tion of Jesus. But this will not benefit ush ere, Clopas and Cleopas are undoubtedly distinct names, and more so in Greek than with us; independently however of the one having an e, and of the o in the one being short, in the other long, and of the Greek origin of the one name, and of the Oriental origin of the other, I was at one time induced to think there might have been a mistake in the transcripts of the manuscripts, arising partly from the habits of the ancient Greek writers, partly from the erasure of a letter. But this opinion I have abandoned, and I consider this Cleopas to be a distinct person from the one mentioned in John. My

reasons are

1. No one single manuscript confirms my first supposition, of Clopas being the right reading in Luke. Some have Cleophas with a long sounding o, but this is again another various reading, and an almost evident error from the mixture of two various readings.

2. If Luke spoke of Cleophas or Alphæus, he would have given him the latter name, as in Luke vi. 15, and in Acts i. 13, and not have given him a name which occurs for the first time in John, and subsequently, of course, to the time of Luke's writing.

3. It is singular, if Alphæus speaks, he should not say one word of his own wife having been at the sepulchre, and having found it empty. I understand, therefore, by this passage, a disciple of Jesus, known to us only under his Greek name of Cleopas.

"Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem?"] He sees the unknown pilgrim as a stranger who was come to Jerusalem to attend the passover. 19. " Mighty in deed and word."] The one refers to his miracles, the other to his energetic and penetrating exhortations. There is a similar expression of Moses (Acts vii. 22,) but the word "deeds" there, are deeds performed by great human exertions.

Before God."] Namely a prophet, who served God. It is the same as in Hebrew, standing and walking before God. He served God as a prophet, and was recognized as a prophet by all the people.

21. “ But we trusted that it should have been he which should have redeemed Israel."] A melancholy expression, for it appears as if their whole hope vanished with it. As the disciples in general expected a temporal kingdom from the Messiah, and a deliverance from the Roman yoke, we can consider the expression in the

mouth of Cleopas, " the Redemption of Israel," as leading only to this feeling. A very singular various reading occurs in the Wolfenbüttel manuscript, which deserves some inquiry, viz. " we hope he will redeem Israel; " that is, we do not cease hoping, and for that reason we are conversing with one another, whether the intelligence of the resurrection is true, and whether there are yet any hopes. The subsequent reproach of tardiness of belief is not at all inconsistent with this explanation, for they still doubt. But it is too uncertain to take a reading, which so much alters the sense, upon the credit of a single manuscript. It deserves more investigation, and a more copious collation of other manuscripts.

66

To day is the third day."] Cleopas must have said something to the stranger why the third day was so remarkable, but which Luke omits as obvious to his readers.

23. Luke was not aware that some women at least (Mary Magdalene to a certainty) had seen Jesus, and therefore Cleopas does not mention it.

24. Here is an evident allusion to John and Peter. It has already been shown that Peter

was not one of the disciples going to Emmaus, as he is not mentioned to have been present and to have been an eye-witness.

25. "Slow of heart."] This mode of speaking may comprehend two things,-slow of percep tion, or slow of belief. In Hebrew the effect is the same; I prefer the latter meaning.

“To believe all that the prophets have spoken.”] That is, "You ought to have known from the prophets, that Christ was to die, and that, before he saw corruption, he was to rise again. (Psalms xvi. 10.) And as the prophets uniformly agree in this, as the prophecy is fulfilled, and as those whom you know, and in whom you have confidence, have told you that Jesus is risen, namely the same Jesus whom you believe to be the Christ, why do you now hesitate to believe?"

27. “ And beginning at Moses, and all the prophets."] Every one understands this in but one, and its plain meaning. Jesus, probably, explained only from Moses the sacrifices and the types which related to himself; for though the prophecies relate to him generally, as being of the seed of Abraham, the Shiloh that was to appear, and the great prophet, yet those of Moses say nothing of his sufferings and of his

death, and yet to these last would the explanation chiefly refer.

28. Some have questioned the morality of this ostensible inclination to proceed further, but which, after all, rests upon our confounding two distinct things, namely, the speaking of an untruth, which is unjust, and our silence, or suppression of truth, which is neither forbid in morality nor in the bible. This is a question, however, more for casuists.

If Jesus had said, "I shall not remain here to-night, I shall go further," but which Luke has not stated, still it would not have been untrue, for he did not remain all night at Emmaus.

29. Wetstein has explained the passage, "for it is towards evening, and the day is far spent." All this appears to have taken place between three and five o'clock in the afternoon, according to our mode of reckoning. The time is what we should call vespers, and the sun is low in the horizon. Whether they sat down to table immediately on their arrival at Emmaus, or waited for the preparation of their food, cannot be inferred from the silence of the evangelist; in general, the chief meal of the Romans was about three or four o'clock. In southern