« ПредишнаНапред »
owns, signified with as well as in,) as Luke iii. 16. εγώ μεν ύδατι βαπτίζω υμάς, « I indeed baptize you with water.” Acts i. 5. “ John indeed BÓTTIDEV ÜÒATI, baptized with water.” Acts xi. 16. “ John indeed, εβάπτισεν ύδατι, baptized with water." Heb. x. 23. Και λελουμένου το σώμα ύδατι καθαρώ, « And having
, « our bodies washed with pure water.” In 1 John v. 6. õià, signifying through as an instrument, is explained by év. “ This is he that came, di Údaros val oi aillaros, by water and blood, even Jesus Christ, oin εν τώ ύδατι μόνον, αλλ' εν τω ύδατι και το αίματι, not BY water only, but by water and blood.”+
With regard to the other phrases, I need not dwell
• Several of the passages, in which is is the common reading, are in many MSS. found to be without it.
+ “ An ablative case is quite superfluous; for, as all taking of one object from another, must commence at one of the objects, we may say privo te divitiis, I deprive thee at or connected with riches; or stero se ploutou, I deprive thee of, or concerning wealth; plenus sabulo, full at, or along with gravel; mestos ges, full of, that is, related, connected with earth. It is nearly arbitrary, and at the disposal of custom, whether we use the genitive or dative to mark the noun of cause, manner, or instrument.
These in Greek are often in the genitive, often in the dative; in Latin they are often in what is absurdly, but, for the sake of convenience, usefully termed the ablative case. Scribo calamo, I write with, that is, close, connected with a pen : nipto cheiras halos, I wash the hands with, that is, connected with salt: filius patris, a son connected with, or related to a father: filius patri, son to, is, pertaining to a father-prepositions, which govern three cases, are to be viewed in three different lights; as a sub. stantive governing a substantive in the genitive; as an adjective or noun requiring the dative ; or as a word of action construed with
much longer on the minute subject of the prepositions concerned in the question, as I am enabled to give so able and full an illustration of them in the Appendix. Notwithstanding our translators say, Matth. iii. 16. “ Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water," I suppose that no man upon earth who can read ανέβη ευθύς από του Üdatos, imagines it to be any thing else than “ he went up straightway FROM the water." Now it surely will not be said that Philip had any occasion to go farther with the Ethiopian nobleman than John did with our Saviour, in order to the ad. ministration of Baptism. It is reasonable, then, to understand the sis and the fx of Acts viii. 38, 39, as signifying precisely what is indicated by the end of Matth. iii. 16. I am far from saying that sis does not often signify into, and fx out of. But I say, they do not possess these meanings necessarily or universally, and particularly, for the reason given above, they do not possess them in Acts viii. 38, 39.
I have been blamed for rendering sis, in my Greek Grammar, being at, arriving at, going to, without going into, and yet és, els, and clow, are constantly used by Homer in this sense. Thus, Iliad, A, 71. Kui soo' ηγήσατ' 'Αχαιών "Ιλιον ΕΙ”ΣΩ, « And had conducted the ships of the Greeks to Ilium.” He uses sis, in telling the fate of those Greeks, who came to Troy, but never got into it, having been slain BEFORE it, E. 550.
the accusative." Murray's History of European languages. Vol. II. Text, Part II. Chap. II. Section 3.
Τώ μεν άρ ηβήσαντε, μελαινάων επι νηών
CowPER. Now, wherever sis and éx correspond to each other, the extent of the one must measure the extent of the other. The point of departure to return cannot be different from the point of arrival in going. In other words, if sis signify to, thèn ér must, in the same connection, signify nothing more than from. Thus, in Acts viii. 38, 39, I give the whole meaning of xaréBroar du póregoi EI'S TO Uow, when I say, “they went down both to the water.” I also give the whole meaning of &vénoav 'EK TOŨ Udaros, when I say, “they went up FROM the water.” The original distinction between drò and šx, seems to have been, that śr was used to signify the separation of things previously conjoined ; and, of things, whether previously conjoined or not. But this distinction soon came to be overlooked in practice, and the two to be often used almost indiscriminately.
In a letter from a friend, which Dr. Ryland of Bristol has inserted in his “ Candid Statement,”* are charged P. xx. with setting aside the literal, or
* A Candid Statement of the Reasons which induce the Baptists to differ in opinion and practice from so many of their Christian brethren. By John Ryland, D. D.
dinary, and obvious meaning of these terms, in favour of their secondary, metaphorical, and allusive applications. I can only say, I am not at all aware of doing so in any of the preceding remarks, or in any I ever made, or published, on the subject. In reply to some remarks made on my Grammar by the worthy Doctor, the substance of which has been since published in his “ Candid Statement," I also received from a friend, now deceased, to whom I was deeply indebted for assistance in my Grammar, and whose character as a friend, a man of learning, and a Christian, stands unrivalled in the esteem of all who knew him ; from this friend I received a letter, which he gave me leave to make what use of I pleased, if I should publish on the subject, and which I am sure it will gratify many to see at full length.
After giving many quotations to prove what no man denies, that siç often signifies into, Dr. R. says, " Yet I have known a most excellent man so influenced by the fear of immersion, as to shun all similar examples of this use of the preposition, except sigisvai eis ad lepov, and then, instead of rendering it simply, to enter into the temple, he gives it this odd, circuitous rendering, properly to arrive at it, so as completely to get within it.” From the manner in which Dr. R. here refers to my friend's illustration of sis, in page xxii. of the Appendix to his “ Candid Statement," he seems to have thought, that he had to deal with a narrow minded, bigoted preacher, who was so blinded by prejudice, and frightened for
heresy, that he could not give a simple rendering, in the plainest case. I hope it will give him pleasure to find, that he was never more mistaken in his life. My friend, (who was not a preacher,) was a man of the most liberal mind, of the most enlightened views in regard to the nature of language, of the most generous impartiality in all controversial discussions, of the most downright integrity, and of the happiest union possible of firmness and good humour. To those who knew him, no proof need be offered : to those who knew him not, I believe a proof of my account of him will be furnished sufficiently, by the reasoning, and the spirit, of the subjoined letter.*
To the charge, mentioned above, Dr. R.'s friend adds, “ It is a suspicious circumstance too, that these criticisms should be employed on a translation of the New Testament, made, not by Baptists, but by Pædobaptists.” It was not quite correct to throw out this remark; because it is calculated to mislead. The unwary reader will naturally think, these men cannot be satisfied with a translation made even by men on their own side of the question. Now, although our English translators were on our own side of the question respecting the subjects of Baptism, they were directly opposed to us, on the question, which has called for our criticisms on the prepositions, namely the question respecting the mode of Baptism. They were certainly Pædobaptists; but they were also immersion Baptists, and that part of their system seems
• See Appendix.