Page images

ing Jesus stood on the shore; the disciples, however, knew not 5 that it was Jesus. Jesus said to them: My lads, have ye any 6 victuals? They answered : No. Cast the net, cried he, on the

right side of the bark, and ye will find. They did so, but were 7 not able to draw it, by reason of the multitude of fishes. Then

that disciple whom Jesus loved, said to Peter : It is the Master. Simon Peter hearing that it was the Master, girt on bis upper

garment, (which he had laid aside), and threw himself into the 8 sea. But the other disciples came in the boat, (for they were

not further from land than about two hundred cubits), dragging 9 the net with the fishes. When they came asbore they saw a 10 fire burning, and fish laid thereon, and bread. Jesus said to them: 11 Bring of the fishes which ye have now taken. Simon Peter

went back and drew the nei to land, full of large fishes, a hun

dred and fifty-three; and the net was not rent, notwithstand12 ing the number. Jesus said to them: Come and dine. Mean

time none of the disciples ventured to ask him: Who art thou? 13 knowing it was the Master. Jesus then drew near, and taking 14 bread and fish, distributed among them. This is the third time

that Jesus appeared to his disciples aster his resurrection. 15 When they had dined, Jesus said to Simon Peter : Simon son of

Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He answered: Yes, Lord,

thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus replied: Feed my lambs. 16 A second time he said : Siinon son of Jonas, lovest thou ine? He

answered: Yes, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus repli17 ed : Tend my sheep. A third time he said : Simon son of Jonas,

lovest thou me? Peter, grieved at his asking this question the third

time, answered: Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest 2 Pet. I. 14. 18 that I love thee. Jesus replied: Feed my sheep. Verily, veri

ly, I say unto thee, in thy youth thou girtest thyself, and wentest whither thou wouldst; but in thine old age thou shalt stretch

out thy liands, and another will gird thee, and carry thee whith19 er ihou wouldst not. This he spake, signifying by what death he

should glorify God. After these words he said to him : follow me. 20 And Peter turning about saw the disciple whom Jesus loved

followiny, (the same who, leaning on his breast at the supper, 21 bad asked who it was that would betray him.) Peter seeing

bin, said 10 Jesus : And what, Lord, shall becoine of this man? 22 Jesus answered: If I will that he wait my return, what is that 23 to thee? follow thou me. Hence arose the rumor among the

brethren, that that disciple should not die; nevertheless Jesus said not that he should not die, but “ If I will that he wait my return, what is that to thee?"

It is this disciple who attesteth these things, and wrote this

account; and we know that his testimony deserveth credit. eh. 20. 30.

25 There were many other things also perforined by Jesus, which

were they to be seyerally related, I imagine the world itself could not contain the volumes that would be written. Amen.

cb. 13. 23.


[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Be and Sions

ons sermo.

1. “In the beginning was the word,” év úvan vv o dóyos. I have here followed the E. T. and the majority of modern versions. Vul. and Zu. “In principio erat verbum." Err. Be. and Cas. have, instead of verbum,' used the word ' sermo.' The Gr. word hoyos is susceptible of several interpretations, the chief of which are these two, reason' and 'speech,' -ratio and oratio. The former is properly ó lóyos ó {vdiajeros, ratio mente concepta ; the latter o doyos o nuogóQixos, ratio enunciativa. The latter acceptation is that which has been adopted by most interpreters. If the practice of preceding translators is ever entitled to implicit regard from their successors, it is where the subject is of so abstruse a nature, as hardly to admit an exposition which is not liable to strong objections. For my part, the difference between verbum and sermo appears too inconsiderable, in a case of this kind, to induce one to leave the beaten track. Were I to desert it, (which I do not think there is bere sufficient evidence to warrant), I should prefer the word reason, as suggesting the inward principle or faculty, and not the external enunciation, which may be called word or speech. Things plausible may be advanced in support of either mode of interpreting. In favor of the common version, word, it may be urged, that there is here a manifest allusion to the account given of the creation in the first chapter of Genesis, where we learn, that “God in the begioning made all things by his word. God said—and it was so.” In favor of the other interpretation, some have contended, that there is a reference in the expression to the doctrine of the Platonists; whilst others are no less positive, that the sacred author had in his eye the sentiinents of Philo the Jew. Perhaps these two suppositions amount to the same thing in effect; at least it is more probable, that the Jewish theorist borrowed his notions on this subject from the Gr. philosopher, than that the evangelist should have recourse to an idolater. For my part, I entirely agree with those who think it most likely that the allusion here is to a portion of holy

used in, so in his chough people word om te

writ, and not to the reveries of either Philo or Plato. The passage of holy writ referred to is Prov. viii, throughout. What is here termed ο λόγος is there η σοφία. There is such a coincidence in the things attributed to each, as evidently shows that both were intended to indicate the same divine Personage. The passage in the Proverbs, I own, admits a more familiar explanation, as regarding the happy consequences of that mental quality which we may call true or heavenly wisdom. But it is suitable to the genius of Scripture prophecy to convey, under such allegorical language, the most important and sublime discoveries. Plausible arguments, therefore, (though not, perhaps, perfectly decisive), might be urged for rendering hóyos in this passage, reason. But as the common rendering, which is also not without its plausibility, has had the concurrent · testimony of translators, ancient as well as modern, and seems well adapted to the office of the Messiah as the oracle and interpreter of God, I thought it, upon the whole, better to retain it.

2 « The word was God," DEOS nv ó hóyos. The old English translation, authorized by Henry VIII, following the arrangement used in the original, says, “God was the word." In this manner, Lu. also in his Ger. translation renders it Gott war das wort. Others maintain, (though perhaps the opinion has not been adopted by any translator), that as the word Oxos is here without the article, the clause should be, in English, ' a God was the word.' But to this several answers may be given. 1st, It may be argued, that though the article prefixed shows a noun to be definite, the bare want of the article is not sufficient evidence that the noun is used indefinitely. See verses 6, 12, 13, and 18, of this chapter ; in all which, though the word Oxós has no article, there can be no doubt that it means God, in the strictest sense. 2dly, It is a known usage in the language to distinguish the subject in a sentence from what is predicated of it, by prefixing the article to the subject, and giving no article to the predicate. This is observed more carefully when the predicate happens, as in this passage, to be named first. Raphelius has given an excellent example of this from Herodotus, Nue in rutoa èyéveto opi uaxouévoloi, " The day was turned into night before they had done fighting." Here it is only by means of the article that we know this to be the meaning. Take from ruépa the article vút, and the sense will be inverted; it will be then, the night was turned into day.'-An example of the same idiom we have from Xenophon's Helen, in these words, 'O CEO's nollaxus χαίρει, τους μεν μικρούς μεγάλους ποίων, τους δε μεγαλους μικρούς. Here, though the subject is named before the predicate, it is much more clearly distinguished by the article than by the place, which has not the importance in the Gr. and La. languages that it has in ours. That the same use obtained in the idiom of the synagogue, may be evinced from several passages, particularly from Isa. 5: 25,

rendered by the Seventy, Oval oi dégoutes to Tovmpov xádov, xai to κάλον πονηρόν, οι τίθεντες το σκότος φως, και το φως σκοτος, οι τίθενTES rixçóv yavxv, xai yuxu rrixpóv. This is entirely similar to the example from Xenophon. In both, the same words have, and want, the article alternately, as they are made the subject or the predicate of the affirmations. I shall add two examples from the N. T. avęūpa ó Oxós, J. 4: 24, and revia ta čuo od čoriv, L. 15: 31.

3. “ All things were made by it; and without it,” 4.“ In it was life.” E. T. “ All things were made by him; and without bim-In him was life." It is much more suitable to the figurative style here employed, to speak of the word, though denoting a person, as a thing, agreeably to the grammatical idiom, till a direct intimation is made of its personality. This intimation I consider as made, ver 4. “ In it was life.” The way of rendering here adopted is, as far as I have had occasion to observe, agreeable, to the practice of all translators, except the English. In the original the word hoyos, being in the masculine gender, did not admit a difference in the pronouns. In the Vul. the noun verbum is in the neuter gender. Accordingly we have, in the second verse, “ Hoc (not hic) erat in principio apud Deum.” In most of the oblique cases both of hic and ipse, the masculine and the neuter are the same. In Italian, the name is parola, which is feminine. Accordingly the feminine pronoun is always used in referring to it. Thus Dio. « Essa era nel principio appo Iddio. Ogni cosa è stata fatta per essa ; e senza essa.” The same thing may be observed of all the Fr. interpreters who translate from the Gr. As they render logos by parole, a noun of the feminine gender, the pronoun which refers to it is always elle. In Ger. which in respect of structure resembles more our own language than either of the former does, the noun wort is neuter. Accordingly, in Luther's translation, the pronoun employed is dasselbige, which is also neuter, and corresponds to itself in Eng. As to English versions, it is acknowledged that all posterior to the common translation have in this implicitly followed it. But it deserves to be remarked, that every version which preceded it, as far as I have been able to discover, uniformly employed the neuter pronoun it. So it is in that called the Bishop's Bible, and in the G. E. Beside that this method is more agreeable to grammatical propriety, it evidently preserves the allusion better which there is in this passage to the account of the creation given by Moses, and suggests more strongly the analogy that subsists between the work of creation and that of redemption, in respect of the same almighty Agent by whom both were carried into execution ; for 'by him God also made the worlds,' Heb. 1: 2. Add to all this, that the antecedent to the pronoun it can only be the word; whereas the antecedent to him may be more naturally concluded to be God, the nearest noun; in which case the information given by the evangelist, ver. 3, amounts to no more than what Moses has given us in the beginning of Genesis, to wit, that God made all things; and what is affirmed in ver 4, denotes no more than that God is not inanimate matter, the universe, fate, or nature, but a living being endowed with intelligence and power. I believe every candid and judicious reader will admit, that something more was intended by the evangelist. Nor is there any danger lest the terms should, by one who gives the smallest attention to the attributes here ascribed to the word, be too literally understood. Let it be observed further, that the method here taken is that which, in similar cases, is adopted by our translators. Thus it is the same divine personage who, in ver. 4, is called “ the light of men;" to which nevertheless, the pronoun it is applied, ver. 5, without hurting our ears in the least.

2 " Without it, not a single creature was inade," zwpis aúrou šyévero oudé év ó ydyovev. Some critics, by a different pointing, cut off the two last words, ó yáovev, from this sentence, as redundant, and prefix them to the following, making ver. 4 run thus, o yeyovev Év avrõ Śwri ñv, " What was made in it was life.” The Vul. is susceptible of the like difference in meaning, from the different ways of pointing, as the Gr. is. The same may be said of the Sy. and of some other translations both ancient and modern. In languages which do not admit this ambiguity, or in which translators have not chosen to retain it, the general inclination appears to have been to the meaning here assigned. It is urged in favor of the other, that it is much in John's manner to begin sentences with the word or words which concluded the sentence immediately preceding. This is true, and we have some instances of it in this chapter ; but it is also true, that it is much in the manner of this evangelist to employ repetitions and tautologies, for the sake of fixing the reader's attention on the sentiments, and rendering them plainer. Of this the present Gospel, nay this very chapter, affords examples. Thus, ver. 7, 19Ev sis paprupiu, iva papr vonon: ver. 20. quodóynos :xai oux nounoaro, xai auohognosv. Admitting, therefore, that both interpretations were equally favored by the genius of the tongue and the apostle's manner of writing, the common interpretation is preferable, because simpler and more perspicuous. The apparent repetition in this verse is supposed, not implausibly, to suggest, that not only the matter of the world was produced, but every individual being was formed, by the Word.

5. “The light shone in darkness, but the darkness admitted it not,” το φως εν τη σκοτία φαίνει και η σκοτία αυτό ου κατέλαβεν. E. T.“ The light shineih in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not." Notbing is a more distinguishing particularity of this writer's style, than the confounding of the tenses. It is evident, from the connexion of these clauses, that the tense ought to be the

« PreviousContinue »