ПIpažeis TWV. ATOσrokov. Acta Apostolorum. Variorum Notis tum Dictionem tum Materiam Illustrantibus suas adjecit. HASTINGS ROBINSON, A.M. Soc. Antiq. Lond. Philosoph. Cantab. et Collegir Div. Johannis Socius. 8vo. 248 pp. 98. 6d. London. Rivingtons. 1824. Ir the plan of Mr. Robinson's work were not so simple, and its merits so obvious, as to insure it an extended circulation, we should be tempted to regret the scanty notice to which the limits of our publication confine us. He has presented us with a very neat and elegant edition of the Acts, for the most part after Griesbach's text, accompanied with a judicious selection of notes from the best commentators. Considerable light is thrown upon the style of the sacred history by frequent references both to the classics and to those later and provincial writers, whose dialect more exactly agrees with that of St. Luke. Jewish antiquities and customs are illustrated by extracts from Josephus and Philo; and the fathers of the Church are occasionally introduced in elucidation of difficult passages. The concise form into which this various information is thrown, is not the least recommendation of the edition. The service, indeed, which Mr. Robinson has rendered to sacred literature cannot easily be estimated. It is too much the practice of students to read the New Testament with little of the care and accuracy they think necessary to bestow upon the writings of the classics. Composed, as it is, in an impure dialect, it is almost considered to be without the range of critical examination: the Gospels and Acts in particular, being read at school as easy Greek for tyros in the language, are not unfrequently accounted too simple to engage the attention, and employ the research of the advanced scholar. Nay, the very reverence in which the writings of inspired authors are naturally held, is calculated to deter him from trying them by the common rules of grammar; and from handling the composition so familiarly, and so rigidly analyzing the phrases, as he would if they were. works of merely human original. Mr. Robinson's labours will, we hope, assist in removing these prejudicial mistakes: under his hands the sacred historian is raised to the dignity of a classic, and takes his place among those writers whose works, as. compositions, are to be studied with critical precision. Another important, though at first sight less considerable, advantage of Mr. R.'s edition, arises from his having thrown the history into its original and continuous form, and marking We cannot help the verses merely on the side of the page wishing this method were universally observed. When it is considered how great an obstacle the division into chapters and verses proves to the right interpretation of Scripture, obscuring, perverting, and destroying the sense, it is almost a subject for regret that the additional facility of reference, which it supplies, should have led to its adoption: certainly we may regret that the division, when introduced, was not conducted with more judgment than was actually employed. Conducted, however, on any principles, it has the effect of breaking up the sacred volume into so many unconnected fragments; and necessarily tends to encourage the practice, so lamentably common in the present day, "of explaining passages altogether detached from the context. On inspecting Mr. Robinson's note on Acts xiii. 33, we were surprised to find him agreeing with Cyril and Gregory Nyssen in referring the words "Thou art My Son" to Christ's divine, and "This day have I begotten Thee," to his human nature. The passage itself plainly points to the resurrection: Kaì μɛis ὑμᾶς ευαγγελιζόμεθα τὴν πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας επαγγελλίαν γενομένην, ὅτι ταύτην ὁ Θεὸς εκπεπλήρωκε τοῖς τέκνοις αυτῶν ἡμῖν, αναστήσας Ιησοῦν· ὩΣ ΚΑΙ εν τῷ πρώτῳ ψαλμῷ γέγραπται· υιός με εἴ συ...κ. τ. λ. that is, "Thou art My Son, this day (i. e. of the resurrection) have I declared thee to be so, even My only begotten Son." Agreeably to the same Apostle's words in the opening of his Epistle to the Romans: περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὑτοῦ·· τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ Θεοῦ εν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης εξ αναστάσεως νεκρῶν. On xvii. 22. we observe he understands deiridaμovεoтépes, to mean not "religious," but "superstitious:" a rendering which, though agreeable to the authorized version, destroys, in our opinion, the beauty of the Apostle's exordium; in which his usual delicacy and address are visible, in seizing upon a point in Athenian habits for which he could commend them; and thence leading them on gently to the doctrines he wishes to impress upon them. It is the more remarkable that Mr. Robinson should have thus explained the word, as in a subsequent passage, in which it occurs (xxv. 19.) he determines it to bear a favourable meaning. But it is not necessary to enlarge upon points of this nature, in which there will always exist a difference of opinion. If we wished to be very critical, we might find fault with the latinity of some of the notes; and might suggest the expediency in a We wish Mr. R. had also taken away the division into chapters. As a specimen of the awkwardness of the common arrangement, we need only refer to the fourth chapter, the four first verses of which belong to the third, and the six last to the fifth. second edition of some verbal alteration in his mode of settling the interpretation of doctrinal texts, which at present has in some places an appearance of harshness. He is too fond of such formulæ as the following: "Valeant igitur quorundam insomnia qui, &c. (v. 4. viii. 7. x. 48. Vide also xiii. 48.) The nature of the work rendering it impossible to enter here into any minute examination of its contents, we can do no more than give a specimen or two of the manner in which it is executed. We begin with the short and useful chronological table of the principal events recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. "Jesus in cœlum rediens, S. Spiritum emisit. Paulus ad Christi signa se confert A.D. 33 37 40 43 primâ vice Hierosolymam venit....... Judæi Româ expelluntur Porcius Festus Judææ procurator Paulus Romam advenit... ..... 52 59 P. vi. We next take, almost at hazard, the first two verses of the tenth chapter, on which we have the following notes, 66 “ Ανηρ δέ τις ἦν Καισαρείᾳ, ὀνόματι Κορνήλιος, ἑκατοντάρχης ἐκ σπείρης τῆς καλουμένης Ἰταλικῆς, εὐσεβὴς καὶ φοβούμενος τὸν Θεὸν, σὺν παντὶ τῷ οἴκῳ αὑτοῦ, ποιῶν τε ἐλεημοσύνας πολλὰς τῷ λαῷ, καὶ δεόμενος τοῦ Θεοῦ διαπαντός.” 66 "Kopvýλog. Romanus, Romano nomine. Sunt qui eum proselytum portæ fuisse statuunt, rationibus tamen haud idoneis; disertè enim gentilibus annumeratur inf. 28. "σtions. Plerique interpretes Cornelium intelligunt cohortis fuisse centurionem quæ ad legionem Italicam pertineret. Quæ vero in hoc capite memorantur, vel sub fine Caligula vel sub initio Claudii gesta sunt, quo tempore legionem Italicam haud extitisse crediderim. Hane enim a Nerone comparatam e Dione discimus LV. p. 645. cujus hæc sunt verba. Νέρον τὸ πρωτον τε καὶ Ἰταλικὸν ὀνομαζόμενον (στρατόπεδον) ovviraže. Paulo inferius inter alias legiones a Trajano institutis, duas memorat ἅ καὶ Ιταλικὰ κέκληται. Præoptanda est igitur eorum sententia qui hanc cohortem, ut aliæ quoque quæ in Judeâ ante urbis excidium meruerunt, a cohortibus legionariis distingui credunt. Josephus enim, Romanorum legiones recensens, ad Vespasianum a filio ductas, monet quod τούτοις sc. τάγμασιν, εἵποντο ὀκτωκαίδεκα σπεῖραι, decem et octo cohortes adjunctæ erant. Porro, quod cohortibus quoque distincta nomina imponerentur, e Tacito colligimus, qui Gallorum, Lusitanorum, Britannorumque cohortes memorat Hist. 1. 70. Apud Livium etiam cohors Placentina XLI. 1. Firmana et Cremonensis XLIV. 40. nomina tim appellantur, quæ scilicet e coloniis Placentiæ, Firmo, et Cremonæ collocatis nomen deduxerunt. Per cohortem igitur Italicam eam intelligo, in quod merebant milites in Italiâ nati, unde cognomen invenit. In Gruteri inscriptt. p. 434. 1. memoratur cohors Italicorum voluntaria, quae est in Syria. “εvσεßηs. Ita hanc vocem explicat Socrates ap. Xen. Mem. IV. Rogatus enim, ἔχεις οὖν εἰπεῖν, ὁποῖος τις ὁ εὐσεβής ἐστιν; ἐμοὶ μὲν δοκεῖ, ἔφη, ¿ rods Osovs zyuwv, et mox, correctione quâdam adhibitâ, addit, ős de τιμῶν, εὐσέβης ἐστι.” Notes on the Epistle to the Romans, intended to assist Students of Theology, &c. By SAMUEL TURNER, Professor of Biblical Learning, and Interpreter of Scripture in the General Theological Seminary of the Protestant Episcopal Church. New York. 1824. WE hail with great pleasure any transatlantic publication of orthodox theology, such as the present; and although we differ from the writer in unimportant particulars, and conceive that he has occasionally admitted undignified criticisms, we have nothing to object to the principles on which he has constructed his work. He informs us, in his Preface, that the notes were only intended for the private lectures of his class, and were not published as a complete commentary; which will naturally weigh with our readers in his defence, against those few remarks, which our impartial duty compels us to offer. The "Notes" are preceded by a translation of Koppe's Introduction to the Epistle, which divides it into doctrinal and hortatory parts, the former comprehending the arguments, as far as the eleventh chapter, the latter concluding the Epistle. On this plan, Professor Turner has composed the annotations before us, upon which we shall at once proceed to make such obser vations as they seem to merit; but, in the first place, we must be permitted to decry the omission of the Greek accents, and to mention that there are several errata in the Greek texts which he has quoted. Ch. i. v. 1. "ApproμEvos, synonymous with the " Heb. and implying distinction." We conceive that this brief remark hardly expresses the whole of St. Paul's idea: the apostle appears to have selected the phrase for a particular purpose, and in opposition to the superstitious dogmata of the Pharisaic sect. They affected to be Dowgiouέvoi, separated from the rest of mankind by a peculiar holiness, as ecclesiastical historians have assured us. Is it, therefore, improbable, that the apostle, who once belonged to their strictest order, retained the term in his epistles, to shew, in contradistinction to his former sentiments, that his separation from the world now consisted in preaching the Gospel of Christ, "to the Jews a stumbling-block, to the Greeks foolishness?” Αφωρισμένος εἰς Ευαγγέλιον Θεο was his paraphrase of the title in the New Testament, and seems the most obvious explanation of the word, according to the opinions of those times: in Biblical Hebrew, is, most commonly the verb, which the Septuagint translates apopila. The author has rightly comprehended the scope of this Epistle, and has not been biassed by the Calvinistic exposition of it, to which many modern commentators have inclined. Ch. ii. v. 12. We imagine that both Macknight and Mr. Turner have created a needless difficulty in the words ev vou and Si vous; their general acceptation of the verse is true, but we cannot discover the authority, by which they have asserted voμos not to signify the Mosaic law. It is granted that this clause is contrasted with the preceding, which refers to those who lived avouws without any divine revelation or law; but certainly with respect to the Jews, vouos can have but one sense, although, with respect to Christians, it implies the whole law of God delivered in either Testament. Rabbi Bechai observes, that, as the Jews deemed themselves bound by the revealed, so the Gentiles thought themselves under moral obligations to a natural law. Ch. iii. 4. "Iveta" is here printed for vivow. There is much ingenuity in the proposed punctuation of the verse, un γένοιτο· γινέσθω δὲ. κ. τ. λ. Yet, we doubt its accuracy. If the latter were the same optative exclamation as the former, it would be yévoiro de and the author's observations tend to demonstrate it to be so. His error appears to consist in a want of discrimination between the force of yivoua in classical and Hellenistic Greek, and in too much dependence on Koppe. Tíveral is used with a parallel force in Matt. vi. 16. Luke vi. 36. xiii. 2. Rom. xi. 6. and many other places, and yivéow answers here to an easy solution of the verse might have been elicited from a comparison of the power of the verb in its present connexion, and in Gal. iii. 17. let God be proclaimed true, and every man a liar." (Cf. Schleusner. sign. 13). All the ancient versions are opposed to the canon which Koppe would establish. - V. 19. A similar blunder respecting vouos occurs; and it is extraordinary that the professor should have attributed one sense to it at v. 19, and another at v. 20. We conceive that at v. 24. he has needlessly laboured in his interpretation of anoλúrрwais; concerning the meaning of which, there could be no reasonable dispute. At v. 25. we disapprove of Suua, as the noun in agreement with iλaornpov, because it is a word no where oc |