to any

further personal controversy. Nothing will now tempt him to that. But if any other person (of reputable character, and of competent learning) will come forward as the champion of Professor Lee's accusation of plagiarism, of his gentlemanly deportment in this controversy, and of his attainments as a philologian, Von Ewald is ready to stand to everything he has asserted in disproof of the first, and in disparagement of the last two, and to show, by detailed proofs, that his indignation, fervent as it has been, has not led him to retort any charge against his accuser which he is not able, in his coolest moments, to maintain to the uttermost.

JOHN NICHOLSON.

P.S.-Von Ewald has noticed this controversy in the first number of his new periodical, Jahrbücher der Biblischen Wissenschaft, Göttingen, 1848 (pp. 35, 36); and he purposes, in the next number of the same, to reprint his Vindication from The Churchman's Review,' and to append some new notes to it.

6

HEINFETTER'S TRANSLATION OF JOHN'S GOSPEL.

SIR,-There are some publications which in themselves deserve no notice, and which only call for remark because of the mischief which their empty pretensions might do to the unwary. If it were not for this, I should not have directed the attention of any one to Mr. Heinfetter's (so-called) literal translation.

He gives the first verse of St. John's Gospel thus: 'In beginning, i. e. in commencing this Dispensation, the word spoken was, and the word spoken, it was with the God to fulfil, and a God, the word spoken was, i. e. became.' A mere perusal of this medley of words is sufficient for the Christian scholar; the pretension to 'definite rules of translation' is shown (if the term have any meaning) to be a claim to have a right to depart from all grammar, construction, and Christian verity.

We are informed in a note-Italics mark an addition to, or a substitution I would propose for, the translation in the text; each of which appears to me to make the sense clearer.' Certainly this one verse is turned by the words in italics into something very different in sense from what St. John wrote; I may leave it to every one to say whether this new sense is clearer or not.

The translator has added notes to illustrate and defend his version and his additions to the text. I will now consider these seriatim.

'In beginning. Had the sense here been In the beginning of all things, the article must have been expressed. See Rev. xxi. 6; also John ii. 11. Its omission, therefore, determines that some other sense

a A Literal Translation of the Gospel according to St. John, on definite rules of Translation.-By HERMAN HEINFETTER.-This letter has been forwarded to us by the gentleman to whom it was addressed, and who judged its contents well suited for publication in the Journal of Sacred Literature.-EDITOR.

is

is intended to be conveyed, which, from the context, I judge to be that expressed in the paraphrase. (See viii. 44.)'

Indeed! We are authoritatively told that the article must have been expressed if the beginning of all things were intended. Let us, however, look at this assertion, for we must not allow boldness of statement to pass instead of evidence. The first words of the LXX. version are '¿v άpx?, In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth.' There is no article before apx, and yet, according to this translator'on definite rules,' the article must have been expressed if the beginning of all things were spoken of. But who has authorized such an addition to the Holy Scripture as is contained in the interpolated words in commencing this dispensation?' Let the passage in St. John be carefully read and compared with Gen. i., and then I am sure that the parallelism of the statements will be manifest. The texts to which reference is made in the note have no bearing on the matter in hand at all. Rev. xxi. 6, applies the term 'the Beginning and the End' to Him that sitteth on the throne; and the same term is in Rev. xxii. 13, applied to the Lord Jesus, declaring Him to be, equally with the Father, very and eternal God. In John ii. 11, it is expressly said what beginning is there intended: this beginning of miracles did Jesus.' But why does Mr. Heinfetter tell us to look at John viii. 44? -The devil was a murderer from the beginning.' Does he really intend that we should understand by this 'the commencement of this dispensation?' Now, if the translator had really sought from the context' what beginning is spoken of in John i. 1, he would have learned that it was a beginning in relation to Creation, and in relation to 'all things.' (As to the omission of the Article, see any good Greek grammar.)

The word spoken, &c. In vindication to my translation of this verse, I would inquire, 1st. What rule, usage, or customary form of expression, does it transgress? 2nd. What better form of Greek could be employed to express the sense I have given, than that which is in the original? 3rd. In relation to the sense this verse is commonly regarded to afford, I would inquire, Where is there any authority for a word preceded by the Article in the commencement of record without any explicit definition, being regarded as an appellation of an individual, when such word is not only not previously well known as an acknowledged appellation of the individual, but is on no other occasion ever applied as an appellation of the individual? To admit such to be the case, is to admit the Article is a nullity. Rev. xix. 13, is not the same appellation. It is not And his name is called the word, but And his name is called the word of the God. To say nothing of its having been written 28 years afterwards.'

To transcribe or even to read such a note is wearisome.

I reply that Mr. Heinfetter has not attempted to justify his addition of spoken to the term 'word,' nor yet the insertion of' to fulfil,' which he gives afterwards. As to the personal appellation, THE WORD, I ask, Is the ignorance real or affected in which Mr. Heinfetter appears to know nothing of such an appellation having been used to designate

a person?

a person? Whichever it be, it shows how utterly disqualified he is for instructing others on the subject. It is simply a matter of common knowledge that the Word was used as a personal name long before St. John wrote this Gospel. Against this Mr. Heinfetter's assertions are merely futile. I might ask, What sense does he attach to these words on his definite rules?' What meaning is there if a person be not spoken of?

'A God. Was this used as an appellation of Almighty God, the Article would certainly have been expressed before it; its omission, therefore, determines that it must be used as an appellation of some other, and this other I judge from the context to be what I have expressed in the paraphrase. I judge my view to be somewhat strengthened by the second verse, which would otherwise be a mere repetition of the third clause of the first verse.'

He translates ver. 2: This God was in beginning, i. e., in commencing this dispensation, with the God.'

In answer to all this tissue of profane polytheism, I say, 1st, That Osos in this place being the predicate, the article is, in accordance with common usage, omitted. 2nd. That there is no such thing as a distinction drawn in Scripture between God in a supreme sense, and God in some other sense: and that the presence or absence of the article proves nothing of the kind. I know full well that some have used a passage in Origen as though he thought such a distinction were found in this verse; but Origen is not an authority; and further, the passage itself has been misunderstood.

Much mischief has been done by Arians having boldly asserted that Ocòs has the article when applied to the Father, and that when applied to the Son it is without the article. This assertion has been supposed by some to be true; and it has at least confused their minds. But the fact is that eos, with or without the article, alike indicates the living and true God. I give the following as occurrences in which the article is not inserted :-Rom. i. 4, 'determined to be the Son of God with power;' i. 18, the wrath of God is revealed;' i. 21, 'they honoured him not as God;' viii. 7, the carnal mind is enmity against God;' viii. 17, 'heirs of God;' viii. 33, 'It is God that justifieth.' 1 John iv. 12, 'no man hath seen God at any time.' Would any one dare to introduce the heathenish idea and expression 'a God' into any of these passages ?

6

Further, it is not true that oɛòs, when it relates to the Lord Jesus Christ, does not take the article. It has it, or has it not, according to the common rules of Greek. Thus, the very first time 0ɛòs occurs in the New Testament it relates to the Lord Jesus, and it has the article. Matt. i. 23, 'They shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted, is GOD with us.' So also in John xx. 28, 'My Lord and my God.' 1 John v. 20, 'This is the true God, and eternal life.' i. 8,Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.' These are enough examples to show the utter incorrectness of the assertion; so that if there had been (which there is not) such a distinction as some have imagined between Oɛòs and ỏ còs, there would still remain the incon

Heb.

testable

testable fact that our blessed Lord is God in its true and full sense, and that He is so described by the Holy Ghost.

Mr. Heinfetter translates ver. 3 thus: all things in this dispensation, by means of him, he did,' &c. ; he gives no note to defend or explain this rendering—a rendering in which yέvero is taken for an active verb, governing závra in the accusative, and apparently with God as the nominative! Thus, and by the means of interpolated words, does the translator avoid the statement- All things were made (or came into existence) by Him.' He will not admit THE WORD to be a person or the Creator of all things. And this is the result of his 'definite rules!' We might suppose that he would find some difficulty in this verse, as he shows (p. 16) that he is ignorant of the general rule that a neuter plural nominative in Greek takes a singular verb (which he supposes to imply a metaphor); but even this amount of ignorance hardly prepared me for the still greater which is evinced in rendering éyévεTO by he did!

In the preface Mr. Heinfetter informs us (p. iv.) that he has implicitly endeavoured to follow (as far as he comprehends the subject') Donnegan's Lexicon and Valpy's Greek Grammar. A very moderate acquaintance with these works would have sufficed to preserve him from such mistakes. He may well say of his work, I do not claim attention to it on the ground of my possessing learning and research ;' if he possesses either of these qualifications, he has at least avoided all use of them. But he does claim something:- Neither do I claim attention to my work on the ground of esteeming myself to possess greater powers of mind than those that have preceded me; but I rest my claim exclusively on my conviction that I possess information of which they were ignorant; and that indeed of a nature that appears to me of vital consequence to the attainment of the required end. How valuable Mr. Heinfetter's exclusive information is, may be fairly judged from what I have quoted. The text and the notes are all through of the same kind.

As to his 'definite rules,' it will suffice to say that what is true is not new; what is new is not true.

Mr. Heinfetter's real object appears to have been to use a parade of superior information and reckless assertion in opposition to the Godhead of the Lord Jesus Christ, His creative power, work of atonement, &c., and also in opposition to the Personality of the Holy Ghost.

As one more specimen of his rendering, I give part of ver. 10; he translates instead of 'the world was made by Him,'-' the world by means of it came to be regarded!'

Every imaginable liberty has been taken with the text. In vers. 17, 18, he disjoins eɛov from its connection, and translates,' the grace and truth referred to by means of Jesus Christ, became God's grace and truth, no one hath perceived truth yet,' &c. He adds a note on the expression became God's,' in which he says that he cannot connect God as in the received translation, until an explanation of its position in the arrangement be found out;' and thus, to avoid some imagined difficulty, he joins it to a sentence where it can have no grammatical construction,

VOL. IV.NO. VIII.

2 D

construction, and to translate it at all, he turns the accusative case (tacitly) into the genitive. If he really thought in this place (as in ver. 3) that yévεTo governs an accusative, he would, I suppose, have translated became God,' or 'became a God.' Oh that men would be learners before they try to be teachers!

It is grievous to see the word of God thus treated; if men will show their folly, at least let them leave holy subjects alone. Mere ignorance is venial when compared with the presumption here displayed. May God hinder this attack on His Scripture from injuring any of those who are uninstructed!

An open avowal of Arian or Socinian doctrine-an acknowledged attack on the foundation truths of Christianity-would be sufficiently evil; how much more so is such an attack when made covertly and under false pretences! Would that this writer may see the sin of thus using God's holy Word against God and against His truth!

S. P. T.

August 25, 1849.

THE PROPER SUBJECTS OF FAITH AND PRAYER. To the Editor of the Journal of Sacred Literature. SIR, Might I be allowed space in your useful Journal for the following suggestive remarks?

I have often been struck with the variance existing between what I may call the popular theology of the churches, and the (probably) more correct deductions of Christians of a higher grade of intellect or of closer thought than the majority of their brethren. I know of no subject exhibiting this variance more decidedly than that named at the head of this article: a subject to which you have yourself made a passing allusion in your interesting paper on 'The Youth of David.' (vol. ii. p. 71.)

The difference in question divides itself as follows-the former class of opinion being held, perhaps, by much the greater proportion of

believers:

1. We have warranty from Scripture to offer prayer and exercise faith with reference to temporal calamities, &c., just as in affairs purely spiritual. God will, in reply to the prayer of a believer, relieve our bodily afflictions, prevent starvation when in extreme poverty, and otherwise honour faith as of old in taking the superintendence of our temporal and physical concerns, as a direct result of that faith. The experience of many good men is to be taken as confirmatory of this. Have they not been raised from the verge of the grave when medicine has failed them, through the intercession of praying friends? Do we not find in memoirs of pious persons remarkable instances of even the elements having appeared obedient to the power of Christian faith? And are we not taught in the Bible to look for the result of intercession in reference to bodily and temporal things, in the same way as in spiritual?

2. The