Images de page




We add the following brief appendix principally for the sake of presenting all our readers with Mr. Campbell's valuable Notes (from the Appendix to his version of the New Testament) on Gehenna, Matt. v: 22, and aion, a principal word of discussion in this controversy. It is due however to Mr. Campbell to say that he has strenuously and pertinaciously, to the very last, opposed the appending of these Notes of his own to the Discussion. Though in Letter XVI, paragraph 6, he accuses me of misrepresenting his note on Matt. v: 22, and says, I appeal to the whole note taken together. Will you lay it before your readers?" And though he taunts me, (Letter XVIII, paragraph 2,) for not publishing it; and when I did publish both notes entire with my 31st letter he allows my approval of them to be a high compliment," (Letter XXXII, paragraph 4,) yet he declined to the last to publish them to his readers, and utterly refuses his assent to their publication here! Of his motive in thus declining and refusing his assent to their publication our readers can judge as well as we. But as we have had much controversy about the meaning of the notes, I having all along maintained, and still maintaining, that they completely neutralize, or rather annihilate all his most valued and important criticisms in this discussion, while he denies it, our readers all have a right to see the entire notes and judge for themselves. How else can they tell which is right? I make no comments here on the purport of the D. S.






"Thomson translates Matt. v: 22, thus: "Whosoever is angry with his brother without cause, shall be liable to the sentence of the judges; and whoever shall say to his brother, Raca, (a contemptuous word,) shall be liable to the sentence of the Sanhedrim; and whoever shall say, Morǝh, (a reproachful word,) shall be liable (to be sentenced) to the vale of fire," or to the Gehenna of fire.

"In the common translation of this verse there is a confounding of things present and future, of things human and divine, that badly comports with the wisdom and dignity of the speaker. What affinity exists between judges, a council, and hell-fire? Why should one expression of anger only subject a person to human judges, and another subject him to hell-fire, in the usual sense of these words? Now if the terms in this verse conveyed the same



[ocr errors]


they conveyed to the audience which the addressed, we would discover a propriety and beauty in them which is not manifest in the common trans lations of them. The fact is, that the allusions in this verse are all to human institutions or customs amongst the Jews; and the judges, the Sanhedrim, and the hell-fire here introduced, are all human punishments. Parkhurst observes on the phrase Gehenna tou puros, (a Gehenna of fire,) that, in its outward and pri mary sense, it relates to that dreadful doom of being burned alive in the valley of Hinnom. The valley of Hinnom lay near Jerusalem, and had been the place of those abominable sacrifices, in which the idolatrous Jews burned their children alive to Moloch, Baal, or the sun. A particular place in this valley was called Tophet; and the valley itself, the valley of Tophet, from the fire stove in which they burned their children to Moloch.' [See 2 Kings xxiii: 10; 2 Chronicles xxviii: 2; Jeremiah vii: 30—32; xix: 5, 6; xxxii: 35.] It appears also that burning a person alive was a punishment inflicted under the law. viticus xx: 14; xxi: 9.


"The design of the speaker in this passage goes far to solve the difficulties which awkward translations of it have thrown in the way. The great error which the Messiah, in this part of his discourse, so severely reprehends, is a disposition to consider atrocious actions as the only evils which would subject men to the judgment of God. He proceeds to inform his audience that, under his reign, not merely atrocious actions, but improper thoughts, contemptuous and reproachful words, would subject men to punishment. In order to exhibit the discriminating spirituality of his reign, he alludes to human discriminations regarding criminal actions, and the diversities of punishment to which transgressors were obnoxious, according to the supposed malignity of their deeds.

"The sentence of the city councils, which extended, in certain instances, to strangling a person, is one of the allusions. These councils were composed of twenty-three judges, and were an inferior court amongst the Jews. The Sanhedrim, or council of seventy-two senators, whose sentence authorized stoning to death, and which was the superior court of that people, constitutes the second allusion. The burning a person alive in the vale of Hinnom, is the third. By these allusions he teaches his audience. that anger in the heart, anger expressed in the way of contempt, and anger expressed with manifest malice, would, under his reign, subject men to such diversities of punishment, as they were wont to apportion to atrocious actions, according to their views of criminality.

"The following translation of this verse is expressive of the full sense of the original. Whoever is vainly incensed against his brother, shall be obnoxious to the sentence of the judges, (the court of twenty-three ;) whoever shall say to his brother, (in the

« PrécédentContinuer »