narrator: which the genuine, ue, we were, pre

serves.

Acts xx. 13. p. 74. IIɛɛɛiv, to go by land, i. e. not by water.

A. xxi. 4. p. 78. ἀνευρόντες τοὺς μαθητὰς is here given as rightly translated and explained by Professor Scholefield in his Hints for an Improved Translation, &c. 1836. I have in other places profited by the correctness of his remarks, as at xxii. 23.; xxvii. 40. in particular.

At xxviii. 14...εúpóvtes ådeλPoùs.....the absence of the article requires and justifies our Version there..." We found brethren," i. e. without expecting it from any previous knowledge.

A. xxii. 25. p. 85. The genuine text here is, s δὲ προέτειναν αὐτὸν τοῖς ἱμᾶσιν, which demands the change in the translation here given to it: the lictors or serjeants (A. xvi. 38.), were they whose task it was to do so.

A. xxvi. 11. p. 97. Ηνάγκαζον βλασφημεῖν, « I did my utmost to make them blaspheme," is here so translated to prevent what from our Version, "I compelled them to blaspheme," might erroneously be supposed; namely, that Saul was successful in that object of his persecution.

In the preceding verse, 10., where it is said, "many of the saints did I shut up in prison," xαтéxλeioa is rightly so translated, of an act that certainly took effect: there lies the difference.

The Greek of St. Luke in particular is remarkable for its very exact use of the tenses.

Thus in the gospel, v. 6., dieppńyvuto means only that the net seemed in danger of breaking, as BuíLeola is rightly rendered, of the ships, v. 7., that

they began to sink." Where St. John in a similar miracle, xxi. 11., has to relate" yet was not the net broken"-he -he uses the tense proper for that purpose, οὐκ ἐσχίσθη τὸ δίκτυον : though humanly speaking, in this as in the other miraculous draught, the breaking of the net was what might else have been looked for.

Then again, an error on the opposite side appears in our Version of LUKE V. 2., where the text άÉTλUVAV Tà díxTua, clearly means, not "they were washing," which would answer to ἀπέπλυνον, but they had washed or cleansed their nets," preparatory to their being employed again. And agreeably to this statement, we find at v. 4. that Simon was ready to launch out into the deep without any delay.

In another text, L. xiii. 1., our Version renders it very exactly where the same occasional usage of the Aorist occurs,

ὧν τὸ αἷμα Πιλάτος ἔμιξε μετὰ τῶν θυσιῶν αὐτῶν, "whose blood Pilate had" at some previous time 'mingled with their sacrifices."

The common use of the Aorist, in simply narrating past events, may be best seen by contrast, when that clearly exists, with another tense. Thus, in St. Luke, Topɛúon (as in iv. 42.) he journeyed, and after that journeying something else happened in the train of

events:

whereas TopEUETO (as in vii. 11.) he was journeying,

and in the course of that journey something else took place.

In the present tense, so called, it is very often important to remark the idea of incipiency, of volition, of conatus, &c. as distinguished from that of event and actuality.

Thus, GALAT. vi. 12., άvaynásovo, which our Version rather ambiguously renders, "constrain you to be circumcised," only means, "would fain compel you, do all they can to compel," &c.

Thus again, in LUKE xi. 19. oi vioì iμãov ev Tivi èxbáλλovo; as it stands in our Version, "by whom do your sons cast them out?" conveys the meaning ambiguously at least: for it can never be taken for granted, that those persons actually did cast out demons. They attempted to do so and that is all that is warranted in the word, ex¤áλλour. Accordingly, we see the drift of our Lord's question to be this: If your sons, those among you who pretend to the faculty of exorcism, proceed (as we know they did) by solemn adjuration of the name of the Almighty; am I, think you, so void of understanding, as to employ inferior at once and unnatural means for producing that effect? Let the whole passage be read, from v. 14. to v. 22.

Another remark on distinctive usages; and I have done.

Where the notion suggested is one of inclination thought, desire, &c. yet more delicacy is required in the translation, while the necessity of rendering it precisely becomes the more apparent on that account.

Thus, GALAT. iii. 3. TITEλobe...having begun in the spirit, do you think to be made perfect by the flesh?

ibid. v. 4. dixaιovobe. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you seek to be justified by the law.

After all, however, as on the one hand the English language cannot without periphrasis express such proprieties of sense, so on the other it would be heavy and pedantic in all such cases to develope the signification. Only when something important is involved which else might escape notice, does precision like that here pointed out need to be exacted: the vis directrix of the context, generally, serves well enough to guard the mind from any aberration.

ARTICLES OF APPENDIX

FOR

THE ELUCIDATION OF SEVERAL MATTERS

IN

THE CONTINUOUS HISTORY.

APPENDIX A. p. 23.

The posteriority of the council of Jerusalem in Acts, ch. xv., to the journey related in the Epistle to the Galatians, ii. 1. 10., shown by the total discrepancy of the two narratives.

On the strong suggestion given in H. P. 100, 101., and on the ground of those leading objections of incongruity there started, I have myself with great care pursued the argument in several of its principal views: and to my mind the entire difference is now irrefragably established between the transaction recorded by the apostle and the journey to Jerusalem, which produced the decree of the council held there.

The two missions, then, must appear irreconcileable with each other, whether we consider the manner and circumstances of each, or the leading persons in either case concerned, or the objects in each directly proposed and incidentally arising.