and earth," &c., implies that all the redeemed are one family. It implies that Abel, and Abraham, and Paul, although as to their dispensational position and knowledge and service in the earth, they differed greatly, are yet in virtue of the acceptance and life granted in their Heavenly Head, brought into one heavenly family, and into all the everlasting blessings which the Epistle to the Ephesians describes as belonging to that family. The system, therefore, to which I refer, gladly avails itself of a proposed alteration in the translation of this verse, and reads-"of whom every family in Heaven and earth is named." Yet what meaning (except indeed it were a pantheistic one) could be attached to such words it would be difficult to say. Is it in any sense true that the name of the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is named on every family in this evil earth? Is that name of everlasting blessing placed upon all the families and tribes of unregenerate men? Neologian Pantheism (of which, however, I by no means accuse those to whom I have hitherto referred) will, no doubt, answer, yes. The Broad-Church teachers, or I should rather say, those among them who yet retain some lingering reverence to the Scripture as the Word of the living God, (for to many among then it matters not one straw what the Bible says or does not say-Moses and Paul are alike set at nought) many of the Broad-Church teachers may well welcome a translation which seems to set the seal of Scripture on their truthless system. If one all pervading Spirit of Holiness and Truth is to be found, not indeed in the same degree of development, but measureably, in all men whether Jew, or Turk, or Brahmin, or Christian-if Christ, by the mere fact of becoming incarnate, united all men savingly unto Himself if thereby, and not by the shedding of blood, men are reconciled to God-if these and kindred doctrines be true, then it is evident that the distinctiveness of the one family of faith and all the blessings which redemption and regeneration bring are gone. A falsified translation, therefore, which, if true, would place the Father's name in everlasting blessing upon EVERY family in earth and Heaven, is, of course, welcomed by such a system. The remarks in the following paper are intended to show that such a translation is utterly erroneous and inconsistent with the rules which regulate the use of the Article in Greek-that consequently the translation adopted in our authorised version is most undoubtedly correct On the Omission of the Greek Article before Definite Words, with especial reference to Eph. III. 15.* IN reading the Greek Testament, few things are more needful than to guard against certain very important errors of translation, that have, not unfrequently, been founded on the fact of the omission of the article before words which the context shows to be definite; and where, perhaps, the idiom of our language demands its insertion. Thus many are accustomed, because of the omission of the article, to translate Nouoc, "law," or "a law," in passages where it certainly means "THE Law." Many have asserted that IIvEvμa 'Ayiov, or Πνευμα ПIVEνμа →εov, without the article, are not to be understood as indicating the Spirit personally. Some also have said that waon yoapn should be translated "every writing," and not, "The whole Scripture," or "All Scripture": and in Eph. iii. 15, they wish to understand Tara Tarpia as meaning "every family," instead of what it really does mean, "the whole family." πας, The determination of the translation in such cases as πασα γραφη, "the whole Scripture"-Taoa oikodoμn, "the whole building," and the like, does not depend on any peculiarity in the use of was, but upon the rules which regulate the insertion or omission of the article before the words with which waç is associated-such rules being entirely independent of the presence or absence of was. Thus we Το Αι- In Greek, proper names continually drop the article. fnd Luke xxi. 24, και Ιερουσαλημ εσται πατουμενη, &c. γυπτος and γη Αιγυπτος we never find the article prefixed. Matt. ii. 3, we find waσa (not ʼn πaσa) 'Iɛpovσaλnu—all Jerusalem. "Personal proper names, (says Kühner, Gr. Gr. § 244, 7) as such, i.c., so far as they in themselves denote merely individuals, do not take the article." See previous paper. But the omission of the article is equally frequent before ordinary appellatives, when, in their use, they approach the character of proper names; as, for example, when they denote any thing that is singular or isolated in respect of its condition: or any thing that is regarded as preeminent in its class, or is used as the abstract representative of its class or any thing that has a corporate existence or is capable of being personified: or objects of which there is but one in existence. In all such cases, appellatives are regarded as approaching, or attaining, the character of proper names, and may omit the article. The following may be taken as a few out of many examples: I. Titular words,-words expressive of isolated condition of being or dignity, as II. Abstracts, such as the names of virtues, vices, &c. IV. Objects of which there are but one in existence, or which are confessedly singular. « Thus ήλιος is almost as frequent as ὁ ἥλιος, and not unfrequent." Winer I. 131. γη for ἡ γη And βασιλευς, when applied to the Persian King, was without the article-as if to mark him as the only King. Compare βασιλευς βασιλεων και Κύριος κυριων-THE King of kings-THE Lord of Lords. Before pnua as meaning God's word, the article is omitted. See Rom. x. 17. Eph. vi. 17. Heb. vi. 5, in which cases it is followed by θεον, and without 9εου Eph. v. 26. A remarkable example of the omission of the article is afforded in Heb. xii. 22. Προσεληλύθατε Σιων ορει και πολει Θεου ζωντος, Ἱερουσαλημ επουρανιώ και μυριάσιν αγγελων, πανηγύρει και εκκλησία πρωτοτοκων εν ουρανοις απογεγραμμένων και πνευμασι δικαιων τετελειωμενων και διαθηκης νεας μεσιτη Ιησου και αίματι ραντισμου κρείττονα λαλουντι, &c. No one in translating this passage would think of saying, "ye are come to a Mount Zion, or to a city of a living God, or a heavenly Jerusalem, or a Church of the first-born,” &c. The very fact that the persons or bodies spoken of are "monadic," i.e., singular — there being no other like them, is the reason of the omission of the article. Nor would the addition of πας make any difference. Παν όρος Σιων would mean, “ all Mount Zion,” not every Mount Zion; and πασῃ εκκλησία πρωτοτοκων would mean the whole Church of the firstborn." Compare πασα Ἱερουσαλημ: πας οικος Ισραηλ: παν αίμα δικαιον as quoted above, and πας Ισραηλ. Rom. xi. 26. Thus, we do not say, Σωκρατης εφη, " but even when an adjective is added we still say, σοφος Σωκρατης. The wise Socrates.” See Kühner § 244, 7. In ordinary Greek the omission of the article is even more frequent than in the New Testament. Thus we usually find γένει, nation, πληθει, &c., and not τῳ γενει as in the New Testament. Winer I. p. 132. See The following examples to which a multitude of others might be added show how continually the article is omitted, even when was is conjoined with the substantive, in the sense of "the whole." πασαι πυλαι—the whole gate. Il. ii. 809. See Scott and Liddell, word πας. εκ των της In Josephus also we ând, ποταμον Αρωνα, ὡς . Αραβίας όρων ορμώμενος και δια πασης ερημου ρεων, &c.fowing through THE WHOLE desert. Antiq. iv. Cap. v. In the Sept. also of Is. xxiv. 10 ηρημώθη πασα πολις—Jerusalem being the city referred to - "the whole city has been laid waste." But a passage which is alone sufficient to decide the question, occurs in the Epistle to the Ephesians itself. Few will venture to dispute the meaning of πας in Eph. ii. 21, εν ᾧ πασα οικοδομη συναρμολογούμενη αύξει εις ναον ἁγιον εν Κυρίῳ, “In whom the whole building fitly framed together groweth unto a holy Temple in the Lord." What possible meaning could attach to the passage if we were to translate πασα οικοδομη, every building? The very fact that the building here mentioned is one, singular and preeminent in dignity, would lead us to expect that the article would be omitted: and a word which, when used without πας, drops the article, does not assume it when πας is added. Eadie on this passage observes, "In the later Greek, as in the * Such being the right reading, and not ἡ οικοδομη as in the received Greek text. |
