صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

Here again the critical sagacity of Griesbach led him to the true reading, which he established with his usual ability in the Symbolæ Criticæ, and subsequently in the note to the passage in the second edition of his Greek Testament. Abused as he was by Dr. Hales and others, he adhered to his first judgment, with the consciousness of having truth on his side. It mattered not that Dr. John Jones "engaged to show his incompetence as a critic and his want of fidelity as a collator of the ancient copies;" that he pronounced the new reading “neither good sense nor good Greek;" it was impossible to stop the progress of sound criticism by unfounded assertions or pointed suspicions. We ourselves can remember some of the combats waged over the word; the republication of Sir Isaac Newton's observations upon it, and the rejoinder it called forth under the title, "Sir Isaac Newton and the Socinians foiled in the attempt to prove a corruption in the text, 1 Timothy iii. 16." Happily this kind of warfare is also past. When orthodoxy and heterodoxy come into close collision, calm reasoning necessarily

suffers.

Other passages have now been eliminated from the genuine text, such as John vii. 53—viii. 11, containing the story of the woman taken in adultery; John v. 3, 4, about the angel troubling the pool; the doxology of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew vi. 13; the three clauses of the same prayer in Luke xi. 2-4, viz., "who art in heaven," "thy will be done as in heaven so in earth," "but deliver us from evil;" the statement of Philip to the eunuch and the latter's confession of faith before baptism in Acts viii. 37. These will return no more to form an integral part of any critical text. Others are scarcely settled as yet, as Mark xvi. 9—20, though general opinion inclines to the rejection of this passage; and Von Tischendorf asserts that it was not written by Mark, after giving the evidence for and against it fully. But as Irenæus already knew it, the opponents of its authenticity admit that it was an early appendix to the gospel. They hold it to be canonical, i.e., pronounced such by the authority of the universal Church. Not only so, but

orthodox impugners of the passage call it " genuine and inspired, an addition that ought as much to be received as part of our second gospel, as the last part of Deuteronomy is received as the right and proper conclusion of the books of Moses;" and say that it "has ever been regarded as possessing the same canonical authority with the three gospels." If this language be taken in its natural sense, the section has the same authority and value as the rest of the gospel, though it was not written by Mark. But was the whole gospel with this exception written by that evangelist? Are we not as much in the dark about its authorship, as far as the present character and form of the gospel are concerned, as we are about the section in question? The appendix has been called "inspired," which is explained as meaning "the Holy Ghost was its author; " but there is no evidence that "the Book of Mark," with or without the section, was received as authoritative by the Apostolic Church."

As to the text, Acts xx. 28, "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood," it may be considered all but settled among Biblical critics that the reading "feed the church of the Lord" is the original one. It is not indeed in the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS.; yet other considerations outweigh these valuable authorities. "The blood of God" could hardly have emanated from the author of the Acts, much less from Paul himself; though it would not have created surprise at a later time of the Church. Von Tischendorf's note on the diversities of reading here is an excellent example of critical fulness and fairness, contrasting very favourably with the reasonings of Dean Alford in his Greek Testament, which are weak and perverted. The reading "church of God" (rov Oso) is rejected not only by Lachmann and Tischendorf, but by De Wette and Meyer. Those who adduce Pauline usage in favour of the received reading ignore circumstances which blunt the force of their reasoning; for example, that the genitive God is

applied to the Father not to the Son, in the authentic Pauline epistles; that a literal reproduction of the apostle's language in his address to the Ephesian elders is highly improbable; and that the phraseology of the writer of Acts is by no means identical with the apostle's, as indeed it could hardly be when the important interval between the latest of Paul's epistles and the composition of the Acts is considered. Hence an appeal to the absence of such words as "church of the Lord" in the writings of Paul or his contemporaries, is out of place. Though the author of the Acts was a Paulinist and employed the language of the master, the speeches exhibit distinctive peculiarities of thought and diction. His object in writing and the time when he lived affected both phraseology and ideas. The phrase churches of Christ' occurs in the epistle to the Romans (xvi. 16); "church of the Lord" may therefore be appropriate in the Acts; especially as the word Lord had been often applied to Christ in the Pauline epistles.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The clear judgment of Griebach fixed upon Kuρíov. Even after the Vatican reading Oɛou was known, Lachmann decided as Griesbach had done. Still more, when the testimony of the Sinaitic was added to that of the Vatican MS., Von Tischendorf declined to follow the weighty evidence, because other considerations pointed in a different direction. It may be conjectured that the motive which altered ôç into Oεòç in 1 Timothy iii. 16, along with the known Pauline usage of ἐκκλησία τοῦ Θεοῦ, led to the change of κυρίου into Oɛou; the context being insufficiently attended to. reading, however, is theologically unimportant, since the title God may have been applied to Christ by the author of the Acts; though he could scarcely have associated blood with God, as the common reading does.

The

It has been often remarked that our English translators were negligent in their treatment of the article, inserting or omitting its English equivalent arbitrarily. Yet it is important to observe and mark its use. We do not suppose that the sacred writers employed it according to definite

rules, or with the precision of Attic Greeks. They had regard to perspicuity and distinctness. In other cases they were influenced by prevailing habit or their own pleasure. But whatever may be their usage, it is desirable to reproduce it in English, as far as the idioms of the two languages will allow, and the exact sense requires. The importance of the article might be illustrated by the use made of it by Mr. Sharp, whose positions, as explained by Bishop Middleton, have been supposed to be settled. The rules in question affect the doctrine of Christ's divinity, which the article employed in certain ways with Θεός, κύριος, δεσπότης is thought to imply, and therefore the received version has been altered. But it is undesirable to enter upon such a topic here. Strivings about words and grammatical subtleties are not the best weapons in defending cardinal doctrines. And the observations of Mr. Winstanley, with the best critical readings, have shaken the positions laid down by Mr. Sharp, though the latter were held by respectable scholars like Mr. Rose. Theological, should be kept apart from linguistic, considerations. Believing that the translators were generally right, we have followed them in the passages in question, such as Titus ii. 13, where they do not render "that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ," as Middleton recommends, but, "the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." A comma after the " "great God" makes all plain, and this we have put, as it is in the edition of 1611.

The translators of the received version are often incorrect in regard to the article, as in Romans xii. 19," the wrath," a phrase distinctive and often used in the New Testament; John vii. 51, "judge the man." In these and a multitude of other instances the article was not rendered. In other cases it has been inserted without authority from the original, as in Acts xvii. 23, "to the unknown God" instead of "an unknown God;" Philemon 9, "Paul the aged" for "Paul, an aged man." The expression ó viòç TO ɛou or viòs TOU Oɛou is difficult, because much depends on the speaker

who uses it. In some places we must translate "the Son of God" even where viòs wants the article; but this does not apply to the majority of examples, such as Matthew xxvii. 54, where we translate "This was a Son of God" or "God's Son;" nor to Matthew iv. 3, "if thou art God's Son." The article with vóuoç, law, in the epistles to the Romans and Galatians especially, requires much attention because its presence or absence indicates what is meant by the term; either law generally, every revelation forming a rule of life; or the Mosaic law in particular. Where the latter is the meaning, the article is mostly prefixed; where the former, it is usually absent. But the exceptions are not few. Thus in Romans iii. 19, 20, "We know that what things soever the law says, it speaks to them who are in the law: that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God. Because by works of law shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for through law comes a full knowledge of sin." Meyer does not adequately explain the last verse, because it refers to abstract law. So too Galatians iii. 10, "As many as are of works of law are under a curse; for it is written, Cursed is every one that continues. not in all the things written in the book of the law to do them."

In some cases a decision as to the proper rendering of a substantive without the article may be somewhat doubtful, as in the case of Hebrews i. 3, where we are inclined to put "an effulgence of the glory and express image of his substance," and similarly in Colossians i. 15, "an image of the invisible God," etc., notwithstanding Middleton's rule about the substantive verb necessarily causing the omission of the Greek article in the predicate; a rule which is violated in Matthew xvi. 16 and in xxvii. 11. The sense is not materially affected whether the indefinite or definite article be used in these examples, for the former need not imply a plurality.

We have endeavoured to follow the tenses as nearly as possible, even where the literal rendering of them appears somewhat awkward in English. They are a part of the

d

« السابقةمتابعة »