"litra; because it is as much as ten oboli. Some "of the more recent Athenian comic writers, as “Philemon and Posidippus, use the word litra.” It follows from this, that "litra" does not signify a pound, but two drachmæ, the eighth part of a pound, and that one hundred litra are two hundred drachmæ. The drachmæ themselves were of different quantities, but to which I cannot assign a determinate place, according to our measures; it is, perhaps, safest to calculate, according to the custom of our shops. Some litra were probably much smaller, as the Talmud litra was only one twenty-fourth part of a pound. He, who wishes to examine this more minutely should take his Talmud passages from Buxtorf, in preference to Wetstein, and by the application of mathematical and philological knowledge he will be enabled to come at very satisfactory results. But I have here digressed too much, and must reserve myself for other times.

40. Wound it in linen clothes, with the spices."] Jesus, therefore, was not, properly speaking, embalmed, for to this, incision was necessary, but merely enveloped in fragrant spices. What some commentators have said of burning incense is mere misapprehension, con

nected with much credulity, arising from a passage in the Talmud. In the old Testament, "the burning of dead bodies with incense," particularly about the time of Isaiah, is frequently mentioned, but as the Jews during the time when the Talmud was written, conceived the burning of dead bodies to be heathenish and idolatrous, they explained the corresponding passages of the old Testament, by applying them to the sole custom of burning incense. They decidedly erred in this; for the Hebrews, in the time of Isaiah, did burn their dead; and then they commit a new error, and assume the fact of incense being burnt when that of wrapping up with fragant spices is alone mentioned.

"As the manner of the Jews is to bury."] The Jewish mode of embalming is contrasted with the Egyptian, which lasted seventy days, and is described in the second book of Herodotus. The Egyptians filled the interior of the body with spices; but the Jews, who buried on the day of decease, only wrapped the body round in spices. Jacob was, however,embalmed according to Egyptian custom. Genesis 1. 2. But we know nothing of the Jewish mode of embalming, except from the passage here quoted, and from 2 Chronicles xvi. 14, which relates to the burning of the

dead with spices. The original word in John, which we translate "to bury," has been held by some to be," to prepare for burial.” I know the word will bear this extended signification, and Kypke so explains it, Mark xiv. 8. but as the passage here relates to embalming, and occurs in the Septuagint three times, in this sense I confine myself to it. In Genesis 1. 2, the Hebrew word is thus translated into Greek; in the new Testament it solely relates to embalming; and in Acts v. 6, the Greek word is different, and applies to burial only. In fact, translating" according to the manner of the Jews, when they prepare for interment” would be inconsistent, for the rich can only afford to envelope in spices, and the custom was so rare as not even to be described in the Talmud.*

An exposition of Jewish laws and commentaries, subsequent to the birth of Christ. It consists of two parts: the Mischna and the Gamara. The origin of the Mischna was about two centuries after Christ. Rabbi Jude, surnamed the Saint, made himself particularly distinguished in this collection, and it was called the second law. Its object was to adapt the existing institutions of the Jews to the Mosaic dispensation. Subsequent Rabbis, and particularly the Rabbi Jochanen occupied themselves in the illustration of the Mischna, about 230 years after Christ; this gave rise to the Gamara. The two composed

41, 42. John does not any where say, that the grave belongs to Joseph; we must conclude the contrary, from his statement, and that it was only chosen on account of its vicinity. The grave does not seem, in the first instance, to have been destined for the reception of Jesus, and Joseph would probably have taken him, if there had been time before sunset, to a greater distance, but as a rich man, he easily obtained the accommodation of placing the dead body during the sabbath in an adjoining spot. It is impossible to say, to what place he would have taken him, and what he intended to do after the sabbath, or whether he meant the body to remain, indeed no evangelist mentions it, and for a very good reason, for he could not know it. The resurrection, however, of Jesus, becomes in a degree more credible, in proportion as we adopt this explanation of it, and suppose the dead body to have been placed in a sepulchre, only selected on account of its proximity. What John mentions in these verses, are mere additions to the three first evangelists; such, for instance,

the Talmud of Jerusalem, which was afterwards modified about 500 years after Christ, and is now best known as the Talmud of Babylon. I. D.

as the fact of the grave being in a garden. If the reader of the new Testament had previously understood Matthew, according to what we now read, that Joseph had laid him in his own grave, it becomes a mild correction of a pardonable error, committed not by Matthew himself, but by his Greek translator. John furnishes us with more instances where he gently obviates the possibility of misapprehension, arising from passages in the three first evangelists, which would otherwise, without him, have been ob

scure.

"Because of the Jews' preparation day."] We should not translate this " on account of its being Friday," or as Luther has done" on account of the day of preparation of the Jews,” but "while it was yet Friday, before the sun had set, and consequently before the sabbath had commenced."