was to refer to the land of Israel, the application will be more just, as Christ himself says, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. But the great objection made to this version is, that, by this division of the sentence, the phrases in the original are harsh and unnatural, and that the sense must be supplied by an unusual ellipsis of the verb. To which it may be answered, that elegance of expression is not to be expected in the writings of the evangelists, and that this defect of the verb may have been occasioned by the neglect or oversight of transcribers, as it has happened in other instances; especially as it immediately preceded. Another, a very late ingenious paraphrast,* has given the words an affirmative sense by putting them into the form of an interrogation, and rendering them thus; "for, was it not the time of figs?" the negative interrogation implying the most positive assertion in the Hebrew language; and it is certain, as he observes, that, if the original words will bear this construction, no farther difficulty will remain, and the stumbling-block to the infidel is removed. The learned Dr Krauter, in a late publication, reads ovxv, not ouxwv, deriving it from oux, a fig-tree, " for it was not the time of fig-trees;" i. e. when they put forth their leaves. "Deest & in Sax. nescio, inquit Cl. Mareschallus, an scriba pro nær non erat, oscitanter exaraverit, pœr erat; an vero interp. temere rejecerit negativum non: quod ipsi forsan iniquum, aut saltem indecorum videretur, ficum esse maledictionis ictu sideratam, propter infæcunditatem, sive åxagular, etiam tunc, quum non aderat tempus ficuum." Millius in locum. But, if these methods of reconciliation should not be deemed clear and satisfactory, may we not, after all, presume that the original text has undergone some corruption? For, might not the word, in the first copy, be to, instead of, and, the last syllable being omitted by the next copyist, might not the word ever afterwards be retained in its present form? Should this supposition be admitted, the words will yield this plain and easy sense, "for this was the time of figs;" i. e. figs were then to be found on most trees; whether ripe or not does not affect the argument; and, admitting a metathesis or transposition, in this place, with most of the commentators,† the proposed * "Huic loco (ni fallor) sensus commodior reddi potest, solum in fine notam interrogandi collocando, hoc modo,nonne enim erat tempus ficuum?' Quæ, per parenthesin posita, suppeditant rationem damnate a Salvatore arboris. Fieri autem interrogationem, ac simul per illam, rei de qua loquimur causam reddi solere, aliquando etiam non sine indignationis notâ, certe non absque magna emphasi probari ex optimis auctoribus potest, nec canonis meminisse pigebit, propositiones negativis particulis elatas, æquivalere propositionibus affirmativis. Hoc enim probe observato nihil amplius restabit difficultatis. Atque ita historia perfecte quadrat, si referatur ad Judæos, apud quos æquum erat Deo, si terrarum usquam, expectare fructum. Hardy in Nov. Testamentum. Macknight, Pearce, &c. emendation emendation will appear still more necessary, as the whole passage will run thus: "And, seeing a fig-tree afar off, having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon, for this was the time of figs; and, or but, when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves." Here is the strictest consistency in every part of the narration, and the most pointed conformity and resemblance between the natural and the spiritual fig-tree. The one is cursed for its barrenness when it ought to have produced fruit; the other is destined to utter destruction for its incorrigible impenitence and despite unto the spirit of grace, under the ministry of Christ and his apostles. This, indeed, will probably be looked upon as a very bold and unwarrantable correction, having not the least shadow of authority to support it. But, with the greatest deference to the weight of this argument, I would beg leave to observe, that it does not preclude the possibility of a mistake; for, as all the copies of the New Testament confessedly vary from each other in sundry instances, it is not impossible but they may all err in one. As a proof of which, perhaps, we may fairly bring that passage of the Acts* where St Stephen is supposed to make use of the word Babylon, instead of Damascus, notwithstanding the Sept. which he followed, in the recital of the prophet's words, together with all the other versions, unanimously agree in rendering the word, according to the Hebrew, beyond Damascus. Is it not possible, therefore, if not probable, that the word Babylon might, through the negligence or mistake of transcribers, be inserted for Damascus in the earliest copies, and be transmitted down to the latest period, as the Wechelian is the only version which reads Aapaone, published at Frankfort, 1597: see Millii Prolegom. 1298. But Dr Holmes has informed me, since this dissertation was written, that there is MS. authority for reading Δαμασκό. An instance very similar to which we have in the Sept. version of Hosea, where the negative particle & was changed into the pronoun a, and retained in all the copies of it, till the learned Dr Grabe restored the true reading, agreeably to the Heb. text. Nor will this suppo sition C. vii. 43.- Dr Lightfoot supposes St Stephen or St Luke to have changed the word, so as to suit his own purpose, according to the then practice of the Jewish church: but this is too arbitrary. Erasmus says, "sunt qui malunt fateri Scripturam (se. Heb. Textus) esse depravatum.” Crit. Sac. tom. vii. But why may not the Greek text be corrupted, when all the versions agree with the Hebrew? And it is probable that this is the case, as the author of the Acts retains the preposition iixa, which is the Sept. translation of the Hebrew word nл, and is proper when joined with Damascus, but not with Babylon, as they were not carried beyond, but to, Babylon; so that would have been used in this case, Babuλāva. See 2 Chron. c. xxxvi 18, 20. Sept. vers. and Matt. c. i. 11,.17; and my Dissert. on Amos, v. 26, note ‡, p. 294. + Ita omnia exemplaria, et vetus quoque versio habet. Iste est filius tuus sapiens. Unde Hieronymus ad h. 1. ait. Pro insipiente filio (nempe juxta Hebræum) in Sept. legitur per ironiam; iste filius sapiens, hoc est, quem sapientem putabas, &c. Sed quis dubitet Interpretem juxta Hebræum recte scripsisse vós górpos, scribam autem occasione præcedentis, & in as mutasse? Adeo sition of an error in all the copies affect the validity and authenticity of the New Testament any more than that of the old; Glassius's observation being as just with respect to the former as the latter, "that the changing of one word in the original will not render the divine fountain impure. For, it is sufficient that the providence of God should not suffer the mistakes of transcribers to be such as might endanger or destroy any fundamental article of the Christian faith. And to expect that the sacred code is come into our hands absolutely pure and incorrupt in every minute circumstance, is to suppose the exertion of a miraculous power, for seventeen centuries, which the reason and exigency of the case do not at all require. If, therefore, as a most eminent prelate of our church observes, in regard to the Hebrew text, "a conjectural emendation be more agreeable to the context, to the exigence of the place, to parallel and similar passages, and to the laws of sound temperate criticism," + is there not the strongest reason for its admission? And it is humbly submitted to the consideration of superior judges, how far the proposed alteration may fall under this description. The only design of which being to confute, at least, if not to convince, the gainsayer, it is to be hoped that the uprightness of the intention will be an apology for any failure in the execution. But if, as Bowyer asserts, (preface, p. 22,) upon the authority of a learned bishop, that whole parenthesis, Luke, ii. 2, (Arn ǹ åñoygaøn, &c.) is, most probably, a gloss, notwithstanding all the MSS. (and, I may add, all the versions,) retain it, may we not as reasonably suppose, vice versa, that one syllable may be dropped from a word, though neither any MS. or version gives any countenance to such an opinion? It is, however, a much more justifiable mode of vindicating the word of God than that of the ingenious Mr Toup, who, in order to get rid of the difficulties attending the present state of the text, would expunge the whole sentence, and Adeo ut vana sit conjectura Cappelli rovs é addat: "Vel legendum est in Græco ras vids in istud à vos de gormos. Prolegom. in Hos. c. pro legisse ; quamvis posteriori loco recte Peónμs, quod postea facili lapsu mutatum fuit xiii. 13. * See, likewise, Hunt on Prov. vii. 22, 23; Bishop Lowth's Dissert. on Isaiah; and' Hare in Ps. Lectori. Phil. Heb. + Bishop Lowth on Isaiah. See Toup on the word naigos. "But, (says Mr Bowyer in his appendix,) with submission, it should seem, that, however aukward the appearance of them, their presence has been necessary to the sense, at least the emblematical sense, of the passage. The words "" καιρος σύκων, Οι figharvest not yet," seem to have been added to shew, that early fruit was expected of a tree whose leaves were distinguishable afar off and whose fruit, when it bore any, preceded its leaves. Apply this to the nation: our Saviour naturally expected in Judea an early and continued increase of piety and obedience, from a people specious in appearance, whom God himself had planted and never ceased to water." Now, how does this apply emblematically, if the time of figs was not yet? But suppose that this was the time of (early) figs, and there is the most exact resemblance between the sign and the thing signified. 1 effectually effectually removes the two principal objections made to our Saviour's conduct, both before and at the time of his coming to the fig-tree; the one of which argues him guilty of great inconsistency, the other of an unreasonable severity. For, if this was not the time of any figs, or not the time of later figs, as common sense must have instructed him in the former case, and his infinite knowledge might have informed him in the lutter, how absurd was it for him to go and see, if haply he might find fruit, and how cruel to curse it, because it had none, when there could not possibly be any. Nor does it seem sufficient to answer, in the first place, that Jesus, seeing this tree at a distance, did not know it to be a fig-tree, but believed it to be some other which might bear fruit at this time; for, the words seem to imply the very contrary: "and seeing a fig-tree afar off, having leaves." Now, the leaves of the fig-tree are of so peculiar a shape as to be distinguishable at a considerable distance; and, if this was too early for the time of figs, what other trees could have ripe fruit on them? Nor, in the second, to conclude that Christ's infinite knowledge was at that time suspended, as it was on another occasion, and that he did not then know that this tree had no ripe fruit on it, it being one of that sort which did not bear at that season of the year. For, when he came up to it, and found it to be a tree of a different kind, or one of these late bearers, why did he pass this rigorous sentence upon it without any apparent reason? Nor, lastly, does Mill clear up the matter, who says, "Verum ita certe res habet. In animo servatoris nostri jam erat ostendere discipulis suis mirificam ac vere divinam potentiam fidei. Hinc esuriens, cum vidisset procul ficum arborem foliis virentem, adiit eam, quasi fructum ex ipsâ petiturus; specie, inquam, fructum quærentis, (neque enim jam eum expectabat, aut poterat expectare, nondum enim erat tempus ficuum. Quid quod norit jam ante, novit siquidem omnia, nihil in arbore fructus fuisse,) sed revera ut discipulis ad oculum demonstraret, quid et quantum valeret vera fides in Deum. Jam enim ex fide maledixit arbori; eaque illico arefacta periit." Millii Prolegom, 1305. But Dr Whitby's objection against Heinsius's and Hammond's interpretation, militates equally against any positive construction of the words; for, says he," they are both confuted by this one Christo ignorantia tribuitur, ut qui nescierit ficum non habere fructus, idq. eo tempore, quo etiam pueri nossent ficum non ferre fructus. Huic sic occurritur, scisse Christum ficum id temporis fructu carere, sed quia e longinquo ficum conspiceret, nescisse cam esse ficum, sed credidisse arborem esse aliam, quæ iis in locis jam fructum haberet." Voss. Harm. Evang. lib. i. c. 6. + Nihil Jesu Christo indignum tribuitur, si dicatur eum ignorasse isto tempore, quod arbor ista fructum non haberet, non magis certe, quam Jesu Christo indignum quid tribui ab hoc eodem Evangelisto Marco dici potest, quando asserit eum ignorasse diem judicii, c. xiii. 32. Non enim recte supponitur, Christum omniscientià actu semper præditum fuisse. Episcop. Quæst. 9. Dixeris Chritum fuisse omniscium. Sed non quicquid norat, quatenus Deus, norat etiam quatenus homo; Vossii Harm. Evang. sed tantum, quatenus divina natura dignaretur influxu suo aperire humanæ. lib. i. c. 6. See Whitby on Mar. xi. 13. observation observation, that Christ did this on the 11th of Nisan, i. e. five months before figs were ripe; for, about summer, saith our Lord, the branch of the fig-tree is yet tender and putteth forth her leaves. Nor do either Theophrastus or Pliny make mention of any figs in Syria, which were gathered till after the dog-days, i. e. about the latter end of August; and, had there been a sort of figs, which, as Mr Clerc fancies, might have been ripe at the passover, before which Christ spake these words, St Mark could not have truly said, "the time of figs was not yet." But how does this agree with what follows? For, if "this tree was of that kind of figs (as Dr Whitby seems to allow) which (saith Theophrastus) was as Quar, semper comantibus foliis, ever green with leaves, and had μ xài tov ïvov xài tov víov xágwov, old and new fruit hanging on it together," to use his own words, St Mark could not have truly said, the time of figs was not yet: for, though it might not be the time of ordinary figs, it was at least the time pro ea arbore, for that particular fig, which was so striking an emblem of the Jewish nation. And what had the later or ordinary figs to do with the Jews, whose situation and condition were not at all similar? But it is generally allowed that there were two, if not more, sorts* of figs, the earliest of which might be ripe, or nearly so, at the passover. "And in Palestine," as Calmet observes, "where the winter is very mild, there might easily be found figs in March; wherefore our Saviour did nothing contrary to the rules of wisdom and decency by going to look for figs, at this season, upon a fig-tree, which had leaves on;" but the evangelist could not have said, with any degree of propriety, that it was not the time of figs, * See Lightfoot, Heinsius, Calmet, and Bowyer, on Mark, xi. 13; and Shaw observes, in his travels, p. 343," that the first ripe figs are still called boccôre in the Levant, and reckoned a great dainty, as being ripe six weeks or more before the season." |