« PreviousContinue »
that this is a common usage of the Greek language; the only point is, whether the usage is so universal, that the nouns must, in such circumstances, refer to the same person.-I have already shown the degree of ambiguity which would arise from the neglect of this usage, (see note (TM) p. 139); and I must say that if instead of be. ing common, the usage had been universal, I should have preferred the supposition that the Apostle had made a minute grammatical error, than that he contradicted himself, (compare p. 41). But if it not only can be shown that the usage is not universal, but that there was a propriety in the departure from it in the cases referred to, even the grammatical part of the argument must then be given up as futile. As to the latter point, see note (5) p. 140; with respect to the former, I shall subjoin a few remarks chiefly derived from Middleton, Blunt, and Winstanley.
1. The cases corresponding in construction to those of the Canon, but not included in it, show that there is nothing in the construction itself which requires the inference stated in the Canon. “ο λιθος και χρυσος, and Την απειριαν και απαιδευσιαν, have exactly the construction required by the Canon *; but this construction does not identify the objects. Names of different substances, and of different abstract qualities, are obviously inapplicable to the same substance or quality ; and therefore the construction is of no force.
2. The exceptions admitted by Mr. Sharp to his Canon, also show that there is nothing in the construction itself which requires the inference.
- There is no exception or instance of the like mode of expression " that I know of,” says Mr. Sharp, “ which necessarily
requires a construction different from what is here laid
down, except the nouns be proper names, or in the “ plural number.” When we read Toν Αλεξανδρον και Φιλιππον, we see once that they must be names of different individuals, and therefore the construction is of no force. In like manner we readily perceive that Tous τραγωδους τε και κωμωδους, do not refer to the same
* Middleton's Doctr, of the Gr. Art. p. 83,
classes of men, and therefore the construction is of ne force. It is well observed by Middleton', ( as the reason why the inference of identity is less general in the case of plural than of singular nouns,) that " though one “ individual may act, and frequently does act, in several "s capacities, it is not likely that a multitude of indivi. “ duals should all of them act in the same several capa“ cities, and that, “ by the extreme improbability, that
they should be represented us so acting, we may be for“bidden to understand the second plural attributive of “ the persons designed in the article préfixed to the first, “ however the usage in the singular might seem to counte
nance the construction.” I need not remind the reader how appropriate this remark is to the passage where Paul is supposed to call Jesus Christ the Great God. See p. 41. 138.
3. The exceptions added by Winstanley ?, and by Middleton, in connexion with those allowed by Sharp,
fairly considered, must be fatal to the inference" deduced from the construction. (1) National appellations must be excepted; as, ο Μωαβιτης και Αμανιτης. (2) The inference will not hold good where one of the nouns is plural; as, Luv on ur, Tpi xar douaois. (3) Nor if one of them is a proper name; as, OI TIOTOI EIXOVE. έχoυσι του αρχοντος Θεου πατρος και Ιησου Χριστου. Nor (4) if the attributives “cannot be predicated of the same subject without the most evident and direct contradiction;” as, Του αρτιου και περιττου, του δικαιου και αδι
Nor (5) even if the signification of the personal words render any further mark of personal distinction unnecessary ; as, Του πεπαιδευμενου και απαιδευτου, and Μεταξυ του ποιουντος τε και πάσχοντος.
With the 4th class of exceptions I would rank one of the passages which Mr. Sharp regards as proofs of the Godhead of Jesus. I contend that no early convert who had been taught Christianity by Paul, or who bad even only read bis Epistles, could suppose that he meant the same person by THE GREAT God, and, OUR SAVIOUR Jesus
y Middleton, p. 90. z Vindication, p. 16.
a Middleton, p. 92.
CHRIST. Allowing the Apostle to be his own interpreter, I feel no hesitation in saying, that he could not have called Jesus Christ the GREAT God, " without the most evident and direct contradiction.” In like manner, I would rank the other passages adduced by Mr. Sharp, (see p. 136,) with the 5th class of exceptions. In the Apostle Paul's phraseology God, and, Christ, (or the Lord Jesus Christ,) were as perfectly distinct appellations, as Philip and Alexander in the phraseology of the Greek orators.
4. In a very large proportion of the instances adduced, in which any inference can be drawn as to the identity of the object of the personal nouns, it is drawn not from the construction, but from the meaning of the words themselves, or from some adjunct which indicates the intention of the writer b. I believe it would not be too much to say that this is so generally the case, as (in connexion with the foregoing remarks) to justify the conclusion that the peculiarity of construction specified in Mr. Sharp's rule, was not in any way appropriate to the inference he has drawn from it. I shall adduce two or three instances in explanation of iny meaning; with a full expectation that the critical reader will find the statement of very general application. In ‘O Treplecyos xal συκοφαντης Δημοσθενης, the last noun shows that the two former refer to the same person : and in Tos Ở TY TOMEL λεγων και γραφων και πραττων και εαυτον δους, the τις shows that the following participles refer to the same person. In the following passage, quoted by Middleton from Philo, it appears evident that the insufficiency of the construction to decide the identity of object was felt by that writer; after saying, EEETIEUTE TODOS TOV Tn5 Ιουδαιας αρχιερεα και βασιλεα, he adds, ο γαρ αυτος ην.
5. But whatever objection may be made to the force of the foregoing remarks, it is sufficient to show the futility of Mr. Sharp's inference in reference to the deity of Christ, if we can produce one clear instance in which the construction has been preserved, while the nouns
See some excellent remarks which suggested this, in Gregory Blunt, p. 59.
refer to different persons: if the inference be not a necessary one, it can weigh nothing against such evidence as we possess, that the Apostle Paul meant two persons by the appellations the Great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ. But several unexceptionable instances have been produced ; and they completely destroy the authority of the Canon. The first I shall mention is from Dr. Middleton, p. 91. Herodotus, he says, (Ed. Steph. lib. iv. p. 154,) has these words : Twv Taranewy TE μιαν αποπνιξαντες θαπτουσι, και τον οινοχόον, και μαγειρον, και ιπποκόμον, και διηκονον, και αγγελιοφορον, και ίππους, και κ. τ. λ. A second is adduced by Gregory Blunt (p. 57), from Wordsworth's Letters, (p. 51), taken from Chrysostom's homily on 1 Tim. v. 21; “where that Father clearly understands the words eVwTTIOY του Θεου και κυριου ημών Ιησου, of two different persons, the Father and the Son: and he is followed in that explanation, as usual, by Ecumenius and Theophylact." Mr. Winstanley has brought forward several others, all of which are appropriate, and two of them in every respect unexceptionable: Μεθ' ου δοξα τω θεώ και πατρι Hai án TV EVMOT, Epist. Eccles. Smyrn. de Martyr. Polycarp.: Φοξου τον θεον, υιε, και βασιλεα, και μηθ' ÉTEOW autwv atel@r,ons, Paræm, xxiv. 21; which passage from the Septuagint is thus quoted, says Winstanley, in the interpolated epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnians, Tιμα, φησιν, υιε, τον θεον και βασιλεα.
I have entered into the consideration of the Canon much more man I originally intended; but as the works to which I referred in p. 138, for my proofs, are no longer accessible to the public, it appeared desirable to furnish my readers with a view of the leading principles on which I rest my assertion, That Mr. Sharp's renderings of the controverted passages are not required by the Greek idiom.
INDEX OF TEXTS
Explained or illustrated in this Volume.
[N. B. Where a mode of expression occurs several times, one text only is, in general, specifically considered and inserted in this Index, but the expression itself may be found by the General Index. This is frequently the case in the passages concerning the death of Christ ; but all of these are cited under their respective heads.]
19 i. 26-38
353-360 23 i. 16, 17
145 119 iv. 1-13
10 ix. 6 xi. 27 xvi. 22 xviii. 20
26 190 xxii. 20
313 22 xxiv. 26. 46
314 75 47
59-66 23. 130
61, 62. 145, 156. 193 23. 192 3, 10
xxvi. 28 xxviii. 18-20
18 19 20