But this does not militate against my observation, and is to be explained upon the same principle, as the passage above from Aristophanes, Pac. v. 421. Again, we have in Aristophanes, Nub. v. 1375. ὡς ἐκίνει

ἀδελφὸς, ὦ 'λεξίκακε, τὴν ὁμομητρίαν ἀδελφήν,

where the Schol. says, εἶτα εὐφυῶς ἐσχετλίασεν ἐπάγων τὸν ἀλεξίκακον, του τέστιν, ἀποτοραῖε, καὶ ἢ τὰ δεινὰ ἀπείργων, ἴδιον γὰρ Ηρακλέους τὸ ἐπίθετον. Hofmann in the Lexicon Universale Lug. Bat. 1698. says. 6. Dii des pellentes Persio at. vi. v. 167. Harpocrat. απο ομπαίοι τινὲς ἐκαλοῦντο θεοί, περὶ ὧν Απολλόδωρος ἐν ἕκτῳ περὶ θεῶν διείλεκται præter Herculem vero et Apollinem, Dioscuros etiam, et Jovem omnium principem, in hoc averruncorum deorum censu reperimus, unde natum verbum elegans ἀποδιοπομπείσθαι, i. e. ἀποτρέπεσθαι διὰ τοῦ ἀποπομπαίου Διός, vide Sam. Bochart. Hieroz. seu de Animal. S. S. Pt. I. Lib. I. c. liv.; et quidem Jovi huic ἀποτροπαίῳ, seu Φυξίῳ Græcos, post victoriam reportatam, simulachrum olim statuamque consecrasse habes infra, ubi de Victore in Ludis Olympicis, it. v. Victoria." But Hofmann might have spared the last remark, as it relates to Jupiter Pigs, and not to Jupiter ἀποτροπαῖος, i e. ἀλεξίκακος.

V. 18. ότλον. “Οτλος,” says Mr. B., " labor, μόχθος, Hesych. unde ὀτλέω et ὀτλεύω, ita Grammatici, equidem suspicor ὄτλος ab οτλάω profluxisse, quod pro τλάω dicebant, prosthesi τοῦ δ, de qua dixi ad Prom. v. 191. vid. Arnald. L. G. p. 158. Sophocl. Trach. 7. et Schol." If Mr. B. had peeped into Eustathius, he might have been spared the trouble of suspecting. Ρ. 218. 1. 18. Τοῦ δὲ μόργω καὶ μόργνυμι, κοινότε ρον ἐκ πλεονασμοῦ τοῦ ὁ παρὰ τοῖς μεθ' Ομηρον, τὸ ὀμόργω καὶ ὀμόργνυμι, ὡς δὲ πλεονάζει τὸ ὁ ἐν πολλοῖς, οὐκ ἄδηλον, οὕτω γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ νύσσω νύξω, ὁ ὄνυξ, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ τλῶ, ὅτλος ἡ κακοπάθεια, καὶ ὀδύνη παρὰ τὸ δύνω· εὑρίσκεται δὲ καὶ τὸ ὀδύρεσθαι δύρεσθαι, εὕρηται δὲ καὶ ὁ Ὀβριαρέως καθ' ὅμοιον πλεονασμὸν, δοκεῖ δέ τισι τοιοῦτον εἶναι καὶ τὸ Ἰλεὺς Οἵλεὺς, καὶ τὸ ὀδάξ, ὅ ἐστι δηκτικῶς ἡ εἰ δέ τῷ δόξεις ταυτὸν εἶναι εἰπεῖν ἐμίργειν καὶ ἀμέργειν, ἔχεται λόγου καὶ αὐτό· οὕτω γὰρ τὰς ἀσταφίδας, καὶ ὀσταφίδας φαμέν, καὶ τὸν ἀστακὸν ὀστακόν, Again in p. 1148. 1. 52. Διὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ θῶ, θὸς ὁ πάντα τιθεὶς καὶ ποιῶν [so Herodotus too derives the word, as I have before shown] καὶ ἐνθέσει τοῦ ὲ θεὸς, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ῥηθέντος δὲ τλῶ τλὸς, καὶ προσθήκει τοῦ ὁ ὄτλος, ὁ δηλοῖ τλῆσιν καὶ κακοπάθειαν, Again in p. 1575. 1. 53. ὥσπερ δηλαδὴ καὶ ἀπὸ ποῦ θῶ γίνεται θὸς καὶ πλεονασμῷ τοῦ ἑ διὰ τὴν αὐτὴν αἰτίαν θεὸς, οὕτω δὲ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ τλῶ τλὸς καὶ ὄτλος, ἤτοι πόνος, μόχθος. See Hesych. Phot. and Zonara Lexica. (Tittmann says on Photius, “ ν. ὀπλείν non semel usus est Apollonius, item Lycophr. 819. ἐτλεύειν Apollon. nr. 1010.”) Damm follows Eustathius (with whom Mr. Blomfield also accords, as we have seen), -consult him in pp. 634. b. 2290. b.

σε

ν. 32. θωρακεία. 66 • Θωρακείον,” says Mr. Blomfield, “ propugnaculum ad altitudinem pectoris exstructum, Anglice, a breastwork, perspicue, ut solent, interpretes, thoracea, Hesych. et Εtym. Μ. θώραξ, ο πύργος, unde alia nascitur explicatio.” Mr. B. might have spared his sneer at the "interpretes," for 1. he has not told us how he could translate the Greek in one Latin word, and 2. the "interpretes"

66

themselves could have no doubt about the general meaning of the passage at least: the Schol. Α. θωρακεῖα, τὰ τέχη, διὰ τὸ τὴν πόλιν ὡς θώρακα ἔχειν αὐτά, Schol. B. γεμίζετε ἑαυτῶν τὰς ἐπάλξεις, Schutz. “ Θωρα xia hic sunt propugnacula, sc. loca in muris, ubi milites post pinnas stabant." But the following passages may make it doubtful whether Mr. B. be right in his notion. Zonaras, aganov, Tò Teixos — Owganio65, προμαχῶσι, δρυφάκτοις ἢ λωρικίοις, μέχρι μέν τινος ὑποπτηχότες τοῖς θωρακίοις gou, where Tittmann says, Locus, quod non animadversum Kustero, desumtus est ex Josepho De B. J. L. v. c. vii. 4. ubi legitur ὑποπεπτηχότες, quæ loquendi ratio familiaris Josepho, θωράκια ibi eadem sunt, quæ Polybio vin. vi. 4. cf. Joseph. B. J. 11. xvii. 7. v. iv. 3." Tittmann also refers us to Wesseling's Diodorus Siculus, în Vol. 1. p. 682. 1. 29. Speaking of the besieged, Diodorus says, và μὲν πρῶτον ἐκ τῶν μεγίστων ἱστῶν κεραίαις ἱσταμέναις εβάσταζον ἄνδρας ἐν θωρα πίοις, οὗτοι δ ̓ ἀφ ̓ ὑψηλῶν τόπων δᾄδας ἡμμένας ἠφίεσαν και στυππεία καιόμενο μετὰ πίττης εἰς τὰς τῶν πολεμίων μηχανάς : where Wesseling has these words: "Vertitur milites loricatos, credo tabulati fuisse genus, quod ex antennis suspensum milites, qui hostium machinas succenderent, contineret: pluteum vocat Vitruvius, L. x. xxi. quæ enim ap. Athenæum de Machin. p. 6. ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ ἐπικεφάλου καὶ τῆς κριοδόχης πήγνυται θωράκιον, ὥστε ἐν αὐτῷ ἀσφαλέστατα δύνασθαι ἑστάναι τοὺς ἐποπτεύοντας, ea Latine expressit, Supra caput eorum, quæ continebant arietem, collocatum erat pluteum, turriculæ similitudine ornatum, uti sine periculo duo milites tuto stantes prospicere possent: simile quiddam spectavit Auc tor L. xvII. xliv. de Tyriis, qui corvis ferreisque manibus éviętačov τοὺς τοῖς θωρακίοις ἐφεστῶτας, i. e. in pluteis aut propugnaculis stantes : aliud Alianus de Anim. L. xi. ix. elephantem ἐπὶ τοῦ καλουμένου Owganion tres bellatores ferre posse prodens: intelligit turriculæ id genus, e quo, bellum tergo imposito, dextra sinistraque milites tela spargebant." H. Stephens says in the Thes. L. G. T. 1. p. 1634. "Quemadmodum lorica testacea Vitruvio dicitur id quod parietes ab aqua pluviali tuetur, ita gázov etiam accipi tradit Budæus, idem significare scribens quod στέγασμα, προβολή, πρόβλημα, θριγκός: θωρά xo (inquit Turneb. Adv. L. xxIII. c. xxxii.), pluteum, quod solent et Latini etiam loriculam ad verbum appellare." Thus Gesner in the Thes. L. L. "Loricula in re militari significat munimentum quod obsessores urbium construunt; nam ultra jactum teli fossam faciunt, eamque vallo, sudibus, et turriculis instruunt ut erumpentibus e civitate possint obsistere, quod opus loriculam vocant, et sæpe

obsidio describitur, invenitur in historiis, loricula urbem esse circumdatam: hæc Vegetius de Re Milit. iv. 28. Cæs. B. G. viii. 9. Turres crebras excitari in altitudinem trium tabulatorum pontibus trajectis, consiratisque conjungi, quarum frontes viminea loricula punirentur, ut hostis a duplici propugnatorum ordine depelleretur." Under lorica Gesner says, "Curt. ix. 4. Augusta muri corona erat, non pinnæ, ut alibi, fastigium ejus distinxerant, sed perpetua lorica obducta transitum sepserat, itaque rex hærebat magis, quam stabat in margine, clypeo undique incidentia tela propulsans, hic lorica videtur tenuis murus ad pectoris altitudinem in ipsis mœnibus, sc. crassioribus muris excitatus post quem tutius stant propugnatores [this

observation throws very great light on the passage of Æschylus, and illustrates Mi. Blomfield's interpretation. Under pinna Gesner has further elucidated the passage of Curtius, "Quod negat pinnis distinctum fastigium muri, illud videtur docere pinnas sua sibi intervalla et lacunas habuisse, per quas vel tormentis, vel quacunque alia molitione in hostem dejicere tela quæcunque liceret, quale quid hodieque in antiquorum monium aut arcium coronis videmus.";] de hoc Cæs. B. G. 5, 39. "Turres contabulantur, pinne loricaque ex cratibus attexuntur, vid. Lips. Poliorcet. 2, 2. Stewech. ad Veget. p. 275." Photius also has, θωρακείοις, προμαχοῖς, ἢ δρυφάκτοις λουρικίοις, et Θώραξ, Túgyes-x. T. λ. also in Hesychius. From what has been said we may conclude with H. Stephens, "Sæpe loca aliqua, ceu thorace, sive lorica, muniuntur, et ab injuria, quæ extrinsecus accidere possit, defenduntur, ita ut @wędzie generaliter pro quovis munimento accipiatur.” Hatton, Aug. 26, 1813. EDMUND HENRY BARKER.

BIBLICAL CRITICISM.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL.

YOUR able and pleasing Correspondent, M., in your last Number, has the following observations on "the celebrated verse, (1 John v. 7.) relating to the heavenly witnesses." "I think," says he, it will be conceded, that the verse is spurious: that it. was interpolated by some injudicious friend to the Trinitarian cause and that it consequently should be expunged from all future editions both of the Greek text, and of our version: indeed, I have no doubt that, whenever our version shall be revised by authority, it will be done." He proceeds to argue, "If this be allowed, &c. &c." But "this I CANNOT allow." I cannot concede the verse to be so clearly "spurious," that we may venture on the "expunction of it." I say this, in some degree, on the authority of your own pages. I allude to a Biblical Criticism ON THE THREE WITNESSES, p. 869. of your first Volume. Your Correspondent M., I am confident, will readily admit my referring him to this interesting paper. It is there well argued, that "if verse 7. did not precede, the first words of verse 8, instead of καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυτοῦντες, would have been καὶ τρία εἰσὶ τὰ μαρτυροῦντα :” and the learned writer well observes, that "the turn of the language, as well as the nature of the witnesses, (i. e. in verse 8.) would require the use of the neuter gender, &c." But it is farther to be observed that the Apostle, in a preceding verse, has thus conformed to the requisite grammatical accuracy. At verse 6. he actually writes, (not, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ἐστιν ὁ μαρτυρῶν, but) καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ἐστι ΤΟ ΜΑΡΤΥPOTN. Here, I think, is positive proof of something having preceded ver. 8, to justify the change of gender. This materially,

in my opinion, corroborates the Biblical Criticism of the respectable COUNTRY-PARISH-PRIEST; and goes near to furnish positive internal evidence of the authenticity of the questioned verse. But it has been said by a most acute, learned, and respectable writer, that the controverted verse is one," which no ancient Greek manuscript contains, and which no ancient Greek Father ever saw." Marsh's LECTURES, Part ii. L. IX. p. 55. I submit, however, to the learned Professor, and to your readers in general, the following extract from a letter in the GENTLEMAN'S MAGAZINE, for May, 1805. "As one strong argument against the authenticity of the verse, (1 John v. 7.) has always been the supposed total absence of all ancient Greek authority in support of it, the curiosity of some of your literary readers may, perhaps, be gratified by the production of two passages, which seem to have escaped observation. And first, for the latest of them! This is from Suidas, in voce tapos, Vol. 1. p. 593. Ed. Kust. Diodorus was a monk, and bishop of Tarsus in the times of Julian and Valens; and is spoken of by Socrates, Hist. Eccles. lib. vI. c. 8. as a considerable and respectable writer. He wrote commentaries upon several parts of Scripture; among others, "is tùv étiotóany Ιωαννοῦ τοῦ Εὐαγγελιστοῦ· περὶ τοῦ, εἷς Θεὸς ἐν τρίαδι.” He may probably be referred to about the year 380.

The other is from the exλóyas of Clement of Alexandria, and at least as ancient as the close of the second century: and if, as I think there is some reason to suspect, but which I have not here the opportunity of tracing, this tract was written by Pantænus his preceptor, must be somewhat earlier. It will be found in the Leyden edition of 1616, which is the only one at hand, p, 575,1 first volume: “ πᾶν ῥῆμα ἵσταται ἐπὶ δύο καὶ τριῶν μαρτυρῶν, ἐπὶ πατρὸς, καὶ υἱοῦ, καὶ ἁγιοῦ πνεύματος ἐφ ̓ ὧν μαρτυρῶν καὶ βοηθῶν αἱ ἐντολαι λεγόμεναι φυλάσσεσθαι οφείλουσιν.”

On all these grounds, I protest against the proposed "expunction of the verse ;" and, with Mr. C. Butler (HOR. BIB. Vol. 11. p. 288.) would plead for "further investigation" not discarding the hope, which he seems to cherish, that, under patient examination, some MSS. may yet be found to ESTABLISH this important text; for the authenticity of which there is, even now, so much to offer. Aug. 7. 1813. A COUNTRY-CLERGYMAN.

But

1 Lardner, (Vol. IV. 493.,) in his account of Diodorus Bishop of Tarsus, from Suidas, has chosen to stop short after the word Eyyth. It may be said, he considered the Tepi T, Ts Ed; iv Tpiadi, not as a description of St, Jolin's Epistle, but as the subject of a separate commentary, or tract. This might be so. in noticing his commentary on the difference between theory and allegory" which is placed next after that on the Book of Proverbs, he well argues, it might therefore have been a dissertation subjoined to it." Now the same sup position is no less obvious in this case; and it would involve the conclusion above inferred, that Diodorus HAD SEN a copy of St. John's first Epistle, which contained the 7th verse of Chapter v.

2 Ed. Potter. Vol. ii. p. 992. S. xiii.

In submitting the following pages to the consideration of those

who are skilled in the Hebrew language, the author is sensible that he runs no small risk of being deemed presumptuous.

If, however, what he now, with great deference, offers, shall prompt others, better versed in the subject, to investigate again that which has not as yet been investigated as far as evidence seems to conduct the inquirer, or to bring forward that knowledge which hitherto has lain, hid, he may perhaps be the cause of the good that others may do, though he himself may have been less successful.

The object is to ascertain the power of the sixteenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, Oin, as it is called by some, and Ain or Gnain by others, by such evidence, if such may be found, as may afford some criterion how the Jews themselves pronounced it in the purer ages of Hebrew learning.

2

Concerning the pronunciation of the letter y there are two opinions. One calls it Oin, and gives to it the power of O. The other calls it Gnain, and says, the sound of is various: some sound it in the beginning of a word like gn, gnain; ngn in the middle as nangnar, and ng at the end as ruang.'

The reader is thus early informed that the treatise now offered to his consideration does not enter into any argument respecting the origin of the Masoretic points. If he wishes for information respecting them, and the weapons by which they have been attacked and defended, he may find the controversy very fully stated in Dean Prideaux's Connexion. Without presuming to

See Parkhurst's Hebrew Lexicon-Alphabet at the beginning. The reader will understand that the edition of 1792 is that quoted.

2 See Terry's Grammar-Alphabet at the beginning. This Grammar was printed for Terry in Paternoster Row. It is particularly adapted to Bythner's Lyra Prophetica,' and, as it states at the beginning, has met with the approba tion of some of the best Hebraians of the age. Who was the compiler of this Grammar does not appear; it is quoted as Terry's Grammar for the reason just now assigned.

3 Part VII. Book 5. Page 506. VOL. VIII. Cl. JI.