On this page

• Text (1)

  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.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• 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

    the presumptive conclusion that those measures which appear to us the best , are the measures adopted by the Deity . 3 . Hardouin draws an argument in favour of the Epistle to the Romans being written in Latin , from its dictation to Tertius , whom he concludes by his name to be a Roman , and whom he supposes Paul purposely mentioned as his assistant in order to account to the Romans for the circumstance of Latin

    being used by him , a Jew of Tarsus , at which they would otherwise be surprised . —To this it is answered , that Flavius Josephus might as well be proved to be a Roman by his name as Tertius : but granting the latter to be what Hardouin supposes he was , how is it shewn that he could not write from dictation the Apostle ' s Greek , the language which it is singular that Hardouin should admit the Romans would naturally expect ?

    4 . " The Epistle to the Romans was written at Corinth , a Roman colony , on whose coins may be seen the Latin inscription Col . Cor . ; in the house of Caius , whose name is a Latin one ; and consequently the Epistle must have been written in Latin . " Supposing the premises to be true , it is asked in reply , Why should St . Paul prefer writing Latin in compliment to his host ? This argument , too , contradicts the preceding one , for if the Apostle was unable to write Latin without assistance , he would hardly have attempted it for so trifling a reason .

    5 . " The style of the Latin Testament is smooth and elegant , whereas that of the Greek Testament is rough and impure—consequently the latter , not the former , is the translation . " This is a most singular argument . In the first place ( assuming , contrary to the fact , that the style of the Vulgate is smooth and elegant ) it takes the text of the Vulgate for an original , when its

    formation , and the state of the various versions from which it was originally compiled , are well known;—and , in the second place , the Vulgate ' s purity or uniformity of style , in opposition to the individuality of style of the various books of the Greek New Testament , forms an unanswerable proof of the direct reverse of Hardouin ' s corollary .

    6 . An argument in favour of the hypothesis is drawn from the occasional heterodoxy of the Greek , whereas the Vulgate is always orthodox and Catholic . To this we imagine it is not necessary to detail any reply . 7 . " It was more easy to collect Latin books of the New Testament in the single city of Rome , than Greek books dispersed in distant provinces . " The collection of the books of the New Testament has no connexion with the present question , which relates simply to their origin;—but if it had , the argument is of no weight .

    8 . " The Greek MSS . differ very materially from each other , whereas no difference can be found in the editions of the Vulgate . " But what shall we say of the more than seventy versions from which Jerome framed his ? We might as well say Stephens ' s text is the genuine one because all the editions of it may agree . 9 . A curious argument follows , which Michaelis admits has , " at least , the appearance of probability . " It is this ; " St . Paul in the Epistle to

    Philemon makes allusions to the names of Philemon and Onesimus , which can be expressed only in Greek ; if the present Epistle , " therefore , were the original , the words most proper for expressing the allusions would have been retained . For instance , ver . 1 , < &i \ vhm > vi t $ ^>»^ t ^ , — -and vers . 10 , 11 , Ovijtn / Aov tov ttotc < xo » avov ^ cnjutov , vvvi Be < t < h ica * «/ xo » ovqaifAQv . . But in the present text we find < SnkviiMn r § ayair-qry , and O ^< r ^ ov to * ttgtc <™« axpY \< rrov , where the Paranomasia is totall y lost : we must therefore conclude that the Epistle contained in our canoir is nothing more than a translation

    Untitled Article

    16 Original Language of the Boaks of the New Testament .

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Jan. 2, 1827, page 16, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1792/page/16/