H Mr. URBAN, Bedford, Dec. 15. APPENING lately to read some critical conjectures on the meaning of the Greek term Aoyos, when used in the Sacred Writings to denote a person oι agent, they brought to my recollection a circumstance which occurred to me some years since, during a tour I was making in the Archipelago, and which I now beg leave to offer to the notice of our Biblical Criticks, through the journal which is conducted by the successor of Bowyer, τ8 Пάvʊ. I passed some days in the house of a respectable Greek, who held the office of English Consul in the island of Tino, the antient Tenos. When I was at table, the family generally conversed in Italian or French, as languages better understood by their guest than the Modern Greek spoken in that island; but when they spoke to each other on domestic occurrences in their vernacular idiom, I observed, that whenever the son or daughter of Consul Vitali, the master of the house, addressed him, or spoke of him to cach other, they never used the simple pronouns thou, you, or he, ou, pas, or ἐκεῖνος, οι αυλος, but ὁ λόγος σε, λόγος σας, ὁ λόγος αυτε, οι ὁ λόγος τε, literally, "Thy word, his word," Thy word, his word," &c. As for example, when the father asked the daughter, for whom the cloth was intended that she had brought from the English ship? she answered, είναι δία τὸν λόγον σὰς literally, it is for thy word, i. e. for thee. If the son asked the daughter, who had brought them the fish that was on the table? she answered (looking at her father), Aoyos T8, literally, his word, i. e. he. On enquiring of them the reason of using this phrase, they told me the practice is general through the Levant, it not being thought decorous to employ the simple personal pronoun, when speaking to or of a superior, or even an equal; that, when, on such occasions, they are σας, not familiarly acquainted with the individual, they address him by some quality supposed to be inherent in him, united to the possessive pronoun, e. g. navberlía εξεχωλάτη σας, ἡ ἁγιοσύνη τε, &c. corresponding in some degree to our expressions of your worship, your excellency, his holiness, &c.; but that members of the same family, or intimate friends, when speaking to or of each other, say, ô λóyos σ8, or ὁ λόγος σας, ὁ λόγος τε, ὁ λόγος τῆς, &c. as substitutes for the simple pronouns συ, εκείνος, αυτός, εκείνη, &c. You, he, she, &c. May we, therefore, from hence venture to suppose that this has been antiently the practice of the East; and that his word, thy word, &c. may only mean he, thou, in many passages of the Sacred Writings? e. g. Isaiah lxvi. 5, in the version of the Septuagint. Ακέσαλε ρήματα Κυρίς, οι τρεμονίες τον λογον αυτ8. Psalm cxxx. 5, 6. Υπεμεῖνα σε Κυριε ὑπομεῖνεν ἡ ψυχή με εἰς τον λόγον 08° In John v. 37, 38. "And the Father himself which sent me― ye have not his word abiding in you," Toy λóyov avls, i. e. him. In 2 Kings i. 16. "Is it because there is no God in Israel to enquire of his word? i. e. of him. In Leviticus xx. 3. the Chaldee translation or paraphrase of Onkelos is, "therefore my word abhorred them." when the Hebrew says, therefore I abhorred them." In Deut. xxxi. 8. the Chaldee translation of Onkelos runs thus: "And Jehovah, he it is who goeth before thee: his word shall be with thee." when the Hebrew only says, "He will be with thee." And, in Deut. i. 30, the Chaldee version says, "Jehovah, your God, who goeth before you, his word shall fight for you;" when the Hebrew only says, "He shall fight for you." It hence appears, perhaps, that this phraseology was generally adopted previous to the writing of the Gos pels; pels; for Our Saviour, in Luke Mr. URBAN, Y ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΣ. Feb. 3. OUR learned Correspondent, R. C. p. 27, of your Magazine for January, exhibits Mat. xxiii. 32, and Mark vii. 9, as incontestable instances of the use of irony, by our blessed Lord. I mean not to contest the point with him; but I wish him, and any of your Readers, interested in the question, to look at Bp. Pearce's commentary and notes on both these passages. I wish them also to consider Gilbert Wakefield's observations on the word Kaλws in the latter passage: SILV. CRIT. Pars I. Sect. lviii. * I subjoin the opening of this learned and ingenious section; for G. W. was a scholar, and, when he has no point of predilection to carry, may well, and safely, be attended to. 66 Turpissimè se dederunt ad hunc locum omnes, quos vidi, equidem interpretes. Nec desunt qui, re penitus deploratâ, ad gway confugiunt; et Servatorem mundi scilicet ludentis speciem sibi induisse non dubitant contendere. Hoc certe non Kaλws factum," &c. Edward Leigh, in his CRITICA SACRA, assures me, that Kayw is used in the New Testament, OFTEN in the sense of Ego vero. I believe I could point out several passages, where this sense is desirable, if not requisité: but" contendere NOLO." question, in my opinion, worth further consideration. S. R. IN Mr. URBAN, Liverpool, Jan. 29. N your last Volume, p. 208, Sacerdos Rusticus proposes a new version of St. Luke, xvi. 9. woήσατε ἑαυτοῦς φίλους ἐκ τοῦ μαμμωνα τῆς ἀδικίας. ἵνα, ὅταν ἐκλίπητε, δέξων ται ὑμᾶς εἰς τὰς αἰωνίους σκηνάς—by ἐκ ou auμvunderstanding" elsewhere than from the Mammon of unrighteousness;" taking x for w. I have long since made up my mind to the common version, on grounds which I beg leave to commit to the consideration of your Readers. The chief endeavour will be to shew, that your Correspondent's construction is repugnant to the genius of the Greek language; then to find how far our common translation agrees with the context, with the circumstances of the Parable exemplified by the passage in question, and with the general doctrine of the New Testament. ་ The καὶ in καγω λέγω of the same verse as being adversative;-the ex in x Tv Epywv σou of St. James, ii. 18;-the x also of drip Ts EX TŨS wows, Luke viii. 27, as signifying "sine" or {w. -are ingeniously thrown round the main position as outworks; and these, I suppose, must first be assaulted.-We are referred to the "strong authority” of Leigh's "Critica Sacra." I am far from questioning the general excellence of this Book; though it may perhaps appear that the Author has not been happy in his explanation of the conjunction xal: sometimes he says it signifies 66 aut," sometimes" ideo," idcirco," "tunc," -and that it is "adversative" in * G. Wakefield renders Kaλws aberats, Ye ENTIRELY make void.-I observe that Kaws is three times used in this same chapter of St. Mark, viz. besides the passage in question, at verse 6 and verse 37; in all which places it will bear the sense of evidenter or manifeste. Perhaps no other sense will so well suit all the three different places.-The Scholiast, on Sophocles (Ed. T. 1007 (which G. W. cites), interprets Καλώς, Αντι το περιφανως. And I would thus understand Marc. vii. 37. Καλώς warta wewoInxe, i. e. EVIDENTER, vel MANIFESTE omnia, &c.-Elsner renders it præclare, egregie, referring to Euripides IoN, verse 1595 (Ed. Beck.) Whether the blessed Saviour ever used irony in his discourses, is a Καλως δ' Απόλλων τσαντ' επραξε, &c. But, qu, is not Kaλws, there also, Avri Te Epipavus? the 66 and, as a climax of this sin he adds, καὶ ἀνελάβετε τὴν σκηνὴν τοῦ Μολόχ κ.τ.λ. "Ye even took up the Tabernacle of Moloch,"&c.- -Thelast passage mentioned is 1 John ii. 20. The first καὶ in καὶ ὑμῖις χρίσμα ἔχετε ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου, καὶ οἴδατε πάνα. is certainly translated "but;" that is, as being adversative. The sense in the preceding 19th verse is complete. There is then no want of an adversative conjunction. I cannot in any Greek writer discover a solitary instance of xal used disjunctively; and does the context require it? I think not.-We find John is addressing this Epistle to the Jewish Converts: in the chapter before us he is enumerating the advantages they enjoy over the Gentiles. Thus, 14th verse: Εγραψα ὑμῖν, πατέρες, ὅτι ἐγνώκατε τὸν ἀπ' ἀρχῆς· κ.τ.λ. Then follow some injunctions and particular declarations; and in the 20th verse, before noted, he connects the enumeration of their advantages, xal ὑμεῖς χρίσμα ἔχετε κ. τ. λ. Ye also have the unction from the Holy one.-Only four verses below xal us is evidently "Ye also:" and need we a better explanation than the Author's own? Thus, verse the following passages: however, it is to be remarked, that he does not include the one under our present notice: thus, Matthew xii. 35. Ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ θησαυροῦ τῆς καρδίας ἐκβάλλει τὰ ἀγαθά· ΚΑΙ ὁ πονηρὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ Inσaupou éxcáλλ Ta wornpa. Surely in the xa here there is nothing adversative; in our version, and all others I have seen, it is rendered "and." It is used in its almost universal sense or idea of connexion. In this verse two consequences are denoted, and the conjunction merely connects them. But if we supply the Ellipsis by adding the word your, igitur," I imagine it will then be plain that xal is used in its general meaning. Thus- The good man," &c. &c.—xal (your) and (of course) “ the wicked man, &c. &c."-The same Ellipsis occurs 1 John iii. 4. xaì nàμaplía, that is, καὶ (γοῦν) ἡ ἀμαρια κ. τ. λ. With re gard to this word and many others, if, instead of attaching a farrago of different and opposite meanings, we would only fill the ellipsis, the method would disburthen the memory, and, in most instances, lead us to truth.- -The next passage noted by Leigh is Matt. xv. 4.—Ὁ γὰρ Θεὸς ἐνετείλατο λέγων· τίμα τον πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα· καὶ, ὁ κακολογῶν πατέρα ἢ μητέρα θανάτῳ τελευτάτω. It does not appear, but it is probable, he alludes to the latter καὶ as being adversative; it is, nevertheless, quite manifest, I think, that here also the common translation by the copulative "and" is perfectly right. There is only this difference in the application of the latter xal: it is to be read with a pause (indeed it might be better to insert the comma), as there is an Ellipsis of the verb ἐνετείλατο. "God commanded, Honour thy Father and Mother,' &c. &c. and (he commanded) 'Whosoever curseth Father or Mother," &c. -The xal of xal aveλάbete in Acts vii. 43, appears emphatically copuiative. The Apostle had been befor narrating the idolatry of Israel; 24, Ὑμεις, οὖν, ὃ ἠκόυσατε ἀπ ̓ ἀρχῆς ἐν ὑμῖν μενέτω. ἐὰν ἐν ὑμῖν μέινη ὃ ἀπ ̓ ἀρχῆς ἠκόυσατε, καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐν τῷ ὑιῷ καὶ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ μενεῖτε. Now let us proceed to the passage in James ii. 18. 'Αλλ' ἐρεῖ τις Σὺ πίστιν ἔχεις, καγω ἔργα ἔχω δειξόν μοι τὴν πίστιν σου ἐκ τῶν ἔργων σου, καγω δείξω σοι ἐκ τῶν ἔργων μου τὴν πίσιν μου.—I trust your Correspondent joins in the general opinion, that the style of the Greek Testament, as to purity, may be matched against that of the most classical writers in that language; a few Hebraïsms, mostly confined to the gospel of St. Matthew, being excepted. Now, can your Correspond-. ent produce me from these writers a single instance of ix being used for ? Again, how jejune must be the language, the Greek language, what equivocation must we suppose in the Apostle, if, in one line, ix τῶν be preferable to "I will."-The ix rs wonews of Luke viii. 27, falls under your Correspondent's suspicion, where he fancies he has descried the same novel meaning of x.-The phrase may be fairly translated of, or, a native of the City.” 66 Though the other Evangelists say x Tv piwy, it is well known the tombs were near enough the cities to justify either expression. But I fear your Correspondent will introduce the very superfluity he is desirous to prevent.—Εξελθόντι δὲ ἀυτῷ Typy is to be understood "from, by, or through works," and, four or five words further, the self-same ἐκ τῶν ἔργων is to signify "without thy works"!! If the sacred author had been disposed to express this latter meaning, would not the word xps directly have suggested itself? As in the last verse of this chapter,ὅντω καὶ ἡ τίσεις χωρὶς τῶν My expe col.—The Apostle is declaring the superiority of Works. The common version of the passage in question is, “ Yea, a man may say, thou hast faith, and I have y the Deinoniac met him. works. Shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works."-The word without was not given by the translators as the version of x, but with reference to those manuscripts which instead of ix read xwpis.-Hence Schleusner might have had his "sine" without any distortion of ix into that meaning. But I have scen it observed, and I maintain the opinion, that with the common reading in its general signification of " by" or from," we may arrive at the same conclusion as by reading xpis," sine," "without." Thus, when the Apostle says, or is supposed to say, "Shew me thy faith without thy works," an impossibility is implied, and may be inferred from the language preceding and subsequent to this verse. see verses 16, 17, 20, 21, 22. Then why not read ix, "by or from ?" The obvious sense of the verse, and what, I think, will accord with the context is, "The assertion of this man, that he hath faith, and of another, that he hath works, avail nought; both must shew their works, which are the proof and perfection of their faith;" or, literally, "Shew me thy faith by thy works, and I will shew my faith by (ex) my works" reading "thy' and "my" emphatically.-By an Hebrew idiom the future tense is often put to intimate command or necessity; and, perhaps, in the verse above, the words "must" would thy" Now your Correspondent well knows that Gadara was at a distance from the Lake: then would it not be superfluous, would it not be a ridiculous pleonasm, to affirm that the man was ἔξω τῆς πόλεως, "without the City," when he met Our Saviour, who was landing from this Lake? Thus would he render three words nugatory, and also strip the Evangelist of an entire trait in his narration, viz. the mention FROM WHENCE the Demoniac comes.Let us iliustrate this by a familiar supposition. Were I to land at Dover, would it not be ridiculous in the relation of this to affirm, that my friend, meeting me at my landing, was out of London when this took place?We are at length arrived at the main position of your Correspondent, the ἐκ τοῦ μαμμῶνα of Luke xvi. 9.-The Pharisees, who were among the hearers of this parable, are termed by St. Luke άpypo; hence, not riches abstractly, but the inordinate love of them, appears clearly to be the object of Our Saviour's censure.Verse 8. we have, xal D & XÚPLOS τὸν οἰκονόμου κ.τ.λ. The next sentence is καγω ὑμῖν λέγω κ. τ. λ. “ And I also say unto you, make yourselves friends of or through the mammon of unrighteousness," (but mark the distinction) "not merely like the steward, that ye may be received into their houses on earth, but into celestial habitations."-There is a note on the word adixías of this pas sage, "-" to be cast out of doors." Mat. xii. 46. εἱστήκεισαν ἔξω— stood without." Mat. xxi. 39. Kai λaβόντες ἀυτὸν ἐξέβαλον ἔξω τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος 66 sage, that by an Hebrew idiom it is used for ἀδικοῦ the adjective; and that the word in Hebrew which signifies adixos, or unjust," also means 66 false," "fallacious." This appears correct, for, in the verse below, To nivo is opposed to adina μαμμωνα, undoubtedly meaning the fleeting, fallacious, riches of the world." The formation of one thing out of, or from another, is uniformly expressed in Greek, by some tense of wow and ix or . Could Demosthenes himself be summoned from the shades, could he be endowedwith a perfect knowledge of the English language, suppose the words "Make to yourselves friends of the mammon" given to him to translate into his native tongue, what could he say but ποιήσατε ἑαυτοῖς Φίλους ἐκ τοῦ μαμμωνα κ.τ.λ. ? or, if he might use some other synonymous words for the rest, yet the preposition ix is indispensable; therefore ix, at least, is rightly expressed by " of" in our version.-Now the universal meaning of ix is " from," or it may be so translated in almost every passage in which it occurs.— But your Correspondent says, that in the above verse it must signify "elsewhere than from;" thus imposing a sense something like diametrically opposite. Of this novel application then, your Correspondent ought certainly to have produced us an example from the Testament as an accompaniment, and not have rested on the mere assertion of the Lexicographer Schleus"nec desunt loca è Græcis scriptoribus in quibus ix pro ponitur." These passages should bebefore us.-Need I note the distinction between ix and w? that in ever signifies indefinite motion, or emanation from or out of a place or thing? that is motion from with proximity to a place or thing?-I will beg room for a few quotations on the latter meaning; they are numerous in every Greek author, but I will take them from the New Testament. Mat, v. 13. βληθῆναι ner, -"And they took and cast him out of the vineyard." Again, in the 17th verse of the same chapter, we have Εξῆλθεν ἔξω τῆς πόλεως εἰς Βηθανίαν. -"He came out of the city to Bethany." If the word had been used indefinitely, ix would have followed; but " denotes the proximity of Bethany to Jerusalem, which was the fact. 2Cor. iv. 16. μ ävрños-“Our outward man.” But there is a passage in Lucian, which I think will sufficiently shew how great the absurdity would be, were we to substitute w for ix in the sentence under our consideration, ἔκ του μαμμωνα κ. τ. λ. ΑΠ commentators was the God of Riches among the agree that σε μάμμων Syrians; and wherever the word is used, this idea appears to correspond.-Lucian, de Imaginibus, has σε καταλέλοιπάς τι κάλλος ἔξω τοῦ ἀγάλ paτos" (see ed. Hemsterhus. tom. 2. 464.) "You have omitted an exterior ornament of the picture;" literally, "Some ornament on the outside of the picture." Then, if ix be used for "w, place the latter before μaμva, a substantive similar to yάue, and your Readers, and Sacerdos too, will see what complete nonsense we shall make, taking w, as we must, in its universal acceptation of " extra,” “foris," without," "out of doors," "outside of."-The more I consider the more I wonder how any one can be displeased with the original ix Tov pappava, or with our translation. The style of St. Luke is allowed to be elegant, so is this expression; and, I conceive, beautifully figurative. The picture that here strikes the mind's eye, is the demolition of a mighty idol of the world; the fragments of which so dispersed as to effect human happiness.-This is the plain construction of ποιήσατε ἑαυτοῖς φίλους ἐκ τοῦ μαμμωνα τῆς ἀδικίας, ἵνα δέξωνται ὑμᾶς εἰς |