« PreviousContinue »
John xx. 14. and (she] knew not that it was Jesus.
Jerusales. 15. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou ?
whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gar-
tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.
saith unto him, Rabboni ; which is to say, Master.
This doctrine of the resurrection of the body, which our
19 Mary Magdalene is bere said to bave turned herself back; and afterwards, in ver. 16. again to have turned herself. Schacht, in bis Harmony of the Resurrection, proposes, as a solution of the difficulty, the supposition, that in the first instance she only turned her bead, and in the second her wbole body. Or, be adds, after her address to Jesus as the gardener, she may again naturally enough have directed her attention to the sepulchre. This is from Koecher. I prefer the former so lution.-Dr. F. Lawrence's Remarks on Scripture, p. 73.
John xx. 17. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not 20 ; for I am not yet Jerusalem.
ascended to my Father : but go to my brethren, and say
30 Mn pov datov. Mr. Chandler would translate this, “ Embrace me not, hold me vot.” And he produces many examples from Homer, Xenophon, and Euripides, Hec. ver. 339. dyuu jentpos, embrace thy mother. 'Avabibnka he would translate as a present tense, as it must mean, he says, John iii. 13. when Cbrist bad certainly not ascended. He quotes Homer also in the first Iliad, ver. 37. for the similar use of another compound from the same primitive verb, oς Χρύσην αμφιβεβηκας: he would then join this, not with the preceding, but with the following sentence; and the whole sense will be, “ Hold me not; for am not yet going to ascend to my Father : but go unto my brethren, and say unto them, I do ascend (for I shall shortly ascend) unto my Father and your Father, unto my God and your God.”
He brings many instances of the present tense (as avabáivw here) being used to signify what is shortly to be done.
Vogelius has here a very ingenious conjecture of μη ου πτοου, be not afraid, for un jov a Trov, touch me not. This approaches so ncar to the traces of the letters, and, besides, so resembles the first address of Christ to the women in Matthew, and of the angel to the women in Matthew and Mark, “ Fear ye not, be not affrighted;" that, if it were supported by any manuscript authority, I should willingly adopt it. But the sacred text should not be altered on conjecture only.
Bowyer, in his Conjectures, proposes un uoù attov. No; (I am not the gardener, as you suppose ;) touch me. And for this he quotes Paulus Bauldrius, in Neoceri Bibliotheca. But it seems to me too researched a reading, and inconsistent with Mary's previous recognition of Cbrist, in the appellation of Rabboni.
Koecher observes, that Michaelis proposes to make it an interrogation, “ Do you not touch me?” as inviting that test of his real appearance. Kypke, in his Observ. (he says) explains the passage as a probibition of adoration until after his ascen. sion.
On the whole, I continue to adhere to Chandler's explanation, to which I would add, that dupebibyxas is explained by the Pseudo Didymus, as nepibibnxas nepuaxels, clearly giving it a present sigaification, and shewing that the other compounds of the same verb are used in the same manner. Thus too the preterpluperfect tense of the simple verb is used by Honier to denote merely past time, as equivalent to the aorist of other verbs, doudouTóvoe bebńket, Il. ú. 221. which the same scholiast interprets by απεληλύθει, επορεύθη. Aristophanes has βεβήκως περι σκυμνοις, which the scholiast explains by ύπερμάχων σκυμνοίς.
St. John bas a similar sorin of another compound of Baivos, used for the present tense, chap. v. ver. 24. dilà uerati6ncev tr Toû Javárov eis rijv Swiv. Some of the Latin Mss. in this place translate petabánkev by trapsit; and some Greek MSS. of inferior note and modern date, feeliug a supposed incongruity, read pera noetai, as thinking the future more consistent with the rest of the context.
Homer has Bébnke, or Bibnkii, in the sense of a simple, present, or past, and that in a connection, which so marks it, six or seven times, and never otherwise.-Dr. Lawrence's Remarks on Scripture, p. 73–75.
Job.xx. 14. unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and Jerusalem. to my God and
Christ had risen, meets again with Salome, and the other
MATT. xxviii. 9, 10. JOHN XX. 18.
had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things
unto her. Mt.xxviii.9. And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus
met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held
him by the feet, and worshipped him.
MATT. xxviii. 11-15.
came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all
the things that were done.
taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,
away while we slept *.
It may be made probable too by the behaviour of the women.
22 The absurdity and folly of this story are admirably displayed in Mr. West's treatise. No complaint was made against the soldiers-no punishment inflicted on the disciples, no alarm had been given when the poor dispirited disciples came to roll away the stone, and break the seal, and profane the sepulchre.-all the sixty soldiers, and their commander, were with one accord asleep, although at the same time the penalty of sleep was death ; and the noise of rolling away the stone could not awake even one of the party. Aod this overpowering
Mtxxviji.14 And if this come to the Governor's ears, we will per- Jerusalem.
suade him, and secure you. 15.
So they took the money, and did as they were taught : and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.
their Spices on the Evening previous to the Sabbath,
LUKE xxiv. 1-3.
morning, they came unto the sepulchre ”, bringing the
sleep bad seized them when they had been placed here for one
23 The reasons which have induced West, Townson, Cranfield, Doddridge, Horsley, Newcome, Gleig, Pilkington, and I believe every writer since the time of West, to conclude that two parties of women came to the sepulchre at different times, have been already noticed. At present let us inquire, according to this hypothesis, when the second company arrived at the tomb ; whether between the two visits of Mary Magdalene to it, or after the second. For the following reasons, their arrival seems rightly placed after she left the sepulchre the second time: It is certain that no one was there earlier than sho was, and therefore they who did accompany her, but made a distinct visit thither, and, as the case requires, neither saw her nor her friends, nor was seen by them, must have come during her absence. Her first absence was when she ran to tell Peter and Jobo : but then she left the other Mary and Salome bebiod; who went into the sepulchre, and saw and heard the angel. When they were fled away, came the two apostles ; and these were followed by Mary Magdalene returning. The time, there. fore, between the departure of the other Mary and Salome from the sepulchre, and the coming of John and Peter to it, seems too short an interval for the arrival and departure of the other women in such manner, that both parties might keep clear of all sight of each other. And the more we prolong this interval, the less probable we make it that Mary Magdalenc, alter she had seen the Lord, should have rejoined her two friends, when he showed himself to them also. And yet it appears so much the sense of St. Matthew, and I think of St. John, that she was with them, that it is a point by which we ought to abide, unless there are cogent reasons to the contrary. As I am vot aware of any such, I espouse the opinion which seems the most likely, that Mary was gone the second time from the sepulchre, before Joanna and her company got to it.
La. xxiv, 3. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Jerusales
LUKE xxiv. 449.
thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining
to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living
He is not here, but is risen: remember how be spake
hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day
things unto the eleven, and to all the rest ”.
* A great difficulty has been found in this passage of St. Luke xxiv. 9, 10. by those commentators who consider the 10th verse to be explanatory of the preceding verse. The tive verses preceding the ninth give an account of the appearance and specch of the angels to the women of whom St. Luke bas been speaking. The ninth informs us that these women came and reported all “ these things” to the apostles, and all the disciples. The tenth is supposed to be explanatory of the nintb; and therefore that the women named in it bad been at the sepulchre together, bad there seen the vision of the angels, and then had come as one company to the apostles and all the disciples.
On a larger view however of this history, another construction may be judged necessary.
Gerbard (a), Benson (b), Macknight (c), Lardner (d), Pilkington (e), and Doddridge (f ), have all concluded that “ these things are to be taken distributively; that Mary Magdalene reported some things, and the other women reported the rest. They believe that though St. Luke has, ip the tentb verse, put the whole account of what the women related together, that the Evangelist refers to that which was related by Mary Magdalene, as well as by the second party of women.
The evidences of the resurrection, then, which the women
produce, were these :
It will be observed, from this statement, that each of the