« PreviousContinue »
αυτού-και ευαγγελιζομένου. Why this specification of preaching the gospel ? Did he not always preach the gospel when he taught the people? Hence I conclude, that xai zvayyahısouévov should be thrown out as a marginal reading, founded perhaps on Matt. 4: 23, or 9: 35.” Doubtless, according to the import of the English phrase, he always preached the gospel when he taught, inasınuch as his teaching consisted either in explaining the doctrine, or enforcing the precepts of the Christian religion, which is all that we mean by “preaching the gospel.” But his teaching, though it was sometimes, was not always (as is manifest from bis whole bistory) attended with the intimation above-mentioned, which in that history, is the only thing implied in ευαγγελιζομένου. A close version of the words removes every difficulty : “One day, as he was teaching the people in the temple, and publishing the good tidings." judgment, this last circumstance was the more worthy of being specified here by the evangelisis, as it has probably been that which then incensed the chief priests, and prompted them to demand of him in so peremptory a manner to show his warrant for what he did. To say that the reign of the Messiah was about to commence, would be accounted by them very presumptuous, and might be construed into an insinuation that he himself was the Messiah, a position which we find them soon after pronouncing blasphemy ; and in any case they would consider the declaration, which was well known not to originate from them), as an attempt to undermine their authority with the people.
Hence I also will take the liberty to conclude, that the common way of rendering the Greek verb by the aid of consecrated words, not only into English, but into Latin, and most modern languages, has produced an association in the minds of men strong enough to mislead critical as well as ordinary readers ; else men of letters, like Dr. Owen and Mr. Bowyer, had never fancied that there is here either a tautology, or so much as a redundancy of words. I further conclude, that if we are to proceed in the way proposed by the foriner of these critics, and to expunge whatever in Scripture we dislike, or imagine might be spared, it is impossible to say what would be left at last of the divine oracles. The remarker, if he would act consistently, ought also to throw out as a marginal reading κηρύσσων το ευαγγέλιον which is coupled with διδάσκων in the two places of Matthew referred to. We may not be able to discover the meaning or the use of a particular expression; for who can discover every thing ? but let us not be vain enough to think, that what we do not discover, no other person ever will.*
15. The only other word in the New Testament that can be said to be nearly synonymous with either of the preceding, is
* Diss. XII. Part ii. sect. 13, 14.
xatoyyidio, annuncio, I announce, publish, or promulgate. It is an intermediate term between κηρύσσω and ευαγγελίζομαι. Γη regard to the manner, it implies more of public notice than is necessarily implied in svugyanisouar but less than is denoted by xnouoow. In regard to the subject, though commonly used in a good sense, it does not express quite so much as svugyike Somal but it expresses more than xnguoow which generally refers to some one remarkable fact or event,
be told in a sentence or two. Accordingly, both these words, καταγγέλλω and ευαγγελίζομαι, come nearer to a coincidence in signification with didurxo iban xnguogo does.
16. The word svayyehorns, rendered evangelist, occurs only thrice in the New Testament. First in the Acts, (21: 8), where Philip, one of the seven deacons, is called an evangelist; secondly, in the epistle to the Ephesians, (4: 11, where evangelists are mentioned after apostles and prophets, as one of the offices which our Lord, after his ascension had appointed for the conversion of infidels, and the establishment of order in his church; and, lastly, in the injunction which Paul gives Timothy to do the work of an evangelist, 2 Tim. 4: 5. This word has also obtained another signification, which, though not scriptural, is very ancient. As svarrés hlov sometimes denotes any of the four narratives of our Lord's life and sufferings which make a part of the canon, so evangelist means the composer. Hence Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are called evangelists.
17. As to the word diddozev, it may suffice to observe, that it can hardly ever be wrong translated into Latin by the verb docere, or into English by the verb to teach ; and that it was mentioned in the title, pot on account of any difficulty occasioned by it, but solely for the sake of suggesting my purpose to show, ibat, far from being coincident, it has not even so great an affinity in signification to the other words there inentioned as is commonly supposed. But, as the supposed coincidence or affinity always arises from mistaking the exact import of the other words, and not froin any error in regard to this, a particular explanation of this term is not necessary.
INQUIRY INTO THE IMPORT OF CERTAIN TITLES OF UONOR
OCCURRING IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
I intend in this dissertation to offer a few remarks on those titles of honor which most frequently occur in the New Testament, that we may judge more accurately of their import, by attending, not only to their peculiarities in signification, but also to the difference in the ancient Jewish manner of applying them, from that which obtains among the modern Europeans, in the use of words thought to be equivalent.
Κύριος. . Nothing can be more evident than that, originally, titles were every where the names either of offices or of relations, natural or conventional
, insomuch that it could not be said of any of them, as may be said with justice of several of our titles at present, those especially called titles of quality, that they mark neither office nor relation, property nor jurisdiction, but merely certain degrees of hereditary honor, and rights of precedency. Relation implies opposite relation in the object. Now, when those persons for whose behoof a particular office was exercised, and who were consequently in the opposite relation, were very numerous, as a whole nation, province or kingdom, the language commonly had no correlate to the title expressing the office; that is, it had not a term appropriated to denote the people who stood in the opposite relation. But when there was only a small number, there was a special term for denoting the relative connexion in which these also stood. Thus the terms, king, judge, prophet, pontiff, hardly admitted any correlative term but the general one of people. But this does not hold invariably. With us, the correlate to king is subject. In like manner, offices which are exercised, not statedly, in behalf of certain individuals, but variously and occasionally, in behalf sometimes of one VOL. I.
sometimes of another, do not often require titles correlative. or this kind are names of most handicrafts, and several other professions. Yet with us the physician has his patients, the lawyer bis clients, and the tradesman his customers. In most other cases of relation, whether arising from nature or from convention, we find title tallying with title exactly. Thus, father has son, husband has wife, uncle has nephew, teacher has disciple or scholar, master has servant.
2. I admit, however, that in the most simple times, and the most ancient usages with which we are acquainted, things did not remain so entirely on the original footing, as that none should be called father but by his son or his daughter, none should be saluted master but by bis servant, or styled teacher but by his scholar. There is a progression in every thing relating to language, as indeed, in all human sciences and arts. Necessity first, and ornament afterward, lead to the extension of words beyond their primitive signification. All languages are scanty in the beginning, not having been fabricated beforehand to suit the occasions which might arise. Now, when a person in speaking, is sensible of the want of a proper sign for expressing his thought, he much more naturally recurs to a word which is the known name of something that has an affinity to what he means, than to a sound which, being entirely new to the hearers, cannot by any law of association in our ideas, suggest his meaning to them. Whereas, by availing himself of something related, by resemblance or otherwise, to the sentiment he wants to convey, he touches some principle in the minds of those whom he addresses, which (if they be persons of any sagacity) will quickly lead them to the discovery of his meaning. Thus, for expressing the reverence which I feel for a respectable character, in one who is also my senior, I shall naturally be led to style him father, though I be not literally his son ; to express my submission to a man of greater merit and dignity, I shall call him master, though I be not his servant; and to express my respect for one of more extensive knowledge and erudition, I shall denominate him teacher, though I be not his disciple. Indeed these consequences arise so directly from those essential principles of the imagination uniformly to be found in human nature, that deviations, in some degree similar, from the earliest meanings of words, are to be found in all tongues, ancient and modern. This is the first step from pure simplicity.
3. Yet, that the differences in laws, sentiments, and manners, which obtain in different nations, will occasion in this, as well as in other things, considerable variety, is not to be denied. In Asia, a common sign of respect to superiors was prostration. In Europe, that ceremony was held in abhorrence. What I have remarked above, suits entirely the progress of civilization in the Asiatic regions. The high-spirited republicans of Greece and Rome appear
on the contrary, long to have considered the title kyrios, or dominus, given to a man, as proper only in the mouth of a slave. Octavius, the emperor, when master of the world, and absolute in Rome, seems not to have thought it prudent to accept it. He very justly marked the precise import of the term, according to the usage which then obtained, in that noted saying ascribed to him, Imperator militum, Princeps reipublicæ, Dominus servorum. To assume this title, therefore, he considered as what could noi fail to be interpreted by his people as an indirect, yet sufficiently evident, manner of calling them his slaves ; for such was the common import of the word ser
But in despotic countries, and countries long accustomed to kingly government, it did not hurt the delicacy of the greatest subject to give the title Dominus to the prince.
4. That such honorary applications of words were quite common among the Jews, is evident to every body who has read the Bible with attention. Jo such applications, however, it must be noted, that the titles are not considered as strictly due from those who give them. They are considered rather as voluntary expressions of respect in him who gives the title, being a sort of tribute, either to civility, or to the personal merit of him on whom it is bestowed. But, to affix titles to places and offices, to be given by all who shall address those possessed of such places and offices, whether they that give them stand in the relation correspondent to the tiile or not, or whether they possess the respect or esteem implied or not, is comparatively a modern refinement in the civil intercourse of mankind, at least in the degree to which it is carried in Europe. This is the second remove from the earliest and simplest state of society.
5. There remains a third, still more remarkable, to which I find nothing similar in ancient times. We have gotten a number of honorary titles, such as duke, marquis, earl, viscount, baron, baronet, etc. which it would be very difficult, or rather impossible
e; as they express, at present, neither office nor relation, but which, neveriheless, descend from father to son, are regarded as part of a man's inheritance, and, without any consideration of merit, or station, or wealth, secure to him certain titular honors and ceremonial respect, and which are of a more unalienable nature than any other property, (if they may be called property), real or personal, that he possesses. I am sensible, that those modern titles were all originally names of offices, as well as the ancient. Thus, duke was equivalent to commander; marquis or margrave, (for they differed in different countries), to guardian of the marches count, landgrave, alderman, or earl, to sheriff-whence the shire is still denominated county ; viscount, to deputy-sheriff. Vicecomes, accordingly, is the Latin word in law-writs for the officiating sheriff.*
Blackstone's Commentary, Introd. § 4. and b. i. ch. xii. 53, 4.