« ElőzőTovább »
rently known by — we could be almost contented to accept, if it should signify the sweeping away of those hundred barriers of sect and creed and form, by the rising of the great tide-wave, obedient to the morement of the celestial spheres.
The Twenty-Eighth Congregational Society in this city, making provision for Sunday morning services during the absence of their minister, certainly indulge in the spice of preaching, if variety is that ingredient. The acceptance of their multifarious invitations has already brought before them several representative men, and, we believe, representative women also. Popular lecturers have read. The left and right wings of several sects, and all the modifications of belief between, have furnished sermonizers; and the intimation is that the “ liberty of prophesying” in Music Hall is to be still further enlarged. This is “proving all things ;” but whether to the finding of any other “good” than that now cherished to "hold fast," doth not yet appear. One consequence of this diffusion of tongues brought the right man into the right place, to do the right deed, in a manly and Christian fashion. Highly esteeming and sympathizing in many respects with the Rev. Theodore Parker, Mr. Clarke wrote and then preached “in his individual capacity” a Discourse,* dissecting the theology of his friend, in that friend's “ own pulpit, to his own people, and with their full consent." The occasion and the speaker raised the expectation of a marked performance, which was not disappointed. The production has a rich flavor of idiosyncrasy; and, for that reason, will interest everybody, and be wholly acceptable to nobody. The tone is frank and goodtempered; the style lucid, vigorous, and condensed. But for the serious doubt whether the apotheosizing of mere intellectual greatness is not morally perilous, the preacher's iconoclastic zeal in regard to the eminent statesman and lawyer who have recently been eulogized and denounced above and below the truth might be deemed irrelevant. However this may be, when Mr. Clarke passes from the “man to the theologian,” from the region of hatred and love into that of pure, cold thought, he knows neither friend nor enemy. Thoroughly acquainted with the theology he examines, and holding his own theology as one who has carefully thought it out, he is pointed and decided in his agreements and disagreements with Mr. Parker, outlining his criticism with clean and bold strokes. His sentences are warm with the sincerity of conviction, and his arguments are evidently the honest arguments that give cherished satisfaction to his own soul. Loyalty to what he holds to be the truth keeps him from all compromises. Sixteen open pages of small pica do not afford room, as an hour's speech did not afford time, for an extended and complete discussion. Therefore the discourse is but a sketch, - a forcible and suggestive sketch. Salient points are stated which might be amplified to advantage; and in the maintenance of Christianity as a finality in religion, and a revelation
* Theodore Parker and his Theology: a Discourse delivered in the Music Hall, Boston, Sunday, September 25, 1859. By James FREEMAN CLARKE. Second Edition. Boston: Walker, Wise, & Co. 1859.
with supporting and illustrative miracles, and in the enunciation of a philosophy more comprehensive and truer to human experience than that which belongs to the theology under review, much more might have been written and said, without exhausting the subject. But the sermon is a contribution of thought which breeds thought; and the integrity of the criticism will command respect.
ru r . BIBLICAL CRITICISM.
The first edition of Winer's Grammar of the New Testament Diction * was published nearly forty years ago. The learned author has been continually laboring for its improvement up to the year 1855, when the sixth and last edition appeared. While engaged in the preparation of this edition an affection of the eyes brought the author to the verge of blindness; and as his decease has since occurred, no further improvements can be expected from his hand.
We do but echo the voice of the whole theological world when we give our testimony in favor of the unrivalled excellence of this Grammar, and its vast practical usefulness in the critical study of the meaning of the New Testament. Since the appearance of the first com- . paratively small work, up to that of the sixth enlarged and improved edition, it has been deservedly regarded by the learned of every name as without an equal or a rival. A former edition of the work was translated in this country in a very imperfect manner, and contained numerous important mistakes in regard to the meaning of the original. This sixth edition appears to us to have fallen into the hands of a competent translator, so far as knowledge of the German is concerned. Many portions of it which we have examined are so well translated, that there would seem to be no want of ability to make the English a correct representation of the German. But there does appear in some passages a want of accuracy, and evident marks of haste and carelessness occur not infrequently. We trust that a future revision of so important a work will cause these blemishes to disappear. A grammatical manual surely ought to be wholly free from inaccuracies of every kind.
But in regard to two portions of the work we have a more serious charge to prefer, - a charge implying qualities in the translator which we do not like to name. The charge is, that in one page — namely, p. 118, § 19 of the Translation – Mr. Masson has omitted two brief, but important statements, and one important note, containing nineteen lines, without giving any notice in his Preface or notes of any such expurgation. In another page — namely, p. 170 of the Translation — an important paragraph relating to the same general subject is quietly expelled by Mr. Masson, and evidently for the same reason. The
* A Grammar of the New Testament Diction, intended as an Introduction to the Critical Study of the Greek New Testament. By Dr. GEORGE B. WINER. Translated from the Sixth enlarged and improved Edition of the original. By EDWARD MASSON, M. A. In two vols. Vol. I. Philadelphia : Smith, English, & Co. 1859.
reason is, that in the omitted passages the distinguished German grammarian has laid down principles, or expressed opinions, favorable to the doctrine of Unitarians, and adverse to that of Trinitarians, in relation to the Deity of Jesus Christ.
The passages under consideration in one of the above-mentioned pages relate to the usage of the Greek article in certain passages of the New Testament relating to the nature and dignity of Jesus Christ. It is well known that Granville Sharpe, Esq., Bishop Middleton, and some others, supposed that they had found a new argument for the Trinity in the omission of the Greek article in certain passages of the New Testament in which Christ is mentioned, and to which they give a different translation from that of the Common Version. Thus in Titus ii. 13, which in the Common Version reads “ of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,” Middleton maintains that, in consequence of the omission of the article toû before owtñpos, the rendering should be “ of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ." The same doctrine he applies to some other passages, as Eph. V. 5; 2 Pet. i. 1; Jude 4. The doctrine of Middleton was, that “when two or more attributives, joined by a copulative, are assumed of the same person or thing, before the first attributive the article is inserted, before the remaining ones it is omitted.”
Now Dr. Winer has abundantly proved, that, both in classical and New Testament Greek, the article is omitted before such attributives when they relate to a different person or thing from that which has the article, as well as when they relate to the same person or thing; that the omission of the article in such cases is perfectly accounted for, according to the well-known usage of the Greek language, when the latter appellative is made definite in some other way, as by a pronoun connected with it, or by its being so commonly applied to a person as to partake of the nature of a proper name, or by its being followed by a proper name, &c. The same thing has been demonstrated by the late Professor Stuart * in a learned essay on the Greek article, and more recently by Alford in his note on Titus ï. 13.
Now, though Mr. Masson has not wholly concealed the opinion of Winer on this subject from a careful reader, yet it so happens that on one page in which it is discussed three important passages are expunged, and in another page Winer's explanation of a very important verse of Scripture has met with the same fate. Such treatment of an author by his translator, and that, too, without any notice given, seems to us to deserve the severest reprobation, even if no offence were committed against the cause of truth and good learning. One of the most distinguished scholars of Germany, who has bestowed the labor of nearly forty years upon the Grammar of the New Testament, and produced a work which theologians of all denominations have pronounced to be of first-rate excellence and of vast importance, suffers the hard lot of having his work expurgated by a translator, who has given so little attention and study to one of the pages which he has thus mangled,
* See the Biblical Repository for April, 1834.
as, in the course of it, to fall into at least one important mistranslation, which makes absolute nonsense of a sentence!
But we must proceed to our specifications. In page 142 of Mr. Masson’s translation occurs the following paragraph : “In regard to Titus ii. 13, ở Toávelay Tis so£ns Toũ uêyakoo deoũ sai goTipos fuân Ingoo Χριστού, the word σωτηρος does not appear to me a second predicate of θεού, as if Christ were first styled μέγας θεός, and then σώτηρ. My reasons for taking this view of the passage are grounded on Paul's teaching. The article is omitted before owrûpos, as the apposition precedes the proper name: of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." Now what Winer actually says (p. 118) is this: “I hold, on grounds which lie in the doctrinal teaching of Paul, that owrapos is not a second predicate together with Deoù, as if Christ were first called ó péyas Deós and then σωτηρ. The article is omitted before σωτήρος, because this word is made definite by the genitive ñuñv, and because the apposition comes before the proper name, &c.” Now by translating the German preposition neben “of” instead of “ together with,” thus making Winer speak of a second predicate of Deoû, Mr. Masson has, in the connection, made simple nonsense of the sentence. For the only ques. tion in the case is that which relates to the predicate or predicates of 'Incoû Xplotoû; in other words, the only question in the case is, whether Deoù is, or is not, a predicate of ’Inooû Xplotoû. Again, Mr.. Masson, by expunging — whether by design or accident — the clause, “ because this word sowrûpos) is made definite by the genitive quôv," has taken away by far the most essential part of the sentence; that is, by far the most important reason for the omission of the article before owtņpos. If this expurgation stood alone on this page, we should certainly attribute it to accident. But only a few lines below occurs in the German original this sentence: “ So in Jude, verse fourth, two different subjects (namely, deoTÓTNU and kúplov] may be referred to, since κύριος, being made definite by ημών, does not need the article to express the meaning, “Jesus Christ, who' is our Lord.?” This whole paragraph relating to the verse in Jude is omitted by Winer's translator, if we may not rather say expurgator.
Again, on the same page, Mr. Masson has omitted a note of Winer, nineteen lines in length. It relates to Titus ii. 13, and states in substance that, though owrñpos nuôv might be considered a second predicate with Deoù in relation to Jesus Christ, if the sense demanded it, yet no grammatical principle requires it to be so regarded. On the contrary, he maintains in this note, that no usage of the Greek article lies in the way of our understanding our Lord Jesus Christ” as another subject or person, distinct from the great God.” In this note he also expresses his conviction that the Apostle Paul could not, in consistency with his teaching in all his epistles, have called our Saviour Jesus Christ the great God. This whole note Mr. Masson has expunged, no notice being given of it.
Again, in page 142 of the original German occurs a passage which should be in page 170 of the translation. It relates to 1 John v. 20, and is as follows: “In 1 John v. 20, oŮtós éotiv ở å noivos Deós, [This
VOL. LXVII. — 5TH S. VOL. V. NO. III.
is the true God,] oŮtos [this] refers not to the immediate antecedent, Xplotós, as the older theologians, under the influence of dogmatic considerations, supposed, but to ó Deós. For, in the first place, ainduvòs cós [the true God) is the constant and exclusive epithet of the Father. In the second place, it is followed by a warning against idolatry; and ånn Olvos Deós is ever used in contradistinction from idols.” This whole passage relating to 1 John v. 20 is expunged from the translation by Mr. Masson, and that without notice. Here, too, the presumption and recklessness of the translator appear the greater, when we consider that Dr. Winer's view of this passage has been maintained by many eminent expositors, Trinitarian as well as Unitarian, among whom are Erasmus, Grotius, Wetstein, Michaelis, Morus, Archbishop Newcome, Macknight, Davidson, Lücke, De Wette, Meyer, Neander, Düsterdieck, and Hofmann. If Mr. Masson had merely chosen to express in a note his dissent from the view of Dr. Winer, no one would have found fault. But the suppression of the passage, and that, too, without notice to the reader, merits the severest condemnation.
A Grammar of the diction of the New Testament, the production of a scholar who was regarded by Professor Stuart as “ at the head of the severe and critical school of sacred philologists," pronounced by Dr. Hodge of Princeton as “a work of the highest authority," receiving similar praise from the most distinguished professors, clergymen, and reviews of all theological opinions, such as Stuart, Hodge, Turner, Gibbs, Ripley, Schmucker, the English Eclectic, the Biblical Repertory, the Methodist Quarterly, the Southern Presbyterian, and many others, - must be mutilated and expurgated, because the author, though no sectarian, living in a country where Trinitarians and Unitarians are not known as constituting distinct sects, has expressed his unbiassed conviction, founded solely on philological principles, first, that the Apostle Paul did not regard Jesus Christ as “ the great God," and never called him so, and, secondly, that no usage of the Greek article, whether in the New Testament or classical literature, favors such a doctrine. This is a specimen of the obstacles with which Unitarians have constantly to contend in the propagation of their faith. The very grammars of the Greek language must be expurgated when they seem to favor the doctrinal views of Unitarians.
The facts we have brought to light are very significant. Unitarians have sometimes been accused of relying on abstract reason in their theological investigations, rather than on philology and grammar. But here the very prince of grammarians and sacred philologists has pronounced the doctrine of the Apostle Paul to be that of Unitarians, so far as to forbid us to regard or call Jesus Christ “the great God." Here, too, the same distinguished grammarian and critic has unanswerably exposed the weakness of an argument for the Trinity which has been much relied on both in England and this country. May we not hope that it will soon be acknowledged that Unitarians have grammar and philology on their side, as well as reason and common sense ?
One remark more. We hope the numerous orthodox divines who, in the publishers' advertisement, have bestowed such unbounded praise