On this page
-
Text (2)
-
Untitled Article
-
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
rtJV /** y *^" $ » £ iri T 7 l ^^ Xoe . ( Tcrctv xaSyj * Hera , k . r . A . Herodotus , Lib . ii . c . cxxxiv . OvT 0 k < xi Atcru 7 roq ladfA-ovoq eys-VBro . Thus it appears that jEsop also
was the slave of Jadmon . Pausanias , Lib . i- c- xvi . SeXeuvcoj / Sc j 3 a , < Ti \ e ® v £ > toj $ AW& ^ T tfs&QfA&i kcci aWccq yivze ^ Sou Swaiov Kosi 7 rpo < to & £ joi / avcreSfj . The Scholiast on the Vespse of Aristophanes , V . 581 . Atcro ) TTC <; Tpayudiaq tyivero vitcKgiT ^ yEXoico fy *; . On this instance I need make no remark . I may now , I think , compare koii b hoyo " q cay !; zyzveto , ( as interpreted by Sociims , ) with the following * passage of the Septuagint . Proverbs iv . 3 , via ; yap
iym \ M \ v naycc < ncx , Tpi viTTjKCoq , xa # ctyairvpevos w icpOGooncp [ Ayrpoq . The fact seems to be this : The -verb yiyvecrSrai is used of a state commencing , and eiyai of a state which exists . But this distinction was
sometimes overlooked even in the present tense , as particularly by Herodotus ; and as things are what they have be * come , the primary meaning * of yiyvecr Srai was often dropt in the aorist , and the want of a proper form of an aorist
to the verb « va * , was supplied by yevicr&ai , as in Latin , fui ( from the Greek , < f > va gigno ) was used as the aorist of sum . If any one contends that the primitive signification of the verb ought to be taken into account in these instances , he seems to me to
overlook the analogy of language , and to embrace in his conception what never suggests itself to the mind of the reader . I will only add , that I now distrust the example produced in my last from Aristophanes . E . COG AN .
Untitled Article
Sir , OUR correspondent Ben David Y ( pp . 533 , 534 ) has in a manner almost called me out to take the place of my late friend Porson , whom , accordin g to his own account , he has laid prostrate on the ground . But surely he cannot think me so
inconsiderate , as to enter the lists with so redoubtable a champion ; where the only chance of success that I could have , would be , that the sling , which v as successful against the great Go-« ath , might miss the mark when directed to a smaller object . Waiving , However , comparisons of this kind / I « o not ftel that interest iu the con-
Untitled Article
i troversy which should induce me to take an active part in it . The passage in question is , in my opinion , no consequence in the discussion between Unitarians and Trinitarians ; for allowing it to the latter , it conveys no idea of the relationship between the terms spoken of , except as to
testimony . A more important subject has been started in the same number of your Repository ( pp . 536—538 ); and Ben David will recollect , that when he did me the favour of a call , and presented me with his work on the Three
Witnesses , I called his attention to it by putting the same question to him which I have done to Porson and several of the first class of Greek scholars in this country , What is the differand And
ence between r ^ v ayevsro } this question I beg leave now to repeat to him , being assured , that whether he agrees or disagrees with your correspondent T . F . B . on this subject , he cannot fail from his extensive
learning to throw great light upon it . In the mean time , it mav not be without its use to shew in what manner I endeavoured to satisfy myself . The two words occur frequently in
the first chapter of John . The word qv is translated uniformly was , the word eyeuero has different renderings . I took my Greek and Latin Concordance , and examined every passage in the Greek Testament where these
two words occur . In these passages I exchanged the one for the other , and the palpable absurdity that frequently occurred , led me by degrees to the true distinction between them . Thus , if you place Byevero for rp / y in
the first verse of John , 0 so ^ eyevaro o \ oyoq , the passage becomes , I might almost say , blasphemous ; and if you read kcci 6 Xoyoq < r < zgl ; yiv 9 the connexion between this passage and the first verse is destroyed .
Having satisfied my own mind on the real distinction between the two words , I examined every passage in the English established translation where they occur , which brought me soon to this conclusion , that the translators had never dulv considered this
question , that they were led astray by the Latin translation , and consequently gave to the word £ jzvetq a variety of renderings which would never have
Untitled Article
T £ r ; Frendon Three Witnesses' Tejrt , &Ci % 47
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Nov. 2, 1825, page 647, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2542/page/7/
-