« PreviousContinue »
term. Our translators have considered this as so evident that, in the parallel passages in other Gospels, they have departed from their ordinary practice, and rendered it the Christ, and in this
passage, less properly, that Christ. In other places where propriety equally required the article, they have not
Of several which might be quoted, I shall mention only one example in the question put by Jesus to the Pharisees : 57 Τι υμιν δοκει
περι τ8 χρις8, which our translators render, What think ye of Christ? The word used in this manner, without any article definite or indefinite, or any other term to ascertain the meaning, must, in our idiom, be a proper name ; and, as here proposed by Jesus, can be understood no otherways by an unlearned reader than as intended for drawing forth their sentiments concerning himself. To such the question must appear identical with What think ye of Jesus ? A name of office is never used in so indistinct a manner. For example, we may say indefinitely, What think ye of a king ? or definitely, What think ye of the king ? but never, What think ye of king? unless we speak of one whose name is King. Yet an appellative may be used without an article when the name is subjoined, because this serves equally with the article to ascertain the meaning, as thus, What think ye of king Solomon ? In the place above quoted, there was therefore the strongest rea
57 Matth. xxii, 42.
son for following more closely the original, as it was evidently our Lord's purpose to draw forth their sen. timents, not concerning himself, the individual who put the question to them, and whom he knew they considered as an impostor, but, in general, concerning the quality of that Personage whom, under the title of Messiah, they themselves expected.
$ 9. One mark of distinction, therefore, whereby the title Xpisos may be discriminated from the name, is its being attended with the article. I do not mention this, however, as holding invariably, but very generally. When the word is in the vocative, by the idiom of the language, there can be no article ; in that case, therefore, we must be directed solely by the sense. Thus, in Apoontevớov juev, Xpise 58, this term must mean Messiah, as the intended ridicule is entirely founded on their ascribing that character to one in his wretched circumstances. Another exception is, when it is joined to some other title, as Χριςος Κυριος , Χριςος βασιλευς ; and sometimes, but more rarely, when construed with a pronoun, as εαν τις αυτον ομολογηση χριςον , where the sense renders the meaning indubitable. In a few places in regard to this, as well as to other terms, there is an ellipsis of the article, where the most common usage would require it. Of this oti Xp158 EGE ©, is an instance.
58 Matth. xxvi. 68. 59 Luke, ii. 11.
60 xxiii. 2. 61 John, ix. 22.
62 Mark, ix, 41. VOL. I.
I know it may be objected to the article as a criterion, that in Greek it is not unusual to prefix it to the proper names of persons. Accordingly, in naming our Lord, Inous and ó Indus are used indifferently. For this reason, I do not lay much stress on this distinction, unless it be confirmed by the connection. In the Epistles, it is plain, that the term is used familiarly as a proper name, and consequently when alone, and not appearing from the context to be emphatical, may be properly rendered as a name, whether it have the article or not. But when it imme. diately follows Inors, the article not intervening, it can hardly be interpreted otherwise. Let it be observed that, in scriptural use, when a person has two names, the article, if used at all, is prefixed to the first name, and never inserted between them, unless when some other word, as heyquevos, is added by Way of explanation. Thus it is Πορκιος Φηςος, Σεργιος Παυλος, Ιουδας Ισκαριωτης, Ποντιος Πιλατος, and Eqov Hetpos. Indeed, where a person is distinguished by adding an epithet rather than a surname, denoting the place of his birth, or of his residence, the article is constantly prefixed to the adjective. Thus it is always Μαρια η Μαγδαληνη, lite. rally Mary the Magdalene, that is, of Magdala, a city on the lake of Gennesaret; and Iησους ο Ναζαparos, Jesus the Nazarene, or of Nazareth.
When the article, therefore, is inserted between the words Inoous and Xpisos, there is reason to consider the latter as used emphatically, and pointing directly to his office. In many places in the Epistles,
perhaps in a very few in the Gospels, it may be regarded as a matter of indifference, in which of the two ways the term is translated. Thus, in the first chapter of Matthew 63, Ιησες, ο λεγομενος Χριςος, may be either, Jesus, who is called Christ, that being a surname which, when Matthew wrote, was frequently given him, or Jesus who is called (that is, accounted) Messiah. I have, in my version, preferred the second interpretation; as, in the verse immediately following, we cannot understand otherwise the words #ws T8 Xp158, with the article, and without the name Iησε prefixed. If so, ο λεγομενος xpugos is mentioned to prepare us for this application of the title. Besides, the same phrase occurs again in this Gospel “, as used by Pilate at a time when it was never applied to our Lord but by his followers, and that solely as the denomination of his office. So much for the method whereby we may discover when this word is emphatical, and when it is merely a sur
10. It is proper now to inquire, in the last place, which of the three terms, Messiah, Christ, or Anointed, is the most proper to be applied in an English version. The word Anointed is indeed an English word, and is, besides, in respect of the idea it
conveys, expressive of the etymological import of the Hebrew and Greek terms. But, notwithstanding these advantages, it is not so proper in this case for
64 xxvii, 17. 22.
being used in a version. For first, the original term had early been employed, as we have seen, without any regard to the literal signification; and, in the ordinary application of it, in our Lord's time, little or no attention seems to have been given to the circumstance of unction, which gave rise to the name.
Though the word Anointed, therefore, expresses the primitive import of the Hebrew name, it does not convey the meaning in which it was then universally understood. It was considered solely as the well-known title of an extraordinary office, to which there was nothing similar, amongst any other people. The original name, therefore, agreeably to what was concluded in a former discourses, ought to be retained. Secondly, it deserves some notice, that the word, both in Hebrew and in Greek, is a substantive, and therefore, in point of form, well adapted for a name of office, being susceptible of the same variety, in number and mode of construction with other substantives ; the 'English word Anoint. ed is a participle and indeclinable, and so far from being adapted for the name of an office, that it is grammatically no more than the attributive of some name, either expressed or understood.
§ 11. As to the other two words, Messiah and Christ, it may be thought a matter of indifference which of them should be preferred. The following are the reasons which have determined me to give the pre
65 Diss. II. P. 1. $ 5.