UNITARIAN ESSAYIST. JUNE, 1831. NO. VI. MEADVILLE, PA. VOL. I. ON THE UNITY OF GOD-NO. IX. The Trinitarian Proof Texts.-Concluded. IN entering on the consideration of the proof texts from the New Testament, generally brought forward in support of the doctrine of the Trinity, we shall begin by separating from them several, which, though often adduced, are spurious, and therefore totally inadmissible in this controversy. We would here beg the reader, not to suffer himself to be disquieted by the cry, which malevolence has sometimes raised, and which ignorance has repeated, as if Unitarians wished to do away the bible, and to substitute another for it. We are not acquainted with any other bible than that received every where by the Christian world, and we prize that book too highly, to wish to do it away, or to exchange it for any other. We esteem it as a pearl of countless price, and it is because we thus appreciate its value, that we would remove from it a few spots, the result of human error or unhallowed sectarianism. In wishing to restore the text of the scriptures to its pristine purity, we merely join our efforts to those of a Grotius, a Mill, a Bengel, a Wetstein, a Griesbach, a Campbell, a Doddridge, a M'Knight, an Archbishop Newcome, and other worthies, most of whom were Trinitarians; and why should that which was deemed meritorious in them, be deemed criminal in us? As we shall confine ourselves strictly to the text of that eminent Trinitarian, Griesbach, we hope, that any emendations which we may point out, will not be attributed to a sectarian zeal for promoting our own sentiments. Now THE first text of this class which we shall notice is the famous one of 1 John v. 7, 8. In our common version of the New Testament we read:"For there are three that bear record [in Heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth] the spirit, the water and the blood, and these three agree in one. the words in italics, and inclosed in brackets, are spurious. Among all the Greek manuscripts which we have, there are but three in which these words are found, and as these manuscripts are all of them of the fourteenth or fifteenth century, they are evidently of no authority. And besides, even these differ among themselves as to the reading of this text. It is not found in any of the early versions of the New Testament. It is not used by the early fathers in their controversies about the Trinity. It was omitted in the two first editions of Erasmus, and in those of Aldus, Colinæus, Zwinglius, and lately in that of Griesbach. In the old English bibles this passage used to be printed in small type or between brackets, until between the years 1566 and 1580, when it began to be printed as we now have it, but by whose authority is unknown. Luther omitted it in his German version, and so did the late archbishop Newcome in his version; and the bishop of Lincoln declares his conviction that it is spurious. ACTS xx. 28, we read "Feed the church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood.” This Griesbach says should be: Feed the church of the Lord which, &c. 1 Tim. III. 16, we have "God was manifest in the flesh." In Griesbach we read: He who was manifest in the flesh.". Rev. 1. 8, we read: "I am the Alpha and the 0 mega, the beginning and the ending says the Rev. 1. 11, the received text has: "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. These words are omitted by Griesbach, as spurious. ACTS IX. 20, the received text has: "And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the son of God." Here, for the word Christ, Griesbach substitutes the word Jesus.— This correction is of some importance. Efforts are constantly making to impress the idea, that the meaning of the term Son of God, is quite different from that of Christ, whereas according to the scriptures, these terms, when applied to our Saviour, are synonimous; and hence we read of the apostles, sometimes, that they preached Jesus, that he is the son of God, and at other times, that they preached Jesus, that he is the Christ. That the Christ was the son of God, this every Jew believed, as Christ and son of God were only various names by which they designated their Messiah; but that Jesus was the son of God or Messiah, this the Jews did not know, and hence the apostles taught them this truth. THERE is another text which we must class with the interpolated ones. Acts VII. 59, we read: "and they stoned Stephen calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus receive my spirit." Now in the original Greek, even of the received text, the word God is not found. It is true that this word is generally printed in italics, to designate that it was supplied by the translators. But it is not so printed in all the editions, and at all events, a large portion of common readers do not know, that what is printed in italics is not found in the original; but believe that all which they find in their bibles was written by the apostles. This interpolation deserves the more to be noticed as it was totally unnecessary to the sense, and materially affects the meaning of this text. (a) WE shall dismiss this class of texts with a single additional remark. It appears to us, that the conviction, that the true scriptures give no sufficient support to the doctrine of the Trinity, must have been overwhelming, before men could be brought to lay their unhallowed hands on them, and to falsify the word of Almighty God. A second class of spurious texts is that, where there is no dispute about the original Greek text, but where that text has been evidently mistranslated by the English translators. THE first text of this class which we shall note, is one to which continual recourse is had by Trinitarians, in this controversy. We refer to Phil. II. 5, 6, where we read: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Now it requires only a slight acquaintance with the English language, and with the art of reasoning, to perceive, at once, that we have here a false translation. The apostle exhorts the Philippians to humility, and endeavours to enforce his exhortation by the example of our Saviour, who, though in the form of God. . . ...here then the reasoning of the apostle and the construction of the sentence, equally require that we should have an instance of humility and selfdenial, and yet here our translators give us the highest possible instance of assumption of power. As this point is important, we beg the reader's indulgence (a) When the American Bible Society was organized, a solema pledge was given to the public, that the Scriptures should be pubJished without note or comment. In direct violation of the faith thus pledged, all the bibles now issued, have sectarian comments at the beads of the chapters. and the very pledge thus violated, tends to make the common reader believe, that all that these books contain was written by the sacred penmen. while we endeavour to illustrate it by an example. Suppose we should exhort a man to humility, and tell him: let that spirit be in you, which is in your ministers, who, though the pastor of a congregation, does not think it robbery to claim an equality with St. Paul. Would not this man laugh at us, and tell us, that we gave him really a strange instance of humility? And yet, incongruous as such reasoning would be, it falls short of that attributed to the apostle by the translators. That the common version of this text is erroneous, appears to be admitted by all the best biblical scholars. M'Knight, Doddridge, Archb'p. Newcome, Wakefield, and the editors of the improved version, (b) have all translated it differently from what we have it in the common version, and have given to it a meaning totally different from what it has there. We shall not trouble the reader with the different versions made by all these translators, but we shall give him the remarks of the learned Trinitarian Beausobre, in his valuable Dic. Hist. Crit. et Etim. After proving that the term translated form, is always used of the appearance of a thing, and never of its nature or essence; and after stating that the Greek phrase, translated thought it not robbery means he did not seize upon, he adds: May we not translate, he has not considered equality with God as a prey, on which it was permitted him to seize? And he immediately afterwards observes, the meaning is: Though he was in the form of God, he did not avail himself of this advantage, to seize on divine honours; to make himself equal with God. HERE then we have the evident meaning of this passage. If we now read it in its connexion with what precedes and what follows, we shail find how admirably this version harmonizes the whole. (b) THE first three of these were Trinitarian. |