Images de page
PDF
ePub

the rendering of the word nxun, the common translation seems not to correspond with the grammatical structure of the original; and it certainly departs from the government which the verb uxoμ is seen to have in the exactly similar sentence which has just been quoted. In that sentence this Greek verb, signifying to wish, governs the noun which is the subject of the wish, in the accusative case-nuxovтo nμegav Yeverba-they wished for the day. But in the passage we consider-ηχομην γαρ εγω αυτος αναθεμα είναι απο του Χριστου-the words yo autos, which our translators render myself, and make the subject of the wish, are not in the accusative case, but in the nominative. With what propriety is the apostle here represented as making himself yw autos-the subject of his wish? According to the translators' own rendering in the other passage, they should have represented avabeμa—a substantive in the accusative case-as the subject of this wish: i. e. they should have represented the apostle as wishing an anathema, or a curse, from Christ; and not as wishing himself accursed from Christ. It occurs, indeed, that the translators may have viewed the strict rendering of this passage to be this "For I myself wished to be an anathema from Christ”—and that they considered the translation they have given as an equivalent. If this were so, it may justly be remarked that they have in this instance translated much more freely than they usually do, and differently, as we have seen, from what they did in a similar instance; and so, moreover, as not really to give the sense of the passage, nor in the manner which best agrees with the structure of the original language. On the whole, let the words yw autos be considered as the nominative to nuxoμm, and let this word have its proper government of avadeua, in the accusative, followed by the infinitive mood eva, and this followed by ano Tov Xgiσtov, and let these words, preceded by the conjunction yag, be strictly rendered-We shall then have a translation corresponding exactly with that of Acts xxvii. 29, and the only one, it is believed, which can be considered as correct. It will stand thus-"For I myself did wish an anathema (or a curse) from

Christ" In regard to the rest of the verse there is no dispute.

It may now be asked, what is the meaning of the whole verse? I answer, that it is at least evident that the meaning is not that which is communicated by the common translation:-it is evident that the apostle is not here speaking of the state of his mind when he wrote the epistle, but of what it had been long before, in his unconverted state. While he was in that deplorable state, and "exceedingly mad" against the Redeemer and his disciples, he had "wished for an anathema," or a curse, "from Christ, for," or concerning, “his brethren, his kindred according to the flesh." To what specifick act, or acts, he might here have reference, he does not inform us-He elsewhere tells us, however, that he had been a blasphemer, as well as a persecutor and injurious. We also know that he was brought up and had his residence at Jerusalem, and that he was there at the martyrdom of Stephen, and "kept the raiment" of those who slew him. This event took place a short time, probably within a year, after the crucifixion of our Lord. Is any thing more probable than that the apostle, then a young and ardent pharisee, and devoted to all the measures and views of the Jewish priesthood, was one of those who invoked upon themselves the awful curse" his blood be upon us and upon our children?" Or if he did not join in the cry, at the very time, that hearing of it, as he certainly would, he had openly and often expressed his approbation of it, and thus made himself a party to it? And is it not probable that, together with his general character as a blasphemer, he might have this dreadful act particularly in view? If so, it not only gives great force to the text, but great strength and point to the whole context-Well might he, in recollection of all this, have "great heaviness and constant sorrow in his heart;" because "on his brethren, his kindred according to the flesh," he had invoked the awful anathema which he now saw abiding on them. He had, by the immeasurable grace of God and the miraculous. interposition of the Saviour, been delivered from the curse

himself. But he saw that the most of them were still under it, and likely so to remain: and, in contemplating their guilty and impenitent state, he could call God to witness, that he felt "great heaviness and constant sorrow of heart.' Nor was this alleviated, but greatly aggravated, when he recollected that the people, now reduced to this awful situation, were once the peculiar people of God-" Israelites to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all God blessed forever. Amen."

The author is not willing to close this extended note, in which he has attempted to correct what he conscientiously believes to be an error in the common English version of the New Testament, without remarking, that he is not among those who believe that version to be very faulty, and of course to need very frequent corrections. On the contrary he considers it as one of the very best translations that ever was, or ever can be made; and he has never seen any other English version, even of a single book of this part of the sacred volume, which, taken as a whole, he thought equal to the vulgar version. Yet to suppose that this version, the work of fallible men, is absolutely perfect, is an extreme on the other side. Nothing but the original is perfect. If it can be shown that, in a few instances, the eminently learned, and upright, and pious men, who formed the vulgar version, have, through that imperfection which cleaves to every thing human, not given the best rendering of a particular phrase or passage, let this be candidly shown; and if it be satisfactorily. shown, a service is certainly rendered to the cause of truth. Whether this has been done, in the present instance, let competent judges decide.

LECTURE III.

What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him?

THE second answer, or proposition, of our catechism is thus expressed

"The word of God, contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us, how we may glorify and enjoy him."

Divine revelation, as made known to us by language, is here called the word of God; and is said to be contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The book which is formed by the record of this revelation is also, you know, commonly called the Bible. It may be of some use to consider, very briefly, the meaning, and the propriety, of these several terms and appellations.

The word Bible-derived from the Greek word Bios, (Biblos)-means the book, by way of eminence. There is great propriety in this appellation. We could do better without all the other books in the world, than without the Bible. It is from this alone that we are fully taught the nature of God, our duty to Him, the way of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, the way to escape a state of endless future misery, and to secure a state of endless future happiWhat is all other knowledge compared with this? But besides this, the Bible communicates knowledge of a highly important kind. It gives us the only rational account of the creation of the world which we inhabit; of the original formation and state of man; of the introduction of moral evil into the world; of the general deluge; and of the early history of mankind. As competent a judge as ever lived-Sir WILLIAM JONES-wrote on a blank leaf of his Bible, the following character of this sacred book-"I have carefully and

ness.

regularly perused these Holy Scriptures; and am of opinion, that the volume, independently of its divine origin, contains more sublimity, purer morality, more important history, and finer strains of eloquence, than can be collected from all other books, in whatever language they may have been written." After such a testimony, from the first scholar of his age, one would suppose that, in the absence of better motives, a regard to character, would prevent any man who has a character to preserve or to acquire, from speaking contemptuously or slightingly of the Bible.

The contents of the Bible are called, in the answer before us," the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments." The term Scriptures is synonymous with Writings; and they are called the Scriptures-that is, the Writings-by way of eminence For the same reason that the whole volume, as we have just seen, is called the Bible, or the book.

The sacred writings which were penned before the coming of Christ, are called the Old Testament; those which were afterwards penned, by the apostles and evangelists, are called the New Testament-The reason of this may be shortly stated thus: The Hebrew word n (Berith) and the Greek word Araban (Diatheke) signify, in each of those languages, both a covenant and a testament; and in some parts of the sacred writings, should be rendered by one of these English words, and in other parts by the other: So that there has been some difficulty, and some difference of opinion, in deciding which of these English words should be preferred, as the general representative, or interpretation, of the Hebrew or Greek term, of which it is the translation. On the whole, the word Testament has been preferred, and probably with justice. Now observe, that after the sin of our first parents, by which they broke the covenant of works, under which they were in the state of innocence, it pleased God to form with them another covenant, called the covenant of grace. This was made in virtue of the undertaking of Christ, and particularly of his atonement, in which it was to be ratified by his blood. The Mosaick or Jewish dispensation, and the Christian dispensa

F

« PrécédentContinuer »