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
historian of Jesus Christ , > e would forfeit every claim to consistency and even to common sense . As to the difference between v \ v and eysvsro , which Mr . Frend has taken so much pains to ascertain , I feel no
difficulty , in answer to his question , to point it out . A competent writer in Greek , having occasion to say of another that never had a child , would write owraK t } v > he was childless ; but if the same person , having a child , lost it , he would say airan ; syevBro , he became childless , Mr . Cogan says
that " the verb yiyv £ ( r 6 ai is used of a state commencing" , and zwa . i of a state which exists . * This is very near the truth , but not exactly so . TiyvtaBai implies a change from one state to another . This is its primary meaning , and thence it often signifies a continuance in that state to which the
change is made . The primary signification then is to become , come to pass , take place , happen ; the secondary , to continue , abide , to be ; and 4 * I * m m m 4 » m j * m d ^ v *^* . ^ V w ^ Mr * m « j ^ . rf « V «« f % " *•• ^ W ^ a a * ^ m a & * \ . *^ fW thus it is with and
synonymous zwcu ; though the places are frequent where these verbs may be substituted one for the other , there are also many where the substitution would be
solecistical ; and such appears to me is < ray > f eyevBTo , if rendered he was flesh , instead of he became flesh * because the Evangelist had already stated the Logos to be the reason or the attributes of God , while in this clause he
expresses a transition of it from God to a being with flesh and blood . 2 apf yv would imply that tjie Logos always was a man—< ra , § f eysvtrro , in connexion with what precedes , marks its emanation from God and its union with
Jesus Christ . I would moreover observe , for the sake of the learner in Greek , that this verb has different senses in different branches of it . Thus the first aorist middle Eyewaro , has always a transitive sense , namely , to produce ; and Homer in a few
places uses the second aorist in the same signification . Thus eyevero , without the augment ytvero , and by syncopfe yBvro , he produced for himself , he took , laid hold of
Lexicographers have absurdly supposed yevro to be a corruption of iiXero , and in the number of these is Damm , the most admirable of all lexicographers . A pretty full account of this verb with its several ramifications will be found
Untitled Article
under the common root ytv& , in my Greek and English Lexicon , col . 265 , 2 nd ed . It remains now briefly to notice the interpretation which the orthodox divines have put upon this proem . And here justice and candour force me to allow , that this interpretation i 3 what the Evangelist seems at first glance to suggest , it being for the most part conformable to the primary acceptation of the words , and to the rules df construction in Greek . The Logos is said to be from the beginning of time , to be God , to be with God , and , as it must
appear to common sense , to be different from that God whom he is said to be with . This same Logos made all things , and afterwards became a human being in the person of Jesus Christ . No competent person would reject this view of the subject , were it not for the perplexing consequences
which follow , were it not for the contradictions which it involves , were it not for the dogmas which it brings in its train—dogmas that are at variance with reason , with the tenor of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures—dogmas that prostrate and even stultify the human understanding , and at the same time throw the whole orb of
revelation into shade . It is a providential thing , that while the orthodox interpretation is so imposing , is thus supported by the first view of the proem , we shall find it , if we trace the " passage to its origin , to
be at variance with sound criticism , to be set aside by the direct object of the Evangelist and the strictest sense of the terms used by him . And the following observations , whenever they shall be duly weighed by the advocates of this scheme , will set the question
to rest . 1 . The orthodox scheme , then , supposes the Logos to be Jesus Christ , the second person in the Trinity . But Logos means word , speech , rea ~ son ; it expresses not God , but an attribute of God ; ., -and though the sacred historian sayS that Reason is
God , he means to say that God , as the Creator of all things , is a rational , intelligent and spiritual Being , distinct from the works of his hands , in opposition to certain impostors who , in order to supplant the gospel , stripped the universal Father of his perfections . The phrase that the Logos
Untitled Article
Dr . •/• Jones on the Proem of John ' s Gospel . 727
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Dec. 2, 1825, page 727, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2543/page/23/
-