Page images
PDF
EPUB

"In the beginning was:" The original, when not connected with some circumstance limiting it to time, is expressive of preceding eternity. The version calls to its aid sundry passages, wherein some special period of time is obvious: as-"Jesus knew from the beginning who they were which believed not; "* and "Know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, &c." In these and in the like places, the subject is not spoken of absolutely, but with relation to a determinate period. It is not so in the text.

"And the word was with God." The Gnosticks acknowledged the word to be an Æon or inferior god, to which the clause is in opposition. But what says the version? It translates---" was a god." There is no passage, which justifies the calling of Christ "a god." Believers in his divinity, conceive of this as belonging to him derivatively, from the Father; but they do not call him, absolutely and of himself, as he is here called by the version. It is to no purpose, to introduce what the Almighty said to Moses" I have made thee a god to Pharaoh;" and to earthly princes..." I have said, ye are gods." The circumstances show accommodation to cases, in which the divine speaker expresses himself hyperbolically, concerning his own authority delegated for a time, and with reference to certain ends. But in the case in hand, there was designed to be a delineation of the essential properties of the character, introduced as the subject of an ensuing history.

though to contradict it, as to introduce the term "Logos," and found his positions on the use of it; there should be noticed, that even in the Jewish theology, there was a personification of the word of God. However slender the ground may be, on which to affirm a connexion between preexistent godhead and a manifestation in the flesh; yet it may have been sufficient reason, where this point was to be sustained, to adopt received language; in order to show its analogy to the doctrine.

* John vi. 64. Ps. lxxxii. 6.

[blocks in formation]

Sometimes, although not in the version under notice, stress is laid on the circumstance, that the Greek of the word "God" is without the article. But this is a needless refinement; because the same word is without the article, where no doubt can be entertained, that the Divine Being is intended. An instance occurs not far below, in the second verse of the third chapter of this gospel-" We know that thou art a teacher come from God." So in Acts, v. 29.-"We ought to obey God, rather than man:' and in Heb. iii. 4.-"He that built all things, is God." Many instances might be given. And it is agreeable to the genius of the Greek language, that when the auxiliary verb connects two substantives, of which the subject spoken of has the article, it does not accompany the other.

[ocr errors]

"The same was in the beginning, with God." The Gnosticks had so disjoined their ons from the great Creator of heaven and earth, that the evangelist seems to have perceived a use in repeating the sentiment of the preexistence of the Son with the Father, from eternity.

"All things were made by him." This is one of the most pointed contradictions to the Gnosticks; in their affirming, that the world was made by a being malevolent and inferiour to the Supreme.

Were made:" Here comes in one of the most extraordinary criticisms of the version; which says, that the Greek word never signifies to create. It will be here contended, that this is not so; and that if it were so, it would be nothing to the purpose. It is not so: for instance-" The first man, Adam, was made a living_soul:"-being made in the likeness of men: "Were not made of the things which do appear:"**"Madeft after the similitude of men:"+"Made to be taken and destroyed. {}

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

The "Seventy" will not be supposed to have been deficient in Greek literature. Now these, in their celebrated translation, use the verb in question, in the very place where it is the most natural to expect it: that is, in the first chapter of Genesis-“God said, let there be light, and there wast light:‡" "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters:" and "Let there be¶ lights in the firmament of heaven."**

But were the fact as stated by the version, it would be nothing to the purpose. The word "made" must have been put into the text, to accommodate to the English idiom. Had the Improvers been content with omitting it, the sense would not have been the less hostile to their theory: for it would then have stood-"All things were by him; and without him, was not any thing that was." But from this the attention is diverted, by the substitution of the word "done." It is contrary to propriety; as is made manifest by the circumstance, that when the Improvers have reached the tenth verse-"The world was made by him," the said word "done" met them in all the fulness of its incongruity, and they abandoned it. Why did they not resort to their own explanation of the Greek 'word; leaving out both "make," and "done,” and translating-"The world was by him?" The reason is evident: There would still have been recognized the preexistence and the creative energy of Christ. No resource was left, but the introduction of a word, for which there is not the shadow of a plea in the Greek text. Without any such plea, and without any reason except its accommodation to theory, they translate-"The world was enlightened by him."

As for the word "done," it is frequently used in the common translation, for the same purpose as

Γενήθητο.

EYEVETO.
* Γενηθήτω.

Verse 3. 5 Γενήθητο. || Verse 6: ** Verse 14.

the word "made:" that is, to suit the strict translation of the Greek word to the English idiom; as -"Thy will be done;"* and-"When his fellow servants saw what was done." In these instances and in many such, "done" may be omitted, without injury to the sense. It is this which must govern in the present case, in determining the choice of the word. That "done" will not serve the purpose, is manifest from the general import of the passage; and especially in its being unable to sustain the opposite construction consistently: there being a necessity of abandoning it in the tenth verse. Therefore the translation of the common version, is correct.

"In him was life." In the system of the Gnosticks, "life" was an Æon, distinct from the word: and of this, the clause is a contradiction. In the twenty-sixth verse of the fifth chapter we read"As the Father hath life in himself, so he hath given to the Son to have life in himself." The improvers having left this in its integrity, it would have been but consistent, to have spared the clause under consideration; rather than to have exchanged

In" for "By:" translating-" By him was life." In the original, it is not the Greek wordt generally translated "By;" but another Greek word, generally answering to "In." There can be no reason besides theory, for the change in the version.

"And the life was the light of men." With the Gnosticks, "Life" was a destinct on from "Light;" the one being related to mental intelligence, as the other to bodily vigour: but St. John makes both of them inherent to the divine person of whom he is discoursing. The version leaves this clause untouched: and it is the end of the passage, proposed as the subject of this remark.

The testimony of Irenæus, as to St. John's contemplating of the Gnosticks in the passage, is con

Matt. vi. 10. † xviii. 31.

Η Δικ.

§ Ev.

siderably fortified by the thirty-first verse of the twentieth chapter-"These" (signs)" are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." The apostle wrote his gospel, not principally for his countrymen the Jews, but for Gentile Christians, among whom he lived: as appears from his incidental explanations of Jewish names and customs. The idea of the Gentile Christians concerning a Christ, must have been combined with what concerned the alleged recent appear. ance of him on earth. The Gnosticks did not altogether deny the Christ; although they denied his absolute identity with the person of Jesus. Hence the propriety of defining the design of the foregoing gospel to have been, the proving that Jesus-the person of that name, from his birth to the end of his being seen on earth, and particularly in the just before recited acts subsequent te his crucifixionwas the Christ. In the epistles of the same apostle, which are supposed to have been written at still later periods than his gospel, there are more and clearer references to the said sect and that their peculiarity.

Fourth Remark. The like erroneous principles are applied to those passages, which, according to the customary use of language, speak of Christ as preexistent to his appearance in the flesh. A few of very many instances, must suffice. The first to be selected, are palpable mistranslations: to which shall be added others, more or less dependent, either on mistranslation, or on errour as to fact.

1 Cor. xv. 47. "The second man, is the Lord from heaven." The version in question gives for "is"-" will be;" without assigning either authority, or reason grounded on the sense. Of the former, there is certainly none; and in the passage of which the words are part, there are contemplated a first and a second Adam, each of whom had appeared in his proper character. Although St. Paul, as

« PreviousContinue »