nal, as the mere interchange of the singular number for the plural, and the plural for the singular, argues neither variation in the Hebrew MSS. nor error in the translator; for where the number of a word is not a point of importance (and it might not appear to be so here) it is a matter of mere idiom, or of taste and convenience, with the translator, to render a singular noun in the plural, or vice versa.

I now come to discuss the effect, which the evangelical citations ought to have in determining the true reading of the Hebrew text. Our Saviour's words, as given by St. Matthew, are these; το βδέλυγμα της ερημώσεως εςως εν τόπω αγίω ; by St. Mark, το βδελυγμα της ερημώσεως εςος οπε 8 δει ; by St. Luke, κυκλομενην υπο ςρατοπέδων The Iεpscaling. Dr. Blaney thinks, that our Saviour did not intend to cite from Daniel any more than the two words, which signify the abomination of desolation, because he has annexed the mark of citation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, to those words; whereas, if the rest had been a part of the citation, it ought rather to have been expressed thus, when ye shall see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, or where it ought not, as spoken of, or foretold by Daniel the prophet. But it does not seem, that our Saviour on this occasion intended merely to

quote the prophecy of Daniel, but to deliver a prophecy himself, and that he cited the words of Daniel only to shew that he spake of the same subjects standing in the same place as that prophet; thus at once confirming and explaining the former prediction by his own. It mattered therefore very little in what part of the passage he inserted the note of citation. Besides, the place, where the abomination was to stand, is a most important and conspicuous point in the divine oracle. It is described to be in row aɣiw, or oπ8 & det; and the scene of the armies is Jerusalem, or its circuit. In Daniel's prediction also the place is equally important; the desolator is to appear by, upon or over the border. How then can we presume to say, that our Saviour did not intend to refer to the place pointed out by Daniel, as well as to the subjects, which, according to his prediction, were to be found there? It is highly probable, that our blessed Lord's discourse was of greater length, than what is attributed to it by the Evangelists; so that he might have occasion in the course of it to refer three times to the passage in Daniel, in such a manner as to make the latter explain the former, and that each of the three has given us his words, as they were delivered in their different places. Or it may be, that each of the

Evangelists has given us a different rendering of the same words, as in the case of the inscription on the cross; and that St. Luke especially, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, has presented us with a paraphrase, rather than a literal rendering. However this may be, it is certain, that we must not, and it would be very unfair if we did, take the expressions of any one Evangelist, as alone giving us the genuine statement of our Lord's words, but explain the one by the other, as we should be bound to do, if they occurred in the different parts of a narrative by one author; so that St. Matthew's to ẞdeλuľμa τno εpnμώσεως εςως εν 7οπω άξιω and St. Mark's ετος OT88 dt: must be made to consist with each other and with St. Luke's κυκλωμενην υπο στρατοπεδων Την Iepsoan. Now it must be confessed, that the Ιερεσαλήμ. first of these seems to accord almost to a nicety with the LXX, Theodotion, the Vulgate, and Arabic; but then it only seems so to do, because the phrase v low aЛtw, though it may, and at first sight perhaps by every one will, be supposed to mean the same thing, as e lo tepov, yet

ιερον,

in reality is not the same thing, and may admit of being extended far beyond the buildings of the temple. The whole land of Israel* was holy

* In Zechariah, ii. 12, Judea is expressly termed the holy land; and in Isaiah, lxiv. 10, its cities are called the

unto the Lord, and Jerusalem especially might well be called 7omos atos, an holy place, as it is in this very prophecy termed the holy city; and whatever took its station on its boundary or border, its, might well be said to stand in the holy place, or on holy ground, as it is rendered by Dr. Campbell*. St. Mark's ows 8 det also

holy cities of God. In like manner it is often represented as the land of God; Psalm, x. 16, lxxxv. 1, Ezekiel xxxvi. 5, xxxviii. 16, Joel, i. 6, ii. 18, iii. 2, Zechariah, ix. 16. That Jerusalem is called the holy city, the holy mountain, of God, in many passages both of the old and new testament every reader will recollect. Accordingly we are told in the Talmud and by Maimonides on the Mishna; "all the land of Israel is holy above all other lands. Ten holinesses are in the land of Israel one above another. The walled towns are holier than the rest of the land. Jerusalem is holier than the other walled cities. The mountain of God's house is holier than it." And so on till we come to the tenth holiness, the holy of holies. See the passage cited at length by Ainsworth on Numbers, v. 3.

* Translation of the Gospels, p. 96. The learned author observes, that, "with us the holy place invariably denotes the sanctuary, or the outer part of the vaos, or temple, strictly so called. This is not the meaning here; neither is TOTOç ayos the name by which the sanctuary is ever distinguished in the new testament. It is called simply, το αγιον, Οι η σκηνη πρώτη, Οι αγια ; the inner part of the house, or most holy place, being distinguished by the appellation η σκηνη δευτερα, or αγια αγιων. Τοπος αγιος therefore denotes any place, which comparatively may be denominated holy. The whole temple, To Lεpov, including all the courts, is twice so termed in the acts. Nay the whole city Jerusalem, with its suburbs and environs, was holy, compared with other cities; and such also was the whole land of Judea, compared with other countries. Besides, it deserves to be remarked, that the expression here is indefinite,

may well be intended to describe the same circuit, though it may equally be made to consist with a more extensive or a more contracted interpretation of the holy place. Both these Evangelists then leave the matter still sub judice. Let us try if the gospel of St. Luke will not enable us to decide it with greater certainty. Our blessed Saviour there expresses himself in proper terms, explaining, that what he meant by the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, or where it ought not, was nothing but Jerusalem compassed by armies. Jerusalem then encompassed by armies, or rather the compass, the border, of Jerusalem in the occupation of armies, is the towos altos of Matthew and the ows 8 de! of Mark. But Jerusalem surrounded by hostile forces, or its border in the occupation of such forces, is certainly not the same thing as the temple in their possession, or as their standing in the temple, but something very different; as different as the exterior compass of a city, taken at some distance from its walls, is from a particular building within those walls. The three citations therefore of this passage of Daniel by our Lord

as it wants the article, and is therefore more justly, as it is more literally, rendered by Scott, a holy place, than in the common version. The place, or ground, here called holy, is undoubtedly the environs of Jerusalem." Notes on St. Matthew, p. 442.

D