« PreviousContinue »
the inspired penmen of the New Testament, St. John ; whose Gospel was composed for the express purpose of maintaining the Divinity of Christ against the Cerinthian heresy. Thus, in the very begivning of his Gospel, after asserting that no one had ever witnessed a personal appearance of the Father, he immediately subjoins, ο μονογενής υιός, ο "Ων εις τον κόλπος του Πατρός, εκείνος εξηγήσατο. Again, C. vi. V. 46. Ουχ ότι τον πατέρα τις εώρακες, μη “Ο "Ων παρα του Θεού· ούτος εώρακε τον πατέρα. And again in his Book of Revelations, c. i. v. 4. do roŨ ó wv, rod ó riv, xai i égzóJL.EVOSS-a bold and daring construction against all rules of Grammar, but more than compensated by the idea conveyed under the form of expression. And also in verse 8. of the same chapter, speaking of Christ, he again gives him the title of 'o *129,-. martoκράτωρ.
3. This use of the participle will be farther illustrated by referring to a similar employment of the verb from which it is derived. Our Saviour, in a conversation with the Jews, maintains his preexistence in these memorable words : « Before Abraham was, I AM.”—Tipo Abgadu yevéobci, šyu suhe. John viii. 58.
It is very remarkable, that in speaking of his own pre-existent state, he does not use the same word as he applies to Abraham's birth ; though our translation would lead to such supposition, Tagiy’AByodu yeréobios, before Abraham was created, or born, syu's Eius--I am, I exist. And that the Jews understood him as laying claim to the incommunicable prerogative of the Most Highest iş evident, from the circumstance of their taking up stones to cast at him_death, by stoning, being the legal punishment of blasphemy.
As our translators have not inserted the pronoun he after eiui in this verse, it is somewhat strange that they should have so done in the corresponding verses 24. and 28. of this Chapter ; where our Saviour, as unequivocally as here, lays claim to self and preexistence. Eαν μη πιστεύσητε ότι εγώ είμι, αποθανείσθε εν ταίς αμαρciais vucy. If ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins. “Οταν υψώσητε τον υιόν του ανθρώπου, τότε γνώσεσθε ότι εγώ είμιWhen ye have lifted up the Son of Man, then shall ye
know that I am. I am he ? -Who? There is no antecedent' with which the pronoun can make sense, nor in whose place it can be put by any grammatical construction.
This interpretation, if correct, will tend to throw light upon another circumstance in our Saviour's history, otherwise obscure ; and, in so doing, will add a further confirmation to the point onder discussion.
It is related by the same Evangelist, c. xviii. that as soon as Jesus had said to Judas and his company, “I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground." The pronoun he, is, in our
translation, printed, very properly, in italics, for it is not in the original. Though in this sentence, an antecedent to the pronoun might be found, yet would not the meaning start forth plain and unequivocal ; and would not the act of Judas and his company be more consonant with that meaning, if the translation ran thus, as in the Greek—« As soon as he had said unto them I AM (éyu cije) they fell to the ground ?”
I am aware that in several similar expressions used by the holy perimen, the pronoun after the verb eid is omitted, and must be supplied, not in the sense which I would wish to put upon this passage. 'But we are to remember that our Saviour, most probably, (I might say most certainly) spoke the vernacular tongue of his countrymen, the Syriac ; that the Evangelists have given uś his conversation in a foreign language, the Greek; the idiom of which differs widely from the other; and that he thereforë took to himself that unspeakable name, which the Jews deemed not only not lawful, but impious for a man to utter; and the bare words of which threw Judas and his party into such consternation. Otherwise, how shall we account for their recoiling backward, and falling to the earth, as there is nothing very striking in the manner, or the expression, in our translation ? No doubt, he then spake as one having authority :-he pronounced the high and lofty name of Jehovah, I AM; "and they went backward, and fell to the ground."
This interpretation of the verb ciui, as well as of its participle 'O *Dy, is borne out by the passage before adduced from the Septuagint translation of Exodus, c. iii. v. 11. rendered in our Bible
AM that I am,”-in the Septuagint, 'Eyuí Eius ó úr. For the Hebrew, after its usual manner, repeats the same word twice, which the Seventy have rendered first by 'Eyu Éijus, and then by
This use of the substantive verb ciut, and the sense of eternity and self-existence, in which it is here taken, are sanctioned by an authority which no classical scholar can resist. The simple inścription on the door of the Temple of Apollo 'at Delphi consisted of the second person of this verb, Ei: on which Plutarch composed a particular treatise, to prove it to be the only proper, and peculiar title of the One, simple, uncompounded, eternal, and self-existent Being. It is more than probable, that Plutarch, who, confessedly, had travelled into Egypt, and, professedly, to make inquiry into the ancient learning of the Egyptians, had enjoyed a sight of either the original Hebrew Scriptures, or the Septuagint Version from one or other of which he gained his correct, but otherwise, unaccountable notion of the origin and the VOL. VIII. Cl. Jl.
true meaning of the famous inscription just spoken of, and of the derivation of the name of the Deity worshipped at that place.
It were easy to extend this article to a much greater length, by producing many other corresponding expressions ; but ì fear Í have already trespassed too far. I cannot, however, refrain from summing up the whole argument drawn from this passage of St. John in favor of Christ's Divinity, with a remark, which, if well founded, will show with what singular propriety our Saviour assumed to himself, when on earth, that name, which had belonged to him from all eternity. For, if we receive the united testimonies of all commentators, ancient and modern,--as well of those who paraphrased the Scriptures of the Old Testament before the appearance of the Messiah' in the flesh, as of those who have commented on them since his incarnation,-it was Christ himself who made to Moses this solemn declaration of Godhead. It was " the Angel of the Lord.” It could not have been a created Angel: for he is expressly styled by the incommunicable name of Jehovah; he calls himself the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Exod. iii. 4. 6.; and in verse 15 he adds, “This is my name for ever,”-in the Hebrew, to eternity ; “ and this is my memorial unto all generations,”in the Hebrew, to all succeeding generations. Nor was he God the Father, for he is the Angel of the Lord”-Hamelek—Jehovah—the sent of the Lord. Witness his own assertions, as to his being sent of the Father—the Messenger of the Covenant. Mal. iii. 1. Who then is this, but Jesus the Christ ; 'Εγώ είμι –ο "Ων εν τω κόλπο του Ilatçós: 'o *12; &v tự ou para God over all, blessed for evermore?
If I have not trespassed so far as to exclude these remarks from your Journal, I shall have great satisfaction in communicating, from time to time, critical notices of such passages as may occur to me in the study of the Holy Scriptures; which, though they may not carry with them the air of originality, or the advantages of fair and polished diction, will call forth, from among your readers, some abler head to correct them, if they be wrong; or, if they be right, some abler hand and pen, to adorn and to defend them.
On the Platonic Use of xivouveúely, as explained by H.
Stephens, Ruhnken, Valckenaer, and Le Clerc.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL Some time ago, a very sensible friend was mentioning to me what he thought a very rare use of the verb xivềuveúew in a passage of Herodotus, but I assured him that such a use of it was very common in Plato. Since that time, I have met with an excellent
passage upon this use of it, in Le Clerc's Ars Critica, which, together with the remarks of Ruhnken, Valckenaer, and H. Stephens, I shall present to him through the medium of the Classical Journal.
Hatton, July 21, 1813.
E. H. BARKER.
“ Kuvauveuw cum infinit. interdum verbo videor, interdum aliis modis redditur, remotis tamen ab illa prima significatione. -- Plutarch. Sympos. 5. κινδυνεύουσι γαρ οι άλες των άλλων όψων όψον είναι και ήδυσμα: Budeus autem postquam dixit κινδυνεύω esse το έγγίζω, et videor, affert ex Platone De Rep. L. vii. ai yêu Toivuvandi άρεται καλούμεναι ψυχής κινδυνεύουσιν εγγύς τι είναι των του σώματος, . non exponens videntur prope accedere ad etc. sed prope accedunt ut sint (vel esse videantur) eadem natura : Item, prope est ut sint. Nec tamen utitur hoc adverbio propter évyùs, quum hæc Synesii και κινδυνεύουσι πείθειν ενίους, interpretetur itidem jam prope in eo sunt, ut quosdam in opinionem adduxerint, itidemque hæc Greg. κινδυνεύει χαλεπώτερον είναι vertat, Prope est ut dicam difficilius esse, addens tamen et interpr. hanc, Atque huud scio an difficilius sit. Sed interdum adverbio fermé, aut fere hic utimur in expositione verbi, ut ap. Plat. in Hippia Minore, vũv dry wf 'Itria xvvềuveuws μανθάνειν δ λέγεις, idem Budeus vertit Jam ferme 0 Hippία quod dicis intelligo : sic vero et in illo Synesii loco xivdUVEÚOudt medewy, reddi possit ferme in opinionem adducunt : item xivềuvetei impersonaliter
pro eo quod est propemodum dixerim, vel fortasse : Plato de Rep. L. ν. συχνω γαρ ψεύδει και τη απάτη κινδυνεύει ημίν δεήσειν χρήσθαι τους άρχοντας επ' ωφελεία των αρχομένων, et in Philebo, p. 220. μνήμης ότι ποτέ έστι, πρότερον αναληπτέον, και κινδυνεύει πάλιν έτι πρότερον αίσθησιν μνήμης, et fortasse ante omnia sensus memorie assu trendus, et constituendum quis sit memoriæ sensus. Bud. Sic lingu
1a Gallica, Il y auroit danger que ce ne fût, interdum dicit
pro Il pourroit bien être, vel Ce seroit peut-être.” H. Stephani Thesaurus Lingua Grece.
« Κινδυνεύει, εγγίζει- Phileb. p. 82. G. λόγον μέντοι τινα κιν• δυνεύομεν ου πάνυ σμικρών επεγείρειν, Lysid. p. 112. Β. κινδυνεύομεν όνας πεπλουτηκέναι, Theat. p. 137. D. αλλά μέντοι αμφότερα γε κινδυνεύει ο λόγος ουκ εάσειν, Georg. p. 298. D. ώστε κινδυνεύεις ουκ αληθή λέγειν, ubi vide Scholiasten: Basilius Scholiis ανεκδότοις in Gregorii Nazianz. Οrat. Xxxii. το δε Κινδυνεύειν, ελέγχεσθαι και δείκνυσθαι νύν σημαίνει: Δημοσθένης κατά Μειδίου, 'Αλλά κινδυνεύει το λίαν ευτυχές ενίοτε επαχθείς ποιείν και επ' αγαθού δε είληπται, ως “Ερμογένης εν τη Τέχνη, Ου κατά δύναμιν την έν δεινότητι εκεί γάρ φησι κινδυνεύει τα πρώτα φέρεσθαι, αντί του, προτετίμηται, προκέκριται : quæ descripta sunt ex Grammatico MS. de Syntaxi in Bibl. San._ germ. Tzetzes Scholiis MSS. 1η Ηermogenem, το Κινδυνεύει λέξις μεν Πλατωνική υπάρχει το δε αναγκαίως έχειν σημαίνειν ταύτην, νόει : recte Platonicam locutionem vocat, quæ tam crebra apud Platonem est, ut singulis paginis reperiatur: sed nec ipse, nec alii grammatici, locutionis rationem bene explicuerunt: optime Timæus šyyices exponit. Nam ut Latini dicunt, periculum est ne hoc ita sit, pro parum abest, quin ita sit, sic etiam Græci x.vêuveteiv pro éyyičely. Luzacius noster bene comparabat Belgicum bykans ; nam κίνδυνος Belg. kans: vide Valck. ad Herodot. iv. 105. Timæi glossula etiam est apud Suid." D. Ruhnkenii In Timæi Lexicon Vocum Platonicarum, Ed. 2a. Lug. Bat. 1789. p. 159.
The note of Valckenaer, to which Ruhnken refers, is as fol. lows : « Κινδυνεύουσι δε οι άνθρωποι ούτοι γόητες είναι-H. Stephani Vallam corrigentis versio recipi debuerat : verbum hoc usu, quem Portus adnotare neglexit, semel tantum occurrit apud Herod. κινδυνεύουσιν είναι notat esse videntur, sive sunt, et δοκούσιν είναι sæpius adhibetur pro eisi. Frequentavit illud inprimis Plato ; Xenophon 'Απομν. iv. p 465. 10. κινδυνεύει αναμφιλογώτατον αγαθών είναι το ευδαιμονείν, ν. 35. φροντίζω μη κράτιστον η μοι σιγάν» κινδυνεύω γαρ απλώς ουδέν είδέναι : sic ille sepius alibi loquitur, et in Epist. Socrat. xxii. Demosthenes I. c. Aristogit. p. 489. δυσκατάπαυστόν τι κινδυνεύει πράγμ’ είναι πονηρία : Platonis etiam imitatores Sophistæ hunc
flosculum scriptis sæpe suis interserunt : vide cl. Ruhnken. in Tim. Lex. p. 116., quique, alienis tamen intermixtis, apta quædam dedit cl. Wetsten. in S. Lucæ A. A. xix. 27.".
Neither Ruhnken, nor Valckenaer seem to have noticed the following excellent note of Le Clerc : « Non procul ab iis verbis, quæ modo expendimus, Socrates, cum dixisset se ob sapientia humane famam invidiosum factum fuisse, ait, τω όντι γαρ κινδυνεύω ταύτην είναι σοφός; que loquutio frequens est apud Ρlatonem, cum in hac Apologia, tum alibi passim : hæc autem loquutio nullo modo Latine exprimi potest: habet Ficinus nam hac revera sapiens esse videor, qui sensus non est quidem alienus ab h. l., sed nullo