λινναῖος ?” [Cod. Voss. ὡς Πελινναῖος τῆς Πελίννης, quo duce totum locum sic refingendum censemus : "Ωλιννα· πόλις πρὸς τῇ Κασπίᾳ θαλάσσῃ, τὸ ἐθνικὸν Ωλινναῖος, ὡς Πελινναῖος, τῆς Πελίννης. Ipse Steph. Πέλιννα· πόλις Θεσσαλίας ἐν τῇ Φθιώτιδι, κέκληται ἀπὸ Πελίνου τοῦ Οἰχαλιέως· ἔστι δὲ καὶ Πελληναῖον, ὄρος Χίου, καὶ τὸ κτητικόν, Πελληναῖος. Ubi idem mendum irrepsit, Πελληναῖον--Πελληναῖος, pro Πελινναῖον-Πελινναῖος, ut jam correxerunt VV. DD. De permutatione horum nominum vide omnino Palmer. et Wessel. ad Diod. S. 18, 11. item Salmas. ad Solin. 607. Tymnis Epigr. 1. Μίκκος ὁ Πελλαναῖος Ενυαλίου βαρὺν αὐτὸν Τόνδ' ἐς ̓Αθαναίας ἐκρέμασ ̓ ̓Ιλιάδος, Τυρσηνὸν μελέδαμα. “ A quibus hae minutize non negliguntur, μελέδαμα Doricum esse nega bunt; corrigendum arbitror, κελάδημα. Crinag. Epigr. 10. Τυρσηνῆς κελάδημα διαπρύσιον σάλπιγγος, Πολλάκι Πισαίων στρῆνες ὑπὲρ πεδίων Φθεγξαμένης, ὁ πρὶν μὲν ἔχει χρόνος ἐν δυσὶ νίκαις.” Valck. ad Adoniaz. p. 352. " Corruptum μελέδαμα conniventibus oculis præterii, recte a Salmasio emendatum, reponente μελέ ταμα, instrumentum quo infando Tyrrheni se exercuerunt. Tyrrhenorum inventum έuba. Minus probabiliter Valck. κελάδημα reponit e Crinag. Epigr. 10., ubi diversa est phrasis.” Brunck. Diversa quoque est phrasis in Nonni Dionys. p. 792. Καὶ Φρυγίοις αὐλοῖσιν ἐπέκτυπεν αὐλὸς ̓Αθήνης, Καὶ δίδυμον κελά δημα δόναξ ἐλίγαινεν ̓Αχαρνεὺς Θλιβόμενος παλάμησιν. “ Μελέδαμα, cura, et, e Poetarum usu, id quod quis curat et exercet : hinc tuba, qua Tyrrheni utuntur, μελέδαμα Τυρρηνον, i. e. Τυῤῥηνών, recte vocari potuit." Jacobs. ad Anthol. Pal. p. 157. At Valck. 1. c. μελέδαμα Doricum esse negat: nullas tamen rationes ad probandain suam sententiam attulit, nec sane ex iis, quæ dixit vir doctus, intelligi potest, cur vocabulum κελάδημα, quod usurparunt Crinag. et Nonnus, magis Doricum sit, quam μελέτημα, quod in Il. Ψ. 62. Οd. Δ. 650. Ο. 8. Υ. 56. Ψ. 343. reperitur. Archiæ Epigr. 4. Τρωάδι Παλλαναῖος ἀνηέρτησεν ̓Αθάνα Αὐλὸν ἐριβρεμέταν Μίκκος Ενυαλίου, quod expressum est e Tymnis Epigr. "Sed Miccus iste, qui tubam suam in Iliadis Minervæ templo dedicavit, cujas fuit? Utrum Achæus e Peloponneso Pellenensis, an e Thracica Chersoneso Pallenæus? Ego quidem Iliadi Minervæ propiorem atque omnino Pallenæum arbitror fuisse, scribendumque adeo in his Epigrammatis Παλλαναῖος, quod in postremo meus exhibet Cod. Vat. apographus : a Πελλήνη usitata forma gentilis erat Πελληνεύς, a Παλλήνη dicebatur et Παλληναῖος. Sed ex Achaia Pellenenses, ut a Liv. 32, 22. Πελληνεῖς, multo frequentius, quam Pallenæi Thraces, memorantur in historia." Valck. Etiam Pallenes Thracicæ ap. Scriptt. vett. satis frequens est mentio, ut patet e locis supra laudatis

66

infraque laudandis. " In Archiæ Epigr. Codex habet Παλλα ναῖος, at in Tymnis carmine Πελλαναῖος. Utrum ex altero emendandum sit, dicat qui Miccum hunc aliunde sibi notum sciverit, cujas fuerit, quod ego prorsus ignoro. Utroque in loco Παλ λαναῖος scr. esset, si de gentilibus nominibus vera tradidisset Steph. B. in Πελλήνη, quem redarguit Holsten.” Brunck. Imo vir doctus locum ap. Steph. Β., in quo reperitur Πελλιναῖος, suspectum habet. Mihi saltem haud spernenda videtur ratio illa, Brunckio et Jacobsio prorsus neglecta, propter quam Valck. in Tynnis Epigr. Παλλαναῖος ex Archiæ Epigr. Cod. Vat. scribendum censeat:" Ego quidem Miccum Iliadi Minerva propiorem, atque omnino Pallenæum arbitror fuisse.” ] Similiter Πελληνίταις legitur in v. Φενεός, nisi corruptus locus sit, quod suspicor: Όμορεῖ δὲ ἐκ τῶν πρὸς βορᾶν μερῶν τῇ Κλιτορίᾳ, ἐν δὲ τῷ πρὸς ἄρκτους Αιγείροις καὶ Πεληνίταις, ̓Αχαϊκαῖς πόλεσι. Cum Αιγείροις sit ipsum nomen, non gentilitium, puto etiam h. 1. leg. καὶ Πελλήνη, ταῖς ̓Αχαϊκαῖς π. Idem notavit et Salmas. Πελληνικός etiam hinc deducitur, unde Πελληνικαὶ χλαῖναι, quæ corrupte Πελλικαί scribuntur ap. Hesych.” Etiam in Cod. Ven. teste Schowio, Πελλήνη· πόλις ἐν "Αργει. Πελ ληνικαὶ χλαῖναι· ἐπεὶ διαφέρειν ἐδόκουν αἱ ἐν Πελλήνη γινόμεναι, ὡς καὶ ἆθλα τοῖς νικῶσι δίδοσθαι. Ubi Verw. malit διδόμενα, sed vulgatam tuetur J. Poll. 7, 67. Αἱ δὲ Πελληνικαὶ χλαῖναι ἦσαν εὐδόκιμοι, ὡς καὶ τοῖς νικῶσιν ἀθληταῖς δίδοσθαι.] “ Πελλήνιος, quod alterum e gentilibus ab Auctore expressis, occurrit ap. Harpocr. in Μαστήρες, ubi citatur Αριστοτέλης ἐν τῇ Πελληνίων Πολιτεία. L. HOLSTEN.

Hujus Holstenianæ notæ immemor, « Πελλήνιος nusquam a se esse lectum," scripsit Valck. ad Adoniaz. p. 352. Apud Suid. etiam Πελληναῖος χιτων legitur: Πελλήνη πόλις, καὶ Πελληναῖος χιτών· ἐπὶ τῶν παλαιὰ φορούντων ἱμάτια, ἐν δὲ Πελλήνη διάφοροι χλαῖναι ἐγίνοντο. ̓Αριστοφάνης, (1. c.,) Μῶν εὐθὺ Πελλήνης πέτεσθαι διανοεῖ; Επεὶ ἐν Πελλήνῃ ἐν τοῖς Ηραίοις ἆθλον ἐτίθεντο χλαῖναν. De Proverbio vide Erasm. Adag. 3, 3, 17. p. 692. ubi citatur Julius L. vii. de Rerum Vocabulis, sed unde citetur, nescio. Pro παλαιὰ Jacobs. ad Anthol. 8, 152. malit παχέα, idque omnino recte : Pind. Ν. 10, 82. ̓Εκ δὲ Πελλάνας, ἐπιεσσάμενοι Νῶτον μαλακαῖσι κρόκαις, (“ Intus floccis lana instructa erant,” Jacobs. 1. c.) ubi Schol. ̓Αντὶ τοῦ καὶ ἐν Πελλήνῃ ἐνίκησε, τίθεται δὲ παχέα ἱμάτια ἐν Πελλήνῃ ἄγναφα, δυσχείμεροι δὲ οἱ τόποι περιφραστικῶς δὲ τὴν χλαμίδα (leg. χλανίδα,) μαλακὴν κρόκην εἶπε, καὶ ἑτέρωθι ψυχράν· ὁπότε εὐδιανὸν φάρμακον αὖραν Πελλάνα παρέχει. (Egregie nugatur Schol. memoriter citans locum, qui sic legitur 'O. 9, 146. Καὶ ψυχρᾶν ὁπότ ̓ εὐδια-Νὸν φάρμακον αὐραν

Πελλάνα φέρε.) 'Ο δὲ ἀγὼν Διὸς, καλεῖται δὲ Δία. Ἢ οὕτως· ἐκ τῆς Πελλήνης δὲ τὰ Θεοξένια νικῶντες, χλανίσιν ἐπιτηδειοτάτοις κοσμη θέντες κ. τ. λ. Alibi idem Schol. scripsit τὸν ἀγῶνα fuisse Apollinis et Mercurii, e quorundam autem sententia, Mercurii unius, τὰ Ερμαια, at hic Jovis esse ludos asserit, τὰ Δία. Schol. Aristoph., ut supra vidimus, Junoni, ἐν τοῖς Ηραίοις, eos ipse tribuit, sed addit, secundum quosdam, τὰ Ερμαια ἄγεται ἐν Πελλήνῃ τῆς ̓Αχαΐας. Ruhnk. 1. c. suspicari videtur, Schol. hæc tradidisse vitioso Codice deceptum, in quo voces Ερμαίοις et Ηραίοις confusa essent. Sed satis patet e locis supra citatis, multos ludos in Pellene olim celebrari solitos esse, quorum alius Junoni, alius Jovi, alius Apollini, alius Mercurio sacer fuerit. Alii ludi ibi sub nomine Theoxeniorum celebrabantur. "Idem Θεοξένια et "Ερμαια, sed v. omnino Meurs. Gr. Fer. 3. p. 114. In Posidippi Epigr. (ap. Athen. 414. e.) notandum illud, Χλαίνης ἐν τρύχει Πελληνίδος, (lacero panno penula Pellenica.) Nonn. Dionys. 37. p. 926. Εἰ πέλεν εὐώδινος ̓Αχαΐδος ἀστὸς ἀρούρης, Πελλήνην δεδάηκεν, ὅπη ῥιγηλὸν ἀγῶνα "Ανδρες ἀεθλεύουσι φιλοχλαίνου περὶ νίκης, Χειμερίῳ σφίγγοντες ἀθαλπέα γυῖα χιτῶνι.” Τoup. Emendd. in Suid. 2, 586. In Schol. ad Demosth. 127. nomen Πελληναίων in Πελληνέων mutaret Valck. 1. c. Sed, cum in Suida extet Πελληναῖος χιτων, vulgatum habet quo se tueatur. Zonar. Πελλήνη πόλις : ubi D. Κ. habet Πελήνη. Sic ap. Χen. Κ. Α. 5, 2, 12. scribi Φιλόξενος Πεληνεὺς, sed perperam scribi, notarunt Valck. 1. c. et Sturz. Lex. Xen. In Orph. Argon. 156. “Ev dè Περικλύμενος Νηλήϊος εἰσαφίκανεν, ̓Αγχόθι Παλλήνης τε καὶ εὐΰδροιο Λιπάξου "Αστυ λιπὼν ἀφνειον, ἑλειονόμους τε Κολώνας, vulgo legitur Πελλήνης, sed perperam. Vide Steph. Β. in Παλλήνη, Herod. 7, 123. Apoll. Rh. 1, 599. Idem dicendum est de ejusdem Orphei Argon. 466. Οὐλύμπου δὲ βαθυσκοπέλου πρηῶνας ἐρυμνοὺς Εἰσέδρακον Μινύαι, καὶ "Αθω δενδρώδεα κάμψαν, Παλλήνην τ ̓ εὐρεῖαν, ἰδὲ ζαθέην Σαμοθρῄκην : ubi vulg. Πελλήνην correxit Holsten.

Nemo autem, qui secum reputaverit in quot et quantos geographicos errores inciderint ipsi veteres Auctores, Scholiastæque, et Librarii, atque ex iis hodierni Critici, nominum horum similitudine decepti, nostram de his rebus prolixitatem magnopere culpabit. E. H. BARKER.

Thetfordia, Feb. xiii.
A. D. 1826.

264

BIBLICAL CRITICISM

On the First and Second Chapters of St. Matthew ; comprising a view of the leading Arguments in favor of their Authenticity, and of the principal Objections which have been urged on the subject. By LATHAM WAINEWRIGHT, M. A. F. S. A. of Emman. Coll. Cambridge, and Rector of Gt. Brickhill, Bucks, &c.

No. VII.-[Concluded from No. LXV.]

THE quotation almost immediately following, in the eighteenth verse, has been deemed still more liable to the attacks of criticism, but which has fortunately been exercised with as little success in this as in the preceding cases. "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,' In Ramah was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not." That the prophet meant to apply this prediction, in the first instance, to the Babylonish captivity, will not admit of the slightest doubt; but in addition to this, it is contended by many, that in its secondary meaning, he designed to prefigure the massacre of the infants at Bethlehem. That Ramah and Bethlehem were at too great a distance from each other to allow of this double interpretation, and that the expression, because they are not, cannot have the same signification in both cases, are circumstances which have been advanced as serious objections. It is stated in reply, that it ought to be recollected that Herod's

'The words as they stand in Jeremiah xxxi. 15. are these:-
:-

Hebrew.

קול ברמה נשמע נהי בכי תמרורים רחל מבכה על בניה מאנה להנחם על בניה כי איננו:

Septuagint.

Φωνὴ ἐν Ῥαμᾶ ἠκούσθη θρήνου, καὶ κλαυθμοῦ, καὶ ὀδυρμοῦ, Ραχὴλ ἀποκλαιομένης ἐπὶ τῶν υἱῶν αὐτῆς, καὶ οὐκ ἤθελεν παρακληθῆναι, ὅτι οὐκ εἰσίν. Alex. MS.

St. Matthew, ii. 18.

Φωνὴ ἐν Ῥαμᾶ ἠκούσθη, θρῆνος, καὶ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὀδυρμὸς πολὺς, Ῥαχὴλ κλαίουσα τὰ τέκνα αὐτῆς, καὶ οὐκ ἤθελε παρακληθῆναι, ὅτι οὐκ εἰσί.

The reading of the Septuagint, in the editions of Bos and Grabe, is nearer to the Hebrew than that quoted above, but varies more from St. Matthew.

mandate was not confined in its effect to Bethlehem, but extended to all the coasts round about; and the voice of Rachel therefore may well be described as heard in Rama, which was situated in the tribe of Benjamin. With respect to the expression (5) because they are not, it may surely be regarded at least as applicable to the infants as to the captives: nor is there any inconsistency in believing, that the lamentation, which was at first uttered for the captivity of an impious people, should afterwards be repeated for the slaughter of innocent children.

Some few writers have adopted another explication. Instead of rendering the Hebrew word (7) as it stands in the majority of versions, in Ramah, they derive it from a different root, (D) altum esse, and consider it as denoting on high.'

But the light in which this citation is regarded by most of our best commentators, is that of an accommodation. In the original prophecy, Rachel, whom every Jew would naturally consider as the pattern of affection, is represented as personally appearing, and expressing all the emotions of ardent grief for the fate of those who were destined to be led captive to Babylon by their Assyrian conquerors. St. Matthew, therefore, here borrows the language of the prophet, and adapts it to his description of a deed of cruelty, still more calculated to excite lamentation and sorrow.

A charge, however, of a more serious nature has been brought forward against this part of the chapter before us; and because the massacre of the infants at Bethlehem has been passed over in silence by Josephus and other contemporary authors, the fact itself has been boldly denied, and the veracity of the sacred historian attempted to be destroyed. But arguments deduced from omissions of this description, when unsupported by stronger evidence, are, to say the least, very inconclusive; and in the present case they are clearly of no avail, since the conduct of the writers in question may be sufficiently accounted for. In the first place, respecting the silence of Josephus, it is well known that this historian derived the greatest part of his account of the actions of Herod from Nicolaus of Damascus, who was notoriously biassed by his partiality towards that prince, and had consequently taken no notice of many of his cruelties

Among those who have given the preference to this mode of explaining the passage, we may name Arias Montanus, the learned Spaniard, whose Polyglot Bible was published under the patronage of Philip II. VOL. XXXIII. NO. LXVI.

CI. JI.

S