Thoma Young, Medicine Doctori, Regia Societatis, necnon et Linnæane Socio, Johannes Hodgkin, S.P.D. «En tibi tandem, Vir doctissime, Poecilographiam Græcam: quòd citius non acceperis, Sculptoris assignandum est, non dicam negligentiæ, sed nimiæ rerum gerendarum copiæ: à quo, utpote longè omnium artis suæ peritissinio, incæptum opus etiam finiri apprimè cupiebam; multis verò labentibus annis, dum, aliis negotiis impedito, operam meis dare non licebat, eodem tempore contractionum nexuumque literarum catalogum quibusdam exemplis auxi, quæ doctissimus vir Ricardus Porson, A. M. Græcarum literarum apud Cantabrigienses professor, humanissimè mecum communicavit; et omnes contractiones in Apollonii lexico, ab erudito Villoison edito, repertas, hortante viro clarissimo Carolo Burney, LL.D. inserui; varias etiam Græcarum literarum per ætatum ordinem, formas, te probante, disposui. Vale, vir doctissime, eumque, ex arte medendi, quem, pro ingenio, industriâque tuâ et omnium optimarum artium scientiâ, sperare tuum est, fructum percipe. I Dedi 11 Kal. Aug. MDCCCVII. BIBLICAL CRITICISM; On 1 John, v. 7. TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL. "Coun READ in No. XV. of your Journal, p. 92, a Letter from a try Clergyman," containing some remarks on a paper printed in No. XIV. p. 437, in which, as you may remember, I assumed as generally granted, the spuriousness of the passage, 1 John, v. 7; and perceiving, as I did, the abilities of the writer, I was somewhat astonished at finding in him a defender of the verse. Before I proceed farther in vindicating my essay, (which I doubt not your candor will afford me an early opportunity of doing,) I must state, that I am a member of the Church of England, and a sincere believer of the Trinitarian Doctrine, taught by her Liturgy and Articles. It seemed not unnecessary to make this declaration, that I might obviate, with regard to myself at least, the general opinion, that any one who impeaches, or does not defend, the authenticity of the disputed passage, must be an enemy, either avowed or concealed, of the doctrine it inculcates; and if it be right to form a judgment from the zeal and eagerness with which certain of your Correspondents charge those with Deism, who do not believe the doctrine which may be deduced from the "absolute integrity of the Hebrew Text," it seems not to be needless to endeavour to explain our views and motives, when we oppose any particular passage in the New Testament. 66 It should, however, be confessed, that they who can assert the "integrity" of the Text, which informs us that Ahaziah was forty and two years old" when he began to reign, whilst his Father was aged only forty years when he was gathered to his Fathers," may think the passage under consideration genuine, without committing an unusual absurdity. But before I proceed to consider the arguments adduced by the Clergyman in support of his opinion, I request him to accept my sincere thanks for the elegant compliments paid me in the beginning, and continued through every part, of his letter. I commence then, by considering the testimony of Diodorus Tarsensis. The account given us of this Father by Moreri,' is as follows: "Diodore d' Antioche, prêtre de cette Eglise, et puis Evêque de Tarse Metropole de Cilicie, a vécu dans le IV. Siècle. Il fut accusé, après sa mort, d'avoir été un des maîtres de l' Hérésiarque Nestorius. S. Cyrille l'accuse dans l' Epître à Successus, d'avoir distingué le Verbe né de Dieu, du fils de Marie; il le nomme dans celle qu'il écrivit à Jean d' Antioche, et Acace de Militene, ennemi de la gloire de Jesus Christ. Saint Melece, au retour de son exil, apprenant avec quel courage il avoit défendu la Foi Orthodoxe contre les hérétiques dans Antioche, où il introduisit la Psalmodie alternative, le tira d' un Monastère où il étoit Abbé, et il l'éleva à l' Episcopat. S. Athanase, S. Basil, et S. Chrysostome, qui avoient été ses disciples, le louent comme un Evêque très saint, et comme un défenseur invincible de la Foi, &c. Le premier Concile de Constantinople le compte entre les Prélats qu' il propose pour regle de la créance Orthodoxe. Cependant, après sa mort, ses écrits furent trouvés remplis de ces erreurs que j' ay marquées et condamnées." I subjoin some passages from the Ecclesiastical Historians, in which he is mentioned. Theodoret speaks of him in the following terms: Διόδωρος ὁ σοφώτατός τε καὶ ἀνδρειότατος, οἷά τις ποταμὸς διειδής τε καὶ μέγας, τοῖς μὲν οἰκείοις τὴν ἀνδρείαν (read according to Valesius, Not. ad Locum, ὑδρείαν) προσέφερε. τὰς δὲ τῶν ἐναντιῶν βλασ φημίας ἐπέκλυζε, καὶ τὴν μὲν τοῦ γένους οὐκ ἐλογίζετο περιφάνειαν, τὴν δὲ ὑπὲρ τῆς πίστεως ταλαιπωρίαν ασπασίως ὑπέμεινε. Το the same purpose we read in the same author, that Theodorus, Bishop of Mopsuestia, πάσης μὲν ἐκκλησίας διδάσκαλος, κατὰ πάσης δὲ φάλαγγος αἱρετικῆς ἀριστεύσας, τοῦ βίου τὸ τέλος ἐδέξατο· οὗτος τῆς μὲν Διοδώρου τοῦ πάνυ διδασκαλίας ἀπήλαυσεν. Ἰωάννου 5 δὲ τοῦ θειοτάτου 4 'Dictionnaire Historique, Tom. ii. p. 359,1702, fol. au mot Diodore. 2 In quotations from the Eccles. Historians throughout this paper, the references are made to the excellent edit. by Reading, 3 vols. fol. Cantab. 17 20.? 3 Histor. Ecclesiast. Lib. iv. c. 25, p. 184. 4 H. E. Lib. iv. c. 40. p. 242 5 The IRANNHE here spoken of was the great Chrysostom. γεγένηται κοινωνός τε καὶ συνεργός· κοινῇ γὰρ τῶν πνευματικῶν Διοδώρου ναμάτων ἀπήλαυον. Socrates' tells us, that, Διόδωρος-ἐπίσκοπος Ταρτοῦ γενόμενος, πολλὰ βιβλία συνέγραψε, ψιλῷ τῷ γράμματι τῶν θείων προσἐχων γραφῶν, τὰς θεωρίας αὐτῶν ἐκτρεπόμενος. By Sozomen 2 also, we are furnished with the same account, with merely verbal alterations. Giving an history of the studies of the illustrious Chrysostom, he informs us that he had as masters in philosophy, Καρτέριόν τε, καὶ Διόδωρον, τὸν ἡγησάμενον τῆς ̓ν Ταρσῷ ἐκκλησίας, ἓν ἐπυθόμην ἰδίων συγγραμμάτων πολλὰς καταλιπεῖν βίβλους, περὶ δὲ τὸ ῥητὸν τῶν ἱερῶν λόγων τὰς ἐξηγήσεις ποιήσασθαι, τὰς θεωρίας ἀποφεύγοντα. The account by Suidas it is needless to quote; but I am unable to see how any inference can be drawn from his words, that Diodorus "had seen a copy of St. John's Epistle, which contained the 7th verse of chap. v." Some fragments of his works, I have been told, are to be found in the Catena Patrum Græcorum, which I do not possess, and to which I have no opportunity of referring the Commentary, however, sis T TIOTÓλNY 'IwávvoU TOU Evayyxorou, I believe, is lost; and it cannot therefore be proved that he ever met with the disputed passage. It may not be improper to state, that the arguments drawn from the Fathers in defence of the verse, scarcely deserve, in general at least, any serious answer: they commonly are such as Patience herself would disdain to refute; and this remark is especially true in the present case. We are told of a book now lost, which appears to have been a commentary on the 1st Epistle of St. John, and contained an explication or defence of the Trinity. This might have afforded a slight degree of preponderance to the balance in favor of 1 John, v. 7. were there no other text in the epistle whence the doctrine could be elicited; but unfortunately, in the 4th century, the Fathers generally made use of the mystical interpretation of the eighth verse. The question then will be most properly decided by analogy; and I shall propose the following questions. 1. Did the Fathers ever make use of the mystical interpretation of the earthly witnesses mentioned, 1 John, v. 8. ? 2. Is the seventh verse ever quoted in plain and express terms by any Fathers who lived in the five first centuries? 3 Or is it read without variation in the MSS. of such writers, nearly or entirely in the same state in which it now stands in common editions of the New Testament. Hist. Ecclesiast. Lib. vi. c. 3. p. 311. 2 Hist. Ecclesiast. Lib. viii. c. 2. p. 326. 3 Your Correspondent mentions the year 380, as the period to which Diodorus may be referred: the opinion in itself is probable, and some other circumstances strengthen his conjecture. The first of these enquiries can be answered only in the affirmative. We have at least one instance in Cyprian, ' where he explains the 8th verse of the Trinity; and this assertion is founded partly on the authority of Facundus. This happened about the middle of the third century; and the practice certainly grew more common towards the end of the fourth. The reading in the Text of Cyprian is, de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, ET HI tres unum sunt; which, allowing for the difference of idiom, is certainly a close translation of the Greek of verse 7, xal ouro di reis Ev Eio. The reading, however, is not indisputable. In Fell's margin, we have the following note: "Et tres Voss. 3. Lam. Ebor." Et tres unum sunt, is a tolerably accurate version of the final clause of verse Sth, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. Οὗτοι, I believe, is adequately expressed in Latin by hi; and the reading in the Text of Cyprian was probably altered by some early Editor, who turned to the Latin version, by which he settled the readings in his author. Such a method of editing the Christian writers was not uncommon in the old editions, which were published at a time when no suspicion was entertained of the great importance of the Fathers, in affording various readings of the Scriptures. The reading in the majority of the MSS. of Cyprian probably arose in the same manner: the five MSS. which have the words et tres, perhaps escaped any alteration, from their antiquity; or the transcribers might not be disposed to make any alteration in the Text. It is much to be lamented that Fell did not give any account of the age of his MSS.: it is, perhaps, the most important defect in his edition. On the whole, we may safely assert, that Cyprian quoted only the final clause of verse 8, to prove the unity of the three persons, having tacitly applied to them the mystical interpretation of the earthly witnesses. This was the opinion of Facundus. Secondly, with regard to the passages of the Fathers generally esteemed quotations of 1 John, v. 7; I do not recollect one, which may not be proved either to be interpolated by transcribers or editors, or to be a mystical interpretation of the 8th verse; and sometimes, on a close examination they will be found not to be quotations at all. These points have all been so clearly proved by Porson, that it were worse than useless to insist on them in these pages. The inference, then, which I would draw from these circumstances, is, that Diodorus interpreted the 8th verse of the Trinity, as did the other Fathers. It seems most unlikely, as Porson has well observed, De Unitate Ecclesiæ, p. 109, edit. Fell. Fol. Oxon. 1682. that so many Fathers should have written on the Trinity, and in the course of their argument, have so repeatedly used the 8th verse, have taken so much needless trouble to make it useful to their purpose, if immediately before it there had been so complete and convincing a proof of the disputed point. It is not contended that this might not have happened to a single Father, but surely, every one will allow that there is an absurdity in supposing that it could have been overlooked by every writer, both Greek and Latin, from the time of Ignatius to that of Augustine; and that it never should have been quoted, when so many authors appeared in opposition to the Arian heresy; in which controversy, had it existed, it would have been of the most signal service in all modern disputes concerning the Trinity, it is, tota in toto, et tota in qualibet parte.' We must remember also the temper of the Fathers we must recollect the zeal with which they opposed the heretics and we must not forget the eagerness with which they brought into the dispute passages of Scripture, which manifestly were nothing to the purpose. For instance, some of the Fathers have proved the divinity and eternal generation of the AOгоE, from Psal. xlv. 1. Eructavit cor meum verbum bonum. If the words could refer to it by any allegory, the translation still is doubtful: 77 may signify thing may רחש לבי דבר טוב,,or matter ; so the whole passage be translated, Eructavit cor meum REM BONAM, by which interpretation, the inference drawn from the other rendering verbum, must fall to the ground. I would not, however, be supposed to impeach the doctrine alluded to, which unquestionably rests on Scriptural ground; but it will be conceded to me, that any one who could explain such a text of the AOгoz, might more naturally apply 1 John, v. 8, to the Trinity. It is more likely that Diodorus followed the multitude, than that he alone made use of the 7th verse, when his pupils and contemporaries employed the 8th; for it is not improbable that they were eager to use the same arguments which had been managed with adroitness by their teacher. To conclude: I think that your Correspondent will allow, that if the pupils did not call forth the 7th verse, it probably was not cited by the master: with regard to the scholars, I can only refer him to Porson's "Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis." The next testimony adduced by the Clergyman, is from the exλóyai of Clemens Alexandrinus, who lived in the second century, and is pla ! See Porson's Letters to Travis, p. 259. |