On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
Hebraisms , and Grecistns , and Anglicisms , and Scotticisms , and a ]] manner of isms , in all manner of languages :
but grant that in the New Testament Hebraisms are most prominent , did not John understand , and had he not read , the S eptuagint version of the Old Testament , and would it not be natural 1 \ supposed that when he attempted a figure of speech from the
Old Testament , he would use as nearly as possible the language of that version ? But unfortunately for J . T . ' s argument , the word which the Septuagint uses in the passages to which he refers , is not the same which John
uses in th is passage in the introduction to his Gospel ; and still more unfortunately , in that very 3 rd verse of Chap . i . of John ' s first epistle , the term used is the same as in the Septuagint , and differs from his own in the 1 st verse
of the Gospel . This is enough to let us presume that when John says , ** the word was with God , 11 he does not mean it precisely in the same sense as when he snys , " and truly our fellowship is with the Father , and with his Son Jesus Christ : " nor the same as
when Asaph says , " I am continually with thee . " It seems also a very singular mode of informing us of the fact that Jesus was a pious and religious person , and had a revelation from God . The other evangelists have informed us of the virtues and excellences of
the Christ in a far more explicit and intelligible manner . Your other Correspondent , who signs himself Brevis , [ p . 42 , ] thinks that to translate the other part of the verse , " the word was as God /* would be the best mode of conveying the evangelist ' s meaning to the English reader . He " assumes ( without conceding ) that the word God in this verse is used in the primary sense , as denoting the Almighty . " He might concede it without detriment to Unitarian principles , and let orthodoxy make what use it would of the concession . A nanism alone is a gainer by the secondary sense . JBrevis quotes & " Sam . xxiv , 23 , in favour of the
insertion of as : " All these things did Arauiifrh as a king . give unto the king . This is not correctly translated a king , or as a king . The legitimate trans * Jation is , " AH these gave Araunah the king to the king . " So Luther ' s translation renders it . The best way
of translating it interpretatively is , "All these did Araunah royally ( or as we say , nobly ) eive ta the king V
p
though the Septuagint onty translates , " All these did Araunah give to the king . " The passage then does not seem to answer the purpose for which Brevis quotes it . It may be asked then , if I reject these translations , what will I
substitute ? 1 would fairly leave it as our common version has it ; and if I reject these explanations , what will 1 give ? In reply to this , 1 will say that it is far more easy to ascertain what the evangelist does not teach in this
introduction , than what he does . Concerning what he does not teach , there are two inferences : 1 . He does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity , because he says nothing of the Third Person : 2 . He does not teach the incarnation of
a God , or Spirit , because he does not introduce or refer to the miraculous conception , which seems so naturally to belong to this place , upon the Arian or Trinitarian explanation of it . Now as to what the introduction to John ' s Gospel was designed to teach ,
the inferences are not so obvious . It seems plausible to speak of the Bi j ^ le as being its own interpreter , but this is very often a mere sophism : several books upon the same subject , written at different times , and by different persons , may explain each other so
far as facts or arguments are concerned : several books , upon different subjects , written by different persons , but in the same language and the same country , and about the same time , may tend to mutual explanation , so far as phraseology arid idiom are concerned . Allusions , therefore , in the gospels or epistles , to the Jewish rites or religion ,
may be explained by reference to the Old Testament ; but for peculiarities of language we must rather rely on contemporary writers ; and for peculiarities of philosophical speculation , or metaphysical distinction , explanation is to be sought in writers of that cast , contemporary , antecedent or
subsequent . It seems to be generally admitted that John wrote his Gospet and EpistleN with a view to the op ~ position of certain errors of a metaphysical nature , and that these metaph y sic&l corruption s owed thei r existence to the real or pretended followers of Plato , Zoroaster and
Untitled Article
Remarks on the Criticisms On John u U 247
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), April 2, 1819, page 247, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1771/page/35/
-