Publisher's Synopsis
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1899 edition. Excerpt: ...of the Law; and Driver (on Deut. xxv. 4) says that it is "another example of the humanity which is characteristic of Dt." Cf. Exod. xx. 10, xxiii. 12; Prov. xii. 10. Oxen still, as a rule, thresh unmuzzled in the East. Conder says that exceptions are rare. Near Jericho, Robinson saw the oxen of Christians muzzled, while those belonging to Mahometans were not. Driver quotes these and other instances. Cf. 2 Sam. xxiv. 22; Isa. xxviii. 27 f.; Mic. iv. 12 f. Elsewhere (De Spec. Leg.) Philo says, ov yap xnrip aXoyiov 6 vop.o%, aXa rutv Ovovriav. It is not easy to decide between fyntlxreu (K A B8 C Ds E K L P) and xriiuixttLS (B D FG). There is the same difference of reading 1 Tim. v. 18, but there tptfttitrtis is unquestionably right, as in LXX of Deut. xxv. 4. How could KT/ifjLoxreis be so well attested, if it were not original? If it were original it would readily be corrected to the LXX, esp. as KtiiUu is rare: K-qntn is found in LXX (Ps. xxxi. 9; Ezek. xix. 4, 9), but not Kt)h6w. Here Chrys. and Thdrt. support irij/xuxreis. 10. (if) iw Poilf fiAi TM 6ew; 'Do you suppose that it is for the oxen that God cares?' St Paul does not mean that God has no care for the brutes (Ps. civ. 14, 21, 27, cxlv. 9, 15; Matt. vi. 26, x. 30). Nor does he mean that in forbidding the muzzling, God was not thinking of the oxen at all. He means that the prohibition had a higher significance, in comparison with which the literal purport of it was of small moment. Jewish interpreters sometimes abandoned the literal meaning of Scripture, and turned it entirely into allegory. They not merely allegorized the words, but said that the literal meaning was untrue. In some cases they urged that the literal meaning was incredible, and that therefore the...
