αυτος αποδώσει σοι, ἐν τω φανερω. συ δε, όταν προσευχη, εισελθε εις το ταμείον σου, και κλείσας την θύραν σου, προσευξαι τω πατρι σου, τω ἐν τω κρύπτω, συ δε, νητεύων, άλειψαι σου την κεφαλην, όπως μη φανης τοις άνθρωποις νηςεύων, άλλα τω πατρι σου, τω ἐν τω κρυπτώ, But, when thou givest alms, What thy right hand doeth ; That thine alms may be in secrecy, And thy father, who seeth in secrecy, But thou, when thou prayest, Enter into thy closet, And having closed thy door, Pray to thy Father, who is in secrecy, And thy Father, who seeth in secrecy, But thou, when fasting, anoint thy head, And wash thy face, That thou mayest not appear a faster unto men, But unto thy Father, who is in secrecy, 17, 18. “In the original of these three pair of triplets, are several ὁμοιοτε λευτα, or rhyming terminations, which in an English version, it is impossible to preserve: such are ἡ ἀριτερα σου· ἡ δεξια σου : ταμειον σου θυραν σου: and twice repeated, τω πατρι σου· ὁ πατηρ σου ἀποδώσει σοι. In the more remarkable, more frequently repeated, and far more important occurrence, of ἐν τω φανερω· ἐν τω κρυπτω, I have thought it right to make an effort, which, after all, is but a poor approximation, by rendering those antithetical terms, in secrecy, in publicity. “ The clause ἐν τω φανερω, has occasioned much critical discussion: on the authority of several MSS., Versions, and Fathers, it is rejected throughout, from verses 4, 6, and 18, by Erasmus, Mill, Bengel, Campbell, &c.; its retention throughout, is defended by Whitby and others; Wetstein and Griesbach omit it in verse 18; and the latter thinks it a probable interpolation also in verse 4. The retention throughout, may be defended, on the following grounds. "1. If the disputed words be tried on the testimony of MSS., Versions, and Fathers, the weight of evidence preponderates in their favour, so far as verses 4 and 6 are concerned; while in verse 18, though omitted by the majority; they are retained by several: under these circumstances, their total rejection would seem quite unwarrantable; and even their partial rejection, does not appear to be demanded; especially, as the probability is far greater, that a copyist might have accidentally dropt them from the eighteenth verse, than, either by accident or by design, have transferred them thither, from the fourth verse, or from the sixth, after so long an interval of text. 66 2. The antithesis between To KρUπтOV, and το φανερον is very frequent in the New Testament; see particularly St. Mark, iv. 22; St. Luke, viii, 17; Rom. ii, 28, 29; 1 Cor. xiv, 25; also St. John, vii. 10, where pavepws and ev KрUTT are antithetically opposed. It is not improbable, that our Lord might have used this formula the rather, as having been familiar to the Jews. Schoettgen, (Hor. Hebr. tom. 1, p. 56.) and Wetstein (in loc.) have accumulated from rabbinical writers, numerous examples of the same antithesis. Circumstances these, which heighten the probability, that the words in question are genuine. "3. The moral argument, urged by Origen, and adopted by Dr. Campbell, not only is unsupported by the moral teaching of the New Testament at large, but is actually at variance with that teaching. I shall transcribe the words of Dr. C. Origen did not think it probable, that our Lord, in dissuading his disciples from paying a regard to the judgment of men, would have introduced as an incitement, that the reward should be public; a circumstance which brought them back, as it were, by another road, to have still a regard for the esteem of men'. What then, one may fairly ask, could have been the opinion of Origen, and of Dr. Campbell, respecting St. Luke, xiv. 10? Our Lord is there inculcating humility; enjoining his disciples to take the lowest room; and what inducement does he hold out? That when he that bade thee, cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher; then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.' On this passage Dr. C. makes no remark: here are no various readings, except one, which augments the force of our Lord's appeal to a moderated regard for the esteem of others: several MSS. and Versions insert Tavrov after evwπov: in the presence of ALL them who sit at meat with thee. The truth is, that neither our Lord, nor his Apostles, forbid all regard to the judgment and approbation, especially of good men; they disallow it, indeed, as the principle of action; particularly in religious matters, where it is a sort of Sacrilege; but, as a subordinate and subsidiary motive, they both allow and recommend it. And, besides, in the disputed clause, not the applause of men merely, but the concurrent approbation of an assembled universe, and of the holy Angels of God, at the general judgment, is referred to a motive, so repeatedly urged in our Lord's discourses, not to mention other parts of the New Testament, that, without irreverence, and probably without spiritual loss, it cannot be dismissed from our minds. The scrupulosity of Origin should, in this case, give way, before the manly piety of S. Chrysostom: Μεγα και σεμνον αυτω καθίζων θεατρον· και όπερ ἐπιθυμει, τουτο μετα πολλης αύτω διδους της περιουσίας. τι γαρ βουλει, φησιν ; ονχι θεατας έχειν των γινομένων τινας ; ἰδου τοινυν έχεις, ουχι ἀγγελους ἐπιθυμεις έχειν των αρχαγγελους, άλλα τον των όλων Θεόν. ἐι δε και άνθρωπους ἐπιθυμεῖς ἔχειν θεωρους, ουδε ταυτης σε αποσερει της ἐπιθυμίας, καιρω τω προσηκοντι' άλλα και μετα πλείονας σοι ἀυτο παρέχει της υπερβολης. νυν μεν γαρ ἂν ἐπιδειξη, δεκα και εικοσιν, ή και έκατον άνθρωποις ἐπιδειξασθαι δυνηση μονοις· ἀν δε σπουδασης νυν λανθανειν, τότε σε αυτος ὁ Θεός ἀνακηρύξει, της οικουμενης παρουσης ἁπασης· ὡτε μαλιτα, ἐι βουλει ἀνθρωπους ίδειν σου τα κατ τορθώματα, κρυψον αυτα νυν, ίνα μετα πλειονος τιμης τοτε άυτα παντες θεάσωνται, του Θεον φανερα ποιουντος, και ἐπαιροντος, και παρα πασιν ἀνακηρυττοντος. νυν μεν γαρ σου και καταγνωσονται δι ὁρῶντες, ὡς κενοδόξου σεφανουμενον δε ίδοντες, ου μονον ου καταγ νωσονται, άλλα και θαυμασονται άπαντες.—δια δε τουτο, ουχι μονον οὐκ ἐπιδεικνυσθαι κελεύει, άλλα και σπουδάζειν λανθανειν. ουδε γαρ ἐτιν ἶσον, μη σπουδασει φανηναι, και σπουδασαι λανθανειν. (Tom. vii. p. 246. edit. Montfauc. Tom ii. p. 134. edit. Savil.) Our Lord here assembles round the Christian, a great and venerable theatre; and gives him, with exceeding great abundance, the very object that he longs after. For what, saith he, dost thou wish for ? Is it not to have some spectators of thy good deeds? Behold thou hast, I will not say angels and archangels, but the God of all the world. But if thou desirest to have men also for thy spectators, neither shalt thou be frustrated even in this desire, at the proper time: but HE will grant it thee, in a far more eminent degree. For if, indeed, thou exhibitest thyself now, the exhibition must be limited to ten, twenty, or perhaps at most, a hundred spectators. But, if thou art now studious of concealment, then, God himself, as a herald, will proclaim thee, in the presence of the whole world. Wherefore, if desirous that men should witness thy good works, especially conceal them now; in order that, hereafter, all men may behold them with great approbation, when God will make them manifest, and extol them, and proclaim them before all. For besides, those who now see thy works, will condemn thee as vain-glorious; but hereafter, when all behold thee crowned, they will not only not condemn thee, they will admire and revere thee.-On this account it is that Christ commands thee, not only not to court exhibition, but to be studious of concealment: for observe, it is one thing not to be studious of publicity, and another thing to be studious of concealment'. 6 “ 4. The laws of parallelism seem to decide the point at issue. Omit ἐν τω φανερω in the three places, and that equipoise, so essential to Hebrew poetry, will be destroyed; destroyed, too, in a passage, every other part of which is cast in the very mould of poetical parallelism. Ömit the clause in any one triplet, and that one will unaccountably differ from the rest; a difference the more extraordinary, as the entire Sermon on the Mount is composed in parallelisms, without a single chasm, or break, from the commencement to the conclusion. Nor, if we look to the meaning of the passage, can these words be spared, without manifest injury to that meaning. Throughout these verses, the phrase iv Tw pavɛpw is not only demanded antithetically by the phrase év To KρUTTW, but it seems, if we may so speak, to be forced out, by the reiterated notion of concealment, pervading, in each pair of triplets, the five preceding lines. And it is worthy of particular attention, that, in the last pair of triplets, (that very clause from whence the critics almost unanimously expel the disputed words,) the verbal antithesis is peculiarly forcible and striking for the act of the individual, according to S. Chrysostom's just distinction, not merely shews the absence of anxiety for display, but is studiously designed for concealment: QQ MH Does ΦΑΝΗΣ,ΙN ORDER THAT THOU MAYEST NOT APPEAR. not the generosity of God's dealings indicate, and, one might also say, demand, that the reward of such an act shall be of the most PUBLIC nature? EN TO PANEPO, before the great assembly of the last day. ουδεν γαρ ἔτι κεκαλυμμενον, ὃ οὐκ ἀποκαλυφθήσεται και κρυπτον, ὁ ὀν γνωσθήσεται. For there is nothing veiled, which shall not be revealed, "One further observation, and I shall have brought this spe cimen, and this section to a close. "In the third line of the second triplet, which relates to almsgiving we read 'AYTO】 årоdwσEL HIMSELF will reward thee: in the two parallel lines of the fourth and sixth triplets, which respect prayer and fasting, we find simply arodwoet, without àuros: will reward thee. The variation seems just and beautiful. Prayer and fasting being religious acts, more immediately directed towards God, it were needless emphatically to declare, HIMSELF will reward thee but almsgiving being more immediately exercised towards our fellow-creatures, the emphatic 'AYTOΣ intimates that GOD takes the debt upon himself: : He lendeth to JEHOVAH, who pitieth the poor; Verily I say unto you: Prov. xix. 17. Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, Matt. xxv. 40. [To be continued.] * Bishop Jebb's Sacred Literature, pp. 156-167. Critical and Historical Notices, INTRODUCTORY TO THE STUDY OF THE SCRIPTURES.* THE BOOK OF JOSHUA. Year before the common year of Christ, 1451.-Julian Period, 3263.Cycle of the sun, 10.-Dominical Letter, B.-Cycle of the moon, 10.-Indiction, 15.-Creation from Tisri or September, 2553.—An. Exod. Israel, 40.—Anno ante I. Olymp. 675. THE book of Joshua, which in all copies of the Old Testament immediately follows the Pentateuch, is the first in order of those generally termed Historical Books. Commentators and critics are by no means agreed as to the author of this book. The whole of the ancient Jewish and Christian Churches, with the exception of a few individuals, have uniformly acknowledged it to be the work of Joshua. Of the same opinion, also, were Gerhard, Diodati, Huet, Bishops Patrick and Tomline, and Doctors Gray and Clarke. Dr. Lightfoot ascribes it to Phineas; Calvin to Eleazar; Henry to Jeremiah; and Van Til to Samuel. Among these conflicting opinions we assume the former as correct, for the following among other reasons: 1. It is well known that Moses kept an accurate register of all the events that took place during his administration in the Wilderness; at least from the giving of the law to the time of his death. Now, is it not likely that Joshua, the constant servant and companion of Moses, could see all this, be convinced, as he must be, of its utility, and not adopt the same practice; especially as, at the death of Moses, he came into the same office? 2. It is certain that Joshua did record some of the events which transpired under his administration ;-" And Joshua wrote these words in the Book of the Law of the Lord" (xxiv. 26.),—which renders it still more probable that he kept a regular register of events. 3. The author intimates that he was one of those who passed into Canaan"The Lord had dried up the waters-until we were passed over." (v. 1.) 4. The latter part of the xxivth chapter, where the death and burial of Joshua are related, and which was obviously added by a later hand, differs in style from the rest of the book; the same as the style of the latter part of Deuteronomy does from the rest of that book. Against this opinion it is urged, that there are several things inserted in the book which shew that it could not have been coeval with the transactions it records. The statement in chap. iv. 9, (that the twelve stones set up as a memorial of the passage of the Jordan remain to this day) was evidently written at a period much later. The same remark applies to the account of Ai; that Joshua made it a heap for ever, even a desolation to the present day, (viii. 28.) Thus again, we read in chap. xv. 63., that the children of Judah could not drive out the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, "but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem to this day."+ From these and some few *Continued from vol. i. p. 416. The above passage shews that this book could not have been compiled later than the reign of David; for he took the strong hold of Sion, and expelled the Jebusites. (2 Sam. v. 7-9.) |