καὶ ̓Ιῶν Εὐβοέων ἔφη τεταραγμένων καὶ λεγόντων, ὅτι οὐ λελήθατε ἡμᾶς avopes πρéσ Beis, &c. et alibi sæpius: Luciano et Æliano nihil quoque frequentius: LXX. Intt. Gen. xiv. 23. Iva μỳ citys, öts ἐγὼ ἐπλούτισα τὸν "Αβραμ : sic c. xx. 2. ἔλεγεν ̔Αβραὰμ περὶ Σάββας, őτi ådeλøý μov ÉσTI." To a meritorious, and, to the honor of my country, I add a very numerous, class of persons, who are anxious to read the New Testament with critical precision, the distinction laid down by Hoogeveen will not be uninteresting; and as his work on the Particles may not be in the hands of many a young theologian, who looks into the Class. Journ., I shall quote his words:

او

Quum narratio instituitur ex persona ipsa narrantis, potest resolvi per accusativum et infinitum, ut, cum dicitur, axoúsas TI Κύριός ἐστι, resolvitur ita, ἀκούσας τὸν Κύριον εἶναι : at non item hoc fit, ubi utimur oratione recta, sive cum loquimur ex persona aliena, quam dicentem inducimus: ut apud Xenoph. Instit. L. vIII. p. 216. extr. τὸν δ ̓ ἀποκρίνασθαι [λέγεται] ὅτι, βασιλείαν μὲν οὐκ ἂν džaluny, Illum autem respondisse ferunt, Regnum non optarem: et cum D. Jacob. ait in sua Ep. c. i. com. 13. Mndels TeipakóμevoS λεγέτω, ὅτι, ̓Απὸ Θεοῦ πειράζομαι, Nemo, dum tentatur dicat, A Deo tentor: quæ verba non possunt ad orationem infinitam reduci, dicat me tentari a Deo: sic enim ipse apostolus diceretur tentari; nisi mutetur persona, ut cum reddit Castellio, Nemo, dum tentatur, dicat, a Deo tentari se." Hoogeveen then quotes Matth. c. ix. 13. and Mark c. xiii. 6. and refers to Matth. c. xxvii. 43. Act. Apost. v. 23 et 25. Rom. ix. 17. Mark i. 15. xiv. 27 et 58. 1 John iv. 20." Hoogeveen then adds: "Oratio tamen potest esse recta, licet is, qui loquitur, alienam personam non inducat loquentem, sed suam ipsius orationem recitet, ut de se loquitur Christ. apud Matth. c. vii. com. 23. Tóre duoλoy now autoïs, OTI, OvdÉTOTE Éуvæv úμãs, Tunc profitebor iis, Nunquam vos novi: orationem esse rectam, neque debere reddi, Me nunquam vos novisse, præter illud vos pro illos, evincit oratio sequens, quæ tota recta est, ̓Αποχωρεῖτε ἀπ ̓ ἐμοῦ οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν.” Vol. II. p. 871.

The express, or more immediate object of this enquiry was, to explain the repetition of or in the Epistle of St. John. Why, then, it may be asked, have so many passages been adduced, in which the particle is, indeed, redundant, but is not repeated? My answer is. 1. That I think it of importance to vindicate the sacred writers from the imputation of incorrectness or barbarism by a profusion of parallel usage from profane authors; and 2ly, the frequent recurrences of 8 thus employed in the New and even Old Testament, furnish a presumption that in the only verse of the N. T. where or is repeated, the second instance may be placed

to the account of redundance. Upon this point, learned men are divided. Grotius, finding the words omitted" in Alexandr. et Linc. Vulg. item et Arab." would exclude it: H. Stephens, Beza, Piscator, Prisæus, and Mills, would substitute : Whitby says: " agnoscunt cod. plurimi: Arab. reddit profecto, quam interpretationem veram esse existimo; Hebraicum enim chi, quod primario significat nam, et exponitur a LXX. per T, alio sensu significat certe, et in versione Anglicana exponitur per voces quæ idem valent, surely, certainly, ita Gen. xliii. 10. si non intercessisset dilatio Chi, 70. nav sane, jam vice altera venissemus, Ex. iii. 10. Chi, 70. T, certo ego ero tecum, 1 Reg. i. 13. Chi, 70. r, Proculdubio Solomon regnabit post me, Josh. ii. 24. Chi, 70. r, profecto tradidit Dominus omnem terram hanc in manus nostras, ita Psal. lxxvii. 12. cxii. 6. Ex. iv. 25. Num. xxii. 23. Jud. vi. 16. Ruth. i. 10. Is. vii. 9." Examen Var. Lect. D. Millii p. 80.

Wolfius refers to this explanation of Whitby: he seems to doubt the explanation of Sam. Andreas, who thought-" Sententiam continuam cohærere, nihilque adeo esse redundans, hiulcum nihil :" he thus proceeds: "Non crediderim rò"Ori làv idem esse quod orav, neque illud probatum esse video: manifestum potius est Tò "Or prius referri debere ad sequentem phrasin, MEÍĽOV EσTÍV Ó Oòs, hoc sensu, quod, si quando condemnat nos cor nostrum, major Deus est corde nostro: Apostolus sc. proxime ante animum sedare, et componere nos posse dixerat: jam ostendit qua de causa et in quo casu id fieri possit, et subjungit, Quia, si quando &c. eadem est hæc loquendi ratio, quæ supra 3. 2. exstat, Οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι, ἐὰν φανερωθῆ, ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ ἐσόμεθα, ibi enim τὸ ὅτι omnino distinguendum est a sequenti av, et conjungendum cum oua: cf. infra v. 14. his ita positis consequetur or posterius abundare: hujus vero particulæ pleonasmum non insuetum esse patet ex exemplis a Lamb. Bos p. 23. Exercitatt. et J. H. Majo de Pleonasmis Græcæ Dictionis in N. T. p. 68. allatis: cf. nos ad Matth. ix. 18. Marc. i. 37. viii. 16. et alias: speciatim quidem is observatur post verba λéys, sixsiv, et similia: sed et alias occurrere patet ex Act. xxvii. 10. θεωρῶ, ὅτι μέλλειν ἔσεσθαι τὸν πλοῦν, cujusmodi loca alia idem Majus affert p. 70., neque vero existimandum est, non dari similem aliorum vocum pleonasmum; talis enim apud Latinos quoque occurrit in vocibus ut, cur, si, &c. : exempla habes apud Thom. Wopkens in Lect. Tullian. p. 30. qui ea ad nostrum locum itidem accommodat: ita Livius 28. Ut quoniam, &c.-ut. Florus ii. 6. Si, quod Poenum &c. si.: in his locis notandum quod rò ut et si repetitum ad eandem sententiam, sicut h. 1., pertineat." Curae Philologica et Crit. p. 280. Tom. 5. 2d Ed. The opinion of those, who would interpret or by sane,

profecto, certe, must not be hastily rejected. Certain it is that the Septuagint often renders the Hebrew particle chi by őr, where in English we cannot put that: thus in Ezra iii. 3. «Filii Israelis dicuntur firmasse altare super fundamentum suum, sed in terrore qui super eos erat propter populos terræ: LXX. vero reddunt, ἡτοίμασαν τὸ θυσιαστήριον ἐπὶ τὴν ἑτοιμασίαν αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἐν καταπλήξει ἐπ ̓ αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν λαῶν τῶν γαιών : adde LXX. ad Eccles. v. 7.” Keuchenii Annotata in N. T. Leyden, 1755. p. 80. I will add from Biel's Novus Thesaurus Philologicus another passage, where or is rendered sed. Ps. xxxvii. 20. öт oi duaрTwλоì áπоλоuvтαι, sed peccatores peribunt: the early translation retained in our PrayerBook, says, "As for the ungodly they shall perish:" the later translation inserted in our Bible, says, "But the wicked shall perish."

In John c. v. v. 27. Keuchenius, very properly, I think, renders or by quamvis, or licet, as the 70 had translated Chi by ors in Joshua xvii. v. 18. καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ καὶ κρίσιν ποιεῖν, ὅτι υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐστί. That the Father should commit judgment to Christ, because he was the Son of Man,' appears to Keuchenius very unsatisfactory reasoning: "quapropter," says he, "genuinum horum verborum sensum esse arbitror, Christo concessam esse potestatem judicium exercendi, quamvis Filius hominis sit."

In support of the interpretation here given to T, we might urge Exodus, c. xiii. v. 17. οὐκ ωδήγησεν αὐτοὺς ὁ Θεὸς ὁδὸν γῆς Φυλιστεὶμ, ὅτι ἐγγὺς ἦν, ' non duxit illos Deus via terra Philisto rum, quamvis propinqua esset.' Now, if or in the Septuagint ought sometimes to be rendered sed, and sometimes quamvis, we shall be more prepared to admit that in other places it is equivalent to certe, or profecto, and in addition to what has been stated about the opinion of Beza, H. Stephens, Whitby, &c. I will bring forward a few other examples supplied by Biel: « Gen. xliv. 28. εἴπατε, ὅτι θηριόβρωτος ἐγένετο, ο dixistis, Certe a feris devoratus est: idem Gen. xxviii. 16. nal sitevőTI ÉTTì Kúgio5 év Tập TÓTŲ τούτῳ, et dicebat, Certe Dominus est in hoc loco. 1 Reg. xiv. 39. ὅτι τῇ Κύριος ὁ σώσας τὸν ̓Ισραήλ, ο Certe vivit Dominus, qui servat Israelem.'” I give the interpretation of or before, as it stands in Biel; but I beg leave to propose my own interpretation, “Οτι ζῇ Κύριος ὁ σώσας τὸν ̓Ισραὴλ, ὅτι ἐὰν ἀποκριθῇ κατὰ ̓Ιωνάθαν τοῦ υἱοῦ μου, θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖται : here ὅτι is repeated, but the first ὅτι, as I conceive, is independent of Tev in the preceding verse: it is to be translated, not, according to Biel, certainly, but by the word because, and the second or should have the interpretation, which Biel assigns to the first: "Because God, who saveth Israel, liveth (and is a righteous judge of the sin this day committed) certainly, if being enquired of, he answer against Jonathan, my Son, as the

offender, he shall die." To the interpretation of certe in these three passages, I am disposed to accede: I should reject the same interpretation of or in any profane author; but I hold that great deference is due to the judgment of the 70, when they were interpreting with the original Hebrew before them. I think too that in the same passages or gives an energy to the sense, which it would not have, if or were considered as nearly redundant. Upon this principle we may intelligibly and forcibly, but I do not say necessarily, interpret or in St. John c. i. v. 20. Kai wμoróγησεν, καὶ οὐκ ἠρνήσατο· καὶ ὡμολόγησεν, Ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐγὼ ὁ Χριστός. The preceding terms he confessed, he denied not, prepare the mind for something less languid than the word that, and even for something not less emphatical than the word certainly.

In the passage from St. John's Epistle, which is under consideration, the meaning of the word will be equally intelligible, whether we translate it by the word that, or by the word certainly: our English Translation slides by the difficulty: "For, if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart." I know that or is sometimes equivalent to yàg: St. Matt. c. vii. v. 14. öt σTEVÝ

Úŋ:"Non displicet," says Keuchenius, "qui Tò or hic adversative usurpari, et pro yag poni existimant:" but let us examine how the first passage will run, if we translate the first or by because, and the second by certainly: "And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him : Because, if our heart condemn us, certainly God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things." My chief objection to this explanation of the second or is, that in the other passages, where ὅτι is translated certainly, ἔλεγεν, εἶπεν, ὡμολόγησεν precedes ὅτι at a greater, or lesser distance, but in this verse of St. John does not : at all events we have in this verse an unusual repetition of őr, and they, who, like myself, are struck with the objection, which I have made to the interpretation of the second or by certe, may be justified in supposing it to be merely redundant. I leave the intelligent and candid reader to his own judgment.

P. V.

I agree with Palairet in his opposition to Mayerus, and Sraube, who would indiscriminately assign originem Chaldæo-Syram to r repeated; but it is a very different thing to say that the 70, and the writers of the New Testament, in interpreting Hebrew, or Chaldee, or Syriac words, should sometimes employ or in a different sense to what the word bore, when repeated by profane writers. See Palairet's Obss. Philol. in N. T. p. 36.

ON A VERSE OF ESCHYLUS.

WHEN I first read the tragedy of Agamemnon, I was much surprised at meeting with a passage, which, though manifestly corrupted, appears to have escaped the notice not only of preceding editors and commentators, but even of the great critic himself.

It is well known that in what is called Professor Porson's Edition of Eschylus, the faulty readings are generally marked with an obelus. The following line, however, is left un-noticed and un-altered, although the correction of it would not have been a task of difficulty to scholars of far more moderate pretensions.

At verse 518 we read, "Αλις παρὰ Σκάμανδρον ἦλθες ἀνάρσιος.

The sense of this passage is perfectly good but who does not see, after the light which Porson has afforded us, that an Iambic Trimeter, with an Anapest in the fifth place, never could have come from Eschylus? To restore it to its pristine purity, we have only to transpose άλις and ἦλθες. The verse indeed would run more smoothly, if we were to read Αλις παρὰ Σκάμανδρον ἧς ἀνάρσιος, but, as Porson has declared that transposition is the most safe and certain mode of emendation, I must adhere to my first correction.

k′

I cannot close my letter without observing, that in this Tragedy there are three examples of Mr. Sharpe's rule respecting the Greek article. See vv. 439. 688. 1588.

We also meet with an excellent one in the Choëphora, ver. 253, and with another in the Supplices, ver. 60.

H.S. BOYD.

October, 1, 1813.

HELIODORUS BORN A CHRISTIAN, AND
NOT A PAGAN.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL.

It is generally admitted that Heliodorus composed his beautiful romance in the flower of his youth, that he was made a bishop in his old age, and promoted to the see of Trica in Thessaly; but whether he was born a Christian, or from Heathenism converted to Christianity, is a question doubtful and controverted. For my own part, I have little hesitation in pronouncing him to have been a Christian from his childhood; the reasons which have induced me to form an opinion so decided, it is now my intention to lay