« 前へ次へ »
Parallel of King Alfred.
so acutely sensible (2 Cor. x. Io), we may perhaps trace the permanent
* The passage is quoted in Jowett, 1. lustration is diminished by the suspip. 368 (2nd ed.). The value of the il- cion attaching to the so-called Asser.
in the very moment that the marriage-guests were drinking and carousing noisily in the festive halls, the evil against which (? warum) he had prayed overtook him. He was suddenly seized with fear and trembling; and to the very hour that Asser wrote, to a good old age, he was never sure of not being attacked by it. There were instants when this visitation seemed to render him incapable of any eacertion, either intellectual or bodily: but the repose of a day, a night, or even an hour, would always raise his courage again. Under the weight of this bodily infirmity, which was probably of an epileptic nature, he learned, by the force of his unyielding will, to overcome the heaviest cares that ever weighed upon any ruler engaged in a contest with a most terrible foe, and under the weight of corporeal weakness and the cares of the outer world, to prosecute unceasingly his great purpose.” Pauli's Life of Alfred, pp. 122–125 (Eng. Transl.). In the mystery which hangs over the whole subject, in its physical symptoms, and in its influence on his own character and feelings, Alfred's malady is a most striking counterpart to the infirmity of St Paul; and the coincidence is the less open to suspicion, since neither Asser, who is the original authority for the fact, nor Pauli, whose account I have quoted, seems to have been struck by the parallel. Unless then we accept the earliest tradition of this infirmity, and Concluassume that the Apostle suffered from acute pain in the head (an account sion. which considering his nervous sensibility is perhaps sufficient to explain the feeling of humiliation and the fear of contempt which his malady inspired), we should be tempted by the closeness of the parallel to conjecture that it was of the nature of epilepsy. Recent criticism has offered other conjectures in abundance. Of these, the view that it was a complaint in the eyes deserves especially to be mentioned, as having been supported by the most ingenious advocacy and found the largest number of adherents: but it does not, I think, sufficiently recognise the conditions of the problem, as stated above; while the direct arguments, on which it is founded, seem to melt away under the light of careful examination".
* It is put forward in a lively and interesting paper in Dr J. Brown's Horae Subsecivae. But the foundation on which this opinion is built seems to me scarcely strong enough to bear it; for (1) The stress of the argument rests on what I cannot but think a mistaken interpretation of Gal. iv. 15, “If it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your eyes and have given them to me.” Here the English version has “your own eyes,” which lends some countenance to the idea that St Paul intended to say they would have replaced his eyes with their own, if it could have been done; but the Greek is roys 640&Muo's Uptov, where buoy is as unemphatic as possible, so that the meaning is not “your eyes,” but “your
eyes.” (2) The expression troMka Ypdu-
The various readings in iv. 25.
The following are the variations of text, which the opening clause of
this verse presents.
(i) ré yap zavă ăpos dariv. So it is read in NCFG, 17; in the Old Latin (f.g.), Vulgate, AEthiopic, and Armenian Versions; in Origen”, Epiphanius”, Cyril", and Damascene; in Victorinus, the Ambrosian Hilary (“Sina autem mons, in his text), Augustine, Jerome, Pelagius, Primasius, and probably all the Latin fathers. This is also the reading of the Gothic Version, except that it omits yúp. The Thebaic Version reads similarly, “quae vero mons Sina est.” The Ms N after dariv adds &v, in which respect it stands alone (except apparently the Memphitic Version); and Epiphanius transposes xiva and opos.
(ii) rô "Ayap 21yā āpos dariv. So the Memphitic Version as read by Boetticher; but Wilkins inserts a 8é.
(iii) rô 8: "Ayap 2wā āpos éorriv. Such is the reading of ABDE, 37, 73,
of cursive manuscripts, with both Syriac Versions, and with the Greek commentators generally, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia,
Theodoret, Theoplylact, and the GEcumenian Catena.
This also is
apparently the reading of Ephraem Syrus. (v) royap "Ayap &pos éorriv found only in the Latin of D and E*. It will thus be seen that the strongest, because the most varied, testimony is in favour of the first of these readings. And there is also this weighty argument on the same side, that supposing it to have been the
and the passage in 2 Corinthians refers
the other hand it is possible that he suf-
original reading we have on the whole a more probable explanation of the variations in the text, than on any other hypothesis. By the negligence or confusion of a scribe rô "Ayap might easily be substituted for rô yáp, the word "Ayap occurring in the immediate context". As a next step a connecting particle must be supplied; and 88 or yap was inserted according to the caprice or judgment of the transcriber, thus producing the second and third readings. Lastly, the word zwā, now rendered superfluous, was expelled to relieve the passage, and hence arose the fourth variation, which indeed is too feebly supported to deserve consideration. The reading which I am here advocating is adopted by the two great masters of textual criticism, Bentley” and Lachmann. Westcott and Hort however relegate it to their margin.
Such seems to be the most probable account of the passage. Otherwise the earlier conjecture of Bentley, that we have here a gloss transferred from margin to text, has much to recommend it. Bentley himself indeed read it rô 8é"Ayap orvorrotxes rij vov ‘Ispovoraxiu, but it seems simpler, if any such solution be adopted, to erase the whole clause rö yāp...... év rà 'Apašta. This hypothesis derives some colour from the fact that there is a slight variation of reading in the connecting particles of the following clauses, as if the connexion had been disturbed by the insertion of the gloss.
The meaning of Hagar in iv. 25.
If the word Hagar be omitted, the passage is capable of a very easy Probable and natural interpretation; ‘Sinai, St Paul argues, ‘is situated in Arabia, interpre the country of Hagar's descendants, the land of bondslaves.” And such #. of too seems to be the most probable account of his meaning, even if with the agar. received text we retain Hagar; ‘This Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia,” i.e. it represents Mount Sinai, because Mount Sinai is in Arabia, the land of Hagar and her descendants. It is not j"Ayap, the woman Hagar, but rô"Ayap, the thing Hagar, the Hagar of the allegory, the Hagar which is under discussion”.
1 The commentary of Theodore Mops. on this passage shows how easily *Ayap might be foisted in. The Greek text of this writer (in Cramer's Catena) has dAN "Ayap of re 8pmuos traora K.T.A., which makes no sense. The Latin translation runs ‘sed et solitudo omnis,' which doubtless represents the original reading, dAN& kal # re &pmuos träda. Windischmann's conjecture to account for the insertion of "Ayap in the text of St Paul is more ingenious than probable. He supposes a critical note, â. Yáp (i. e. dANot Yáp), marking a various reading in the connecting par
ticle, to have been transferred from the
Such substantially was the interpretation put upon the passage by some of the ablest among the Greek commentators. ‘The law was given in the very place,’ says Theodore of Mopsuestia (the sense is somewhat distorted through the medium of a bad Latin translation), “which belongs to that race whence Hagar also was.” “About that mountain,’ says Theodoret, “are the tents of the descendants of Hagar (ro ris "Ayap dozivoral yèvos).’ “The Saracens,' remarks a third writer, perhaps Severianus’, ‘the descendants of Ishmael, dwell in the desert which reaches as far as Mount Sinai’ Similarly Ephraem Syrus: “For this Hagar is Mount Sinai which is in the land of the Arabs, and it is a type of (a likeness to) Jerusalem, for it is in subjection and bondage with its sons under the Romans.'
This however is not the interpretation generally adopted by those who retain the received reading. They suppose the Apostle to be calling attention not to the locality of Sinai but to the meaning of the word Hagar: “The word Hagar in the language of the Arabians denotes Mount Sinai.” This interpretation, which prevails widely, is put in its most attractive form by Dean Stanley. “There is another traveller through Arabia, he writes, “at this time, on whose visit to Mount Sinai we should look with still greater interest. I went into Arabia, says St Paul, in describing his conversion to the Galatians. It is useless to speculate ; yet when in a later chapter of the same epistle the words fall upon our ears, This Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, it is difficult to resist the thought, that he too may have stood upon the rocks of Sinai, and heard from Arab lips the often repeated “Hagar,” “rock,” suggesting the double meaning to which that text alludes”,” “Hagar” in Arabic means “a rock,” or rather “a stone'; and it is maintained that this Arabic word “Hagar’ was a common local name for Sinai, or at all events was appropriated to it in some special way.
Independently of any questions that may rise on the interpretation, I have endeavoured to show that “Hagar’ ought to be expelled from the text on the ground of external authority alone. Yet, if it be a fact that Hagar is really another name for Sinai, this fact will go some little way towards reinstating "Ayap ; and on this account, as well as in deference to the advocacy it has found, it will be worth while to consider the difficulties which beset this interpretation.
Hagar taken for a name of Sinai.
Objections to this.