Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

from indicating personal knowledge, implies, in the connection, dependence upon the testimony of others. We do not accord with these verbal criticisms; but we may take this opportunity of observing, that Mr. J. obviously writing with the original before him, has, in several places, given his own translation of the passages which he is led to quote; and that in his renderings he is sometimes very happy, and has thus thrown considerable light upon the meaning of the text. It must be a prevailing opinion, among those who have the original language of the New Testament in their power, that the English translation is not to be regarded as a perfect, though certainly valuable, representative of the original; and we hope it is ceasing to be an opinion among the unlearned, that the New Testament appointed to be read in churches by his royal majesty King James I. is, both as to language and divisions, precisely as it was written by the apostles and evangelists. We cordially approve of Mr. Jones's plan in this instance; and earnestly wish to see it adopted by every scriptural critic, who may thus be contributing to that very important object, a faithful version of the original text of the New Testament.

But to proceed with our remarks: Mr. J., disapproving of Mr. Marsh's hypothesis, gives a view of the principles which, he thinks, account for the various cases of agreement and difference observable in the evangelical narratives. The statement of the principle which appears to him to account" in a way simple and natural, for the different connections assigned to the same event by their respective authors," shall lay before our readers in the author's own words.

we

"The writers of the New Testament, though in a common way versed in the greek tongue, had never studied the

systematic rules of composition. They had not been educated in the schools, they had not perused the authors of Greece, and therefore, they had not sufficiently attended to that methodical arrangement, that continuity of thought, derived from original impressisons, that which supply the series and constitute correctness in regard to time and place, the beauty of a classic history. For this want of art, the principle of association was the chief substitute; and they recorded things, not as they actually occurred, but as they occured to their memories. Ordinary events, it is farther to be observed, receive much of their value from being exhibited, as they actually succeeded each other; but of an extraordinary nature, derive litthe events of the New Testament being tle or no importance from the exact notifications of place and time; and the only question respecting them is, not whether they were done at a particular time, or in a particular part of Judea, but whether they were done at all. Of this the writers were fully sensible; and there minds were too intensely occupied with the body of the facts to heed the drapery of topographical and chronological precision.

the transactions, which the evangeli"Nor ought it to be forgotten that cal writers have recorded, were crowded within the ministry of the illustrious founder, which comparatively was of short duration; that some years elapsed before even the first of his biographers committed them to writing; that during the intervals of the occurrence and the written history of those events, they were a thousand times repeated on different occasions, and in a cession was destroyed by subsequent different order; that the original succombinations, and it remained for them to adopt in most cases that order, which the law of association suggested. These remarks, as they may be thought new, and will lead to consequences of the first importance, I will illustrate by a few examples."

These examples are, the situation of the account of the imprisonment of the baptist, in the different gospels, and the situation of the account of our Lord's driving the

traders from the temple, in the gospel of John. Presuming that this latter event really occurred at the last passover, and at that only, we should more readily adept Mr. Jones's application of his leading principle; but as it appears to us, Archbishop Newcome and others have shewn sufficient reason for the common ideas respecting the account of St. John; viz. that our Lord purified, the temple at the first, as well as at the last passover in his ministry. It is one of the proofs of too great haste in the composition of the illustrations which we have in several cases been struck with, that the author, though he in page 6 states that this event is placed by the other evangelists, in its proper place, immediately on his entrance into Jerusalem before his crucifixion, in page 72, he introduces the event in the situation given to it by John, and we should suppose from his manner of illustrating it at the time, adopted that as the proper situation for it. We refer to the words, "so habitually was the sense of his death in his mind, that it now forcibly recurred by association as an effect which their enmity and malice would soon produce;" the former part of which are but little applicable to the period assigned by the other evangelists, when our Lord's sufferings were close at hand. And we should observe, farther, that the introduction of the event in John's order was not necessary for the author's plan, as he has not noticed the four verses following the 11th.

In the second section the author enters upon the introduction of John. He lays down as an introductory principle, that, "it must relate to the state of christianity in those times; it must be intended to rectify the misconception of mistaken friends, or refute the dogmas of open enemies." To us it appears that there is a third object

equally important, viz. to express the evangelist's opinion, that "Jesus is the Christ the Son of God," in order that those for whose benefit he wrote, "believing might have life through his name" and in fulfilling this object, we do not perceive that it was necessary for the apostle to combat errors and misrepresentations. At the same time we willingly admit, that from the peculiar strength of his assertions with respect to the baptist, he seems to have in view the opinion of some, who retained their attachment to their old master, to the exclusion of the acknowledgment of our Lord's supremacy. And wherever it can be clearly shewn that certain opinions were prevalent in the christian church at the time of the apostle's writing, and were in opposition to some of his positions in the gospel, we may reasonably infer that in the authori tative statement of those positions, he had in view the refutation of the erroneous opinions.

The author thus states his own opinion respecting the meaning of the word jos.

conclude, that logos primarily means "We have then good authority to the perfections of God; and the name is extended to the gospel and to Christ, as subjects in which they are proved and manifested; that the several subjects in which these perfections are displayed, as far as they are expressed by the term, are one and the same, and therefore it may be applied to either of them, or to all of them, even in the same passage, and that without any impropriety or ambiguity."

On this very important point we wish the author had been a little more full. To us it appears obvious, that λoyos may be correctly applied to whatever manifests the mind and will of any being: and, admitting this, no one can doubt the propriety of its application to the gospel, and to that person by whom

the gospel was

communicated.

We see no reason why it should not be applied to any manifestation, or manifestor, of the divine perfections, but it does not follow that it is or can be properly applied to the divine perfections themselves. It appears to have been a prevailing opinion among those who are commonly called unitarians, that the logos of John meant the divine wisdom; but neither this opinion, nor the application of the word to the divine perfections in general, is in any way authorized by the scripture usage of the word; and we can scarcely think that the evangelist would employ an old word in a way unauthorized by his precursors, when he could have equally well employed appropriate words in common use, and in their common signification.

In page 29, the author gives a version of Mark's introduction, in which he includes the 2nd and 3rd verses in a parenthesis, and connects the 1st and 4th verses as subject and predicate: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God, was John baptizing, &c." We agree with him that the 1st verse is not to be considered as a title, and also in the general plan of interpretation, but it is more connectedly rendered thus: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God was this, as it is written, &c. accordingly John came, &c." We have however been led to notice this criticism, principally in consequence of the following words of our author. "The last clause, (μgosder σov) is not in the original prophecy, (Is. xiv. 3.) but apparently introduced by the evangelist to explain and enforce the words, before thy face." It is decidedly probable that these words were not in the autograph of the evangelist; and are omitted, upon satisfactory evidence, in Greisbach's second edition. And

we observe here, that we cannot but regret, that the author has not judged right to employ a corrected in preference to the less correct text. We have no wish to hold up Griesbach as infallible; but we think his judgment of great importance, and deserving of respectful attention from every one who criticizes on the New Testament.

In page 37, our author accords with the prevailing opinion that the baptist, previously to the baptism of our Lord, knew that he was the Messiah. To us the contrary appears almost certain, but we must not stay to state the grounds of our sentiments.

In page 39 are some very judicious observations on the appellation Son of God. We are of opinion that the term is not synonimous with the Christ; and in this we coincide with our author. The following observation appears to highly important.

us

"Jesus, in the course of his ministry, called himself the Son of God, as being thus announced by a voice from heaven: and this designation, whenever used by him, is founded upon, and carries a direct reference to, the testimony of God at his baptism. This language, though not in the number of those titles by which the Jews described their expected Messiah, was farther proper, as it asserted his divine authority without obviously implying, that he was the Christ (which it was prudent in him not to avow,) and held him forth as teacher from God, without encouraging the idea that he was a temporal king.

a

[blocks in formation]

presented to his senses, nor yet a vision, but a figurative, a symbolical representation of the difficulties with which he had to contend in the discharge of his office, and of the feelings which such difficulties naturally awakened."

It appears to be a general principle of our author, that the miracles of our Saviour were symbolical. Accordingly as he proceeds he shows in what way he conceives they are to be understood; and as in the following passages he combines several instances, we shall quote it for the judgment of our readers.

"The works which our Lord performed, were calculated not only to prove the truth of his divine mission, by the display of supernatural power, but also to convey certain lessons of moral instruction, connected with the history of his religion. And as the events, to which they referred, were yet in futurity, they were prophetic, as well as miraculous, that is to say they are recommended to our notice as stamped with supernatural wisdom, as well as supernatural power. And this is a circumstance which widely distinguishes the miracles of Jesus from all the artifices of imposture. I will illustrate this position by a few examples. The draught of fishes, caught at his command, was symbolical of the multitude converted to the Christian church, Luke v. 10. The conversion of water into wine, sensibly pourtrayed the superiority of his instruction, to that offered by the scribes and pharisees, John ii. 1-6. He gave eyes to the blind, in token that he was the light of the world, John ix. 5. He healed the sick and the afflicted, and his beneficence in this respect was to be considered a living figure, that he was the great physician of souls. If the fig-tree withered at his command it was to represent, in sensible colours, the vanity of fruitless professions. Finally, if he fed, in a miraculous manner, the hungry multitude, it was to lead them to conclude, that he was the living bread, which came down from

heaven."

In page 519, &c. Mr. Jones blends together the parables of the ten pounds in Luke, and that of the ten talents in Matthew. Can this

be justified by the evangelical narratives?

In a note to page 561, we meet with an animated eulogy on Mr. George Walker, and Mr. Wakefield, which we are tempted to transcribe.

"These great and good men are both gone!! and their opinion on this subject will follow them; but their names cannot be forgotten as long as shining talents, profound learning, sim. plicity of manners, unbounded gene

rosity, unblemished honour, and empas

sioned zeal in the cause of truth and freedom, shall be valued among men."

We should have been glad to have seen a similar eulogy upon Lardner, instead of the following expression in page 573. "Lardner has examined the question, and has displayed in the examination his wonted learning, and clay-cold caution."

advanced at considerable length In pages 157, &c. Mr. Jones has his opinions respecting the Demoniacs. They manifest a habit of deep and ardent thought; but we should wish to see them brought into a more definite and distinct form. We mention them however principally to remark that in them there are two references to appendix V. which we hoped to have found; as the subject is very important, and

still somewhat intricate.

The appendix No. I. is occupied with a discussion of Marsh's hypothesis on the origin of the first three gospels. We have not room to discuss the author's opinions on this point; but it does not appear to us that he has done all which is requisite in order to refute the hypothesis in question. We cannot however forbear bringing forwards the following idea of the author respecting the verbal agreement of the Greek.

lect of Judea was not to be the consecra"He (our Lord) knew that the diated me as of divulging the glad tidings of christianity to the nations at large. He must, therefore, have directed their

attention to the Greek tongue; and while he used with his countrymen their language, in his private and confidential intercourses with his disciples, he probably expressed himself in the language of the gospel. If he went thus far, it was natural for him to proceed farther; and in order to qualify them for an exact knowledge, and free use of this speech, he

furnished his documents in Greek as well

as in the vulgar hebrew, or directed them

to set down their memorandums in both."

In No. II., the author adduces farther remarks on the logos; in which he makes the following animadversion on the rendering of John i. 1. given in the Improved Version, which we think important; that,

According to this representation, Jesus was in the beginning of his ministry. Needed the evangelist to say, that our Lord was in the beginning of his ministry, more than in the middle, or in the end of it? That Christ was in the beginning of his ministry, is so evident a proposition, that no man ever called it in question. And could the sacred writer be so trifling, as to assert what no man could be so absurd as to deny ?"

was

LXX, one only is also rendered royon and this is only once translated by

a and once by hoyos: that on the other hand, 27 which is at least 300 times translated λoyos, is never translated by copia or any equivalent to it; that of the other 34 words occasionally translated Aoyos not one (except the one before mentioned) has copia or any equivalent used as the translation; and that there does not appear to be a single instance in which the word logos is so used in the New Testament, certainly not in the writings of John, though he has used it upwards of 60 times.

The last number of the appendoctrine of the greek article; of dix is occupied with Middleton's which work, the author's opinion in some degree coincides with our own; though we consider it as a more valuable production than he does.

The work displays abundant proofs of deep and energetic thought; but we must acknowledge that it appears to us mixed with too frequent marks of haste, and an indisposition to that minute examination and correction which every writer on subjects of such high importance owes to the public.-On the whole, however, we regard it as a valuable volume; and among those whose sentiments accord with our author's, and also among those who differ from him, but have a taste for scriptural investigation, and can bear to see it in a form somewhat different from their own creed, we have little doubt that it will have an extensive circulation.

In the 622nd page, the author asserts that the term logos no doubt borrowed from the Septuagint, as exactly expressing the word of God [to this we have no objection, but he adds] or the spirit of God, or the wisdom of God, which so frequently occur in the Jewish writings." To this statement we have to make the following objections, that on which is rendered copia, 135 times, is not once rendered hoyos; that of the other eleven words rendered op by the ART. VIII. The mysterious Language of St. Paul, in his Description of the Man of Sin, proved from the Gospel History, to relate not to the Church of Rome, but to the Times in which it was written. With some Remarks upon Sir H. M. Wellwood's Sermon on Matt. xxiv. 14. By N, NISBETT, M. A. Řector of Tunstall, 8vo. pp. 88. MR. Nisbett has long been known of those passages in the Scriptures as a very ingenious and able theo- of the New, Testament, which are logian, and he has particularly dis- generally supposed to refer to a yet tinguished himself by his very ra- future advent of Christ to the judgtional and consistent interpretations ment of the world. To these in

« AnteriorContinuar »