Trinitarian dispute: and the stress, which has been laid on it, can be accounted for only from the extreme difficulty of giving to the opposite hypothesis any thing like the sanction of Scripture.-The Eng. Version appears to me to give the sense of the original.

CHAP. XVIII.

V. 1. Twv Kédρwv. Eng. Vers. "the brook Cedron." It is very remarkable, that only three MSS. viz. A, Vat. 354. and Vind. Lamb. 30. have Toù Kedpov, which, however, is the reading of Jerome, as well as of both Syr. Verss. the Vulg. and some others, and is probably the true one, notwithstanding that Tv Kéopov occurs twice in the LXX. The received reading might originate in a mistake of the Copyists, or possibly even in design: for we know that the Greeks were accustomed to give a Greek appearance to barbarous names, wherever this could be done by a trifling alteration: in many instances, indeed, they seem not to have been so scrupulous. See Richardson on the Languages, &c. of the Eastern Nations, p. 40. The Persian names in the Perse of Eschylus, and many of the names of places in Strabo, may also serve as examples. It is, therefore, highly probable that the name of this brook or rather torrent was Kedpov, and it is spoken of under this appellation by Josephus. The name is supposed to be derived from 77p, and hence Keopov will mean the black or gloomy torrent. It is curious, supposing this account of the corruption of the reading to be just, that a perfectly similar corruption has happened in the name of the river

Kison, which Suidas (voce laßir) has called xeappous Tv Kúr, the Torrent of Ivy, just as the common reading makes Keeper the Torrent of Cedars. See Rel. Palæst. vol. 1. p. 289 and 294. for an excellent account of Cedron.-Griesb. has admitted TOY Keep into the text.

V. 3. TŴY σReipar. This is spoken of definitely, as being the particular Cohort, which by order of the Procurator attended on the Sanhedrim at the great festivals, and preserved tranquillity. See Rosenm

V. 15. ó áλλos pants. Grotius says, "it is "certain that in these, as well as in other writings, “the Article is frequently redundant." Schleusn. too adduces some other instances, besides the present, in proof of the same assertion (see Lex. voce o, ǹ, Tó:) in the principal, however, of which it has already been shewn, that the assertion is wholly groundless ; and it is to be considered as the refuge of ignorance, though of the ignorance of learned men. I am, indeed, ready to confess, that the Article in this place is a subject of some difficulty; of greater, perhaps, than in any other in the whole N. T.: yet though it should be altogether impossible to assign its use with absolute certainty, it is surely more reasonable to impute the obscurity to our own want of knowledge, than to attempt to subvert the whole analogy of language; for to say, that o aos and ❝os may be used indifferently, is an assertion which is contradicted alike by experience and by common sense. It is better to understand phrases according to their obvious import, even though we should be compelled

to leave the proof of their fitness to more diligent or more fortunate inquiry. Thus To Tλotov Matt. xiii. 2. and elsewhere has always been regarded as signifying merely a certain ship: I should not, however, have acquiesced in this vague interpretation, even if I had found it impossible to account for the Article in a satisfactory way. I entertain the same feeling with respect to the present passage.

It is not at once to be taken for granted that the received is the true reading. The Article is omitted in A. D. and two other MSS. and in the Syr. Pers. and Goth. Versions, according to Griesb. He might have added the Vulg. for alius does not express 'O aλos: this would be alter. Nonnus also in his Paraphrase has νέος ἄλλος ἑταῖρος : but on a poetical Paraphrase little stress can be laid. The Edit. also of Erasmus, Colin. and Bengel, omit o. Griesb. has thought this evidence sufficient to justify the mark of possible spuriousness, which he has prefixed to the Article. It is easier, however, to account for the omission of the Article in a few of

the MSS. supposing it to be authentic, than for its insertion in almost all of them, supposing it to be spurious for the apparent difficulty, which might operate as an inducement in the one case, would be a powerful discouragement in the other. Besides, I observe, that all the MSS. collated by Birch, as well as those of Matthäi, which last are probably on the whole the best existing, exhibit the Article. I am, therefore, disposed to retain it, whatever be the difficulties, with which the reading is accompanied.

66

66

Commentators have generally admitted, that by "the other disciple" here mentioned, St. John means himself; and Michaelis (in his Anmerk.) well observes, that "John has never named himself in the "whole Gospel, nor has ever said I: and yet the occurrences, which took place in the hall of Annas, "as well as St. Peter's Denial of Christ, he has "described so circumstantially, and has thrown so "much light on the dark and seemingly contradictory narratives of the other Evangelists, that we cannot but conclude that he was present." Supposing, then, that St. John himself is meant by o ἄλλος μαθητής, it may not be impossible to assign something like a plausible reason why he should call himself the other disciple. This phrase obviously implies the remaining one of two persons, who not only were, in common with many others, disciples of Christ, but between whom some still closer relation might be recognized to exist: and if it could be shewn that Peter and John stood towards each other in any such relation, the term the other disciple might not unfitly be used, immediately after the mention of Peter, to designate John; especially, if from any cause whatever John was not to be spoken of name. Now it does appear, that a particular and even exclusive friendship existed between Peter and John: the circumstance has been noticed in that admirable manual of Christian piety, the Companion for the Fasts and Festivals. "Upon the news of our Saviour's resurrection they two hasted toge"ther to the Sepulchre. It was to Peter that John gave the notice of Christ's appearing at the sea of

46

"Tiberias in the habit of a stranger: and it was for St. John that St. Peter was solicitous what should "become of him. See John xxi. 21. After the "ascension of our Lord we find them both together

66

66

going up to the Temple at the hour of prayer; "both preaching to the people, and both appre"hended and thrown into prison, and the next day 'brought forth to plead their cause before the San"hedrim. And both were sent down by the Apo"stles to Samaria, to settle the plantations Philip "had made in those parts, where they baffled Simon Magus."-See p. 77. It might have been added, that the same two were sent by Christ to prepare the last Passover, Luke xxii. 8. It is moreover to be observed, that the same expression of o ăλλos Maonτns, with some addition indeed, occurs in this Evangelist, xx. 2. where, however, I do not perceive that the addition affects the question: it is repeated also in verses 3, 4, and 8, of the same Chapter in a manner, which to the modern Reader will appear extraordinary, but which, combined with the circumstances already related, leads me to infer that this phrase, when accompanied with the mention of Peter, was readily in the earliest period of Christianity understood to signify John: and it is not impossible that the Evangelist may have employed this expression in order to remind his Readers, that of the Twelve Apostles two were distinguished from the rest by their closer friendship and connexion. If this be a reasonable solution of the difficulty (and I cannot help thinking it preferable to the bungling expedient uniformly adopted,) the Article ought to