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
as in most other cases , is very analogous to that of our own . They are parts of speech serving the same purpose in both languages , and therefore governed by the same laws . Thus the general rule already given is equally applicable to our own
language as to the Greek . For example , if we intend to speak of two persons , we ought to say , " the king and the com " mander-in-chief perished . " That would grammatically be most correct ; yet in common parlance , what is more common than to be careless in these niceties ?
That critic would be very punctilious who would animadvert on the phrase , " the king andcommander-in-chief ' perished . ' I am aware that remarks of this kind are rather to be considered as illustration than as argument , and that it may be replied to them , that it is unsafe to
reason from oue language to another . Undoubtedly it would be so , were it not a fact , of which even Middle ton ' s own work furnishes abundant evidence , that the usage of the Greek article is in this whole matter , as already stated , very analogous to our own .
That candid aud learned author admits that his canon is liable to many exceptions ; and on surveying in detail what these exceptions are , we shall find that they resolve themselves into this principle , that Greek tcrjUfrs were seldom scrupulous about the repetition of the article as required by this cation , except as far
as they felt that an obscurity in the sense would be the result of its omixsion . It was not so much , then , the rule of grammar that they consulted , as their owu natural desire to be perspicuous . This will be evideut from the exceptions to this rule which Middleton admits to be of frequent occurrence . Such are names of substances
and abstraction a , as o XiBo ; koh , xpvaos - , rrjv ccireiplocv kou . ounaL ^ tvaictv ; proper names , as Toy AX « f avtpov xui &t \ nnroy ; plural attributives aud others , where no ambiguity can arise , as t « $ t pay whs $ tc kcu x& > fu »§< tf ; and / xrrafi ) t ? iroitfvr&t t « kcli ita < Txoirto < i : also cases of enumeration , as 0 air-reari xou tov o * vo % ook xat yuzytipov nod Wtioko fxov yccu hiqKovQv , &c , because , as he observes , €€ it is impossible that all these various offices should be united
in the same person ; and 'this obvious impossibility may be the reason that the writer has expressed himself so negligently . " Here then the writer admits , as he does elsewhere , that a regard to perspicuity is the principle b y which the observance or neglect of his canon was determined . Numerous , however , as arc the exceptions to his canon which
Untitled Article
he allows to spring from this principle , he still maintains that cases similar to our text cannot fairly be allowed a place among them . He enforces the law strictly on what he calls a * 8 umable attributive * , and especially in the singular number ; thus o' vepttpyof xai < rv * o ( p& > Tr )<; relates to one person > bat & ovu . fia \» f % eu o <
tuko-< pavrri S to two . Here also there can be m > doubt that he is in the main entirely right : it is precisely in cases of this kind that a negligent use of the article would give occasion . to ambiguities , aud therefore it is here that the proper use of it is observed with the greatest strictness . The Greek writers do certainly
in such instances guard against obscurity with great care , aud seldom use the article otherwise than with strict propriety . It is this circumstance which enables the Bishop to make out rather a strong case ; but though strong , we believe it is not strong enough to answer his purpose , or to warrant the conclusion to which he brings his readers .
We have seen ourselves , and Middleton allows , that a regard to perspicuity , rather than a grammatical uicety , was the leading principle in this whole business . Let us then ask , whether such a case as that before us is oue in which any ambiguity could fairly have been apprehended ? Does it not appear from the tenor of the New Testament that the
term God was a distinguishing , appropriate title of one individual being , and one from whom Jesus Christ was con - sidered as distinct ? Can any oue deny that such is the current phraseology of the New Testament ? In short , hair not this term very much the force of a proper name ? Now , so far as it has , it does not fairly belong to the Bishop ' s class of assuuiable attributives * It is a
title appropriated by almost universal usage to one only person , aud therefore a writer would feel little on his guard against seeming to apply it to another , in the passage before us it appears to me that the degree of ambiguity in the English version pretty fairly represents that in the Greek . If distinction is
Intended , it would most correctly be expressed by saying , * ' of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ . " The omission of the particle of in English appears to be in effect very parallel to that of the article in Greek . It were confessedly more correct to insert the article , but its omission , though it be certainly a piece of negligence in the style , is still an occurrence at which we need not wonder . Such appears to me to be a fair state-
Untitled Article
Miscellaneous Correspondence . 413
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), June 2, 1830, page 413, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2585/page/53/
-