[ocr errors]




of an apxn. But whereas no Greek author is found to have used the accusative adverbial αρχην or την αρχην in the sense of “from the beginning," there are various examples to prove that they employed it to mean plane, prorsus, omnino, volstrekt, assuredly.

It is sufficient to note here that two Greek fathers, Chrysostom, in his Fifty-third Homily on St. John,and Theophilactus ad h. l., understood tnv apxnv in the sense of volstrekt, omnino, assuredly, expressing it by its equivalent adverb olw5. Owing, however, to a false reading of the text, both entirely misunderstood the passage. But this rather strengthens than impairs their testimony as to the signification which the adverbial phrase tnv apxnu may obtain.t

Beelen's interpretation, then, exactly accords with the original; it is clear, simple, and literal : Την αρχην

λαλω υμιν. Volstrekt dat

ook leer relieden. Assuredly that what also I teach you. Each Greek word has its equivalent in the vernacular, and the whole passage exactly suits the context.

But it may be asked, if the Saviour meant nothing more than “ I am what I also announce to you,'

why he did not say at once « Εγω ειμι ον με ειναι λεγω,” and from the fact of his not employing the usual mode of expression, are we not to conclude that he insinuated in that obscure phrase something more than the ordinary and plain expression would imply? We do not deny that the Saviour might have answered, “I am what to-day I am ;' but the text as it stands is far more pregnant, and more in accordance with the context.

“ If you believe not,” said the Saviour, v. 24," that I am, you shall die in your sins.” This verse is in reality the great puzzle. What did he wish them to believe ? " That I am.” It was not certainly this existence standing as he was befor ethem. The Jews were no Berkeleyites. Yet the object he proposed to their belief must have been something of the last importance, as we gather from the emphasis of the sentence, and the warning, “ You shall die in your sins.” What, then, does he demand belief in by To, That I am.”

[ocr errors]

& See Raphelius, Annotationes in S. Scripturam, tom. 1, page 638, Lugdani Batav., 1750. See also “Grondregels voor het vervaardigen eener Vertaling van het Nieuwe Testamet door J. Th. Beelen," page 74 seq., Amsterdam, 1858 ; and Vigerus, “ Annotationes Hermanni," Lips., 1822, page 80, note 2, and

† They read o and Tl as one word, which forced them to suppose an ellipsis of some verb. See “Grondregels," page 74, note l.

p. 723.

[ocr errors]

“ Our Lord,” says Archbishop Kenrick, “evidently means to give his hearers an insight into this divine nature, and lead them to recognise it." The archbishop favors the opinion of St. Augustine, that “I am” is here used to denote essential being, even as God said to Moses, marins

sum qui sum.” I am who I am. Herein the archbishop is entirely astray. Through the whole chapter the drift of the Saviour's discourse is to impress upon his hearers the idea that he is " The One sent by the Father."*

That the Jews well understand what he meant in asserting that he was sent by the Father is evident from collateral Scripture authority and Jewish tradition. John the Baptist, for instance,t sends two of his disciples to ask Jesus was he The One Coming, ó &pxó uevos" (n) habbah. “ Sent by the Father," I was well understood by his auditors as sent by God. Compare v. 41. Bearing in mind the expectations of the Jews, ο ερχομενος ο Χριστος, and the Missus a Patre, vs. 16, 18, were unmistakable and synonymous terms. When Christ, therefore, asserted (v. 12) that he was the “Light of the world," and (vs. 16 and 18) that he was sent by the Father " the Jews well understood him to announce that he was the Messiah. But they refuse to believe, and put him questions in ironical ignorance, (vs. 19 and 22.) Whereat Jesus, never heeding the irony, denounces,(v.24) their incredulity, and threatens they shall die in their sins if they believe not that He is (the One sent by the Father).

Now, instead of that emphatic"I am, OTI Elji,Jesus must have said, in the dialect of Jerusalem, ama 897, ana hou, i. e., I he, or I the One. In the context, v. 24 might be translated, " If you believe not that I am he, you shall die,” &c. Compare Acts, ch. xiii., v. 25 : “When John was drawing towards the end of his course, he was wont to say, Whom think


that I am ?ovu eluz Eyw,” “non sum ego" "not I am,” which St. John must have expressed in his own dialect, as R$ 2,99 (lah anah hou), not I he, or I am not the One, but behold cometh after me he, &c. John the Baptist was just as intelligible in this wise to the Jews as when he replied. John, ch. i., v. 20, ovu elui o Xp10T05. The εy w Elui, therefore, of vs. 24 and 28, refer not, as Bishop Kenrick supposed, to the Saviour's divine nature, but to the Messianic character of Jesus. We have no objection to saying, with the archbishop, that Christ, in the course of the conversation here related, hinted at his divine nature, and wished to lead his hearers to a recognition of the same (see v.58).

• See vs. 14, 16, 18, 23, 26, 28, 29, 36, 38, 40, 42.
+ Luke, ch. vii., v. 19.

# Vs. 16 and 18. VOL XI.-NO. XXI.


[ocr errors]



This was secondary, however. His main purport was to bring out his Messiahship, that he was the One sent, the One coming. But to return to our text. The archbishop is greatly mistaken in attaching the same meaning to the eyw Elji of this verse which the words bear in verses 24 and 28. Notwithstanding the Jews well understood what Jesus taught or declared of himself in the preceding part of his discourse, they now (v. 25) put him the ironical and impertinent question, "Who art thou?” The Saviour has but to reiterate, with emphasis, Tny apxny, that he is that what he also announces to them-ó, nominative case, in answer to the question, and neuter, because referring to the abstract idea of his office or mission. To seize the full force of the second member, τι και λαλω υμιν, we must call to mind the outset of the Saviour's discourse. In v. 12, he asserted that he was the “Light of the world.” The Pharisees take him up, and object that he is his own herald, and, as such, unworthy of trust—that his testimony is not true. Christ replies that his testimony is true, albeit coming from himself; for he knows whence he cometh, and, furthermore, he is not alone his own witness, for the Father is with him, and beareth witness to him (vs. 14, 16, 18). The nai lalw in the second member of Christ's answer (vs. 25), “I also declare," has reference to the refusal of the Jews to accept his own declaration (v. 13). He now threatens (vs. 24–25) that they shall die in their sins if they refuse to believe him to be the Messiah; and, to their question, repeats emphatically that he is that what he also preaches himself to be.

Those of our readers who wish to see the whole subject of vernacular versions treated in a manner at once comprehensive, learned, and interesting, we would confidently refer to Dr. Beelen's work already cited, i.e., Grondregels, &c. But it requires little learning or research to see that the version of the Final Committee" is by no means final, except so far as its numerous blunders, as well as its crude, harsh, and yet pedantic style, may serve as a warning to others to undertake only what they are competent to fulfil. As remarked at the outset, we have declined to criticise it in this paper, further than to refer to a single passage as a specimen of the tout ensemble, but we intend to take up a chapter or two on a future occasion, and compare them with the original as well as with other English versions, if only for the purpose of showing our readers that the quasi pundits of the Final Committee would require to go to school a little longer. ABT. VII.-1. Principles of Human Physiology, with their chief

application to Psychology, Pathology, Therapeutics, Hygiene, and Forensic Medicine. By WILLIAM B. CARPENTER, M.D.,

F. R. S., &c., &c. Philadelphia, 1856. 2. Clinical Lectures on the principles and practice of Medicine. By

John Hughes Bennett, M.D., F. R. S., Professor of Institutes

of Medicine in the University of Edinburgh. New York. 3. Histoire de la Medicine. Par Daniel Leclerc, Genève. 4. Histoire de la Medicine depuis son origine jusqu'au dix-neuvieme

siècle. Paris, 1846. 5. Institutions historic Medicince. Nuremberg.

A SOUND condition of body being a prerequisite to the proper exercise of every faculty, one would naturally look far back into antiquity for the first observations on the disturbing causes of health, and would expect to find them only by deep thought and patient research. Yet the recorded views of men who have devoted themselves to such enquiries are very few and unreliable when we carry our ken beyond the time of Hippocrates. Mythology furnishes some information on medical matters in the earliest historic times, but even that is a garbled tradition of the pre-Hellenic epoch. Homer makes mention of two physicians, Machaon and Podalirus, whose chief skill consisted in staunching wounds and effecting a temporary alleviation of pain. Were it not, indeed, for the famed story of Æsculapius, we would scarcely have proof sufficient to establish the existence of medical men as a separate class among the earliest communities. This tradition, however, conclusively shows that as far back as authentic and even legendary history goes, there existed men who made disease and the healing art a special study, and derived their means of subsistence from the practice of their craft. Beyond this, however, very little has been handed down to us, and it is probable very little could, for observations and theories which proceeded on the assumed truth of the crude philosophic systems of the early Greek and Eastern schools, must have been either barren of result or entirely false.

This applies especially to principles and facts underlying pathology and therapeutics, * for isolated observations and the description of symptoms were both numerous and marked by much acuteness even before the time of Hippocrates. The works of this great man were the first embodiment of the studies and observations of those who had preceded him; they remain to this day a monument of unwearied industry and wonderful fidelity to nature. Yet the restrictions placed on human dissections and the undeveloped state of collateral science led him into countless grave errors. But that which especially detracted from the usefulness of the labors of Hippocrates was his constant identification of effect with cause, mistaking the symptoms of disease for the disease itself. And here it may be well to mark a fallacy which has greatly retarded medical science from Hippocrates to Cullen, and has radical'y falsified every system of nosology. In medicine, as in all unmatured sciences, effects have been mistaken for causes, the signs of facts for the facts themselves ; and hence systems, proteus-like, changing every day. Ignorance of sound physiology and anatomy precluded the true solution of the various diseased conditions of the human system, and hence the explanation of the effects was sought for in the effects themselves. The immediate successors of Hippocrates added but little to the researches and discoveries of the Father of Medicine, and we have no record of improvement down to the time of the Ptolemies. The Alexandrian School of Medicine instituted a new manner of enquiry in harmony with its own philosophy. The analytical method naturally pointed to dissection as the true means of unlocking the secrets of the human frame, and shedding light on the multifarious phenomena of disease. For awhile the Alexandrian doctors devoted themselves with ardor to the study of disease in its various forms, seeking to connect its phenomena with the facts and principles dissection had revealed to them. Their labors were productive of grand results, and remained for a long time a beacon light to all students of nature. Herophilus, the most celebrated of their number, made six hundred dissections, and so great was his authority in medical matters that the following saying, remarkable only for bad Latioity and false principle, passed into an aphorism : “ Contradicere Herophilo in anatomicis est contradicere evangelium.”

But the same tendency to philosophize and draw inferences from unwarranting premises, which marked the comparative anatomy studies of Aristotle, greatly detracted from the utility of those labors, and the ruin which involved

« VorigeDoorgaan »