ning] said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him," John iii. 28. Referring to what he had declared at first: "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord," ch. i. 23. That is, I came not on my own account, but barely as a harbinger that makes way for his Lord. This is the peculiar character of John, under which he was prophesied of, Isa. xl. 3; Mal. iii. 1; iv. 5, and under which he always speaks of himself. And what in the 15th and 30th verses of this 1st chapter of John, is oτ #wτos pe ŋv, He is my prince, is in the 27th verse represented by an expression that denotes the vast superiority of Christ above him; "He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose:" that is, I am so far inferior to him, and am in so low a post under him, that I am not worthy to perform the meanest office about his person: or, in other words, I am a mere harbinger, and he is my Lord. Athenagoras' has used this word in this very sense of a prince or chief. u I hope it will be no objection against this interpretation, that then the words would not have been πρωτος με ην, but COTIV for these are all one and the same. I need go no further for proof than these two verses: οὗτος ὃν ειπον in the 15th-in the 30th is outos eσti tepi ov eyw eiñov. So that and coT signify the very same thing, and are used one for the other. ην ην I am indeed aware, that some grammarians will except against my notion of #pwTos being a substantive: I will then, for the present, suppose it to be an adjective; but yet I cannot part with the interpretation I have given of either of these texts. The context satisfies me the sense I affix to the words is the true meaning; and I can, if I mistake not, account for it according to the strictest rules of the grammarians. Let then #pwτov, in John xv. 18, be inclusive, and be understood partitively, and vwv will be governed by the ellipsis e; this I suppose will not be contested: but I choose to understand #pwTov here exclusively. I think that is the best sense, and then the ellipsis may be #po, * Αυτός εσιν ὁ οπίσω με ερχόμενος, ὃς εμπροσθεν με γεγονεν' οὗ εγω εκ ειμι αξιος ἵνα λύσω αυτό τον ίμαντα τα υποδήματος. Προσηκε δε τῳ μεν το πρωτεύειν κατα φύσιν, τῳ δε δορυφερειν τον ΠΡΩ** ΤΟΝ, ὁδοποιειν τε και προανεργειν παν ὁποσον εμποδων και προσαντες Decet enim hoc secundum naturam principatum habere, illud autem, satellitis vice, principi suo viam facere, et prævio cursu, omnia impedimenta et prærupta tollere. De Resur. p. 50. D. Paris. 1636. Perizonius says, sect. 24, Apud Græcos hanc vicem præstant præpositiones рo et Eρt, quarum illa respondet ry ante, hæc ry præ. IIpo is also. TEPI, ET, or whatever else the grammarians like best. IIpwTOs in John i. 15, 30, is evidently exclusive, according to my way of rendering it; and the us following is governed by an ellipsis of one of the last-mentioned prepositions. This I take to be perfectly agreeable to the rules of the grammarians and thus, in one place, Jesus tells his disciples, that he was chief above them; and in the other, John the Baptist says, that Jesus was prince or chief above him. And now I have Beza on my side, with reference to John i. 15, for though he would not allow, that pwTos μe is my prince,' yet he says, after a very careful examination, he is convinced, it expresses the vast excellence and superiority of Christ above John. I am not singular therefore in supposing, that this text does not express directly and simply priority of time, but only virtually and consequen tially, as it is implied and comprehended in the superior dignity of which it is a part. There is another pw in the New Testament, which has been understood by some in the same sense in which these learned men have taken the two former instances, though it is not alleged by them. Matt. xxvi. 17, Mark xvi. 12, "Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread." This was the fourteenth day of the month but it is argued here, that the fifteenth day was the first day of the feast of unleavened bread; for Josephus says, that the sixteenth day of the month was the second day of the feast; and the words of the law agree herewith. "And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the Lord. And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast. Seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten," Numb. xxviii. 16, 17. See Exod. xii. 18. The fourteenth day therefore was the day of the passover: the feast of unleavened bread was distinct from it, and lasted seven days from the fourteenth at night; the fifteenth day of the month was the first of unleavened bread. Therefore when the evangelists, speaking of the fourteenth day, say, it was рwτη Twv avμwv, they used to denote preference and pre-eminence, both simply and in composition. Simply: Και ούτος ποιμην αποδεικνυται διανοιας, τυφον προ αληθειας ασπαζομένης, και προ τε είναι το δοκείν αποδεχόμενης. Philo. p. 193. D. vid. et p. 194. D. In composition: in προεσως, προτιμαω, &c. * Cæterum hoc loco diligentius expenso, quam antea.- Declarat igitur præstantiam, sed Christo peculiarem, et ipsi propriam: nempe quasi diceret Joannes: Qui me sequitur, quasi magistrum præeuntem discipulus quispiam, mihi antepositus est, idque optimo jure, quia infinitis modis est præstantior; quamvis ante docere cœperim quam ille sese mundo patefecerit. In loc. y Τη δε δεύτερα των αζύμων (ήμερα έκτη δ' εσιν αυτη και δεκατη.) Antig. lib. iii. cap. x. p. 124. v. 20. mean not the first' day of unleavened bread, but the day 'before' that feast. The Jews have a rule, that in the computation of feasts, the day precedes the night: what stress ought to be laid upon this rule in this case I know not, I am satisfied we do not need it. The passover was, strictly speaking, distinct from the feast of unleavened bread, and seven days of unleavened bread followed the day of the passover: but their houses were cleansed from all leaven on the morning of the day on which the paschal lamb was slain, and therefore after noon they could eat no leavened bread. For this reason, perhaps, the day of the passover was called the first of unleavened bread; but whatever was the reason of it, it is certain, that the passover and the feast of unleavened bread are often taken promiscuously the one for the other. And though Josephus, in the particular account of the institution, distinguishes the passover from the feast of unleavened bread, yet he often calls the one the other. At that time,' says he, the feast approaching, in which the Jews are wont to ' eat unleavened bread: the feast is called the passover, it being kept in remembrance of their departure out of Egypt.' And in one place he says, we keep the feast ' of unleavened bread eight days.' According to this method of computation, the fourteenth day was the first of unleavened bread: so that when the passover and feast of unleavened bread were considered as one, (as they were very often,) and the whole was called by the feast of unleavened bread, the fourteenth day must be the first. The evangelists perhaps do not write in system; nor does Josephus, as it seems, nor indeed any other good writers, but according to the usual way of speaking. Herwaert lays great stress upon a passage of Athenæus, * Quum autem Matt. xxvi. 17. et Marc. xiv. 12, ipse dies 14. Nisan appellatur primus dies azymorum. Intelligendum id est secundum canonem Judæorum, mox traditum, scilicet in sacris comedendis diem præcedere noctem; sic ut tempus vespertinum diei 14, et nox subsequens hoc modo diei 14 accenseantur. Reland. Antiq. Heb. p. 422. * Έντασης δε κατα τονδε τον καιρον ἑορτης, εν ή Ιεδαίοις άζυμα προτίθεσθαι πατριον. Πασχα δε ἡ ἑορτη καλείται ύπομνημα εσα της εξ Αιγύπτε απαρσεως AUTOY YEVOμENS. Antiq. lib. xvii. cap. 9. sect. 3. p. 773. v. 25. vid. et p. 609. v. 51.887. v. 10. Όθεν εις μνήμην της τοτε ενδειας έορτην αγομεν εφ' ημερας οκτῳ, την των alvμwv deyoμevnv. Antiq. lib. ii. cap. 15. p. 88. init. Ille vero locus Aristotelis est singularis. Eum recenset Athenæus, Lib. xi. p. 505. Προ γαρ αυτε [Πλατωνος] τεθ' εύρε το είδος των λογων ὁ Τηΐος Αλεξαμενος, ως Νικίας ὁ Νικαευς ίπορει και Σωτηριων. Αριστοτέλης δε εν τῳ περι ποιητων οὕτως γράφει, Ουκέν εδε εμμετρες τις καλέμενος Σωφρονος μιμες μη φαμεν ειναι λογες και μιμησεις, η της Αλεξαμενο το Τηΐε τις πρώτες who quotes Aristotle, saying, (as Herwaert understands the words,) that Alexamenus's dialogues were written before the Socratic dialogues; [that is, the dialogues in which Plato introduces Socrates;] expressly affirming, says Athenæus, that Alexamenus wrote dialogues before Plato. But it is very plain to me, that Aristotle says, that Alexamenus's dialogues were the first Socratic dialogues; that is, that Alexamenus was the inventor of that way of writing. I have transcribed the passage of Athenæus more at length than Herwaert has done: and if the reader will consider the whole of it, I think he will be convinced, 1st, That by Socratic dialogues is here meant, not Plato's dialogues, in which he introduces Socrates, but in general that way of writing and 2dly, That Aristotle says, that Alexamenus's dialogues were the first of the kind. From whence Athenæus infers very justly, that Aristotle says expressly, that Alexamenus wrote dialogues before Plato. I think likewise, that Athenæus never dreamed of that meaning of Aristotle's words, which Herwaert affixes to them. Interpret Aristotle as Herwaert does, and Athenæus is guilty of a ridiculous tautology in his inference. That I understood Aristotle right, is farther evident from Diogenes Laertius, whose words upon the same subject are thus: Some say, that Zeno the Elean was the first writer ' of dialogues, but Aristotle, in his first book of Poets, says, that Alexamenus the Teian was, as does also Phavorinus ' in his Commentaries.' 'e But though I contest all these instances, (as thinking I have given the true meaning of all those places,) it must be allowed, that Perizonius's example from Aristophanes, and another from Alexander Aphrodisius, alleged by others in this cause, prove that #pwтov, used adverbially, is put without #po following it to denote the priority they contend for. f γραφέντας των Σωκρατικών διαλόγων' αντικρυς φασκων ὁ πολυμαθέςατος Αριστοτελης προ Πλατωνος διαλογος γεγραφέναι τον Αλεξαμενον. Hæc quidem Athenaeus : ubi sane verba illa Aristotelis τις πρωτες γραφέντας των Σωκρατικων διαλόγων, Athenæus hisce interpretatur: [τες προτερον] προ Πλάτωνος diaλoys, K. T. λ. Plato enim in suis dialogis introducit Socratem qui hortetur juvenes, sophistas redarguat, viros doceat; unde haud immerito vocantur Socratici.-Quemadmodum igitur Aristotelis Alexameni dialogos prius scriptos, quam Plato suos Socraticos conscripsisset, vocat τις πρώτες γραφέντας των Zwkparikov diaλoywv: sic Divus Lucas, &c. Herw. ubi supra, p. 197. e 4 Το Athenaeus says expressly: τεθ' εύρε το είδος των λόγων. Διαλογές τοινυν φασι πρωτον γράψαι Ζήνωνα τον Ελεατην Αρισοτέλης δε εν πρωτῳ περι ποιητων Αλεξαμενον Στυρία η Τηϊον, ώς και Φαβωρινος εν avati. Diog. Laert. lib. iii. Segm. 48. Η πληγή πρωτον της ατράπης την βροντην αποτελεί, η άμα. Ictus prius tonitru perficit quam fulgur, aut simul. Alex. Aphrod. Problem. 1. i. How far the argument will hold by way of analogy from adverbs to adjectives, I cannot say. It ought also to be allowed, that the #pwTos μO TH Iĉa of 2 Sam. xix. 43, (but not found in all copies of the Seventy,) is an equivalent phrase to that in St. Luke, and to be understood in the sense put upon St. Luke's words. The passage from the Maccabees, "Last of all after the sons the mother died," contains also a parallel phrase. To these I add two other instances of #pwτos itself, which I am unwilling to contest, and shall leave with the reader. Perizonius's way of accounting for this construction by the ellipsis of a preposition to be understood, when not expressed, is well argued from the two instances he has alleged προ πρωτος. of po subjoined to pwτos. I add another like instance from Eusebius though perhaps the other way of supposing πρωτη used for προτεραι need not be quite rejected. I presume this may be sufficient to show, that the phrase in St. Luke is capable of the sense contended for by these learned men. But I cannot yet persuade myself, that it is the real sense of the text, for the following reasons. This 1. This is a very uncommon use of the word #pwTos. I think is evident, in that the critics have been so much at a loss for instances. Stevens knew of none, beside that produced above from Aphrodisius, where #pwтov is used adverbially. There are also almost innumerable other ways of expressing this priority of time.' The reason of the Greek writers so rarely using this word thus is very obvious; it can hardly be done without causing some ambiguity, therefore when they use it in this sense, we see they often subjoin po. That this use of pwTos was designedly avoided, seems to me evident, from a passage of Herodotus; where having in the former branch of the sentence twice used the superlative, in the latter he takes the comparative; either 8 Προ των οντως οντων, και των όλων αρχών εσι θεος εἷς, πρωτος και το TOWTH GEB Kaι Baoiλews. Ante eas res quæ vere sunt, et ante principia universalium, est unus Deus prior etiam primo deo et rege. Jamblich. de Mysteriis, sect. viii. cap. 2. Και πρώτος επεφανετο των αλλων primus ante alios coronâ honoratus est. Dionys. Hal. Hist. Rom. 1. iv. c. 3. Η Αντικα γεν μαλα cap. 2. i θεασώμεθα, όπως μεν ὁ Πλατων τες προ αυτό πρώτες εσκώπτειν, όπως δε τες Πλατωνος διάδοχες αλλοι" Præpar. Evan, L. xiv. Εσι δε τις δυναμις, ωσιας μεν δευτερα, ψυχης πρωτη. Est autem quædam vis essentiâ quidem inferior, sed nobilior animo. Sallus. de Mundo, c. 8. δε k Πρωτον πρότερον, prius. Alexander Aphrodisius, ή πληγη, κ. λ. Quem alioqui usum apud vetustiores scriptores rarissimum esse puto: affertur tamen et ex Aristotelis Rhet. πowrоv n, pro prius quam. Thesaur. Gr. Tom. iii. 1 Προ, προτερον, πρωτον, [adverb] προτερα, πρώτη, προ, πριν, &c. |