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

    ine , appears to-me decisive and final upon the subject . But allowing that Peter was the author , is there arty thing heretical in charging the apostle with the commission of an inaccuracy in a language with which he was , in all probability , but imperfectly acquainted ?

    I observe that the words ts Sea rii ^ oov Y . O . I o- ccTVjpoq \ rpr & Xpig-8 , ( ch . i . ver . 1 , ) are rendered , in our common English Version , " of God , and our Saviour Jesus Christ : "—but is this a correct translation ? Are we at liberty to take vtfAuv from its connexion with T 8 See , and apply it to < rarripo <; ? I think not ; but I write with diffidence . Perhaps Mr . Cogan , whose knowledge of the Greek language is far superior to mine , can help me to a satisfactory solution of these questions ? In the Improved Version , the

    expression is rendered as follows : " of our God , and of our Saviour Jesus Christ . " But if we apply to this passage the canon in question , the general accuracy of which Mr .. Cogan allows , must we not be compelled to admit , either that the article is necessary before o-aTypos , in order to justify this translation ; or that the exception which Mr . Cogan makes in the case of the word Kvpioq , should be extended

    likewise to the word acorr \ pt Again , Mr . Cogan admits that the canon holds good in the words 6 Kvpiot ; v }\ mov koci o-coTfig Iv } as <; X ^>* $ - o £ . It may be so . But if the words Kvpioq and creolqp are descriptive of the same person , would it not have been better ,

    and more agreeable to scriptural usage , to have said 6 Kvpioq kccl acoTfjp yj [* coi / lrjareq Xpig-oq , or I . X . 6 Kvpioq koci o ~ &TY ) p y / ucov ? See Phil ] pp . ii . 2 &y JhTrcufrgoSirov TGV Ot £ ) £ . \ ( f ) QV KOCI aVVEpJOV KOCI CTVg-pGCTlCt ) Ty ) V fxs - 2 Thess . ii . 1 G , © € <> $ koci 'Wccttj p 7 \ fAcov o ayocTT / jcraq ritAocq : and Philem . 1 ,

    WiXrjfAsCvi TCf > ocyocTzyjTQ kcci crvvepycp yjfAocv . Lastly , if 6 Kupo ^ rtfAcdv kou crcoTvjp Irjaraq Xpig-oq is correctly rendered " our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ , " why should not 6 ® £ 0 £ yfxcov koci ctcvty ]^ l 7 ] a& <; Xpig-oq be rendered " our God and Sa - viour Jesus Christ" ? I believe that no man , living at the time when the second epistle which goes under the name of Peter was written , ( whether Peter was himself the author of it , or any other person , ) could intentionally have used such a phrase as (< our God

    Untitled Article

    and Saviour Jesus Christ . " This was the-language of a much later period . It was alike unknown to the apostles and to their contemporaries and immediate successors . As far , therefore , as I am able to see my way at present , we are reduced to this dilemma , — either we must admit that two expressions constructed exactly alike , in the most perspicuous of all languages ,

    are capable of different and opposite senses ; or that the author of this epistle did not understand the language in which he wrote , and there- , fore wrote ungrammatically and unintelligibly . O . -

    P . S . I will here take an opportunity of adding a remark or two on Galatians vi . 11 : " Ye . see , hqvv large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand . "—It is generally supposed that the apostle alludes , in this

    place , to the length of his epistle . But if this had been his allusion , he would not , as Dr . Whitby observes , have used the word ypct ^ fxaar ^ The Greek scholiast supposes that the apostle , by the words 'zzr ^ XncGK ypocf ^ fAaan , intended to call the attention of the

    Galatians to the largeness and inelegancy of the character in which the letter was written . But if the handwriting had been of this kind throughout the whole epistle , the proper place for this remark would have been , not

    in the body of the letter , but at the end , in the way of postscript . If again , his object had been , as Mr . Belsham says , in his excellent work on the epistles of Paul , to call the attention of the Galatians to the

    circumstance of his having written the letter himself , and to preclude the possibility of the pretext that the letter was forged , why allude particularly to the largeness of the hand-writing ? This could have afforded no actual

    proof that Paul had written the letter himself ; for it is nowhere upon record that he had before this time addressed any instructions to the Galatians in writing-. But even if he had , and they were well acquainted with the hand-writing , why call their attention to the size of the characters in

    which tins letter was written ? Why not merely state that it had been written by himself ? Would not this have answered every purpose?—The proba-

    Untitled Article

    30 On a Canon of Criticism relating to the Greek Article .

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Jan. 2, 1825, page 30, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2532/page/30/