the people during all that period, and by consequence egregiously misrepresent the sense. They make the author say what is not true, that certain persons were begotten after, who were begotten during, the captivity. Further, it deserves to be remarked that, as this Apostle wrote, in the opinion of all antiquity, chiefly for the converts from Judaism, he carefully avoided giving any unnecessary offence to his countrymen. The terms captivity, exile, transportation, subjection, were offensive, and, with whatever truth they might be applied, the Jews could not easily bear the application. A remarkable instance of their deli. cacy in this respect, the effect of national pride, we have in J. viii. 33. where they boldly assert their uninterrupted freedom and independency, in contradiction both to their own historians, and to their own experience at that very time. This humour had led them to express some disagreeable events, which they could not altogether dissemble, by the softest names they could devise. Of this sort is METOINETIN, by which they expressed the most dire ful calamity that had ever befallen their nation. The word strictly signifies no more than passing from one place or state to another. It does not even convey to the mind whether the change was voluntary or forced. For this reason we must admit that Be. Pisc. Beau. Sa, and the E. T. have all departed, though not so far as Cas. Lu. Dio. and Dod. from the more indefinite, and therefore more delicate expression of the original, and even from that of the Vul. from which Sa's version is professedly made. For the words used by all these imply compulsion. Nor let it be imagined that, because μETOIMETI occurs frequently in the Sep. where the word in the Heb. signifies captivity, it is therefore to be understood as equivalent. That version was made for the use of Grecian or Hellenist Jews, who lived in cities where Gr. was the vulgar tongue; and as the translation of the Scriptures into the language of the place, exposed their history to the natives, they were the more solicitous to soften, by a kind of euphemism, a circumstance so humiliating as their miserable enthralment to the Babylonians. For this reason, that event is, especially in the historical part, rarely denominated axavia captivitas, and never diansdn transportatio, but by one or other of these gentler names, μετοικία, μετοικεσία, αποικία, and αποικεσία, colonia, migratio, demigratio, incolatus seu habitatio in terra aliena. On the whole, the Vul. Si. L. Cl. and Wa. have hit the import of the original more exactly than any of the other translators above mentioned. I did not think the term transmigration so proper in our language, that word being in a manner appropri ated to the Oriental doctrine of the passage of the soul, after death, into another body. Emigration is at present, I imagine, more commonly used, when the removal is voluntary. The sim. ple term migration seems fully to express the meaning of the original. 16. Messiah, Xpisos. For the import of the word, see Diss. V. P. IV. § 9. 18. Jesus Christ. The Vul. omits Jesu, and is followed only by the Per. and Sax. versions. 19. Being a worthy man, dixa av. Some would have the word dixa, in this place, to signify good-natured, humane, merciful; because, to procure the infliction of the punishment denounced by the law, cannot be deemed unjust, without impeaching the law. Others think that it ought to be rendered, according to its usual signification, just; and imagine that it was the writer's intention to remark two qualities in Joseph's character; first, his strict justice, which would not permit him to live with an adulteress as his wife; secondly, his humanity, which led him to study privacy, in his method of dissolving the marriage. Herein, say they, there can be no injustice, because there are many things, both for compensation and punishment, which the law entitles, but does not oblige, a man to exact. Though this interpretation is specious, it is not satisfactory; for if the writer had intended to express two distinct qualities in Joseph's character, which drew him different ways, I think he would have expressed himself differently; as thus, Though Joseph was a just man, yet being unwilling, &c. whereas the manner in which he has connected the clauses, seems to make the latter explanatory of the former, rather than a contrast to it. It has indeed been said, that the participle wy sometimes admits being interpreted though. In proof of this, Mat. vii. 11. and Gal. ii. 3. have been quoted. But the construction is not similar in either passage. Here the wis coupled with an other participle by the conjunction x. In the places referred to, it is immediately followed by a verb in the indicative. In such cases, to which the present has no resemblance, the words connected may give the force of an adversative to the participle. On the other hand, I have not seen sufficient evidence for rendering dixalos humane or merciful: for though these virtues be sometimes comprehended under the term, they are not specially indicated by it. I have therefore chosen a middle way, as more unexceptionable than either. Every body knows that the word dinates admits two senses. The first is just, in the strictest acceptation, attentive to the rules of equity in our dealings, particularly what concerns our judicial proceedings. The second is righteous in the most extensive sense, including every essential part of a good character. In this sense it is equivalent, as Chr. remarks, to the epithet raperos, virtuous, worthy, upright. And in this not uncommon sense of the word, the last clause serves to exemplify the character, and not to contrast it. 2 Το expose her, αυτην παραδειγματισαι. E. T. to make her a public example. In order to express things forcibly, translators often, overlooking the modesty of the original, say more than the author intended. It has not, however, been sufficiently adverted to, in this instance, that by extending the import of the word παραδειγματισαι, they diminish the character of benignity ascribed, by the historian, to Joseph. It was not the writer's intention to say barely, that Joseph was unwilling to drag her as a criminal before the judges, and get the ignominious sentence of death, warranted by law, pronounced against her, which few perhaps would have done, more than he; but that he was desirous to consult privacy in the manner of dismissing her, that he might, as little as possible, wound her reputation. The word appears to me to denote no more than making the affair too flagrant, and so exposing her to shame. So the Syrian interpreter, and the Arabian, understood the term. I have therefore chosen here to follow the example of the Vul. Leo. and Cal. who render the words, eam traducere, rather than that of Cast. and Pisc. who render them, in cam exemplum edere, and eam exemplum facere, which have been followed by our translators. The expressions used by these naturally suggest to our minds a condemnation to suffer the rigour of the law. Yet the original word seems to relate solely to the disgrace resulting from the opinion of the public, and not to any other punishment, corporal or pecuniary. Infamy is, indeed, a com mon attendant on every sort of public punishment. Hence by a synecdoche of a part for the whole, it has been sometimes employed to express a public and shameful execution. And this has doubtless occasioned the difficulty. But that it is frequently and most properly used, when no punishment is meant, but the publication of the crime, Raphelius, in his notes on the place, has, by his quotations from the most approved authors, put beyond a doubt. I shall bring one out of many. It is from Polybius, Legat. 88. where he says, 'H de ovynànt☞ Xęwμern To xxipw, και βαλομένη ΠΑΡΑΔΕΙΓΜΑΤΙΣΑΙ τις Ροδίας, αποκρισιν εξεβαλεν ἧς ην τα συνεχοντα ταύτα. "The senate taking the opportunity, and "willing to expose the Rhodians, published their answer, where"of these are the heads." I shall only add, that Chr. one of the most eloquent of the Gr. fathers, understood this passage in the Gospel as meaning no more; accurately distinguishing between παραδειγματίζειν and κολάζειν, exposing and punishing. Thus he argues concerning Joseph's conduct on this trying occasion : Καιτοιγε & ΠΑΡΑΔΕΙΓΜΑΤΙΣΜΟΥ μόνον ην ὑπευθυν@ ἡ τοια αυτή αλλά και ΚΟΛΑΖΕΣΘΑΙ αυτην ὁ νομα εκελευεν. Αλλ' ὁ Ιωσηφ 8 μόνον το μέιζον εκείνο, αλλά και το ελαττον συνεχώρησε, την αισχυνην 8 γαρ μόνον 8 ΚΟΛΑΣΑΙ, αλλ' εδε ΠΑΡΑΔΕΙΓΜΑΤΙΣΑΙ εβαλετο. "Now such a woman (as Mary was then thought to be) was "not only exposed to shame, but also by law subjected to pu"nishment. Whereas Joseph not only remitted the greater evil, "the punishment, but the less also, the ignominy : for he deter"mined not only not to punish, but not even to expose her." For the meaning of a term which occurs in so few places in Scripture, and those not unfavourable to the explanation given, a term with which no ancient controversy was connected, the authority of such a man as Chr. is justly held decisive. The verdict of Euth. is in effect the same. This also is the sense which the translator into M. G. gives the term, saying, un Fehovtas va anv Puregon, adding as an illustration on the margin, va THY WOUTEÝN, to defame her. 3 To divorce her, añoλutas autny. In the N. T. the word anoAve is the ordinary term for divorcing a wife, and thereby dissolving the marriage. Nor did it make any difference in the Jewish commonwealth, that the parties were only betrothed to each other, and that the marriage was not completed by cohabita tion. From the moment of their reciprocal engagement, all the laws in relation to marriage were in force between them. He was her husband, and she his wife. Her infidelity to him was adultery, and appointed to be punished as such, Deut. xxii. 23, 24. In comformity to this is the style of our Evangelist. Joseph is called, v. 16. Mary's husband; she, v. 20. his wife; the disso lution of their contract is expressed by the same word that is uniformly used for the dissolution of marriage by the divorce of the wife. I have preferred here, and in other places, the term divorcing, to that of putting away. The latter phrase is very ambiguous. Men are said to put away their wives, when they put them out of their houses, and will not live with them. Yet the marriage union still subsists; and neither party is at liberty to marry another. This is not what is meant by OQUELY THY YUVAIxa in the Gospel. Now a divorce with them might be very private. It required not, as with us, a judicial process. The determination of the husband alone was sufficient. Deut. xxiv. 1, 2. The utmost, in point of form, required by the rabbies, (for the law does not require so much) was that the writing should be delivered to the wife, in presence of two subscribing witnesses. It was not even necessary that they should know the cause of the proceeding. They were called solely to attest the fact. Now as the instrument itself made no mention of the cause, and as the practice of divorcing, on the most trifling pretences, was become common, it hardly affected a woman's reputation, to say, that she had been divorced. I should in some places prefer the term repudiate, were it in more familiar use. 20. A messenger, ayyeλ@. Diss. VIII. P. III. § 9, &c.' 22. Verified, wapwon. E. T. fulfilled. Though it should be admitted, that the word wanpwen is here used in the strictest sense, to express the fulfilment of a prophecy, which pointed to this single event; it cannot be denied that the general import of the verb pow, in the Gospel, is more properly expressed by the Eng. verb verify, than by fulfil. Those things are said nonπληρώθηκ Volly which are no predictions of the future, but mere affirmations concerning the present, or the past. Thus, ch. ii. 15. a deela. ration from the Prophet Hosea, xi. 1. which God made in rela tion to the people of Israel, whom he had long before recalled from Egypt, is applied by the historian allusively to Jesus Christ, |