NOTES CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY. THE GOSPEL BY JOHN. CHAPTER I. 1. In the beginning was the word, ev agxn nv • 2005. I have here followed the E. T. and the majority of modern versions. Vul. and Zu. In principio erat verbum. Er. Be. and Cas. have, instead of verbum, used the word sermo. The Gr. word λoyos is susceptible of several interpretations, the chief of which are these two, reason and speech-ratio and oratio. The former is properly yes ‘o evdiæberos, ratio mente concepta ; the latter'o λoγος ο προφορικός, ratio enunciativa. The latter acceptation is that which has been adopted by most interpreters. If the prac tice 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 here 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 favour 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 beginning, made all things by his word. God said—and it was so. In favour 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 sentiments 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 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 o λoyos, is there copia. 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 yes, 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, upon the whole, better to retain it. 2 The word was God, eos nyo ayos. The old English translation, authorised 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 woyt. Others maintain, (though, perhaps, the opinion has not been adopted by any translator), that, as the word EOS 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 6th, 12th, 13th, and 18th, of this chapter; in all which, though the word 90s 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 CH. I. an excellent example of this from Herodotus, Nugμepa cYEVEτο σφι μαχομενοισι, "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 spa the article, and prefix it to w, 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 Hellen. in these words, Ο θεός πολλακις χαίρει, τες μεν μικρός μεγάλος ποιων, τις δε μεγαλος rings. 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, langua ges 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. v. 20. rendered by the Seventy, Ovas oi XeYOVTES TO πονηρον καλον, καὶ το καλον πονηρον, οι τιθέντες το σκοτος φως, και το φως σκοτος, οι τιθεντες το πικρον γλυκύ, και το γλυκυ πικρον. This is entire. ly similar to the example from Xenophou. 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. Τ. πνευμα ο Θεος, J. iv. 24. ; and παντα τα εμπ σα εσιν, L. xv. 31. 4. In it was 3. All things were made by it; and without itlife. E. T. All things were made by him; and without him—— 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, verse 4th, 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 yes, 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 e 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 λoyos 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 basselbige, 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. i. 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, verse 3d, 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 verse 4th, denotes no more than that God is not inanimate matter, the uni. verse, 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 verse 4th, is called the light of men; to which, nevertheless, the pronoun it is applied, verse 5th, without hurting our ears in the least. 2 Without it, not a single creature was made, xWPIS AUTY EYEVeto æde Év å yeyovev. Some critics, by a different pointing, cut off the two last words, yeyover, from this sentence, as redundant, and prefix them to the following, making verse 4th run thus, |