£ ^—^ OF THE Theological Seminary, PRINCETON, N. J. .1 i BS 413 .B58 y.7 Planck, Gottlieb Jakob, 1751 -1833. Introduction to sacred Dhilolosv and — i ^1 THE BIBLICAL CABINET; OR HERMENEUTICAL, EXEGETICAL, AND PHILOLOGICAL LIBRARY. VOL. VIL PLANCKS INTRODUCTION TO SACRED PHILOLOGY AND INTERPRETATION. EDINBURGH: THOMAS CLARK, 38. GEORGE STREET; J. G. & F. RIVINGTON, LONDON; AND W. CURRY, JUN. & CO. DUBLIN. MDCCCXXXIV. INTRODUCTION SACRED PHILOLOGY INTERPRETATION. DR. G. J. PLANCK TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL GERMAN, AND ENLARGED WITH NOTES, BY SAMUEL H. TURNER, D.D. PROF. OF BIB, LIT. 4ND INTliRP. OF SCRIP. IN THE THEOL. f-EM. OF THE PROT EPIS. CHURCB, AND OF THE HEB, LAN. AND LIT. IN C01.UM. COL. NEW YORK. EDINBURGH: THOMAS CLARK, 38. GEORGE STREET. MDCCCXXXIV. J. THOMSON, PUIXriiR, MIIAF. '.QUAHF, i;l)INai'lUi!I. ADVERTISEMENT. The Publisher of the Biblical Cabinet thinks it right to mention, that this edition of Planck's work on Sacred Philology, has been undertaken under the express sanction of the learned Pro- fessor Turner, who originally translated it, and on the recommendation of the Rev. Thomas Hartwell Horne. He feels confident that the sanction of the for- mer divine, who has contributed so largely to promote the study of sound Biblical learning in America ; and the recommendation of the latter, who has so eminently distinguished himself in the same important cause in Great Britain — will be accepted by the Theological Students of this country, as the very best guarantee for the value VI ADVERTISEMENT. of the Book whicli he has now the honour to pre- sent to the public. Edinburgh, October 1834. *^* The references to IMr. Home's Introduction, through- out the volume, have been made to the Edition just published, being the Seventh. TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. The author of the work now presented to the American public, is principally distinguished in his native country for his numerous writings on Ecclesiastical History. The following transla- tion is a small part of his large and valuable In- troduction to Theological Literature in general. The subject of it, is Sacred Philology and Inter- pretation. The Translator is induced to pub- lish it, in the hope that it may facilitate the pur- suit of these studies to young men preparing for the ministry, and may also be acceptable to men of intelligence generally, who comprise within the circle of their literary reading, those topics which are connected with a fundamental knowledge of the Bible. The want of some Vlll TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. general work on these two points, has often been felt by him while endeavouring to direct the Biblical studies of candidates for the minis- try ; and, upon reading the introduction of Dr. Planck, he resolved to translate those sections which relate to philology and interpretation, and to add such notes as the nature of the sub- ject appeared to require. Young men, just en- tering on a course of critical and exegetical study, feel the want of some small work, which shall lay before them a general view of these subjects, presenting in a clear light, fundamen- tal principles, directing their attention to the more important topics, and pointing out the sources from which more extended information may be derived. The manual now oiFered to the reader is not, in all respects, such an one as the writer could wish. Composed forty years ago, and with particular reference to the state of learning then subsisting in the author's native land, it might reasonably be expected that addi- tions would occasionally be necessary, in order to adapt the book in some degree to our own age and country. The reader will find some additions of this kind in the accompanying notes. TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. IX In adding" to the literary notices of the several subjects presented in the course of the work, the intention was, to select such books as a student may read or refer to with most advantage. To append a list of all the publications which have appeared since the author's age, would have re- quired a volume. The eifect also would be to disgust the reader by a display of literature, rather than to allure him to the study of philo- logy and interpretation, by introducing him to a few able and attractive guides. When books in German are mentioned, I have endeavoured to put the English reader in pos- session of the subject of them, by a translation. The duty of studying the Bible in the He- brew and Greek originals is now more gene- rally recognized by students of theology than it was a few years since. The Protestant prin- ciple, which subjects every theological opinion to the test of scripture, evidently requires the candidate for the ministry to prepare himself for the office of a religious instructor by such a method of study, unless peculiar circumstances should make it impracticable for him to do so. The policy of such a course is also equally evi- TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. dent. For, although in the outset, the advance- ment of the student may be slow, yet in the end the acquisitions which he will make are not only ^more solid, but more extensive, than can be gain- ed by pursuing any other method. If this little work shall contribute to aid the student in his progress, or excite him to industry in the pursuit, the translator will feel that the time which he has devoted to it has not been uselessly spent. CONTENTS, Pige Introdi'ctory Chapter, L ExEGETiCAL Theology — Parti. Sacred Philology 19 New Testament Greek ' 21 Study of the Hebrew Language 32 Sacred Criticism . ' . 37 Peculiarities of Language 42 Comparison of Manuscripts 46 Classification of ^lanuscripts 50 Recension of Manuscripts 51 Use of the Versions 53 Quotations in the Fathers 55 History of Sacred Philology 58 Hellenistic Controversy 67 Sources to Illustrate the Language ; of the New Testament . 72 Sources to Illustrate the Languag e of the Old Testament . 77 Literary Helps to Biblical Criticism 87 Method of Study , lf5 Xll CONTENTS. Page II. ExEGETiCAL Theology. — Part II. Herme- neutics ... * . . 129 Laws of Interpretation necessary . 131 Laws of Interpretation founded on Reason . 134 First Law of Interpretation . . . 137 Second Law of Interpretation . . . 141 Third Law of Interpretation . . . 147 Scripture to be explained on the same Principles as other Books 149 Doctrine of Accommodation . . . 152 Limitations of Accommodation . . . 159 History of Hermeneutics . . . . 168 Works on Interpretation . . . . 185 Commentaries ...... 194 Object to be Proposed . . . . 219 Method of Attaining it .... 224 Appendix — Translator''s Notes . . . 231 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER, BY THE TRANSLATOR. With the view of giving the reader a clear impres- sion of the design and plan of the author, I prefix this preliminary chapter, which contains an outline of those parts of Dr. Planck's introduction which pre- cede the translated chapters. The author begins by remarking, that the changes which have affected theological literature, in common with other branches of knowledge, require a corre- spondent change in the method of pursuing it, and consequently new and additional directions in order to study it to the best advantage. To furnish such directions, adapted to the improved state of science and literature of his own age, is the design of his work. But, from the very nature of an introduction, it must be evident, that it does not profess to instruct the reader in the whole science of theology. It can only present to his mind a view of its outlines, assist him in filling up the picture, and present it to his eye in attractive colours. It must give him clear ideas of its object and design, and also of its general form and *J INTRODUCTORY CIIAFl'ER. character, so far as these can be determined by means of the others. It must show the mutual connection of the different parts of each branch, and also that in which the whole subject stands to learning in general. It must point out the most direct and the best method for a successful prosecution of the study, develop the sources of information relating to it, and give a histo- ry of its literature. Here it is to be particularly observed, that an in- troduction to theology is not to be an introduction to any one particular system. It is not its object to place the student in a situation, from which he will be able to take only a partial view of the truths to which he is to be conducted, or, to see them only in one particular direction. The impropriety and dis- honesty of such a course are evident. Its object is — and this is the only method by which the cause of truth and learning can be advanced — to place him in a condition to examine every thing for himself with unprejudiced impartiality ; to teach him how to form a judgment respecting the materials which the sub- ject presents to him, a judgment founded upon a faith- ful and complete representation of whatever ought in reason to have influence. Nothing but this can form the theologian who thinks for himself, and any other kind it is not desirable to form. An introduction to theology must carefully avoid whatever may be regarded as mere learned form. Whatever information it has to communicate, it must endeavour to lay before the reader in such a manner that a sound understanding can readily comprehend it without the aid of a learned apparatus. Otherwise INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. o it will be of little utility to one who is entering upon the study of divinity, for whom it is principally in- tended, or to general readers. For the same reason, it should avoid a show of literature. This is undoubt- edly one of the worst errors into which an introduc- tion to any department of learning can fall. Nothing is more alarming to a beginner than a long catalogue of literary works, with which he is to become ac- quainted ; and if it should not alarm him, it will cer- tainly discourage him from attempting to use them, through despair of being able to master the whole. An introduction should limit itself to such works as are of most utility and importance, and to such as have constituted epochs in the history of the literature belonging to the subject. With these views, tlie author proceeds to state the plan of his work. It consists of three sections. The first is devoted to a development and illustration of the general ideas by which the object, design, and compass of the whole science are marked out. The second examines the connection of theology with those other branches of literature, from which it must derive preliminary knowledge, or is able to borrow assistance. The third and last, which is unavoidably the most comprehensive, relates to theology itself in its various departments. In pursuing the outline, I shall be as brief as pos- sible, marking out the divisions of the original into sections and chapters. INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. SECTION I. Chap. i. ii. Theology is the science of religion ; the learned knowledge of those doctrines and truths, which instruct us in our relations to God, in the du- ties which we owe him resulting from those relations, and in the hopes which we may venture to build thereon. Christian theology is founded upon a divine revelation. It has for its object those doctrines which have been communicated from God, by Christ and through his instruction, and which, consequently, were not discoverable merely by the usual methods of ascertaining truth in all other departments of knowledge, but by means of a divine arrangement al- together extraordinary. The internal character of the truths themselves, and the external importance attached to them in consequence of their origin, de- mand the conclusion that they are far superior to the objects of all other sciences. III. IV. If now it be allowed that these truths are the most weighty, and the design in reference to which they are to be studied, the greatest, the most interesting, and the most worthy of exertion, it evi- dently follows that they are deserving of the utmost degree of attention. They are the foundation of our happiness, the security of our hopes, and consequent- ly must be settled upon the firmest basis, upon grounds on which we may rely with confidence. And how is this to be done ? Only by placing our- selves in a condition to examine those grounds and to try their character, and thus to arrive at convic- INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 5 tion ill our own minds ; in other words, by making our knowledge of these subjects a learned knowledge. This point the author proceeds to discuss, obviating the usual objections brought against learning in con- nection with theology, and remarking that all the errors and heresies which have distracted the church, may be traced to causes very different from learning. In a multitude of instances they have arisen and spread, not because their authors and abettors were learned, but because they were not learned enough. V. VI. viJ. The next point examined relates to the qualifications which are necessary for the study of theology. It requires the same mental endowments which are called for in cultivating any other science ; an ability to comprehend, connect and compare ab- stract ideas — such a degree of discrimination as is sufficient to enable a man to judge of the character- istics of truth and falsehood, and to separate the one from the other — a perception of truth, not innate, but acquired by mental discipline — and a memory suffi- ciently clear to call up the knowledge required for daily use, without confusion or error. It is true, in- deed, that the want of these qualifications in a con- siderable degree cannot be regarded as a sufficient reason for deterring a man from the study of theolo- gy, provided he have no other view but to examine the subject for his own satisfaction, although the knowledge he may be able to acquire must be pro- portionably weak, obscure, and destitute of proper arrangement. But the case is different when his ob- ject is to prepare himself for communicating instruc- tion and satisfaction to others. It is but too probable 6 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. that religion may be injured by means of the inade- quacy of such men ; while, on the other hand, it is impossible to say what benefits may result, by the direction of Providence, from their efforts, if their imperfect knowledge be accompanied by pious zeal. How far it may be right and expedient to encourage such persons to pursue a course of theological study, with the view of becoming ministers of the Gospel, is a question which requires the exercise of prudence, piety, and good sense. General regulations on points of this kind, established by legitimate ecclesiastical authority, are not to be disregarded, in the hope that divine Providence will counteract the injurious effects which might otherwise result. But in addition to mental endowments, moral qua- lifications are necessary. It is too plain to require evidence, that the object in view can never be attain- ed, unless the soul be animated by a deeply felt prin- ciple of piety. The inquirer must be guided by reli- gious reverence, by humble distrust of his own views, and by habitual recollection of the narrow limits to which the powers of his understanding are confined. These points it is unnecessary to illustrate. They •must force themselves upon every one's observation. But there are other moral properties which must be possessed and cultivated, in order that the study of theology may be pursued with the greatest prospect of success. The author proceeds to state the follow- ing: In the first place, the student must possess a supreme love of truth, free, as far as possible, from prejudices, or at least sufficiently influential to enable INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. / him to sacrifice every prejudice to truth, when dis- covered. This wiil propel him to exertion, and he will take all necessary pains to make himself acquaint- ed with what God hath revealed, simply for the rea- son that God hath revealed it. A second requisition, intimately connected with the former, consists of a settled resolution of mind not to be terrified by doubts, and in the search after truth, not to leave any doubt unexamined. No doubts that can be suggested need produce alarm. Either they are of such a nature, that a competent and care- ful inquirer — and none other is here contemplated — may be able to meet them, and satisfy himself of their fallacy ; or else, they are too powerful to be resisted by learning and argument, and should therefore be gladly admitted as beneficial to the interests of pro- gressive truth. Lastly, there must be conscientious fidelity in ad- hering to the convictions which the mind has receiv- ed. I do not mean an obstinate stubbornness, which will listen to no further arguments, and is determined to adhere to principles once adopted, notwithstanding the strongest impressions produced by more correct views : this is nothing less than bigotry. I mean, that the sentiments once embraced, after sufficient in- vestigation to satisfy the inquirer of their truth, ought not to be relinquished until he is satisfied, by equally strong and clear evidence, that they are erroneous, and have consequently been hastily or incautiously adopted. VIII — XV. In continuation, the author takes a view of the whole study, and of the general subjects which 8 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. it comprises. He distributes it into four principal departments. First, exegetical theology, com- prehending apologetic divinity or defence of revealed religion, the history and establishment of the canon of Scripture, and sacred philology with interpretation. Second, historic theology, the various divisions of which he lays before the reader, together with a view of its utility. Third, systematic theology, (founded in all its parts upon the Bible,) comprehend- ing doctrinal, moral, and symbolic^ divinity. The first of these three epithets is intended to mark out the ge- neral system of Christian doctrine, and the last those particular systems M^hich have been embraced by dif- ferent Christian churches respectively. The nature of the intermediate is plainly determined by its name. Fourth, applied or practical theology, that is, whatever is comprised under the terms, homiletic, catechetical, and pastoral theology. He then pro- ceeds to discuss the questions, whether the study of all these branches is necessary for instructors in re- ligion ; and if so, in what measure ? He lays down four general directions for a proper study of theology, and concludes the section by giving some of the prin- cipal works in which those of a more particular and definite nature may be found. SECTION II. 1. II. This section is devoted to a consideration of ' From (TufAfiokv, the symbol or creed of each particular church. INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. ^ those branches of knowledge, which are preparatory and subsidiary to theology. The author begins with a knowledge of languages. In order to perceive the bearing of this study on theo- logy, it may be proper first, to take a view of its necessity in general. This arises from the three fol- lowing considerations : — It aids our progress in think- ing ; — it is necessary in order to enable us to impart our thoughts and sentiments to others, — and to make their thoughts and opinions useful to ourselves. The two last are self-evident, and, of course, require no il- lustration. The first may at first view appear to some to be paradoxical : but a close examination of the sub- ject will show the truth of this position, that we im- prove in learning to think, in proportion as we improve in learning to speak, and therefore, that an acquaintance with language is as necessary to our own clear and comprehensive thinking, as it is to communicate our thoughts to others.* Hence, then, it evidently fol- " This observation, which is one of great practical import- ance, might easily be illustrated, by showing, that in general those writers, whose acquaintance with languages is but li- mited, are more remarkable for inaccuracy in forming or de- veloping their thoughts, than others, whose philological know- ledge is considerable. In theological controversy, its truth is most conspicuous : and many a discussion of this kind would have been crushed in its very bud, if the disputants had formed clear conceptions of the litigated points, and had been able to define, with tolerable accuracy, the terms they em- ployed. " Explain terms" — is one of the rules laid down by Claude, in his admirable Essay on the Composition of a Ser- mon, and it is no less important for the theological writer, than for the Christian preacher. It is said of Plato that he 10 INTKODUCTOBY CHAPTER. lows, that in the study of theology, as in every other study, a man who possesses an extensive knowledge of languages, will be able to advance with the more facility and speed, and will generally attain the most secure and complete possession of his object. If a certain degree of mental formation and power of judg- ment, in other words, of acquired ability to compre- hend ideas, to work them up, and connect them together, be necessary ; if the total want of this, totally unfits us for the object in view, the acquisition of it in a considerable degree must proportionably qualify us ; and if the study of languages promotes this acquisi- tion, its utility in the study of theology is not to be questioned. The more languages a man understands, the better will he be able to pursue this study with success ; not merely because he has thereby collected more ideas, or put himself in a condition to use the ideas of others, but also, because by studying several languages, he has enlarged his capacity for receiving ideas and forming an accurate judgment of them. This is an undeniable truth, founded in the very nature of the soul. In addition to the vernacular tongue, the Greek and Latin are absolutely necessary in preparing for the study of divinity, and some living languages, especially the French and English, [German,] highly useful. The Hebrew and oriental languages, in general, are not properly comprehended within the range of pre- liminary studies ; they constitute a part of the subject accustomed his pupils to defiue, with precision, the ideas which they attached to language. See Voyage d'Anacharsis, Chap. vii. Tom. ii. p. 141, ed. Paris, 12mo, 1810. INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 11 itself, and shall afterwards be brought into view under the head of sacred philology. Ill — V. The importance of acquiring an accurate and extensive knowledge of our own language, and of cultivating the liatin and Greek, as those which con- tain the best specimens of composition, and present the powers of the human mind in the strongest light, is examined and vindicated against some modern ob- jections ; and this part of the subject is closed by exhibiting the claims of the French and English. The author then proceeds (vi — xii,) to other preH- minary and auxiliary branches of knowledge, such as logic, metaphysics, natural theology, morals, and his- tory ; pointing out the utility and importance of each department. SECTION III. We now enter upon the third section, which in- cludes the largest portion of the work, and is an introduction to theology itself. It is divided into three parts, exegetical, historical, and systematic theology. The first comprehends apologetic divinity, or defence of revealed religion and of the scriptures, the history of the canon, sacred philology, and interpretation. Dr. Planck's observations on the two latter subjects are given to the reader in full, in the subsequent trans- lation ; those on the former may be found in the fol- lowing abstract. 12 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. APOLOGETIC DIVINITY. I. The design of apologetic divinity is evident from the very name. In the nature of things, theo- logy must, in the first place, establish its claims to divine authority. Since this department may very easily be con- founded with another, it becomes necessary to define, with some degree of accuracy, the great object which it has in view. Its attention is directed to the proofs of the divinity of our religion , that is to say, of the divine origin and divine authority of the doctrine of our Lord and his apostles. This is a very different point from the inspiration and divinity of the writings in which that doctrine is contained, although the dif- ference has often been overlooked, and thereby a con- fusion of ideas has arisen, which has not been without an injurious tendency. The proof of the one is of a very different kind from that of the other, and the ar- guments, which support the divinity of the doctrines, are, alone, incompetent to establish that of the wri- tings. It must consequently be maintained on other grounds. II. The next point relates to the manner in which apologetic divinity must suitably accomplish its object. The first rule is, to conduct the defence with a view to the attacks to which the divine truth of Christi- anity has, in the greatest degree, been exposed. It has very often been forgotten, that it is not merely the object of this branch of theology, to remove ob- jections, to solve doubts, and to lessen the force of INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 13 discrepances ; but it is also bound to advance positive proof. Many, who have attempted to defend the cause of Christianity, have supposed that they have accompHshed the latter, when they have done no- thing more than a part of the former. III. Two principal methods of argument have been employed ; that which defends the truth of reve- lation on internal evidence, and that which considers the whole subject in the light of a historical fact, and derives its conclusion from external proof. In the former class of argument, three points have been urged as of principal importance. The first consists in that eminent superiority which revealed religion possesses over what is called natural, in im- parting to us so much knowledge which this cannot possibl}^ communicate, and which nevertheless is ne- cessary, because indispensable to our happiness. Re- velation tills up the void which nature is incompetent to satisfy. It must therefore be divine, as none but God can make such disclosures. The second point is, the correspondence of the instructions imparted by revelation with what our own reason recognizes as true and noble and suited to our destination ; and hence the inference is drawn, that these instructions must have been communicated from above, since the men who first published them to the world could not possibly have derived them from any other source. The third and last point which has been adduced in this argument is, the influence which the doctrines of revealed religion exercise in the soul. Here ex- perience has been appealed to, in order to show, that its truths produce a stronger impression upon man 14 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. than all other known moral doctrines ; that thereby his will is more powerfully directed, his heart more powerfully moved, and his whole nature more steadily excited to attain excellence, than by the operation of all others. Hence it has been concluded, that some higher power than that which ordinarily accompanies truth, must be connected with the truths of Christi- anity, and from this it has been inferred that the origin of these truths is divine. In the latter method of argument, that which main- tains the truth of revealed religion on external evi- dence, there are also three prominent points, which have been regarded as sources of proof. Unlike the former class, these three are the only external sources of argument. The first, and that which has been principally em- ployed, is the proof from miracles, to which the greatest force has been attributed. Its validity depends upon the supposition, not to be denied, that the Almighty would not permit an impostor to exert a supernatural power, by means of which all mankind might be deceived in a matter relating to their highest interest. This being granted, nothing more is necessary than to- establish the historical truth of the miracles of our Lord and his apostles, and it follows that their doctrine is from God. — In a manner very similar is the same conclusion drawn from the prophecies which are con- tained in the scriptures. If some of those prophecies can be proved to be real predictions of future contin- gencies, that is, of such events as no human prudence and sagacity could foresee, it is unquestionable, that a divine power co-operated in producing them ; as none INTRODUCTORY CHAPITER. 15 but that being whose understanding is infinite, could possess a previous knowledge of such events. — In modern times a third source of external proof has been employed, derived from the human credibility of the founder of our rehgion and of his apostles. The inter- mediate steps necessary to establish this argument, are easily supported. That Christ and his apostles are worthy of the highest degree of credit, which can possibly be given to men, is evinced from their cha- racter ; from their personal circumstances ; from the circumstances of the time and nation in which they appeared ; from the object which they had, and which alone they could have, in view ; from the internal marks of truth, not to be mistaken, which are discover- able in their writings ; from the whole spirit of their instructions; and even from the declarations of their most inveterate enemies. And when this previous question, the credibility of our Lord and his apostles, is settled in opposition to all doubts, we may infer the divinity of their doctrine either immediately, or by aid of the argument derived from the performance of miracles. That all the proofs, above stated, are not equally satisfactory and conclusive, will be evident to every thinking mind ; and, consequently, it must be equally evident, that apologetic divinity requires very critical investigation, much impartiality in examination, and great logical precision in argument. IV. V. The author now proceeds to a literary history of the subject, and gives a brief account of the principal works which have appeared in defence of revealed religion, from the apology of Justin Martyr 16 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. to the productions of his own day. He then adds (vi ;) some directions for the best method of studying it with most success. In the first place, he earnestly advises all who enter upon the study of theology, not to investigate the proofs of the divine authority of revealed religion without bringing themselves to feel, that the subject is not destitute of difficulties. Thus they will not satisfy themselves too easily with the strongest proof that may be most accessible ; nor will they want a sufficient interest in the examination, to induce them to take pains in removing difficulties, the weight of which they have felt. In the second place, a man must study the proofs of divine revelation for himself, he must himself inves- tigate and examine, he must see with his own eyes, in order to form conclusions of his own reasoning. Let him analyze every proof presented to him, let him con- sider whether the consequences deduced are really legitimate, or whether they are in any degree unfound- ed. Thus, let him establish his positions on incontro- vertible ground, and draw his conclusions in a logical manner, and then only can he feel conscious of pos- sessing a true, useful, and satisfactory proof of the divine origin of Christianity. Lastly, when a man has examined a proof, and satisfied himself that it is one on which he may safely rely, he should then subject it to the test of the doubts and the thorough investigation of others. Let him pro- cure some work, which attempts to overturn the proofs of revelation, and is especially directed against that in favour of which his judgment has decided. Let him INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 17 remove all the objections which it contains. Let him ask himself whether his argument can be defended against them ; and if so, in what manner, — what reply can be urged on the other side. The result of such a trial of the strength of an argument, can never be pre- judicial to the cause of truth. HISTORY OF THE CANON. I. By the very significant word Canon is under- stood, in the theology of the present day, the collec- tion of those writings, which, on the testimony of the church in the earliest age, are attributed to inspired authors : in other words, the aggregate of those books which we consider as divine, because we believe in the inspiration of their authors, and which, for this reason, we distinguish from other books, the writers of which cannot be proved to have been inspired. In a pro- per history of this subject, therefore, it is necessary to show, why each individual book contained in the ft^acred collection of the Old and New Testaments is regarded as canonical, or how it acquired its canoni- cal authority ; that is to say, on what grounds the cer- tainty or credibility rests, that its author was inspired. ir. The first point in this discussion is, to deter- mine the authenticity of each book asserted to be canonical; and, after this, the genuineness of each must be proved. To both these, it is important to add, a knowledge of the period in which they were composed, of the circumstances connected with their origin, of the object for which they were written, and of the persons for whose use they were principally c 13 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. prepared, and to whom they were originallj^ directed. Th«' nearer we can arrive at certainty on all these points, the stronger must be our conviction of the truth of the otliers. Ill — X. The author proceeds to suggest some con- siderations on the best way of meeting the requisitions, and on the materials on which the proof of the above particulars can be founded. He then discusses the methods in which the inspiration of the Scriptures may be thought to be satisfactorily argued, and, after establishing this most important principle upon divine ATTESTATION, the testimony of Christ, and making some useful observations with respect to its applica- tion, he gives a literary history of the subject, from the first century to our own. This account comprehends a brief notice of the most important works on the subjects above stated, which have appeared since the Reformation, together with a sketch of the controver- sies and discussions which have arisen, either on the subjects themselves, or on points connected with them. As a minute detail would be inconsistent with the design of this introductory chapter, the reader is unavoidably referred to the learned author himself for particular information. EX:^ETi€AL THEOLOGY PART I. SACRED PHILOLOGY. CHAPTER I. The third of those different branches of literature which belong to exegetical theology,* is what is called SACRED PHILOLOGY. It may readily be supposed, that this term must comprehend, at least, more kinds of knowledge than one, each of which again must bear its own appropriate appellation. For this reason the extent of sacred philology may be very variously determined, and this has frequently been the case, as at different periods a greater or less degree of know- ledge has been assigned to it ; but this variableness Is of no more importance than the names that may be given to the particular parts of which the subject is composed. It is quite a matter of indifference to what these names are applied, and in what manner, provided they are applied, so as to comprehend the whole. No apology therefore can be necessary, if, in this work, whatever belongs on the one side, to an ■ The two former are apologetic divinity, and history of the canon, as stated in the introductory chapter. — Tr. 20 SACRED PHILOLOGY. acquaintance with language, and, on the other, to the knowledge of criticism required to settle and explain the true sense of our holy Scriptures, is appropriated to the department of sacred philology. Criticism, it is true, might be represented as a distinct branch of knowledge, and philology be confined to acquaintance with language, yet it can produce no inconvenience if the application of the term be so extended as to comprehend both. By the view already suggested, a three-fold object is proposed, with which sacred philology is to be em- ployed, or to which its labours must be directed. The knowledge of languages, to be given or collected, by its aid, forms two divisions, for it is well known that our sacred books were written in two different languages ; criticism constitutes its third part. What learning is required in order thoroughly to investigate this subject, why a laborious investigation of it is ne- cessary, and what assistance is offered for the purpose, are the points which it is my intention to examine, and to place in a clear light. If we commence with considering the knowledge of languages necessary to explain the New Testament, it is known to all, that it is the Greek in which the writings belonging to this book were composed. Yet it is also equally known, that this Greek language of the New Testament is very widely different from the actual language of ancient Greece and its national writers. There M-as formerly indeed a class of theolo- gians, who were ready to charge a man with heresy, if he only intimated that the apostles had not written pure Greek ; but they are now entirely extinct, and at NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 21 present it is universally acknowledged, that the diak ct of the New Testament contains a multitude of pecu- liarities, which are as foreign to the true Greek idiom as their occurrence in the language of the apostles is natural.^ Of the truth of this, a man may convince himself at any moment, by an experience which is incontro- vertible. Whoever has learned Greek merely from the New Testament, or, in other words, whoever, ac- cording to the method which not a very long time since prevailed in almost all our schools, has learned only the Geek of the New Testament, will undoubt- edly find the Greek of Demosthenes, of ^Eschines, and of Thucydides, as strange and unintelligible as Arabic. He may be able to translate the whole of the New Testament, but he will not be able to translate a single sentence from the works of those authors ; and, on the other hand, if he understand these, the lan- guage of the New Testament will no longer be alto- gether strange to him, although still not altogether familiar. This betrays, too plainly to be mistaken, an * I have retained the word " dialect" which is used by the author, although it is not considered hy some critics as accu- rately applied to the Greek of the New Testament. See a very able article on the nature and character of this Greek style, by Plenry Planck, son of the author of this work, in the Bibhcal Repository, conducted by Edward Robinson, D. D., late Professor Extraordinary in the Theological Seminary at Andover, vol. i. no. iv. pp. 638 — 68.9. Also in the Biblical Cabinet, vol. ii. p. 91, &c. In this Essay, the influence of the IMacedonian conquests, and also of the Hebrew language on the Greek of the new Testament, is traced by the hand of a master — Tr. 2*2 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. intermixture of the peculiarities of a foreign dialect, or rather of an entirely foreign tongue, which must be found therein ; and, indeed, if the reader is not al- together unacquainted with the intermingled lan- guage, it will strike his eye at the first look. He immediately meets, for instance, with idioms of the national language, which was vernacular in the provinces in which the authors of those writings lived, and among the people from whom they descended. He observes whole phrases, literally translated from the Syro-Chaldaic, the language in common use in those countries. In very many turns of expression, in the peculiar use of several particles, in the manner of connecting particular phrases and words, in the frequent repetition of certain figures of speech, he im- mediately recognizes men, accustomed from childhood to think in an oriental tongue ; and from these indi- cations he is led to conjecture, independently of much examination, that many of their expressions must not be understood in the signification which they bore in pure Greek, but in that which the correspondent ex- pression in the national language conveyed, and which is merely thereby translated. And if he have no previous acquaintance with this intermingled language, the result will still be the same. Every foreign language, which a people receive merely as adventitious, and which they are forced to receive by outward circumstances, must unavoidably be com- mingled with the more ancient native tongue, if it can- not fully supplant this tongue ; and it must be com- mingled most unavoidably by the lower classes, who have not acquired either language according to the NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 23 rules of grammar, but merely by intercourse with others, and through necessity. But, as certainly as the former observation expresses the fact with regard to the Greek language, which was employed by the Jews in the time of the apostles merely in their in- tercourse with foreigners and strangers; so is the latter applicable to most of the writers of the New Testament, who, with the exception probabl}'^ of St. Paul and St. Luke merely, had undoubtedly no other facility in the use of language, than that mechanical ability which intercourse, hearing, and exercise, can supply. It is evident, then, that nothing but a miracle could have enabled the apostles to speak and write pure Greek, and this miracle would have been, not only without an object, but in direct opposition to the ob- ject in view, since it would have made them less in- telHgible to the very men, to whom they were imme- diately to announce the doctrine of Christ, and among whom they were first to bring in circulation the sen- timents of his new religion. It was therefore not on- ly a groundless notion, but in fact somewhat irration- al, which, from reverence to the Holy Spirit, by whom the Scriptures were inspired, was maintained in for- mer times, and supposed to be obligatory, that they are written in the very purest dialect. On the con- trary, their allowed inspiration would rather justify the previous conjecture, that their language cannot be pure Greek. For, undoubtedly, the reasoning is clear and satisfactory, that if these writings are in- spired, they are probably composed in the popular language of the men for whom they were immediate- 24 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. Iv intended, and, consequently, in the corrupt dialect intermingled with Hebraisms and Chaldaisms, into which the genuine Greek must unavoidably have de- generated among the Jews in Palestine. Yet these conjectures and suppositions are by no means neces- sary, for the evidence is conspicuous and incontro- vertible, and they are the less necessary, as at present a divine is scarcely to be found who doubts the fact. CHAPTER U. If now this is this case with the language of the New Testament, which is at present distinguished by the name of Hellenistic, it becomes of itself abundantly evident, that a particular study of this language is necessary, and also why it is so. This necessity is the stronger, as the want of an accurate acquaintance with it may, and inevitably must give rise to propor- tionably erroneous interpretations, and to misconcep- tions of the meaning. This acquaintance is necessary in order to under- stand a multitude of phrases in the New Testament, which are transferred immediately from the Hebrew, and translated not at all in the spirit, not at all in the form of thought, but merely into the words of the Greek language. To the expressions, " kingdom of heaven. Spirit of God, visitation," and many others, which occur so frequently in the Hellenistic dialect, the pure Greek idiom attaches no clear sense, because they were either never used by real Greeks, or never in the sense of the sacred writers. And, as little does NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 25 it know of the significations which the former so often gave to its connecting words and particles, of which it will be sufficient merely to refer, as examples, to the two prepositions sig and sv, which in the New Testament are so very often employed, contrary to all Greek usage, merely in the signification of tiie Hebrew prefix ^. But, without accurate acquaintance with this dia- lect, the reader is in the most difficult situation, when he meets with words, in themselves pure Greek, and also in the sense in which they are in part taken pure Greek, but which, by the intermixture of a Plebrew idea, may have acquired some modification, either extending or limiting their application. Cases of this kind occur, not only very often, but probably much oftener than is supposed, or has yet been ascertained. When the apostles endeavoured to express in Greek the ideas which they had formed for the most part in Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic,* they could not always find words altogether adequate to convey the entire thought with all its intended bearings, as it was con- nected in their minds with the Hebrew word. They selected, therefore, the term which expressed their conceptions the most fully, and in its customary ac- ceptation came nearest their whole idea, or else that which was a literal translation of the Hebrew word, although in its usual signification designating some- thing else ; but still it was their intention to express thereby the very same idea, which the Hebrew word usually suggested to their minds. * Or, at least, according to the Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic idiom. — Tr. 26 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. With regard to many words, very frequently oc- curring in the New Testament, this case undoubtedly applies. When, for example, the apostle wished to express the idea of the Hebrew word Owt^i simply T the Greek iJ^^vrj presented itself to his mind ; but as the Hebrew term conveyed to a Jew much more than the other did to a Greek, we may certainly suppose, that the apostle also intended the surplus idea to be attached to the word, and therefore, in interpreting, the Greek idea connected with s/^^vri must be amplifi- ed or elevated, according to the Hebrew suggested by Ot?^' The same is undoubtedly true of the words T hixaiog^ dyiog, do^a, aXr/dsfUy the meaning of which, in the language of the New Testament, is certainly much less frequently that of the pure Greek usage, than of the Hebrew words with which they correspond, and of which they are a translation. If, then, a person is not acquainted with this pecu- liarity of the language, he will be the less able to avoid the danger of an error in explaining the writings com- posed in it, because he may the more readily commit one unconsciously, and without observing it. If such expressions are interpreted according to the ordinary and incorrupt Greek usage, a meaning is certainly gained, and, indeed, in very many cases, a meaning which appears to be sufficiently appropriate. The older divines, who formerly applied to the word dixaiog, wherever it occurred in the New Testament, only the Greek forensic meaning of righteous, were always able to give sense and connection to the places where they thus explained it ; and yet the interpretation which NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. *27 this led them to give it in some places was very unsound, since, with respect to man}^ it can be incon- trovertibly proved, by a more accurate acquaintance with the usage of the New Testament, that the sense which should be expressed, is not that more limited one, but rather the more comprehensive signification of the Hebrew p^lV* Without this acquaintance, then, it is, in such cases, very possible indeed to miss the sense of the sacred writer, at the very time when we suppose that it can be found with the greatest ease, and that we have found it with the greatest certainty ; and principally on this account is the study of this language altogether indispensable, to enable us to in- terpret with security and confidence. These remarks, on the peculiar characteristic of the New Testament language, are sufficient to show the importance of studying it. But it is not so easy to perceive what helps can be obtained in pursuing this study ; and, in fact, we are restricted to an extreme- ly small number. The most natural and useful must immediately occur to every one. Since the peculiarity of this Hellenistic dialect consists in the intermingling of the Hebrew and Syro-Chaldaic idioms with the pure Greek, an acquaintance with the two former languages must, of course, throw the most light on it. But, notwithstanding this, it is very evident, that we could succeed much better, particularly, we could distinguish tlie intermixture with far more accuracy, observe it, probably, much more frequently, and note its charac- teristic marks with much more certainty, if we were in possession of many works of this period, written in 28 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. the same dialect. But here we are completely at a loss ; for even the writings of the almost contempo- raneous Philo, in which something illustrative might be looked for, are in language so entirely different in its construction, that they can afford but little aid to interpretation, in the comparison in which we would willingly employ them, however important may be the assistance they can offer it in other respects. We have yet another source from which we may derive assistance in cultivating a knowledge of this dialect, a source which, although not contemporaneous, is, on that account, in other respects the more useful. 1 mean the Greek version of the Old Testament which is known by the name of the Septuagint. This is not only, for the most part, composed in the Hel- lenistic language, but it may be considered in a cer- tain view as its original source. As to the precise time when this version came into circulation, we are quite as much in the dark as we are concerning the causes that originated it, and the persons by whom it was brought to a termination. The old legend of Aristeas respecting the seventy inter- preters, who, at the wish of Ptolemy Philadelphus, were despatched from Jerusalem to Alexandria, and there inclosed in as many separate cells, but so inspired by the Holy Spirit, that each produced a translation cor- responding word for word with those of the others, is now universally held to be, what it certainly is, a fable. From internal evidence, however, it is demonstrable that this version cannot be the work of one translator ; for a comparison of particular books display such a difference, in respect to the style, the knowledge of NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 29 language, and the attention paid to tlie translation, that it must be considered as the production of many per- sons, very unequal in diligence and ability. Hence we have also sufficient grounds for the supposition, that the translation was probably not occasioned by one external cause originating in some coalition, neither did it arise at one time, or was even completed in one place, but that, in its present state, it may have grown out of a selection from different translations of the seve- ral books already extant after they had been collected. But who caused this collection to be made, and brought together the separate translations into one whole, are points of which we know nothing ; only it is probable that this was done originally in Egypt and at Alexan- dria ; and it is certain, that in the time of Christ and his apostles, this version was in general use even among the Jews in Palestine.^ This last circumstance, the truth of which is un- questionable, is principally iniportant in shoAving its utility in illustrating the language of the New Testa- ment. In this version the Hellenistic language must « This remark is connected with the previous question, " whether the Greek or Aramaean language was employed in Palestine in the time of our Lord and his apostles." As the truth seems to be that both these languages were then in use in that country, the reader is referred to the dissertations of Pfannkuche and 11 ug, in the Biblical Kepositorv, vol. i. no. ii. pp. 317 — 3G3, and no. iii. pp. 530 — 551, with the introductory remarks of the editor in no. ii. pp. 309 — 317- (See also Bib. Cab. vol. ii.) He will there find a brief historical sketch of the controversy on this subject, and a view of the evidence in favour of the use of each language respertivcly Tr. so NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. originally have been formed, for in it the Greek was employed probably for the first time to express tlie sentiments of the Jews on national and religious sub- jects, which had always before been conceived exclu- sively in Hebrew. In part the character of these sentiments, and probably in part also the character of the translators, made it unavoidable, that the Greek of the version should receive a considerable accession of oriental forms ; and to this the desire of the latter to leave a translation as literal as possible may perhaps have contributed. This peculiarity of the version would in the greatest degree favour the general es- timation in which it was held by the Jews, as this estimation also must necessarily in course of time have made the Greek of the version the common dia- lect of the people. Men who belonged to the lower classes of the nation, as the apostles undoubtedly did, probably derived from it all their knowledge of the Greek tongue.* The religious sentiments of the whole nation were moulded in no other Greek form but that in which they had been received in this trans- lation, for the people were accustomed from child- » As most of the apostles were natives of Galilee, or lived in that country, near which numbers of persons had long been residing to whom the Greek language was vernacular ; it is evident that the intercourse with tbose persons which the or- dinary occupations of life required, must have obliged the apostles to use the Greek language as spoken by them. St. Paul, who was a citizen of Tarsus in Cilicia, no doubt used the Greek as there spoken, in his intercourse with his Gentile fellow-citizens. The declaration of the author requires, there- fore, some modification. — Tr. NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 31 hood to think of them in no other. It was therefore no more than merely natural, that this form should show itself also in the language of the apostles. From this statement, it becomes exceedingly evi- dent of what use this version is, in aiding the student to acquire a more correct acquaintance with the language of the New Testament. It is evident to every one who looks into the subject, that a multitude of turns of expression and other peculiarities by which the Greek of the New Testament is distin- guished, are derived immediately from the Septuagint, where they had before been used. It is impossible, therefore, to doubt that these idioms are of oriental extraction, and that the sense to be given to those expressions must be Hebraistic, since a comparison of them with the original, infallibly shows what the trans- lators intended to denote by them. And even with regard to those oriental forms connected with Greek expressions, of which the Septuagint affords no exam- ples, at least none precisely verbal, it can very often be shown that they were framed by the authors of the New Testament, only in accordance with the spirit, and according to the analogy of similar expres- sions, which they had found in that version. This translation, therefore, is of the very highest importance ; it is an aid in acquiring a correct know- ledge of the language of the New Testament which is altogether indispensable, and the more especially as it is almost the only one that we possess.^ Yet it is quite a When it is considered that the character of the Greek of the New Testament is not Hebraistic merely, but partakes 32 STUDY OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. clear, that a part of its utility must arise from ari ac- quaintance with the original language of the Old Testament. This also becomes therefore important in a variety of views, for in many respects it becomes immediately necessary in order to understand the New Testament. But in reference to this language nothing need be said in the present chapter, since, from its own importance, or on account of those books of our holy scriptures which the Old Testament com- prehends, it constitutes the second leading topic of sacred philology. CHAPTER III. That, in order to attain a knowledge of the Hebrew language, a particular and appropriate study is re- quired, and why this is the case, it is certainly unne- also in a considerable degree of that which distinguishes the later and less elegant Greek writers, who flourished after the formation of the common dialect, and the influence of the Macedonian conquests on that dialect; it must be evident, that, in addition to the Septuagint version, there are other sources to which the student should apply in order to form a correct acquaintance with the language of the New Testament. These he will find pointed out in the Essay of Planck before re- ferred to, Bib. Cab- vol. ii. p. Ill, &c. He divides them into three classes ; first, writers subsequent to the age of Alexander ; se- cond, writers who have treated expressly of this style, viz. the grammarians, scholiasts, and lexicographers ; and third, writ- ings which have come down to us composed in the later dic- tion, such as the Alexandrine and other Greek versions, the New Testament itself, the Apocryphal books of the Old and New Testaments, and the apostolical f.ithers — Tr. STUDY OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. 33 cessary to show. We see, at the first look, that it has so much that is peculiar, characteristic, and, especial- ly in comparison with our modern and western lan- guages, remarkable, that its acquisition cannot be facilitated by an acquaintance with most others : and yet, in another view, and in consequence of other cir- cumstances, we might almost as easily be led to sup- pose, that, notwithstanding this, the particular study of it need not demand extraordinary^ exertions. Although, in forming an acquaintance with this language, we are forcibly struck with its peculiarities, yet we soon perceive also that they are few in num- ber and have little variet}^ The characteristic pro- perties which mark its formation, its connections, its inversions, must undoubtedly be altogether new to one, who from his youth has always been accustomed to a western language ; but, on the other hand, it re- mains the more constant, it is subject to fewer changes, it has always the same forms, which the reader meets v/ith the oftener, and, which is of the greatest importance, the whole language is poorer in words and expressions than any other with which we are acquainted. This circumstance, together with that first adverted to, must very considerably diminish the difficulty of acquiring it. For if the last only be considered, it will appear very natural, that a lan- guage containing only about seven thousand words, which is the number assigned to the Hebrew, should be learned much sooner than another which possesses a richer vocabulary. This mode of estimating degrees of difficulty is certainh^ in itself quite correct, and it m ould uudouht- D '34 STUDY OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. edly follow from it, that the study of the Hebrew lan- guage must be easier than that of any other, were it not for one particular circumstance, which again com- pletely destroys the facility that might otherwise arise from the causes above stated. In a language which has only seven thousand words, we may without doubt soon acquire a readiness, if we have only suffi- cient assistance, to enable us to ascertain with ease and certainty the significations in which the words are used. The facility of doing this is in proportion to the number of works which are extant in a lan- guage, for the oftener we find a word employed, and employed by various authors and in various connec- tions, the more certain we become as to its meaning, while, on the contrary, the more we are destitute of helps of this nature, the more difficult it must be to arrive at certainty ; and this may make the acquisi- tion of an exceedingly poor language often more dif- ficult than that of the richest. This is unhappily the case with the Hebrew. It were easy indeed to retain its seven thousand words ; but to fix the signification of these words with some degree of certainty costs the more labour, be- cause we have no other Hebrew work but those which are comprised in the Old Testament ; at least none in the dialect of those writings, and of that age to which they belong. Hence it is, that of these seven thou- sand words there are many which occur scarcely six or eight times, others which are hardly found three or four times, and there are even some which in all those writings are only used once. How is it possible then, to arrive at sufficient certainty respecting the mean- STUDY OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. 35 ing of these last, by any method, and respecting the meaning of the others, from the few instances in which they are to be met with ? On the one hand there are merely some kindred languages, and on the other some versions, whereby alone we can be properly guided. The former are the Syriac, Chaldee, and Arabic, from which the Hebrew partly originated, ^ and in which it has part- ly lost itself. Those versions in particular are there- fore the most useful, which we have of the Old Testament in these three languages, although the Samaritan Pentateuch also, and the different Greek translations, some fragments of which we still possess, may be used with much advantage. In addition to the Septuagint, we know that six other Greek ver- sions of the Old Testament were composed; for Ori- gen in his Hexapla, besides that and the translations of Theodotion, Aquila and Symmachus, collated a fifth, sixth, and seventh, which were extant in his time, although they did not comprehend all the books of the Old Testament. Since it is now certain that they were all made from the Hebrew text, it is easy to be perceived that they might be as useful for un- derstanding it, as those which we have in the kindred languages. From these we are not only able to determine with confidence the meaning of the Hebrew words, but we receive also through them, especially through the Arabic and Syriac versions, some light respecting the derivation of many words. From the same source " App. Note I. 36 STUDY OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. we receive farther disclosures relating to the use of proper and figurative language in Hebrew ; we find its sense and spirit more clearly expressed in the forms, which are similar, although somewhat differ- ently turned, by which they represent them ; we be- come more familiar with those forms of the oriental mode of thinking ; and, lastly, we are able to arrive at more perfect conviction of the correctness of what- ever is brought to bear upon the Hebrew text from this source, because we have many works still extant in these languages. By means of these helps, it is certainly possible to acquire a knowledge of the language of the Old Tes- tament, but only by their means. No one, therefore, will continue to suppose that its acquisition is a very light matter. The application of these helps presumes the study of those kindred languages, and however easy this may be as to the Chaldee and Syriac, it is quite the contrary with the others. In the Arabic, the difficulty arises from its richness, and in the Sa- maritan, from the total want of documents remaining in it ; for it is only in the Samaritan Pentateuch, and in some coins with Samaritan inscriptions, that the language is preserved. What has been said, is undoubtedly sufficient to give, in general, a just idea of the most important points connected with the study of sacred philology, so far as relates immediately to the knowledge of the languages, which is indispensably necessary to inter- pret the holy scriptures. It is proper now to treat of the third branch of literature belonging to this sub- ject, namely, sacred criticism. The nature of this SACRED CRITICISM. 37 department, and the subjects in which it is occupied, will show in the clearest manner, why it is very pro- perly considered as a part of sacred philology. CHAPTER IV. The immediate object of sacred criticism is, not to understand and interpret the holy scriptures, but to examine their genuineness and incorruptness, and that not only in general but also in particular places. But even this does not constitute the whole of what this subject comprehends. Criticism must determine, whether the text of our sacred scriptures, in its pre- sent state, is, in all its parts, in the same condition in which it originally came from the hands of its authors. In other words, for every separate passage it must give reasons, and satisfactory reasons too, why it should be considered as entirely unaltered, or else as having sustained some change. And, in the latter case, when it has reason to conjecture that an altera- tion has taken place, its province is, to propose the surest means by which the passage may be restored, with the greatest certainty or probability, to its ori- ginal condition. The duty of criticism is, therefore, two-fold : in the first place, to discover the changes which have taken place in the original text ; and then, to restore the genuine readings which have been excluded by them. We do not therefore include all that this department comprehends, if we limit our ideas of it to an ac- quaintance, in all their extent, with those principles, by which the genuineness of a writing may be exa- ;38 SACRED CRITICISM. mined, judged of, and proved. Undoubtedly criticism is required for these purposes ; but it is required also for more than these ; its application is necessary even in those writings, the integrity of which has already in general been examined and proved. The integrity of a writing is not necessarily injured by every change which its text may have undergone ; but, for this reason, it may be useful, and important in many respects, to know those changes also w^hich have not directly corrupted a writing. This can af- ford criticism sufficient employment, even in those writings the integrity of which is already attested, as criticism can here perform sufficient service. It is this especially, which makes it a study of its own, and necessary in relation to our sacred scriptures. That criticism which is only required to prove their integrity in general, is satisfied with very few princi- ples and helps ; but to discover and correct all iso- lated alterations, in the smallest points, very many more, and in part entirely different principles and helps, are necessary, the application of which is more difficult, even in the proportion in which it often be- comes necessary. Previously to any examination of the subject, it may readily be imagined that there are none of our sacred books, which have not experienced such changes in particular places, and even in a multitude of instances. It is altogether inconceivable that writings, some of which were to be preserved several thousand years, merely by means of transcribed co- pies, and which were in fact preserved by those means, under the hands of a vast variety of men, SACRED CRITICISM. 39 whose opinions respecting their contents were equal- ly various, should have remained, without any alter- tion, in the state in which they originally proceeded from their authors. It would be necessary, as has been before remarked, to suppose a perpetual miracle through all that period, merely to make this possible ; but since nothing in the world justifies such a suppo- sition, we certainly cannot be surprised, if each of those writings discloses innumerable traces of some foreign hand. Still, however, it is by no means necessary to sup- pose, that these traces must always have arisen from the hand of a corruptor. It may very well be thought, that in all these changes the text has really not been interpolated or corrupted in its essential contents : but yet we perceive why it may still be very proper, indeed often very important, to trace out these changes by the aid of criticism, although we are pre- viously convinced that essentially no corruption has thereby been produced. Something, nevertheless, has the Scripture thereby lost. The sense of the au- thor may at least thereby be occasionally obscured. A misconception of it becomes now the easier, and, which is of chief importance, we never know with entire certainty, whether changes have not taken place also in matters of importance, and the cbntenls essentially suffered, until we have availed ourselves of all those means by which we can receive certainty on this subject. It cannot therefore be doubted, that the applica- tion of criticism to the treatment of the Bible is quite as necessary and useful, as to that of any ancient wri- 40 SACRED CRITICISM. ter. Indeed, with regard to the former, it must be more useful and more necessary, in the same propor- tion in which its contents are to us more important and interesting. But now the principal inquiry is : — what are the means, by the assistance of which, it may hope to pursue the two objects that belong to it, with some degree of success. It is certainly not unnatural to anticipate the judg- ment, that neither the one nor the other can be easy, for it may readily be presupposed that in neither may criticism venture to derive aid or satisfaction from empty conjectures. Merely to suppose that interpo- lations might be in the text, could be of no more service to us than to frame conjectures respecting the original reading ; but even to make such suppositions certain signs and marks are necessary, for these are not matters to be blindly guessed at. Happily, there are many of those signs and marks, from which more than bare conjectures can be drawn. The knowledge and application of them constitute the essentials of criticism ; but the knowledge is as complicated as the application is difficult, and also in but too many cases uncertain. Four principal sources are usually admitted, from which criticism may draw those indications and helps on which it is principally to rely, partly to ascertain what changes have taken place, and partly to restore the original readings; and from these sources they must, from the very nature of the subject, be drawn. The first is, an accurate acquaintance with the pe- culiarities of the language, wherein not merely the SACRED CRITICISM. 41 sacred scriptures in general, but each particular book was composed. The second is a comparison of the various manu- scripts or copies which we have of them, originating at various periods. The third consists of the various translations which have been made of them into foreign languages. The fourth and last, which must be employed but seldom, springs from the writings and remains of the earlier fathers, and generally of the earlier ecclesias- tical writers, who have made some use of the Bible. It is in general easy to perceive in what manner criticism can avail itself of these four sources, and even what materials, useful for the object it has in view, it may draw from each of them. But, to make use of any one of them, some skill is necessary, and also some directions to enforce caution, because of the number of minor circumstances, by which the nature and im- port of what is drawn from each may so easily be altered. In forming an estimate of this, such a va- riety of points must be considered, that it becomes necessary to take some notice of each in particular. CHAPTER V. The first of those sources of assistance in criticism which have been mentioned — that, namely, which is afforded by an accurate knowledge of the language of the sacred scriptures — is undoubtedly the most na- tural, and on this account also it is principally to be relied on ; aiid indeed in most cases it is easiest to be 4*2 PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE. applied. The greatest part of those interpolations, which have arisen merely from incidental errors of copyists, interchange of particular letters, transposi- tions and omissions, must generally be discovered b}'^ this ; and often they are thus infallibly discovered ; for, in the greatest number of such cases, the tran- scriber must have committed an error, as the altered word must almost always receive a form or termina- tion not analogous to the grammar of the language. Whenever, therefore, we meet with a passage or a word, the grammatical construction of which is in- correct, or which is connected with another, contrary to the principles and usage of the language, we have just ground for suspecting that, in this place, the text has suffered a change ; and this suspicion rises to cer- tainty, when, as is generally the case, the reading, which is grammatically correct, may be restored by a slight alteration. If, for instance, we find in one place the article oc in the nominative, where the rules of gram- mar require the accusative, we may believe, with the greater certainty, that w is the genuine original read- ing, in proportion as it is easy to conceive how readily the error may have arisen, merely through the inter- change of the two letters, from a transcriber acquaint- ed with the language, and much more from one who was ignorant of it.* * In applying the principle laid down in the text, the great - est possible caution is necessary. In the first place, we should be intimately acquainted both with the ordinary and peculiar grammatical forms of the language. Alterations of the text may often be traced to the want of this. Several various readings in Greek manuscripts have arisen from the tran- PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE. 43 In this wa}^ a multitude of errors may not onlj' be exposed, but immediately corrected, by grammatical acquaintance with the language. Only, with respect to the writings of the New Testament, it must be re- membered, that a judgment is to be formed, not ac- cording to the grammatical principles of the pure Greek, but of the Hellenistic dialect, with which, therefore, it is necessary to be particularly acquainted. If all were to be considered as interpolated which is not pure Greek, or if, among a large collection of va- rious readings, the pure Greek should always be pre- ferred, more interpolations would undoubtedly be made than removed ; and, therefore, we should lay it down as a principle, that when a choice is to be made between two readings, one of which is Hellenistic and the other pure Greek, if in other respects they are of equal authority, the former is to be preferred. Thus, for example, the preposition sJg is used in a multitude of places in the New Testament, where, in every pure Greek dialect, sv would have been employed, and this has occasionally induced a transcriber to change the former, which he supposed to be erroneous, into the scribers' ignorance of the principle of attraction. Then again an author raay be accustomed to solecisms not occurring in any other writer of the New Testament. Let the critic be on his guard lest he mar the text of his author, at the very time when he imagines that be is correcting it. This has probably been the fact in several instances, and particularly in the Apocalypse of St. John. Comp. i. 5, ii. 20, iii. 12; to which several other passages might be added. The case ought to be very clear indeed, to allow the application of the author's principle. The reader will not fail to remark the limitations to which he himself restricts it Tr. 44 PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE. latter, which in his judgment was more correct. In many of these places therefore we find various read- ings, of which one has g/'s and the other Ic, and we may almost infallibly conclude the latter to be inter- polated, as the use of s/g for iv is one of the most re- markable peculiarities of the Hellenistic language, in which, and not in pure Greek, the apostles wrote. But this knowledge of the grammar and general peculiarities of the languages of Scripture, is not in all cases sufficient: criticism frequently requires a know- ledge of those nicer peculiarities, which distinguished various writings composed in the same dialect. In other words, it is necessary not only to possess a gene- ral acquaintance with the idioms of the Hellenistic and Hebrew languages, but with those also which are peculiar to each particular author, and form the cha- racteristics of his style. The variety of these peculiarities in the sacred writers is quite as striking in those who wrote in Hebrew, as it is in those who wrote in Greek. With respect to the former, the length of time which sepa- rated some from others must undoubtedly have a bearing on this remarkable variety ; for it is incon- ceivable, that the language of the more modern pro- phets should entirely correspond with that of Moses, who preceded them about a thousand years. In those writers also, who were much more nearly coeval, the varieties with which the difference of personal cha- racter, of the education and discipline by which each individual was formed, and of the course of thought peculiar to each, must mark their language, are as clearly exhibited, as in the works of the contemporane- PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE. 45 ous authors of the New Testament, in which they force themselves on the attention of the reader. The difference between the style of Jeremiah and that of Ezekiel is as remarkable as that between the mode of writing of the Apostle Paul and St. John. But still, however often and plainly these varieties present themselves on the whole and in general, it requires much more than a grammatical, it requires a very philosophical knowledge of language, to appre- hend them in particular cases. It is very easy to observe, that one writer has used certain expressions in a different sense from another, or has employed certain expressions oftener than the other ; that the connections of his own ideas are desig- nated by his own connecting words ; that he has ac- customed himself to certain constructions, inversions, parallelisms, metaphors, or other figures of speech ; that he has taken more or less pains with respect to gram- matical correctness, force, brevity, or the harmony and euphony of his style; and that, consequently, his lan- guage assumes a definite character, which it is impos- sible to mistake. But all these general observations are not sufficient for the use of criticism. It must trace out the reasons of these peculiarities in the parti- cular character of the writer. It must examine, how he has acquired or can have acquired them. It must laboriously apply itself to learn how his language was formed; and not until then can it draw any sure opinions from these peculiarities, for not until then can it be satisfied, that what it has remarked are not merely incidental varieties of style. 46 COMPARISON OF MANUSCRIPTS. No other knowledge of language than this deserves the name of critical, and we are fully justified in dis- tinguishing it from that which is merely philological or grammatical, for it must be drawn from sources entirely different from this. But it is self-evident, how much it can and must be employed in the criti- cism of the sacred Scriptures, and how necessary it is in that principal subject, the restoration of the ori- ginal and genuine readings in interpolated places. It is very often, for instance, the case in those writings, that transcribers, who possessed no such critical knowledge of the characteristic style of each author, either considered some peculiarity of this kind that occurred as an error, and introduced an arbitrary alteration, or undertook to alter the copy, in order to make the place correspond better with another of si- milar contents, which dwelt in their recollection, from some other writing. In all such cases, it is evident that nothing can remove the error, but that know- ledge of language^ to the want of which it is alone to be attributed. But it cannot be denied, that there are innumerable other cases, in w^hich this help is not of itself suffi- cient. In by far the greatest number, it becomes necessary to connect with it a second, that, namely, which is offered to criticism by the collation of the different copies of our sacred books which can be pro- cured. This is undoubtedly the resource in which it is necessary for it most frequently to take refuge : and, in the one department of its duty, this can also with the greatest ease, and certainty, afford assistance ; . COMPARISON OF MANUSCRIPTS. 47 but, it is necessary to add, that in the second and more important, the aid that must be expected from it, is neither so great nor so much to be rehed on, as might certainly be wished. This comparison of various manuscripts may be employed in the detection of interpolated places, with far more advantage than any other means. So soon as various readings are discovered to exist in various manuscripts, it is decided, that in one or more the text must necessarily have undergone a change. And again, when all agree, an interpolation can hardly be supposed, unless in some word a striking grammatical error occurs, which is not to be explained by any pe- culiarity, elsewhere made known to us, of the sacred writer's style. Indeed, in cases of this kind, it is always somewhat doubtful, when no result is pro- duced by the collation of manuscripts ; so that we may almost venture to maintain, that this should never be omitted, if complete certainty is required with respect to an interpolation. On the other hand, however, in the correction of interpolated places, we may very easily promise our- selves more aid from this means of assistance than it is able to afford. This inconvenience is principally to be ascribed to the condition, or rather the uncertainty we are in respecting the condition, of most of the manuscripts which we are able to collate. Still, however, not- withstanding all this uncertainty, they are not en- tirely useless for that purpose ; but to make use of them, very many cautions and rules are necessary, which criticism must observe, and conditions, which 48 COMPARISON OF MANUSCRIPTS. it must prescribe to itself. Tliese rules and conditions cannot always be fully complied with ; and, even where this is practicable, they do not always at first afford full and sufficient certainty. For example ; it may be thought, that the genuine reading of a corrupted passage can, with sufficient ease and certainty, be determined by those which are found in the most ancient manuscripts, and also in the greatest number. Criticism, therefore, really as- sumes it as a principle, that the reading of an older manuscript is generally preferable to that of one which is more modern, and is with greater probabi- lity to be regarded as the original reading ; for it con- cludes, and not without reason, that the copy which approaches the nearer to the age of the original, must contain fewer aberrations from it than one more re- mote, or that the writing, which has passed through fewer hands, must have been subjected to fewer changes. And in general this may be perfectly cor- rect. But sometimes this reasoning gives no great satisfaction, for it is only from a certain and definite age of a manuscript that this inference can be rightly drawn ; and then, how many exceptions must be al- lowed ? how many cases must be granted to be pos- sible at least, which again may cast some doubt on the authority of the oldest copy ? The most ancient manuscript that we possess can hardly be placed as high as the fifth century,^ for many critics w^ould make it still more modern. But if it be as old as that century, and if we have many a -App- Note II. COMPARISON OF MANUSCRIPTS. 49 of equal antiquity, they are still four hundred years removed from the autographs. In this course of time numerous corruptions may have taken place, and thus it may even be doubtful, whether, in comparing them with more modern manuscripts, a very great degree of importance should be attached to their an- tiquity. It is possible that a manuscript, which is two or three centuries later, one for instance of the seventh or eighth century, might be copied from another of still higher antiquity than the Alexandrine ; for it may certainly be conceived, that in the seventh or eighth century, a manuscript of the third may have been somewhere concealed. In this case, then, the regard due to antiquity must not be determined in favour of the manuscript written in the fifth century, but of that which belongs to the seventh. But should it even be supposed, that we are in pos- session of a manuscript written in the third, or indeed in the second century ; can criticism venture to con- sider its age alone as a sufficient reason for concluding with confidence, that all its readings correspond with the original ? If the copy were made by an ignorant, inattentive, negligent, transcriber, and certainly there were such in the second and third centuries, as well as in the seventh and eighth, its high antiquity would not benefit us. Other remarks, therefore, to prove the accuracy of a manuscript, must certainly be added to those, before we can decide upon its genuineness from its ant^quit3^ More easily still may we deceive ourselves, and to much greater danger of error shall we be exposed, if E 50 CLASSIFICATION OY MANL'SCKIPTS. we determine the genuineness of a reading by the greater or less number of the manuscripts wliich con- tain it, and consequently found our decisions upon the agreement of many against a few. The reason whj^ the same reading is found in many manuscripts may be this, that they were copied from each other, or that they are all copies of some more ancient manuscript used in common. In this case, they can have altogether no more than one voice, for altogether they prove nothing more than this ; that the one manuscript from which they were all copied contained the reading in question. But frequently a reading may also have been in- troduced into many copies, on this account, because its very character recommended it in the same way to many transcribers. Thus, a suspicion of its genuineness may often be excited ; for it was frequently the case, that they suf- fered themselves to be led astray, by plausible rea- sons, to regard the genuine reading as interpolated, and to introduce in its place another which they sup- posed to be preferable. In consequence of these circumstances, criticism, very prudently, has always subjoined limitations to the law, which determines the correctness of a reading by the majority of the manuscripts in which it is con- tained. It grants no more than this, that a majority of those manuscripts, which can be fully proved to have arisen from different original sources, or, in the language of modern criticism, that are of different recensions, can determine any thing on this subject. If it can be shewn, for instance, that a manuscript. RECENSION OF MANUSCRIPTS. iil which was copied at Constantinople, agrees, as to a particular reading, with another made in Egypt, and also with a third derived from the west, then surely a probable conclusion may be drawn in favour of the genuineness of that reading; for all the presumptions for this conclusion are, that the manuscripts belong to different families, and all against it, that, in manu- scripts altogether distinct from each other, a passage might be interpolated in exactly the same way. Yet, however useful to criticism this view of thf derivation of manuscripts may be, and this distribu- tion of them into certain classes, which is undoubted- ly necessary, it will always involve a multitude of difficulties, which must naturally modify in a great degree its utility. By means of the most laborious researches, the latest efforts of criticism have resulted in the conclusion, that most of the manuscripts which we possess belong to three families, or may be traced to three recensions, the diversity of which cannot be doubted. An Alexandrine, a Constantinopolitan, and a Western copy, may have been the originals, of all the manuscripts, amounting to some hundreds, which we have of the writings of the New Testament. Another recension, arising from Asia, may perhaps be added to these ; but here, in too many individual manuscripts, it is exceedingly difficult to determine to what class they belong, since, very frequently, they bear the family marks of several.^ But while this subject is unsettled, our conclusions " This subject of recensions will come under consideratioii subsequently iu a note. — Tr. 52 RECENSION OF MANUSCRIPTS. must be proportionably insecure, since, as was before said, we have scarcely any manuscript more ancient than the sixth century ; and, consequently, it is upon the whole quite certain, that the collation of manu- scripts can render criticism a service much more to be relied on, in the discovery of interpolations, than in restoring the genuine readings. Sometimes, indeed, it is happily the case, that these may be ascertained, with the highest degree of proba- bility, from the others. When the manner of a tran- scriber is thoroughly known, it occasionally, and in- deed often happens, that the mere shape of a letter, the position of a line, the form of a mark of abbrevia- tion, the similar sounds of some words, the necessity of a division of a word, and several minor circum- stances of this kind, enable us to conjecture v/ith con- fidence, how the genuine reading became changed in the hand of a copyist. In this way, many discoveries, which are certainly not unimportant, have already been made ; but it must freely be confessed that, in this way, all has not been gained that could be wish- ed, and which, considering the prodigious degree of learning and labour which has already been exhausted, we are doubly tempted to wish for. Yet this learning and labour are not to be regretted, since assistance of this kind is absolutely necessary for criticism. And, on the other hand, it cannot be doubt- ed, that the advantage, in correcting the sacred text, which criticism might draw from the collation of ma- nuscripts, Avould be still more equivocal, unless it were able to add also a third means, which is particu- larl}' well adapted to try the genuineness of the be- USE OF THE VERSIONS. 53 nefit, which may be derived from the collation of the manuscripts. CHAPTER VI. The third means just referred to, is afforded by the versions of the sacred Scriptures. These, as we have seen, are very important in reference to an acquaint- ance with the languages in which they were written, but they may almost be said to be even more so in reference to criticism. There is one circumstance, especially, which makes them so highly useful, al- though it must be allowed that it is applicable exclu- sively to the New Testament. Some of the versions which we have of it are con- siderably older than all our manuscripts. The Syriac, for example, belongs most probabl}^ to the second cen- tury. The fragments of the old Latin versions, which are frequently comprehended under the name of Italic, cannot be much later. The Gothic of Ulphilas was made in the fourth century, and of course what remains of it is of the same age ; and of the Arabic versions in our possession, one at least is certainly of very high antiquity. The importance of this circumstance is extremely evident. In all cases it may be presumed, that these translations were made from manuscripts, which at the time were not entirely new ; and therefore the age of some may have almost reached that of the autographs. Consequently, whenever it can be determmed, from one of these versions, what was the reading of the manu- 54 USE OF THE VERSIONS. script from wliich the version was made, its antiquity gives it an authority vastly superior to that which any manuscript now existing can claim. That the readings of those manuscripts may often be learned from the versions with the greatest cer- tainty, and how this information may be obtained from them, is self-evident ; but it may also be remark- ed, that the advantage afforded in such cases is the more important, since, in the nature of the thing, it can scarcely ever exist except in weighty and im- portant variations. In most of those insignificant changes of reading, where the whole difference often lies merely in the omission of an article, the transposition of a word, or the alteration of the tense of a verb, it is certainly not easy to conjecture, from the versions, what the reading may have been in the manuscript used by the trans- lator. But in such cases as affect whole words com- muted, phrases omitted or interpolated, or even sen- tences and whole periods rejected, the conclusions to be drawn from the versions are necessarily as deter- minate as the}^ are certain. In such cases, the read- ing given in the version, may with coniidenee be re- garded as the reading of the manuscript, and the au- thority of this manuscript may often, with sufficient certainty, be considered as decisive, if it can only be strengthened by some evidence of probability of an internal kind. Nevertheless, we see very plainly, that even in ap- plying this means, and in drawing conclusions from the versions, very great caution is required ; that it is necessary to have formed a previous acquaintance with QUOTATIONS IN THE FATHERS. 55 t"he spirit of each version ; that we must be thoroughly satisfied on this most important point, whether it were made from some other version or from the original ; and then, that we also make all possible allowance for errors of the translator. It is quite evident, that by proceeding in this manner, bringing out these errors and applying these cautions, we may promise ourselves the more advantage from the use of this help in cri- ticism. This is undoubtedly not the case with the fourth and last means, which criticism may employ. This is to be found in the works of the early fathers, and in general of all the older ecclesiastical writers \\ ho made some use of the Bible. It is by no means necessary in this work to explain in what manner, and to what purpose, and under what circumstances, criticism can avail itself of those works. They contain a multitude of literal quotations from the Scriptures. When cases occur, in which the cita- tions differ from the passages as they stand in our present text and in some manuscripts, a conjecture arises, that the copy used by the author may have contained a different reading, and thus the suspicion of an interpolation is produced. But certainty can never result from this source ; indeed it will scarcely justify conjecture and suspicion. We are never cer- tain whether the ancient author transcribed the quot- ed passage literally from his copy, or, as was very possible, and in fact was very often done, trusted merely to his memory ; and consequently we are never certain whether the alteration, from which we 06 QUOTATIONS IN THE FATHERS. might conjecture a various reading to have existed, had taken place in his copy or in his memory. Yet there are particular cases or interpolations which, by means of this assistance, can be discovered with sufficient certainty. When, for instance, a place is interpolated by the introduction of a supposititious clause, the works of the ancient fathers will some- times enable us to infer with tolerable correctness, not only the spuriousness of the clause, but also the time when it may have been casually introduced into the text. If the place is quoted by many and various writers uniformly without the addition, this is a cer- tain proof that it was added by some later hand. The first quotation, therefore, in which it occurs, af- fords grounds for conjecturing when and where the interpolation was first casually made. Thus, for example, it may be considered as one of the most important collateral proofs of the spurious- ness of 1 John V. 7, that no Greek father even to the fourth century seems to have been acquainted M'ith it, as it is cited by none for a considerable time after the breaking out of the Arian controversies ; while, on the other hand, the earlier use which was made of it by Latin fathers places it almost beyond doubt, that the interpolation was first made in Latin copies, and from these introduced into Greek.* a Griesbach, in his Diatribe on 1 John v. 7, 8, at the end of his New Testament, gives instances of marginal glosses existing in some ancient Greek manuscripts, which, most pro- bably, by assistance obtained from the Vulgate, have given QUOTATIONS IN THE FATHERS. 0/ From this example it is also exceedingly evident, that the conjectures which by these means are afFord- rise to the text itself. These glosses seem to be of the same character as the mode of reasoning suggested by Tertullian and Cyprian, and more clearly developed by Facundus, Augus- tin, and other Latin Fathers, on the genuine 8th verse, in connexion with John x. 30, who deduce the doctrine of the Trinity by a mystical interpretation of " the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood." Griesbach says also, that the Lateran coun- cil of 1215 first exhibits the entire verse in a Greek version, although differing from the received text in the absence of the article, and the collocation of 'Xviuf/.a. before cLyiov- In the fol- lowing century, Manuel Calecas, a Greek who had become a convert to the Latin church, and was perhaps a Dominican fi iar, in his zeal to establish the addition of fiUoque to the creed of the Greeks, wrote a book " de fide et principiis catho- licae fidei," in which he endeavours to maintain his position that Scripture adds the Holy Spirit as third to the Father and Son, and introduces these words : T^s?? Ittnv ot //.a^rv^ovvrn, i 'rarh^, o Xoyo; x») to ^vsvfiec to Hyiov. He omits h t£ ov^avcu and curat ot T^us 'iv ilfftv. But a iew more efforts would soon pro- duce the text as now received. Accordingly, in the next, or loth century, we find another Greek monk, Joseph Bryen- nius, quoting the very words of the received text with the ex- ception of TO ^vivfjca TO ocyiov instead of to oiyiov Tviufjt,x. And it is remarkable that, in the omission of the last clause kou oi r^ei? us TO Iv ilfftv in the 8th verse, and in the reading o X^tffros IffTti h kXriSita. in the 6th, the quotation agrees with the Vul- gate ; and therefore there is considerable reason for suspect- ing that it was formed by the aid of that version. The same coincidence is to be seen in the Montford manuscript — Who- ever wishes to examine this subject more fully may consult the Diatribe above mentioned, Bengel's Apparatus Criticus, pp. 452 — 481, Michaelis' Introducti(m, vol. iv, part ii. pp. 412 — 442, Home's Introduction, vol. iv. pp. 462 — 487, and the authors there referred to — Tr. 58 HISTORY OF SACRED PHILOLOGY. ed to criticism, it may expect for the most part to be able to strengthen on other grounds both external and internal ; for in the text just referred to, both the contents of the supposititious passage, and the circumstance that it is not to be found in any ancient Greek manuscript, afford more than one weighty reason to confirm the conjecture, that it may have been first introduced into the Latin copies. Hence then the degree of utility which can be afforded by this help to criticism, may also be determined with sufficient accuracy. In connection with the others, it can supply criticism with many very valuable re- sults, but independently, the data which it afi^ords are exceedingly uncertain. What has been said may be sufficient to give a clear idea of what the object and application of sacred criticism particularly are ; for along with the sketch of the means which alone, from its nature it can em- ploy in attaining its objects, must the character of these objects be most perspicuously exhibited. CHAPTER VH. In giving an account of the literary helps which may be used in the study of criticism and of sacred philo- logy in general, in proportion as it might be necessary to go into particulars, would it be easy to anticipate the great advantages that we might expect to derive from them. It will be useful, however, first to give a brief general view of the history of this branch of theological literature, in order the better to prepare HISTORY OF SACRED PHILOLOGY. 59 the reader for marking, from the succession of ages in which the principal works on the subject have ap- peared, the particular periods of its progress, and its graduall}^ improved condition. With the exception of the labours which Origen in his Hexapla, bestowed on the philology and criti- cism of the Old Testament, and those which Jerome applied to the latter, in his Latin version of the Bible, the works of the ancient fathers scarcely furnish any thing, by which the one or the other had been inten- tionally and directly advanced by them.^ Except a few individuals, as Theodore of Mopsu- estia, Isidore of Pelusium, Theodoret and some others, they were not only exceedingly destitute of a learned acquaintance with languages, particularly the Hebrew; but, which was still more to be lamented, they had no conception of the necessity of accurate acquaint- ance with this subject, for the purposes of correct in- terpretation. In the middle ages, all learned acquaintance with languages was entirely lost. In consequence of the total ignorance which prevailed on this subject, a great number of the grossest philological erroi's, which had gradually crept into what was called the Vulgate, that is, the Latin version which was exclusively used in the church, were not observed. Yet afterwards, at the revival of learning in the sixteenth century, a For an account of the laboiirs of Origen and Jerome, see Jahn's Introduction, part i. pp. 51, ss. 75, ss., and the juithors there referred to, to which add IMascli's edition of Le Long's Bibliotheca Sacra — Tr. 60 HISTORY OF Sx\CRED PHILOLOGY. this very state of things afforded the immediate occa- sion for some of its most distinguished restorers to apply their industry to this altogether uncultivated field, and to endeavour to excite a renewed attention to the study of the original languages of the Bible. This was first done with respect to the Hebrew by the celebrated John Reuchlin, and by the more cele- brated Erasmus of Rotterdam with respect to the Greek, and with a zeal and success, M'hich alone must have made their names immortal, if they had perform- ed no other services in the cause of literature. Erasmus felt the necessity of treating the text of the Bible in a critical manner ; he had even come to the conclusion that for this purpose different manu- scripts must be compared, and their various readings collected ; he did this himself in relation to the New Testament as far as he could in his time ; and thus he opened the way to criticism, which was soon after- wards pursued still farther by Beza, the two learned brothers, Robert and Henry Stephens, and some other scholars. This last discovery was almost too great for the age of Erasmus. On account of the zeal with which he recommended to divines the knowledge and study of the original languages of the Bible, he met with abundance of hostile treatment. Neither he, nor the two Stephenses, nor even the example of the great promoter of the Complutensian Polyglot, was able to awaken a feeling only somewhat general in favour of criticism. But still, learning in languages flourished again in full bloom from their age ; although some HISTORY OF SACRED PHILOLOGY. 61 time was allowed to elapse before sacred philology derived from it a real advantage. Very much on this subject was effected by the ex- ample of Melancthon and Luther, who applied them- selves to it with the most ardent zeal, and consequent- ly became qualified to offer to the German nation the most beneficial of all presents, in Luther's transla- tion of the Bible. But more efficacious than the example and the exhortations of Luther and Melanc- thon, was the necessity, which soon pressed upon the divines of the newly established church, to defend thems'elves against the supporters of the old system, or the desire of being distinguished in all respects from them ; so that by their means an acquaintance with the original languages was soon considered as an in- dispensable requisite of a learned divine. Greek and Hebrew studies were now pursued with great ardour by the Protestants, and were also em- ployed with peculiar zeal in making known to the Roman Catholics numerous errors in their Vulgate. But for the more accurate study of the Flebrew their helps were too limited ; and with respect to the Greek, they lost but too soon the proper track which had been first pursued, and consequently missed en- tirely the right path, which had otherwise been found with so much facility. Erasmus and Melancthon had proceeded with the study of the pure Greek, of the genuine ancient Greek classics, and this they had earnestly recommended to their contemporaries. Had this course been persisted in, it would soon have been discovered, that the lan- guage of the New Testament has peculiarities which 62 HISTORY OF SACRED PHILOLOGY. must have been introduced from another source than that, and also that another was required for its illus- tration. But the whole direction which the spirit of theology had taken at the end of the sixteenth cen- tury, and which was introduced in the following, was necessarily unfavourable in the highest degree to this discovery. Exegetical theology was unhappily alto- gether subjected to the yoke of doctrinal and polemic divinity. It did not venture to look any farther than within the bounds which these prescribed to it; and therefore even the grammar of the languages of scrip- ture was studied with constant reference to them. The prevailing system of divinity imposed laws on sacred philology which it was obliged to respect, and which, in fact, were respected with such obsequious timidity, that it allowed itself even to imagine the Greek style, defended by the advocates of pure doc- trinal theology, to be the only ancient and genuine idiom, and it even declared it impious, merely to doubt whether the Apostles had always written in pure Greek. This was attended with an unfortunate conse- quence. It soon became the prevailing disposition to learn Greek from their writings alone ; and it was said to be learned, when, in determining the signifi- cation of their expressions, nothing more was regard- ed than the convenience which might thereby result^ or which had long ago resulted to doctrinal theology. The unavoidable consequences of such a course are shown, even in a stronger hght than was absolutely necessary, by the whole state of theological literature in the succeeding century. HISTORY OF SACRED PHILOLOGY. 63 In order gradually to bring the subject into its light course, it was therefore very suitable and pro- per, that in our own age a commencement should again be made to illustrate the Greek of the New Testament from the Greek of the old profane writers, and to observe the advantages which the study of these can afford : for this most immediately prepared the way for the direction which the philological study of the New Testament has taken among us during the last thirty years. The new acquaintance with the genuine Greek idiom, at last produced the conviction, that the lan- guage of the New Testament is not entirely classical, and therefore, that other sources besides the pure Greek writers must be required to explain it. More readily still were these sources found in the Septua- gint translation, in the writings of Philo, and in the oriental languages ; and as these sources were made purer and more useful, by the industry of many learn- ed men who successively applied their labours to them, and at the same time also the study of oriental litera- ture was carried incomparably farther than it had ever been before, b}^ the application of Erpenius, Schultens, Reiske, Michaelis, and others, it was very natural that sacred philology should soon assume among us a perfectly new form. With still greater reason ma}' sacred criticism be considered as literature of our age, and altogether new. Richard Simon, indeed,* the great man who may be * As the author more than once introduces the name of Father Simon with terms of unqualified approbation, it seems C4 HISTORY OF SACRED PHILOLOGY. allowed to occupy a most distinguished place among those who brought it to light, had previously made his appearance. Capel also had preceded him. But the treatment to which these men were subjected, the almost universal cry of heresy with which they were received, and the real persecution which rewarded their labours, too clearly prove the incompetency of their age, even to judge of their discoveries, to say nothing of making use of them. What they had said of the necessity of a critical proper to add here a caution, for the benefit chiefly of the young and inexperienced reader. It is not to be denied, that Simon was a critic of prodigious learning, but his judgment in applying it is very questionable. His representations of certain phenomena connected with the criticism and interpre- tation of the Bible are partial, and appear to border on extra- vagance, to say the least; and not a few of the conclusions which he draws from them are forced and illogical. The un- wary reader of his works might easily be led to suppose, that the authenticity of several books of the Old Testament, and the certainty of the interpretation of them, as they exist in the Hebrew originals, are subjects very much involved in the mists of obscurity and doubt. Thus, according to his prepos- sessions, he might be led either to scepticism, or to Roman ca- tholic views of the infallibility of the church. The translator avails himself of this occasion to add, that although Dr. Planck was not of the neological or rationalist school of Germany, yet he often speaks too favourably of those writers whose interpretations are thought by very able critics to be frequently loose, too much accommodated in the Old Testament to Jewish views, which thus sometimes influenced their expositions in the New. 1 refer to siich com- mentators as Grotius, Le (Jleic, and J. D. JMichaeiis. The reader is hereby cautioned atainst acquiescing entirely in all the Meutiuients of the author relating to those writers. HISTORY OF SACRED PHILOLOGY. 65 examination of the original Greek and Hebrew- texts was almost considered as blasphemy, since in- deed, this was to question their genuineness. Thus, instead of applying themselves carefully to ascertain the means by which criticism could be placed in a condition to discover and correct the errors that had crept into the text, the object almost universally aimed at was, to prove that no correction was ne- cessary. The light against which men had hitherto closed their eyes, was first in our age admitted, in succession, by Mill, Wetstein, and BengeL They investigated the sources, some of which had already been opened by Simon, and by the use which they made of them, they proved, not only that criticism was harmless, but that it can be made beneficial, in proportion as it is necessary : although the pious Bengel himself was forced to listen to many a bitter reproach on account of the bold audacity with which, as it was thought, he treated the Bible.^ The labours, in our own age, a The same charge was advanced against Mill. His collec- tion of various readings would destroy, it was imagined, the authority of the sacred text, and this extraordinary supposi- tion is maintained by Whitby, in his Examen variarum Lec- tionum Millii, which was printed at London in 8vo., 1720, and is also appended to the second volume of his Paraplirase and Commentary on the New Testament, fol., 1727. Its ab- surdity must be evident to every reflecting mind, as the col- lecting of various readings is the only way in which the text can be satisfactorily settled. This is conclusively demonstra- ted by the learned and acute Dr. Richard Bentley in his Re- marks on Mr. Collins* Discourse on Free Thinking. I'he 6th edition of this able work was printed at Cambridge, iu P 66 HISTORY OF SACRED PHILOLOGY. of Michaelis, Griesbach, Matthaei, in the criticism of the New Testament, and of Houbigant, Kennicott, De Rossi, in that of the Old, are well known. This brief outline of the history of the different treatment which the several branches of literature that belong to sacred philology met with, will enable the reader to form some judgment respecting the different value and utility of the principal literary works relating to the subject. These I shall now proceed to state, in the order of time in which they appeared, confining the selection, however, to the more important and remarkable. It will also be ne- 1725. It was written under the assumed name of Phileleu- therus Lipsiensis, that is, in the explanation of the author himself, " a Free Thinker of Leipzig." This book is worth the attentive reading of every scholar, and especially of the biblical critic. Further information on the subject of this chapter, and on other points connected with sacred criticism, may be found in the first twelve of Bishop Marsh's Lectures on Divinity, delivered in Cambridge as Margaret Professor. This work is very accessible to an English reader, and may be read by the young student with much profit, as introductory to a course of critical study. It cannot have escaped the reader's observation that the latter part of the author's sketch relates principally to the history of sacred philology and criticism in his own country. The names of a few of the most distinguished English wri- ters on these subjects, shall be given in subsequent notes, as the subjects of them may require. A complete catalogue would have swelled this work far beyond its intended limits. Such an one may be found in other books, and especially in Home's Introduction, seventh edition, Vol. ii. Part ii. Ap- pendix Tr. , HELLENISTIC CONTROVERSY. 67 cessary to separate from each other, those which be- long to the knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew lan- guages, and also those in which the labours of criti- cism in relation to the Old and New Testaments are contained. Thus, the valuable helps in each of these departments, afforded by the collections of the learn- ed, can the more easily be perceived, from the im- proved order in which they are arranged. CHAPTER VHI. With respect to the philological knowledge of our Greek text, it is proper, in the first place, to give some account of the discussions and controversies, which were carried on in the last century, and partly also in our own, respecting this important question : Is the language of the New Testament pure Greek or Hellenistic — a pure Greek dialect, or one corrupted with Hebraisms and Chaldaisms ? In the sixteenth century Erasmus and Laurentius Valla had not only intimated, but plainly enough asserted and also proved the latter opinion by various arguments. Many of the best scholars of their time had also very willingly embraced their opinion on the subject, when Henry Stephens, in the preface to his edition of the New Testament, printed in 1576, un- dertook to oppose them, and to prove that the Greek of the New Testament was pure. This first induced divines to pay attention to the different opinions held on this subject ; yet it never assumed the form of a 68 HELLENISTIC CONTROVERSY. controversy, until the signal was given by Sebastian Pfochen in the following work. Diatribe de linguae Grascae Novi Testamenti puri- tate, ubi quam plurimis, qui vulgo finguntur, Ebraismis larva detrahitur, et profanos quoque ductores ita esse locutos ad oculum demonstratur, Amstel. 1629. The warmth, evident from the very title, with which Pfochen defended in this work the pure Greek idiom of the New Testament, excited in Holland as well as in Germany many learned men to espouse the opposite side of the question. But again this roused the disposition of others to maintain what they con- ceived to be the truth, or else confirmed their obsti- nacy, so that they defended with equal earnestness the positions of Pfochen. Hence a literary war arose, which continued even in our own century. In 1639, Joachim Jung published in Germany his Sententiee doctissimorum quorundam virorum — de Hellenistis et Hellenistica dialecto, in which he proved against Pfochen, that the Greek of the New Testa- ment is Hellenistic. But in the very next year he was opposed by Jacob Grosse at Jena with a Trias propositionum theologorum stilum Novi Testamenti a barbaris criminationibus vindicantium, where he represented all defenders of the Hellenistic idiom as hateful heretics. In the same year, therefore, Daniel Wulfer wrote a vindication of them : Innocentia Hellenistarum vindicata. But now Grosse directed against him his Observationes pro triade observationum — apologe- ticae ; and as the amiable and learned John Musaeus, HELLENISTIC CONTROVERSY. 69 in a Disquisitio de Stilo Novi Testamenti, which he published in 1641, did not altogether declare himself in his favour, he attacked this good man so severely in a Tertia defensio triados, which came out at Ham- burgh, in 1641, that Musaeus found himself compelled to publish, in 1642, Vindiciae disquisitionis de stilo Novi Testamenti. Even this did not impose silence on Grosse, who sent into the world a fourth defence of his Trias, which was pubHshed at Hamburgh in 1642. At this time also the controversy was first agitated in Holland. Here the celebrated Daniel Heinsius had already, on several occasions, (as in his Aristarchus sacer, and in the preface to his Exercitationes sacrae in Novum Testamentum,) opposed the sentiments of Pfochen respecting the purity of the Greek in the New Testament ; but now he did so at large and in- tentionally, in an express Exercitatio de lingua Hellenistica, which, in 164^, he published at Leyden. On the other hand, the no less celebrated Salmasius published, in reply to him, not less than three contro- versial works that same year, the contents and charac- ter of which are easily recognised from their titles. That of the first is : Salmasii Hellenistica — sive com- mentarius controversiam de lingua Hellenistica deci- dens ; of the second : Funus linguae Hellenisticae, sive Confutatio exercitationis de lingua Hellenistica ; and of the third : Ossilegium linguae Hellenisticae, sive Appendix ad confutationem, &c. In a short time many scholars of other countries took part in the controversy. Thomas Gataker of England, in a Dissertatio de stilo Novi Instrumenti, 70 HELLENISTIC CONTROVERSY. Lorid. 1648, defended with much warmth the party and opinion of the Hellenists. In Switzerland, this was done principally by Samuel Werenfels, in a trea- tise de stilo scriptorum Novi Testamenti, and among our own divines, by John Olearius, in a work de stilo Novi Testamenti, and by Henry Boeckler in a treatise : de lingua Novi Testamenti originali. But even in Holland, after the first combatants had left the arena, the controversy was carried on bj' John Vorstius, as its principal conductor, in his Phi- iologia sacra — de Hebraismis Novi Testamenti, Ley- den, 1658, to which, in 1665, he published a second part, under the title: Commentarius de Hebraismis Novi Testamenti,* after Horace Vitringa had attack- ed the first, in a pubhcation entitled : Specimen anno- tationum ad philologiara sacram Vorstii. In order to give posterity a correct view of the proceedings of this memorable controversy, two learn- ed men, in the beginning of the present century, made with great care a collection of the most important works already cited, and of others also which had appeared on the subject: namely, Jacob Rheinferd, in his Syntagma dissertationum philologico theologi- carum de stilo Novi Testamenti, Loewarden, 1703, and Van der Honert, in another work, which, under the same title, he published in the same year at Amsterdam. Some other learned men, as John Henry Michaelis, and Blackwall of England, the latter in his Sacred Classics defended and illustrated, Lond. 1727, and the a The best edition, of this work, is that of Fischer, publish- ed at Leipzig, in 8vo. 1778. — Tr. HELLENISTIC CONTROVERSY. 71 former in a treatise de Textu Novi Testamenti Graeco, Halae, 1707, endeavoured to produce an accommoda- tion, by proposing to the contending parties, that the one should acknowledge the Hebraisms by which the Greek of the New Testament was designated, and the other, notwithstanding its Hebraisms, should allow the style of it to be considered as pure. And in this way they would gradually have approached each other, had not Christian Sigismond Georgi at Wittera- berg given new life to the controversy. This zealot for the purity of the style of scripture published, in 1732, Vindiciae Novi Testamenti ab Eb- raismis in three books, against which some Leipzig scholars, as Drs. Knapp and Dressing, maintained the opinion of the Hellenists. Immediately, in 1733, a new work of Georgi made its appearance under the title : Hierocriticus sacer — sive de stilo Novi Testa- menti. This also was in three books, and in the end of the year a second part, comprehending as many more, came out. They were answered again by the Leipzig critics. After this no one took up the contro- versy. The Hellenists maintained the superiority ; and as the further cultivation which the philology of the New Testament received, proceeded in general upon the supposition which they had contended for, their opinion made far greater progress in a short time than it had previously made for ages. Attention was now paid to the chief source from which the language of the New Testament could receive the greatest degree of illustration, the Septua- gint version. As early as the year 1715, John Henry 72 SOURCES TO ILLUSTRATE THE Michaelis had published a treatise de usu Septua- ginta interpretum in Novo Testamento, containing, for its age, a number of most valuable hints. Soon after- wards, many of the learned began to make this version more serviceable, by publishing critical and improved editions of it. In 1707 — 1720, John Ernest Grabe printed at Oxford an edition corrected according to the most ancient manuscripts, and this was again publish- ed at Zurich in 1730 — 1732, in four volumes, 4to. by John Jacob Breitinger. This is justly preferred to all others ; only, with the translation which it contains of the prophet Daniel, which is not the version of the Septuagint, but of Theodotion, it is necessary to com- pare that which was first made public at Rome in 1772, folio, under the title, Daniel, secundum Septua- ginta, and in 1773, was reprinted at Goettingen, ac- cording to the Roman edition. From this period even to our own times, many learned men applied themselves, with the more earnest- ness, to facilitate the use of this translation, and to make it more general and extensive, by means of historical, literary, and philological explanations ; al- though in fact this had been done, not without success, by some older writers of the preceding century. Among the earlier, and among the more modern works of this kind, the following may perhaps be pointed out as of most utility. Jac. Usserii Syntagma de Graeca Septuaginta in- terpretum versione. Lips. 1695. Isaac. Vossii Dissertationes de LXX interpretibus, eorumque translatione et chronologia. Hag. Com. 1661. LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 73 Ant. Van Dale, Commentatio super Aristeam de LXX interpretibus. Amstelod. 1705. Jo. Ernest Grabe, Dissertatio de vitiis version! LXX ante Originis aevum illatis. Oxon. 1710. J. M. Hassencamp, Dissertatio de Pentateucho LXX interpretum Graeco non ex Ebraeo sed ex Sa- maritano textu converse. Marpurg. 1765. John David Michaelis, Program of his course of college lectures on the Seventy interpreters. Goetting. 1767. Claud. Hornemann, Specimen exercitationum cri- ticarum in versionem LXX ex Philone. Hafnise, 1776. But the actual application of this version in the philology of the New Testament was principally faci- litated by means of two works, about half a century removed from each other, both of which are very ex- cellent of their kind, and for the learned interpreter altogether indispensable. The older of the two is : Abraham Trommii Concordantiae Graecse versionis LXX interpretum, Amstel. 1718, folio; and the more modern : Jo. Christ. Biel Novus thesaurus philologi- cus, sive lexicon in LXX et alios interpretes et scrip- tores apocryphos Veteris Testamenti. Ex auctoris manuscripto edidit et prsefatus est E. H. Mutzenbe- cher, vol. iii. Hag. Com. 1779—1781, 8vo. To this last work Dr. J. F. Schleusner has made very valu- able additions, in two collections which he has pub- lished with the title : Spicilegia lexici in Septuaginta post Bielium. Lips. 1784, 1786.^ a The same author afterwards published a larger work in five volumes, 8vo, far superior to any of the kind that preced- 74 SOURCES TO ILLUSTRATE THE In addition to these principal sources of assistance in acquiring an easier and more correct acquaintance with the language of the New Testament, there are also other works which contain collections of what is useful for this purpose, derived from the sources al- ready mentioned, on the one side from pure Greek, and on the other from oriental. As the characteristic of this language consists in its intermixture with Hebraisms, Chaldaisms, and such modes of speech as the Jews had long been in the habit of using to express certain religious ideas, very much depends of course upon acquiring a knowledge of these, for which purpose the most ample collections are to be found in the following works : Johan. Lightfoot, Horse Hebraicae et Chaldaicae in quatuor Evangelistas, Acta Apostol. — separat. ed. a Bened. Carpzov. Lips. 1684.^ Christ. Schoettgenii Horse Hebraicse et Talmudicae in universum Novum Testanientum. Vol. ii. Dresd. 1733, 1744, 4to. Gerh. Meuschenii Novum Testanientum ex Tal- mude et Antiquitatibus Hebraicis illustratum. Lips. 1736. John Gill's Exposition of the New Testament, with Notes taken from the most ancient Jewish writings. Lond. 1746—1748. Vol. iii. folio. ed it : Novus Thesaurus Philologico-criticus in Septuaginta et reliquos Interpretes Grsecos ac Scriptores Apocryphos Ve- teris Testament!. Lipsias, 1820-1 — Tr. * All the works of Lightfoot, comprehending of course his Horae, were published in English in two large folio volumes, in London in 1684. A new edition, in several volumes 8vo, has recently appeared — Tr. LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 75 Johan. Bened. Carpzovii Exercitationes sacrae in epistolam Pauli ad Hebraeos ex Philone Alexandrino Helmstad. 1750. Johan. Tob. Krebs, Observationes in Novum Tes- tamentura ex Flavio Josepho. Lips. 1755. Tliose illustrations which are drawn from pure Greek writers to illustrate the dialect of the New Testament, are brought together principally in the following works. Georg. Raphelii Annotationes in Novum Testa- mentum ex Xenophonte collectae. Hamb. 1720, ed. secund. — By the same author : Annotationes in No- vum Testamentum ex Polybio et Arriano collectae, ib. 1715; — and Annotationes philologicee in Novum Testamentum ex Herodoto collectae. Luenenburg, 1731. Johan. Henr. Von Seelen, Specimen Observatio- num ad loca Novi Testamenti — ex Plutarch i libro de institutione puerorum. Lubec. 1719. Lamb. Bos, Diatribae, sive exercitationes philologi- cae, in quibus Novi Testamenti loca quaedam ex pro- fanis auctoribus illustrantur. Franecker, 1700. Ge. Guil. Kirchmeyer, Dissertatio de parallelismo Polybii et Novi Testamenti ratione dictionis. Wit- teberg. 1725. Johan. Alberti, Observationes philologicae in No- vum Testamentum. Lugd. Batav. 1725. Jac. Elsneri, Observationes sacrae in Novi Testa- menti libros, quibus plurima illorum loca ex auctori- bus Graecis et antiquitate exponuntur et illustrantur. Trajecti, 1728. Car. Henr. Langii Observationes philologicae in 76 SOURCES TO ILLUSTRATE THE Novum Testamentum ex Luciano potissimum et Dio- nysio Halicarn. Lubec. 1732; — also by the same author: Observationes in Novum Testamentum ex Euripide. lb. 1734. Ge. Dav. Kypke, Observationes sacrce in libros Novi Testament!, ex auctoribus potissimum Graecis et antiquitate. Wratisl. 1752. Elias Palairet, Observationes philologico-criticae in sacros Novi Testamenti libros, quorum plurima loca ex auctoribus Graecis illustrantur, vindicantur et exponuntur. Lugd. Batav. 1732. Casp. Frid. Munthe, Observationes philologicae in sacros Novi Testamenti libros ex Diodoro Siculo col- lectas. Havnise, 1755. Frid. Lud. Abresch, Dilucidationes Thucydideae, in quibus passim Novi Testamenti loca illustrantur. Trajecti, 1755.^ But all illustrations of the language of the New Testament, collected together from all the sources, may be found in the greatest completeness in the most recent work of this kind : J. F. Schleusneri Lexicon Graeco-Latinum in Novum Testamentum. Tom. ii. Lips. 1792, 8vo.b a In addition to the sources referred to by the author, the common and iVlacedonian dialect, as found in many of the later Greek writers, may be mentioned. See the treatise of Planck referred to in pages 21 and 32, notes. Also Fischer's Prolusiones de vitiis Lexicorum Novi Testamenti, and F. W. Sturz de dialecto Macedonica et Alexandrina. 8vo. Lips. 1808. b Another Lexicon made its appearance in 1822, at Leip- zig, with the following title : Clavis Novi Testamenti Philo- logica, usibus Scholarum et juvenum Theologiae studiosorum LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. CHAPTER IX. The helps to facilitate an acquaintance with the ori- ginal language of the Old Testament, may very pro- perly be comprised in three classes. First, sources from which the original knowledge of the language of the Hebrew Bible must be drawn, including also such works as contain directions for the use of those sources. Secondly, writings wherein the knowledge drawn from those sources is collected together and arranged, accommodata, auctore M. Christ. Abrahamo Wahl. This is a more accurate work than Schleusner's, especially in the ac- count of prepositions and particles. The author seems to have paid more attention to the results which the latest efforts in Greek literature have produced, and to be well versed in the pure classic, the common, and the Hebraistic Greek, all of which he has brought to bear upon the New Testament. This lexicon has been translated into English by " Edward Robinson, A. M. (now D. D. lately) Assistant Instructor in the department of Sacred Literature, Theol. Sem. Andover." It is in one volume royal 8vo. and is considerably improved. The theological student will find this to be the most conve- nient Lexicon to the New Testament, and also the cheapest he can procure. The translator announces his intention of preparing and publishing a new, edition of his work ; revised and improved by the use of the lexicons of Bretschneider, Passow and others, of the late ablest commentators and gram- marians, and by the results of his own investigations. He hopes to be able to complete the work in the course of the pre- sent year Tr. 78 SOURCES TO ILLUSTRATE THE as Grammars, Lexicons, Concordances, and Collec- tions of idioms of the language. Thirdly, we may add, those particular works, which illustrate by philological observations the lan- guage of separate books or single passages of the Old Testament. 1. With respect to the first class of these works, it has already been shown, that the versions which we possess of the Old Testament, in the Greek and oriental languages, are the principal sources, and al- most the only sources, for understanding the Hebrew, which, as a living language, exists only in these writings. It is necessary, therefore, in the first place, to take some literary notice of these versions. Here again the preference must be given to the Greek, from which undoubtedly the greatest degree of light may be obtained, as is completel}^ proved by John Frederick Fischer, in a treatise de versionibus Graecis Hbrorum Veteris Testament! literarum He- braicarum magistros. Lips. 1772. The superiority of the Greek versions in this respect arises from their number : for in addition to the Septuagint, there ex- isted in the time of Origen, three by authors well known, those, namely, of Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus; and also, three others by unknown translators. There were consequently not less than seven collated by him in his Tetrapla and Hexapla. It is true that none of these versions, if we except the Septuagint, is preserved complete ; indeed even the Hexapla of Origen has come down to us in a most lamentably imperfect state : still some fragments of it remain, which can always be used, and which have LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 79 been used^ with much advantage. These were col- lected as early as the last century by John Drusius, in his Fragmenta veterura interpretum Graecorura in totum vetus Testamentum. Arnhem. 1622. But the most meritorious service in this department has been performed by Bernard Montfaucon, who prepared with great care, and, in 1714, published at Paris a new edition of the Hexapla of Origen, in two fohos, which, abridged in certain places, and provided with some additional matter, was afterwards, in the years 1768-9, printed at Leipsig, in two octavo volumes, by Dr. C. F. Bahrdt.^ The character of some of these versions, of which fragments still remain, has first been in our own time a subject for critical disquisitions, by means of which their utility is not only more accurately and correct- ly estimated, but their application also greatly facili- tated. The latter is done in the work of John Fred. Fischer, entitled : Clavis reliquarum versionum Gree- carum veteris Testamenti. Lips. 1758, and in John Aug. Scharfenberg's Animadversiones, quibus frag- a For an account of the Greek versions above mentioned, see Jahn's Introduction, pp. 51 — 63, and the authors there referred to ; also Masch's Le Long. Bahrdt's work is said by Jahn to abound with eri-ors. He adds : " In the last cen- tury, several learned men, particularly Semler, Scharfenberg, Dcederlein, Matthsei, Bruns, Adler, Schleusner, Loesner, and Fischer, corrected many parts of the preceding collections, and increased them by large additions. It is much to be wished that all were published in a single collection. — Tr. 80 SOURCES TO ILLUSTRATE THE menta versionum Graecarum Veteris Testament! illus- trantur. Speciin. I. Lips. 1776. On the former the following writings, although in part somewhat small, contain many very valuable and very necessary observations. Joh. Sal. Semleri epistola ad Joh. Jac. Griesba- chium de emendandis Graecis Veteris Testamenti in- terpretibus. Halae. 1770. Joh. Aug. Dathe, Dissertatio in Aquilae reliquias interpretationis Hoseae. Lips. 1757. Car. Aug. Theime — pro puritate Symraachi. Lips. 1755. John Matt. Hassencamp's true origin of the ver- sions of the Bible disclosed, Minden, 1755, compared with Olav Gerh. Tychsen's Tentamen de variis Codd. Hebrseorum Vet. Test. MSS. generibus a Judaeis et non-Judaeis descriptis. Rostoch. 1772. But, in opposition to this work, several publications ap- peared, which were answered by Tychsen in his Tentamen vindicated, and in his appendix to this work, both published at Rostock, the former in 1774, and the latter in 1776.^ Among the other versions of the Old Testament, the principal are the Chaldee or the Targums, the Samaritan, the Syriac and Arabic. The fragments of the Ethiopic which are extant, are not of so much utility, and the more modern Armenian of still less. * To the works above mentioned in the text, may be added the following : — An Inquiry into the present state of the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament. By the Rev. Dr. Henry Owen, Rector of St. Olave, Hart Street, and Fellow of the Royal Society, 8vo. London, 1769 — Tr. LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 81 Of the Targums or Chaldee paraphrases there are several on particular books, for instance, one on the Pentateuch, by Onkelos, another by the pseudo Jo- nathan, and one called the Jerusalem. There is also a Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, on what are called the former and later prophets, and another on the Hagiographa, and the five Megilloth. The Samaritan version is limited, as is well known, to the Pentateuch. It is usually printed entire in what are called Polyglots, of which there are four that particularly deserve the name. The first rank among them as to age is claimed by the Complutensian Poly- glot, which was printed at Alcala, or Complutum, in 1514 — 1517, in six folios, under the auspices of Cardi- nal Ximenes. The second is the Antwerp, which ap- peared in 1569 — 1571, in eight folios, and is often referred to under the title, Biblia regia Phihppi 11. The Paris Polyglot is the third, in ten folios, printed in 1645, at the expense of Michel Le Jay; and the fourth, which, as it respects real value, merits the first place, is the London, edited by Brian Walton in six volumes, folio, in 1657. The most complete accounts of these Polyglots, may be found in Le Long's Dis- cours historique sur les principaux editions de Poly- glottes. Paris, 17 13.^ Some of the above mentioned versions have also been printed separately, as, for example, the Arabic of the whole Bible at Rome, in 1671, in three foHos, al- tered by the editors, according to the Vulgate. Also some fragments which we have of an Ethiopic version, the Psalter namely, and the book of Ruth, were pub- a A PI'. Note III. G 8-2 SOURCES TO ILLUSTRATE THE lished at Frankfort, in 1700, by Job Ludolf and Nis- sel. Still, it may easily be supposed, that very la- borious investigations, partly historical; and partly philological and critical, were necessary, before these versions could be made useful in illustrating the He- brew text. We must, therefore, by all means, make ourselves acquainted with the results of those investi- gations. These are to be found most fully in Richard Simon's Histoire critique des versions ; in the Appa- ratus Biblicus of Brian Walton, Zurich, 1670, or, as it is entitled in the latest edition published by Datho at Lei23zig, 1777, the Prolegomena in Biblia Poly- glotta ; in Kennicott's two dissertations on the state of the printed Hebrew Text, Oxford, 1753, 1739; in Houbigant's Prolegomena to his Hebrew Bible, the whole work published at Paris in four volumes, folio, 1773, and the Prolegomena alone at Frankfort in 1777 ; and in De Rossi's Apparatus Hebraeo-Bib- licus, Parma, 1782. On the Samaritan Pentateuch in particular, which gave rise to the most laborious, and also the most contested discussions, the greatest mass of information may be found in Morini Exercitationes in utrumque Samaritanum Pentateuchum, Paris, 1 63 1, in opposi- tion to which Henry Hottinger published his Exerci- tationes antimorinianae de Samaritano Pentateucho, Tigur. 1644, whereupon Morin gave to the world his Opuscula Hebrseo-Samaritana, Paris, 1657. Later discussions on the controverted questions connected with these works, are contained principally in Frid. Imman. Schwartz Exercitationes historico-criticse in utrumque Samaritanum Pentateuchum, Witteb. 1756, LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 83 and in Nouveaux eclaircissemens sur I'origine et le Pentateuque des Samaritans, par un religieux de la congregation de S. Maur, (P. Poncet,) Paris, 1760, and also in the controversial works before mentioned of Tychsen and Hassencamp. Lastly, respecting the way and manner of deriving from these sources an acquaintance with the languages of the Hebrew Bible, and also respecting the use and application of the means which are most serviceable for this purpose, the best directions may be found in Albert Schultens' Origines Hebrgeae, edit. sec. Lugd. 1761, and in John David Michaelis' Beurtheilung der Mittel, welche man anwenden kann, die ausg es- torbene Hebraeische Sprache zu erlernen und zu verstehen, view of the means to be used, in order to acquire a knowledge of the dead Hebrew language, Gottingen, 1757. II. Of the second class of literary helps for acquir- ing a knowledge of the language of the Hebrew Bible, among which may be placed lexicons and concord- ances, works on grammar, and such as contain and illustrate the idioms of the language, only the principal and most distinguished need be mentioned. These are as follows : — Castelli Lexicon Hebraicum cum annot. J. D. Michaelis. Getting. 1790, 4to. J. D. Michaelis Supplementum ad Lexica Hebra- ica. P. i— vi. Getting. 1792. Joh. Simonis Lexicon manuale Hebraicum et Chal- daicum. Halae, 1736. Also the author's Observa- tiones Lexic. in Supplementum Lexici manualis, Hala:", 1762, edit. tert. auct. Joh. Godfr. Eichhorn, 1793. 84 SOURCES TO ILLUSTRATE THE Joh. Cocceii Lexicon Hebraic, at Chaldaic. auct. ed. a J. C. F. Schultz. T. ii. Lips. 1777. Joh. Buxtorfii Concordantiae Bib. Heb. Basil. 1 632.3 Among the Hebrew and Chaldee grammars that have been published, the following comprise those in most general use, and also such as are most useful. Joh. Buxtorfii Thesaurus linguae Hebraicae Edit, quint. Basil. 165L Joh. Adr. Danzii Literator Hebraeo- Chaldseus. Jenae, 1745. John Henry Michaelis' erleichterte Hebraeische Grammatik, Hebrew grammar made easy, Halle, 1745. Schultens' Institutiones ad fundamenta linguae Hebraese. Ludg. Bat. 1745. Institutiones ad fundamenta linguae Hebraeae edit. Nic. Guil. Schroder. Groning. 1766, and Francof. 1778. J. D. Michaelis Hebraeische Grammatik nebst einem Anhang von griindlicher Erkenntniss dersel- ben. Hebrew grammar with an appendix on a fun- damental acquaintance with it. Third edition, Halle, 1778. William Fred. Hezel's ausfuehrliche Hebraeische Sprachlehre. Complete Hebrew grammar, Halle, 1777. To these must be added, on account of the Chal- dee, which is to be considered as one of the langua- ges of the Bible, and not merely as a kindred dialect, intended to aid in acquiring the Hebrew : a App. Note IV. LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 85 Jac. Altingii Synopsis institutionum Chaldaic. cum adnot. Joh. Simonis, Halse, 1749. Joh. Frid. Hirtii Bibliorum analyticorum pars Chaldaica, prsemissa introductione ad Chaldaismum biblicum. Jenae, 1757. J. D. Michaelis Grammatica Chaldaica. Gottin- gen, 1771. Some idioms and peculiarities of the biblical Hebrew, are collected and explained in the following works : — Joh. Jac. Breitinger, brevis de idiotismis linguae Hebraicae commentarius. Tigur. 1737. Christoph. Theodos. Walter, Ellipses Hebraeae. Dresd. et Lips. 1740; another edition with notes, by Joh. Frid. Chr. Schultz. Halle, 1782. Joh. Michaelis, Lexicon particularum Hebraica- rum. Francof. 1689. Christ. Noldii Concordantia particularum Hebraeo- Chaldaicarum. Jenas, 1734. Joh. Christ. Storr, Observationes ad analogiam et Sytaxin Hebraeam pertinentes. Tubing. 1779.* HI. It now remains only to mention some writings of the third class, in which the language of particular books, or of particular places of the Old Testa- ment, is in some measure illustrated by philological remarks. We have some philological commentaries on the book of Job, and on the Proverbs of Solomon, by the great Albert Schultens. By N. W. Schroder, we have a commentary of the a App. Note V. 86 SOURCES TO ILLUSTRATE THE same kind on the tenth Psahn, published at Grcin- ingen, in 1754, and in the Sylloge dissertationum philologico-exegeticarum of both these scholars, Ley- den, 1772, as also in a later collection by Schnurrer, there are philological illustrations of several separate portions of the Hebrew text. In this division, those works may be introduced in which the Hebrew names occurring in the Bible are philologically explained, as : Matt. Hilleri Onomasticon sacrum. Tubingae, 1706. Christ. Bened. Michaelis Observationes philologicae denominibus propriis Hebraeorum. Halse, 1729. Jo. Simonis Onomasticon Vet. Test. Halae. 1741 ; also, the same author's arcanum formarum nominum linguae Hebrseae, Halae, 1753. But especially worthy of notice are those works in which the poetical language of the Old Testament, and the characteristics of the Hebrew poetry, are seized on and developed, although only two modern publications in this department can be introduced. These, however, make all the older works more than unnecessary. I refer to — Robert Lowth de sacra poesi Hebraeorum praelectiones academicae, Oxon. 1753, and afterwards published at Gottingen 1758, and 1761, with the notes of John David Michaelis ; * ' Bishop Lowth's work was translated into English by G- Gregory, F. A. S., and published with the principal notes of Michaelis and others, including those of the translator, at London, in two vols. 8vo. 1787, and again in 1816. — It was republished at Boston, in one vol., in 1815, and at Andover, in 1829, with notes by Calvin E. Stowe, A.M. LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 87 and J. G. Herder vom Geist der Hebraeischen Poesie, on the spirit of Hebrew poetry, Dessau, 1782. CHAPTER X. After what has been said, nothing more is neces- sary, than to give an account of the literary helps to biblical criticism ; and these may be almost entirely limited to some great productions of modern times. In doing this, it will be proper to distinguish those works which belong to the criticism of the Old Testa- ment, from those in which the criticism of the New, or the helps and sources of it, are the object of the authors' labours. The controversy which arose in the last century, respecting the necessity of a critical treatment of the Old Testament, and the manner of conducting it, was noticed in a former chapter, because it originated in erroneous views of inspiration, and also of a pre- tended incorruptibihty of the text, derived from those views, or connected with them. The principal works therefore of Capel, Buxtorf, Richard Simon, Carpzov and others, who were chiefly conspicuous in the con- troversy, were there mentioned. These writings of Capel and Simon, and particularly of the latter, con- tain not only the reasons which make a critical treat- The work of Herder has been translated into English by President Marsh of Burlington College. It will shortly be published in two volumes, 12mo. The first volume is already printed Tr, 88 LITERARY HELPS TO meut of the Hebrew text necessary, but also such an admirable development of the means which can and must be employed for that purpose, the manner in which they should be used, the caution to be applied, and the method to be pursued, that the principal work of this learned man, his critical history of the text of the Old and New Testaments, will always re- tain its rank among the works most important for the study of criticism. In addition to these publications, there are others which deserve notice, such as, Louis De Dieu, Criti- ca sacra. Amstel. 1693; Humfrey Hody, de Bib- liorum textibus originalibus, Oxon. 1705. There are also certain learned works still older, which on the various readings of what are called the Keri and Ce- thib, and on the old Jewish criticism of the text or Masora, contain some strange explanations, and sanc- tion very uncritical opinions. To this class belongs : Matt. Hilleri Arcanum Keri et Cethib, Tubing. 1692, in which he maintains the opinion, that the Keri and Cethib are to be ascribed to Ezra, and he thus de- signated on the margin of his copy the various read- ings which he discovered in some manuscripts. Also, Joh. Reinhardi Connnentar. de notis mar- ginalibus sacri codicis Masorethicis, Witteb. 1674; Aug. PfeifFer de JMasorah, ejus nomine, materia, for- ma, auctoribus, auctoritate et usu, Witteb. 1670 ; and Joh. Frid. Cotta, Exercitatio historico-critica de origine Masorse, Tub. 1726. On the method by which many additional various readings of the Hebrew Bible may be collected, very useful hints were given by Jablonsky, in the preface BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 89 to his Hebrew Bible, printed at Berlin, 1699. But Le Long pointed out a far greater number of sources for this purpose in his Bibliotheca sacra, the best edi- tion of which, printed at Paris in 1723, in two folios, was republished, enriched with very large additions, by Andrew Gottlieb Masch, at Halle in 1778—1785, in five volumes, quarto.* Yet on these sources and the ^ This edition of Le Long, contains more satisfactory in- formation on the various topics connected with the criticism of the OJd Testament, than any single work to which the stu- dent can resort. It is in two parts, the first treating of the editions of the original text, and the second of the versions of the sacred books. Part First, is comprised in one volume, quarto. It contains a Preface, a biographical sketch of Le Long, a preliminary dissertation on the varieties in Hebrew manuscripts, tables exhibiting diiFerent readings in various editions of the Bible, and a particular account of editions. The last subject occupies nearly three-fourths of the volume, and is divided into four chapters. The first gives an account of Hebrew Bibles entire, whether with points or without ; of portions of the Bible, beginning with the Pentateuch, first the Hebrew, either whole or in part, and then the Samaritan : of the five small books, either in whole or in part ; of the prophets, all together, or as divided into former and later ; of the Hagiographa, united or separate. All this most methodi- cally and judiciously arranged, is comprehended within the first section. In the second, he gives a similar account of Hebrew Bibles, and parts of Bibles, with Rabbinical Commentaries and Paraphrases ; and in the third, when accompanied by versions. Chapter second relates to editions of the Greek Testament, and is distinguished by the same order and mi- nuteness. The third chapter gives an accoiint of Polyglots, and the fourth of the editions of the Apocryphal books — Part Second, treats of the versions of thfe sacred books. It is divided into three volumes ; the first giving an account 99 LITERARY HELPS TO use of them generally, very much may be learned from the above mentioned Apparatus Biblicus or Pro- legomena of Brian Walton, and still more in the two dissertations of Kennicott on the state of the Hebrew text, a translation of which from the English in- to Latin, was published at Leipzig, in 1756, and 1765, by Teller, counsellor of the superior consis- tory. The following later works also, although in part but small, contain very valuable additional matter for this purpose, and for Hebrew criticism in general. Erh. Andr. Frommann, Quaestio philologica, an va- riae lectiones ad Codicem V. T. ex Mishna colligi possint. Coburg. 1761. — Joh. Aug. Dathe, Prolusio de difficultate rei criticse, in V. T. caute dijudicanda. Lips. 1762. — Gottfr. Less, de cura quam praesens textus Hebrsei conditio requirit. Halae, 1763 — And in addition to these the above mentioned Tentamen of Tychsen, together with the publications which ap- peared in reply to it by Dathe, Bruns, Michaelis and Hassencamp ; and lastly, J. G. C. Adler, Judaeorum eodicis sacri rite scribendi leges ad recte aestimandos codices manuscriptos antiques perutiles. Hamb. 1779. Besides the works already noticed, it merely re- mains to mention those, in which the Hebrew text of the Old Testament is in fact critically treated accord- ing to those directions and by means of these helps, of the Oriental versions, the second of the Greek, and the third of the Latin. An appendix is added, containing some corrections and additions. To each volume, a chronological index is subjoined. — Tr, BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 91 or at least the various readings, the value of which must be determined by criticism, are collected and properly arranged. Of such works we have only four, or only three which extend over the whole of the Old Testament. They are as follows : Joh. Bened. Michaelis Biblia Hebraica. Halee, 1720, tom. ii. 4to.« Biblia Hebraica cum notis criticis — Car. Franc. Houbigant. Paris. 1733, tom. iv. fol. Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum cum variis lec- tionibus ed. Benjam. Kennicott. Oxon. tom. i. 1776. tom. ii. 1780, fol. De Rossi, Apparatus Hebrseo-biblicus, Parmae, a This Bible of Michaelis is particularly valuable, not only for its general accuracy, but principally for the extensive and useful annotations with which the learned and pious editor has enriched the text, and especially the Psalms and Prophets. Rosenmiiller is greatly indebted to him, particularly in his notes on the minor prophets. To the Bibles mentioned by the author may be added the celebrated edition of Everard Vander Hooght, Amsterdam, 1705, remarkable for the beauty of its typography. This edition has become very scarce — Also, Jahn's Hebrew Bible, published at Vienna in 1806 in four vols. 8vo., with the following title: " Biblia Hebraica digessit et graviores lectionum varietates adjecit, Johannes Jahn, Phil, et Theol. Doct. &c." For an account of this edition see Home, vol. ii. part ii. appendix, p. 8, and Jahn's Introduction, p. 135 A very neat, and it is said correct edition, was published in 1832 at Leipsig, by Dr. Augustus Hahn. The editor has followed Van der Hooght principally. At the end of the book he has given a table of the sections into which the Prophets are divided, and a Clavis explanatory of Rabbinical notes. It is the cheapest edition that can be procured — Tr. 9'2 LITERARY HELPS TO 1782; also, by the same author : Varise lectiones V. T. Parraae, 1784, vol. ii. fol. There are again some w^orks, which in part con- tain, among other matter, separate portions of the Hebrew Text, in part critically collated from parti- cular manuscripts, which may be considered as a sort of supplement to the collection of Kennicott. Of these the following are the principal. Kritisches Collegium iiber die drey wichtigste Psalmen von Christo, den 16, 40, und 110: A course of collegiate lectures on the three most important Psalms relating to the Messiah, the 16th, the 40th, and the 110th, by J. D. Michaelis. Frank. 1756. Theod. Christ. Lilienthal, Commentatio Critica, sistens duorum manuscriptorum, Biblia Hebraica continentium notitiam, cum Sylloge variarum lectio- num ex utroque excerptarum. Regiomont. 1770. But for the further, and in general, for the com- plete survey of what has been done until the present time for the criticism of the Hebrew text, reference may here be made with great propriety to William Frederick Hezel's Versuch einer Geschichte der biblischen Kritik des A. T. : Essay towards a history of the Biblical criticism of the Old Testament ; which made its appearance at Halle in 1 780, 8vo. The criticism of the New Testament was an object of attention earlier than that of the Old. This was no doubt in a great measure owing to the fact, that the faciUties to be relied on for investigating this de- partment w^ere much more numerous, and much more accessible, than those relating to the other. Every library of some respectability could enumerate many BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 93 Greek manuscripts. They must therefore have fallen into the hands of the learned almost without being sought, they must have invited scholars to compare many of them with each other, and from the result of these comparisons criticism must necessarily have advanced to a greater degree of perfection. These comparisons disclosed, as soon as they were institut- ed, many differences or various readings. As early as the sixteenth century, Erasmus and the two Ste- phenses drew the conclusion, that the most important consequences must result from collecting these va- rious readings, and they immediately began the work, which afterwards in the following age and in our own might be carried further, and which in fact has thus been carried. Along with this they began to philosophize on the principles by which, amidst such a multiplicity of various readings, the genuine might be ascertained and the original restored. Their prin- ciples also were constantly improving, as additional caution, in the application or use of them, was found to be necessary, and a more correct standard esta- blished whereby to estimate the results which they afforded. Beside some important works of the preceding century already mentioned, in which these principles and the helps for the criticism of the New Testament are laboriously investigated, among which those of Simon are again distinguished as the most important, the following, partly of that century and partly of our own, are deserving of particular notice. Jo. Sauberti varise lectiones textus Grasci Evang. Matthige — cum epicrisi de origine, usu, auctoritaie va- riarum N. T. lectionum in genere. Helmstad. 1672. 94 LITERARY HELPS TO Ad. Rechenberg Comment, de variis N. T. lectio- nibus. Lips. 1690. Christoph. Matth. Pfaff Commentatio Critica de genuinis librorum N. T. lectionibus ope canonum quorundam criticorum feliciter indagandis, et a spu- riis separandis. Amstelod. 1709. John Mill's Prolegomena to his New Testament, afterwards to be noticed, and Daniel Whitby's Exa- men variarum leetionum Jo. Millii in N. T. Lond. 1710. Joh. Guil. Baier, Dissertatio de variantium leetio- num usu et abusu. Altorf. 1712, Joh. Lud. Frey de variis lectionibus N. T. Basil. 1713. Joh. Bened. Michaelis de variis lectionibus N. T. caute colligendis et dijudicandis. Halae, 1749. Joh. Christ. Klemmii Principia sacrse criticae N. T. Tubing. 1746. Anthony Blackwall's sacred classics defended and illustrated, (Critica Sacra N. T. a Christ. WoUio Latine versa. Lips. 1736.) Wetstein's Prolegomena to his New Testament.* Joh. Alb. Bengelii Introductio in crisin N. T., in the preface to his edition. The same author's Apparatus criticus— ♦ ed. secund. Tub. 1763. a An edition of Wetstein's Prolegomena was published in 8vo, at Halle, in 1764, by Joh. Sal. Semler, who accompanied it with notes, and added an appendix on the older Latin re- censions in various manuscripts and specimens of Greek and Latin chirography — Tr. — Since Semler's edition, Dr. J. A. Lotze has brought out an enlarged and amended edition, in one vol. 4to. Rotterdam, 1831. BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 95 Job. Jac. Griesbachii curae in historiam textus Grseci epistolarum Pauli. Jenae, 1777. Since, in the criticism of the New Testament, very much depends upon the ancient versions that we have of it, the most important of these must be here no- ticed, together with the labours which have been ap- plied to them by various learned men, in order to make them still more useful. Among all the versions, the principal place is un- doubtedly to be assigned to the ancient Syriac, (for there are several of more modern origin,) which may probably be considered as the oldest extant. A cri- tical edition of this version was prepared by John Albert Widmanstadt at Vienna in 1535, which was reprinted in the Antwerp Polyglot in 1575 with an appendix of various readings. It first appeared com- plete in the Paris Polyglot and then in the London, after the Apocalypse of St. John, and the second epistle of St. Peter and third of St. John with that of St. Jude, which had hitherto remained unknown, had been discovered and published, the first by Louis de Dieu in 1627,^ and the others b}' Edward Pococke in 1630. The whole was afterwards published by Charles Schaaf in 1717 at Leyden in 4to, accompa- nied by a Syriac lexicon of the New Testament in an additional volume.^ The most extensive and complete accounts of these Syriac versions have been given by Glocester Ridley, a Apocalypsis ex MS. Scaligeri — Syriace, op. Ludov. de Dieu. 1627. b As it is exceedingly desirable, that the student of the Bible should acquire some knowledge of Syriac, and as this. 96 LITERARY HELPS TO in his dissertatio de Syriacarum versionum indole ac usu, which is appended to Wetstein's Libelli ad crisiri Novi Testamenti, which Semler in 1768 published separately; also in the preface to Dathe's Syriac Psalter, Halle, 1768, and in Gottlob Christian Storr's Observationes super Novi Testamenti versionibus Syriacis. Stuttgardt. 1772.* These versions have often been particularly applied to the criticism of the New Testament, and to the correction of particular places, as, for instance, in the Curae in versicnem S}'- riacum Actuum Apostolorura, of J. D. Michaelis, published at Gottingen in 1775. There are also several Arabic versions of the New Testament. At least the impressions in the London may be done with a very moderate degree of labour after ha- ving made a tolerable acquaintance with Hebrew, it might be proper to mention a few books most useful in pursuing the study of this language. But the reader is referred to the ap- pendix to a " Treatise on the use of the Syriac language, by .John David Michaelis, translated from the German by John Frederick Schroeder, A. M., an assistant minister of Trinity Church, in the city of New york,"-|- and published in the first volume of Essays and Dissertations in Biblical Literature, 8vo, pp. 481 — 530 ; and also to the Biblical Repository, vol. iii. p. 21, note *. These two works, both of which are quite accessible, will supply him with references to authors. — Tr. a The following publications deserve to be particularly men- tioned : Versio Syriaca Philoxeniana Sacrorum Evangeliorum, Joseph White, cum vers. Lat. Oxon. vol. ii. 1778, 4to. Novi Testamenti versiones Syriacse, Simplex, Philoxeniana et Hierosolymitana, cum observatt. et tabb. aen. ab J. G. C. Adler. Hafniaj. 1789, 4to. t It is intended that this Treatise by Michnelis, shall be incluiled in a future volume of the Biblical Cabinet. BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 97 and Paris Polyglots, the version of the four Gospels printed at Rome in 1619, and the edition of Thomas Erpenius published at Leyden in 1616, differ much from each other. See Gottl. Christ. Storr, dissertatio de Evangehis Arabicis. Tubing. 1777. The Ethiopic version, which appeared at Rome in two parts in 1548 — 9, is in the London Polyglot; but very incorrectly printed. The Persian versions are confined to the four Gos- pels, and are two in number, an older, with notes by Thomas Graevius, and a more modern by Abraham Wehloc, London, 1 657. An Armenian version was printed at Amsterdam in 1668 by Bishop Uscan, and the Coptic by David Wilkins in 1716. But among all these last named versions, the Ethiopic is almost the only one which is in some measure useful for criticism. Most of the information relating to it is collected in the preface by Christ. Bened. Michaelis to the Evangelium secundum Mat-- thaeum ex versione Ethiop. interpretis — Christ. Aug. Bode. Halae, 1749. The last named scholar pub- lished also the first four chapters of St. Matthew from the Armenian version, translated into Latin, Helmst. 1757, and introduced in the preface the necessary accounts of this version. Respecting the Coptic the gi'eatest degree of information is to be found in the Thesaurus epistolicus la Crozianus, which was pub- lished at Leipzig in 1742. Far more important, however, for the criticism of the Greek text than all these versions just mentioned, are the old Latin versions, or rather the fragments of H 98 LITERARY Hl-.LPS TO them, which are generally referred to by the names " antiqua Latina" and " Itala/' and which in part may be far more ancient than the time of Jerome's version and of the Vulgate. Of these we have only some fragments, and on this account it becomes the more difficult, and must occupy the most careful at- tention of the greater number of scholars, to collect them together, to prepare them for publication, and to decide upon their merits. The principal works in which this is done, and Avhere these fragments are collected, are as follows : Vulgata Antiqua Latina et Itala versio EvangeHi secundum Matthaeum. Ed. studio Johan. Martianay. Paris 1698. Acta Apostolorum Grgeco-Latine e codice Lau- diano. Ed. Thomas Hearnius. Oxon. 1715. Biblia Sacra Latinae versionis, seu Vetus Itala, opera Pet. Sabatier. Remis. 1743, iii. fol. Evangeliarium quadruplex Latinae versionis anti- quse — in lucem edit, a Josepho Blanchinio, Rom. 1749, ii. fol. To these may be added the old Latin text of the Gospel of St. John from the Cambridge manuscript, Avhich Semler printed at the end of his paraphrase of this Gospel, Halle, 1771. Respecting these Latin versions, see, in addition to the above works, particularly the third dissertation of Natalis Alexander in his Trias dissertationum eccle- siasticarum, Paris 1678; also Blanchini's Vindicia? canonicarum scripturarum Vulgatas Latinae, Romae. 1 740, with the observations and treatises contained in his Evangeliarium quadruplex ; and J. S. Semler's BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 99 appendix to Wetstein's Prolegomena, published by him at Halle in 1764. Lastly : — in our age the first effort of much im- portance has been made to employ the old Gothic version of Ulphilas to the criticism of the New Tes- tament. As early as the year 1670, indeed, George Stiernhielm published at Stockholm, Evangelia Go- thice translata ab Ulphila, with parallel northern ver- sions and a Glossarium Ulphilo-Gothicum ; but a far better edition appeared at Oxford under the follow- ing title : Sacrorum Evangeliorum Versio Gothica cum interpretatione Latina et notis Erici Benzelii ed. Edw. Lye. 1730. John Hire, in his Ulphilas illus- tratus, threw much additional light on this version ; but in the year 1763, superintendent Francis Ant. Knittel made public a Versio Gothica Ulphilas non- nullorum capitum epistolag ad Romanos, which he had found in a manuscript of the Wulfenbuttel libra- ry. Many writings relating to this Gothic version, by Ihre, Huppel, Esberg, Gordon, and Wachter, ma\' be found in a collection of Ihre, with the title : Scrip- ta versionem Ulphilanam illustrantia, edited by Biisching. Berl. 1773. Respecting the last source from which criticism may derive assistance, namely, the works of the an- cient ecclesiastical writers, it is not necessary to say much. It is but little of which it can avail itself from these works, and even this must first be sought for with great labour and brought together : althougli there are some collections from writings of the fa- thers, which appear to have been made, principally V ith the view of bringing together more closely what 100 LITERARY HELPS TO they contain that is useful in criticism and interpreta- tion. The collections referred to are those in which the commentaries of many of the fathers on separate books of the Bible are arranged and placed together, and for these the particular name of Catenag Patrum has been invented. Thus, for example, we have a catena of twenty-one Greek fathers on the Gospel of St. Matthew, published by Peter Possin, at Tou- louse in 1646 ; and in the following year a second came out of thirty others. The same learned man published also a catena on the Gospel of St. Mark at Rome, in 1673 ; Balthazar Corderius, a catena Pa- trum on St. John, Antwerp, 1630 ; and John Hen- tenius with Morellus, another, on the Acts, the epist- les of St. John, and the catholic epistles, Paris, 1631. The literary and historical notices of the Catente have been collected by Thomas Ittig in a separate work : de bibliothecis et catenis patrum. Lips. 1707 ; but on the use that can be made of them in the criti- cism and interpretation of the New Testament, and the advantages that may be expected to result. Dr. Noesselt has published a work entitled : Observatio- nes de catenis Patrum Greecorum in N. T. Hallse 1762. All that now remains on this part of my subject is, to mention those works in which, from the sources stated, and by the means within reach, the Greek text has in fact been critically examined and prepar- ed ; in other words, to state those editions of the New Testament, in which the various readings are collected, estimated according to their value, and BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 101 judged according to the degree in which their ge- nuineiKJSs is more or less probable. Among the old editions, it is proper to mention, in the first place, the Greek text in the Complutensian Polyglot, which was taken from a very ancient Vatican manuscript,^ and before printing compared with others, the various readings of which are noted in the margin. This text therefore continued in very great repute until our own time, when Semler iii 1766 published at Halle his Genauere Untersuchung der schlechten Beschaffenheit des zu Alcala gedruck- ten Neuen Testaments ; Critical Examination of the a This opinion was generally supposed to be correct when the author prepared his work. It was founded " partly on se- veral passages in the prefaces to the Complutensian Bible, in which the editors boast of having received from the apostolic library of Pope Leo X. very ancient and valuable manuscriptb, which had afforded them great assistance ; partly on some ex- pressions of Erasmus, which are so construed as if the Pope had commanded the editors of this edition to follow one of the best Vatican manuscripts in particular." But it " is certain, that the Complutensian Bible very frequently differs from it, and therefore we cannot conclude from the readings of the one to those of the other." Thus far Michaelis, in his account of the Vatican manuscript. Introduction, Part i. vol. ii. pp. 348 — 9. Marsh, on the passage just quoted, (note 347,) gives a specimen of readings which he had collected from the Vatican manuscript and the Complutensian edition on the first three chapters of St. Matthew, from which it appears evident that the manuscript could not have been " ever consulted by the editors in this part of the Greek Testament"; and the same result is obtained by an examination of other portions. For an account of the Complutensian and other Polyglots, see Masch's Le Long. Part i. p. 331, ss. Home's Introduction, vol. ii. Part. ii. appendix, pp. 32. ss. edit, vii — Tr. 102 LITERARY HELPS TO incorrect cliaracter of the New Testament printed at Alcala ; in reply to which John Melch. Gotze print- ed at Hamburgh in the same year, Aust'iihrliche Vertheidigung des Complutensischen Neuen Testa- ments mit beygefligten kritischen Anmerkungen gegen Semler; The Complutensian New Testament defended at length against Semler, with accompany- ing critical remarks.^ After the Complutensian edition of the New Testa- ment follow, in order of time, those of Erasmus. In preparing these also various manuscripts were critically collated ; and, therefore, at least the three editions of 1516, 1519, and 152ii, frequently differ from each other, because in each of them the editor endeavoured to improve the text, by numerous manuscripts which had not before been used. These publications of Erasmus were succeeded by the critical editions of the elder Robert Stephens, which he published at Paris in 1546, 1549, and 1550. Among the critical editions of Theodore Beza, that of 1582, printed by Henry Stephens, deserves to be particularly mentioned, because two manu- scripts which have become of great importance, one known by the name of the Cambridge manuscript, and the other the Clermont, were used in its compila- tion. In the seventeenth century, Stephen Curcellseus, and John Fell of England, meritoriously aided the cause of criticism, the former in his edition published "* A more complete account of this controversy may be found in Marsh's Michaelis, iibi sup. pp. 431 — 442, with the notes — Tr. BIBLICAL CRITICISM, 103 at Amsterdam in 1658, and the latter in his which came from the Oxford press in 1657. None of these editions, however, will bear a com- parison with those great critical works which our own age has produced. Among these the first is that of John Mill : Novum Testamentum Graecum cum variantibus lectionibus. Oxon. 1 707, fol. It was re- pubhshed in 1710, at Amsterdam, by Louis Kuster, w ith a larger and better arranged collection of various readings. Bengel followed Mill. His critical edition of the New Testament, with his Apparatus Criticus, first ap- peared at Tiibingen, in 1734. A greater treasure than even that of Bengel, was afterwards collected by John James Wetstein, whose Novum Testamentum Grsecum, cum variantibus lec- tionibus codicum manuscriptorum, editionumaliarum, versionum et patrura, made its appearance at Amster- dam, in two folio volumes, in the years 1751, 1752. In 1774, 1775, John James Griesbach published his Novum Testamentum Graecum cum textu ad fidem codicum, versionum et patrum emendato. Vol. i. ii. 8vo.^ Another service for the criticism of the New Tes- tament has been accomplished still more recently by the same learned man, in his Symbolae criticse ad sup- plendas et corrigendas variarum Novi Testamenti lectionum collectiones — cum descriptione et examine multorum codicum Graecorum Novi Testamenti. Hal. T. i. 1785. T. ii. 1793, 8vo. a A pp. Note VI. 104 LITERARY HELPS, &C. In 1788, the new critical edition of the New Tes- tament by Professor Matthsei in Wittenberg was completed in twelve volumes, in which many Moscow manuscripts, which had not previously been collated, are employed. Earlier in the same year appeared at Copenhagen : Birchii quatuor Evangelia Graeca cum variantibus lectionibus codd. manuscript. Bibliothecae Vaticanag Barberinae et cet. 1784, 4to, and a year earher: No- vum Testamentum ad codicem Vindobonensem Greece expressum. Varietatem lectionum addidit Franc. Car. Alter. Prof. Gymnas. Vindob. vol. ii. Viennae, 1787, in royal octavo. Lastly, it is proper to mention the fac-similes lately published, of two manuscripts, which have always been considered as of the highest importance for criticism, namely, the Alexandrine and the Cambridge. The former, given to the world in 1789,^ was the result of the application of Woide, and for the latter, publish- ed in 1 793, at the cost of the university of Cambridge, we are indebted to the labours of Thomas Kipling. Codex. Theod. Bezas Cantabrigiensis, Evangelia et Acta Apostolorum complectens, quadratis Uteris Gra?- co-Latinus — Academia aspirante venerandas has ve- tustatis reliquias summa fide adumbravit — expressit, edidit — codicis historiam — notasque adjecit Thomas Kipling, S. T. P. Cantabrig. 1793. Vol. ii. fol. Thus they have been brought within the reach of the a Home says, 1786. Introduction, Vol. ii. Part ii. Appendix, p. 19. METHOD OF 8TLDY. 105 learned, and can be more generally and more easily used. CHAPTER XL After giving this account of the literary helps for the study of sacred philology and criticism, it is neces- sary to point out the most direct method, in which the study of each can most easily and successfully be pursued. Only with respect to this kind of literature, there is one circumstance, which must give to the discussions which it involves a particular direction, if they lead to an useful and applicable result. The particular circumstance referred to is this. It is not only a doubtful point, whether an especial study of this branch of literature is necessary for every di- vine, but it may actually admit of doubt whether it is possible for every one. The inquiry deserves at- tention ; for should these doubts in the end really prove to be w^ell founded, it will certainly be more correspondent to the object in view, and more useful, here to direct our attention, rather to the means to be employed, in order, with the least disadvantage, to avoid these studies, and the conditions under which this indulgence is admissible, than to spend our time on the method of pursuing them with the most suc- cess. But it may be almost anticipated, that these doubts w ill appear entirely groundless, in proportion as they are the more closely and distinctly viewed. The least that can be required for the proper study of these branches of literature, or at least that which 106 METHOD OF STUDY. becomes the first requisite is undoubtedly this : that the knowledge necessary, and pertaining to it, must itself be drawn from those sources from which alone it can be drawn with certainty. Whoever, for example, determines to study the philology of the Hebrew lan- guage for himself, must himself discover by means of the helps that can be employed, its spirit, its charac- ter, its peculiarities, the significations of its words, the very characteristics of its figures ; thus he must draw out its character from the analogy of the other orien- tal languages which have sprung from it or are con- nected with it, and the meanings of its words and phrases from a comparison of the various versions which we have of the Hebrew scriptures, since these are the only sources which can supply such know- ledge respecting them as may be confidently relied on. It is indeed true, that this knowledge has frequentl}^ been collected and brought together from those scat- tered sources, in many works appropriated to such subjects, as in grammars and lexicons of the Hebrew language; and therefore it might at first be thought, that it can now be derived entirely from these works. Such a course would undoubtedly save an immense expense of time and trouble : but then who does not perceive, that it is not a man's own study which is bestowed on these languages, but that he merely avails himself of the studies of others ? In this case, it is not our own inquiries which we institute into the spirit of the language, and the signi- fications of its words ; it is nothing more than the re- sults of the inquiries of others, which we thereby as- sume as true, without having examined into their METHOD OF STUDY. 107 truth for ourselves, or being able to conduct such an examination. From this last circumstance, principal- ly, the study, when thus pursued, cannot properly be considered as an investigation of the subject for one's self, for this shows most clearly, that in this way we can only see with the eyes of others. Thus, for example, we may find in every Hebrew lexicon, a great number of words given, which are derived from Arabic roots, or from primitive words preserved in the Arabic language, the significations of which are principally determined by it. They majs indeed, in the lexicons be taken from this source with perfect correctness : but if the student has no knowledge of Arabic, it is evident that he must depend upon the truth and fidelity of the compiler of the lexicon, or of the first scholar who discovered the Arabic roots, and assume it as true, that the significa- tion of the Hebrew words is correctly given. What- ever reasons, or whatever presumptions we may have in favour of this, still we do not obtain views of our own, we are merely trusting to those of others ; we must, therefore, always be without that substan- tial knowledge which our own study, and nothing else can give. The case is the same with the particular philology of the Greek text. With regard to the criticism of both the Old and New Testaments, the remarks are still more applicable. Here also we find in parti- cular works most of the materials, which the industry of individual scholars has collected with unwearied pains, on the various ways which criticism can pursue in making her discoveries. The different readings of 108 METHOD OF STUDY. several hundreds of manuscripts, the full harvest of variations to be gathered from the old versions, and the writings of the fathers, are contained in the collec- tions of Kennicott and De Rossi, relating to the Old Testament, and in the works of Wetstein, Bengel, and Griesbach on the New. The student therefore has nothing further to do but to form his own judg- ment on the value of the various readings, and to es- timate the degree of their probable genuineness or spuriousness. But what must be the foundation of this judgment? and from what must this estimate proceed ? Is it not evident, that this must be historical infor- mation respecting the age, the character, and what is drawn from these points, the value of the manuscripts, from which the collection of various readings has been made ? Is it not conjectures on the derivation of one from another, on the family-likeness of one with another, on the interpolation of one from another, on a hundred other circumstances relating to the country to which they owe their origin, to their transcribers, to the fate they have undergone, which must all be considered in forming this judgment ? This information, and these conjectures, — on the correctness of which, the most, or, properly speaking, the whole depends, — we must believe on the word of the collector, who collated and described the manu- scripts. Yet this cannot possibly be called a man's own study of this branch of knowledge ; it is, or it results in nothing more than a historical acquaintance with what others have communicated respecting it : and that the acquaintance thus obtained, neither does nor can always satisfy every wish, became particular- METHOD OF STUDY. 109 ly observable among our scholars on the appearance of Kennicott's edition of the Bible. It is as evident then as anything can possibly be, that in this department of learning, sacred criticism, we must frequently yield to the pressure of necessity, and satisfy ourselves merely with this compendious historical study of the subject, because the real study of it for one's self, is, with thousands, absolutely im- possible. The helps which must necessarily be used in study- ing it in this manner, are of such a nature, that thou- sands can no more employ them than if they had no existence. The principal sources from which criti- cism must draw, the old manuscripts still remaining, are dispersed in all the libraries of Europe ; they can only be consulted in the places where they are kept ; and thus to make use of them, not only requires an expense of time and trouble, but also of money, which can be afforded by very few scholars. Nothing less than the public support of the English nation placed Kennicott in a condition to accomplish his undertak- ing. It is preposterous, therefore, to suppose, that sacred criticism could ever be a subject to be studied by all, or even by many in the manner above stated. With the sacred philology of our Hebrew and Greek texts, the case is almost the same, although there are some other circumstances which have an influence on this subject. If in this department the helps are not so expensive and rare as in criticism — although they also are sufficiently so, especially in Hebrew philology — yet the greater part of students, who would pursue this branch of knowledge as a dis- 1 10 METHOD OF STUDY. tinct part of exegetical theology, could not devote that time which would be required by such a course of study, as an examination of every point for one's self would demand. For example : — a fundamental and learned know- ledge of Hebrew necessarily comprehends an acquaint- ance with the other oriental languages, particularly with those which contain the most ancient and impor- tant versions of the Hebrew text. The greater pro- portion of these versions are only to be found in the Polyglots, which are costly. The other literary helps for acquiring these languages, those for instance, to be used in learning the Arabic, Samaritan, and Ethiopic, cannot be brought together without considerable ex- pense, and even then, it is frequently difficult to secure them. But after this is done, how will a student, who, in a period of three or four years must traverse the whole field of theology, find time to devote to each of these languages in particular ? A merely general and superficial acquaintance M'ith these languages is of little or no use ; for the very fact that they are to be used in order to illus- trate another, shows that a mere grammatical know- ledge of their letters, their forms, and some of their words, cannot be very extensively applied. For this purpose, a philosophical study of the spirit of them is necessary ; a study which requires not months only, but years. Thus it becomes necessary for most persons to abandon all expectation of attaining this object. Hap- pily, however, this necessity does not involve an irre- parable loss ; for it may in fact be shown, that to METHOD OF STUDY. 1 1 1 study those branches of learning for one's self from original sources is, in general, to be considered as much unnecessary as it is impossible. We have certainly every reasonable motive to place sufficient confidence in the results of the inves- tigations which have been pursued on these subjects by scholars, M'ho were able to devote their particular attention to this kind of learning. With respect to the probity with which they have given these results to the world, we have no reason to doubt ; although in critical disclosures this is a point which must come into serious consideration, of which the deceit that was practised in relation to the famous codex Ravi- anus, by which so many critics were imposed upon, aifords a very remarkable illustration. But that their investigations are accurate, that the way in which they have proceeded is right, and that the discoveries which they have made therein are real- ly true and worthy of credit, is proved from the fact, that although many persons have pursued these inves- tigations, and in some cases by methods of their own, yet in general the same results have been produced. When Schultens, for example, determines the mean- ing of a Hebrew word from the Arabic, or when Mill, in defending a reading, appeals to the fact, that it is sanctioned by the Alexandrine manuscript, the student who has no knowledge of Arabic may confi- dently regard the signification of the Hebrew w^ord given by Schultens as the true one, and he who has never seen the Alexandrine manuscript may still be secure of having the reading contained in it ; for Schultens was not the only man who found the signi- il'2 METHOD OF STUDY. fication referred to in the Arabic, and many besides Mill have examined the Alexandrine manuscript, and found there the same reading. If, therefore, in literature of this kind, we are often obliged to believe merely what has been discovered by others, without being able ourselves to ascertain the correctness of the discovery, it is still exceedingly rare that we are obliged to trust a single witness : there are always many, who pledge themselves for the truth of the discovery, and consequently make it the more credible. Indeed we must rest satisfied with such evidence in a hundred other cases ; and we do satisfy ourselves with it even in a multitude of cases where we are not necessarily obliged to do so. No reason therefore can be assigned, why we cannot and may not do the same, in relation to the knowledge under consideration. In this view of the subject, it might be inferred, and not without very plausible reasons, that it is a very unnecessary expense of labour and time to study these subjects for ourselves, were it not that we have so many grounds for believing, that a further use of the original sources will supply a A^ast deal more than has hitherto been drawn from them. Yet even this sug- gests another circumstance, v.hich makes it still more evident, that a personal examination of the original sources of this learning cannot be necessary in gene- ral or for all, and why this is the case. It is a decided point, that the nicer and more inti- mate knowledge of the language of our Hebrew Scriptures is still susceptible of very great improve- ment, by a further cultivation of oriental literature in METHOD OF STUDY. 1 13 general, enriching ourselves with its abundance : and it is also as certain, that the criticism both of the Old and New Testaments may yet anticipate many very valuable discoveries, by still further pursuing its in- vestigations in the road which has been opened for it with so much trouble. There is therefore great rea- son to wish that many more scholars would devote themselves entirely or principally to this kind of lite- rature, from which so much may be derived. Yet we may confidently believe, that the most important, the most useful, and the most necessary matter, which it contains, has already been brought to light. So far indeed has our sacred philology been alrea- dy cultivated, in respect to the languages of the Bible, that it can supply sufficient exegetical materials for a generally correct explanation of the true sense of the sacred Scriptures; and criticism has also already thrown so much light upon it, that it may with suflR- cient certainty be considered as secured in all impor- tant and principal places against interpolations not yet discovered, and also may always come to a pro- bable conclusion as to tlie genuine reading. It was this that was necessary to be done, since otherwise in- terpretation could not Uave taken one step with secu- rity. It is this, therefore, which every one who in- tends to make theology his study necessarily requires; but he requires nothing more. Since now he can secure this merely by an industrious attention to the history of sacred philology and sacred criticism, the study of their original sources becomes superfluous to him, as soon as he is obliged to confine himself to what is necessary. 114 METHOD OF STUDY. By prosecuting this study, very much light may undoubtedly be thrown on separate and particular . places ; but it is not either intended or allowable, that every one who finds no difficulty in the general, should immediately attempt to illustrate such places. Persons, moreover, will always be found, who are able to do this, and who may do it with propriety. At the same time, however, every one who is obhged to examine the whole subject of theology within a limited period, and who would not confine his atten- tion to this particular department; in other words, every one who must run through his whole theologi- cal course in the usual space of three or four years, not only may without hesitation dispense with study- ing the subjects under consideration from their pro- per original sources, but he may do so without disad- vantage. But, to guard against the possibility of be- ing misunderstood, I would remai'k that this assertion is by no means equivalent to saying, that the student may continue utterly ignorant of this knowledge, and altogether disregard these subjects. It may even scarcely be necessary to give in detail a different plan of study that may, and in this case must be adopted ; and yet some remarks may be added on this point, chiefly in order to make it the more evident, that such a plan requires comparatively but little labour, and consequently to make it the more palpable, that an indisposition to undertake this little is utterly un- pardonable. METHOD OF STUDY. 115 CHAPTER XII. In the first place, with regard to the philology of our Hebrew Scriptures : if our acquaintance with it is not to be drawn from the original sources themselves, scarcely anything further is really necessary but a lexicon and a grammar, in order in the shortest possi- ble time to make such progress, as to be able to read and understand the text with facility. The language has in comparison with others so few rules, and these again so few exceptions, that any me- mory can retain them without great effort. Although indeed this cannot be accomplished in so short a time as the old writer William Schickardt assigned to it, who offered to teach Hebrew in four and twenty hours, and therefore called his grammar, which he had divided into as many parts or hours, a horolo- gium : yet in fact a vast deal more time is not requi- red for this purpose. These rules are subsequently the more readily impressed upon the memory in the business of analyzing, which must immediately after- wards be undertaken ; and by a moderate degree of practice for a space of time not much longer than that occupied in committing the rules, this becomes easy.^ a The view here given of the very great iacility with which the Hebrew language may be acquired cannot be admitted. An enthusiastic admiration of any thing not unfrequently leads its advocates to represent its attainment as the easiest 116 METHOD OF STUDY. The exercise of analyzing is generally supposed to be the most difficult, and therefore undertaken with the greatest reluctance ; in fact it is often entirely neglected. But it is clearly impossible, ever to ac- quire a fundamental knowledge of a dead language, without much practice in analysis. It consists sim- ply in examining the forms of all words occurring in the language, by the rules of formation given in the grammar, and of discovering the origin of each of. these rules. It affords a two-fold advantage : for while in this way the rules become more familiar, and their application easier, their correctness is at the same time more evident, since every form of a word which can be analysed according to a rule, is in fact a confirmation of the rule. matter imaginable. No language can be gained without time and labour ; and all attempts to advance the study of a lan- guage, by making its acquisition the work of a few days or a few hours, must be injurious, because experience proves them to be unfounded. An accurate and fundamental acquaintance with Hebrew is a work of time and patient examination ; but it brings with it an ample reward, in enabling the interpreter to judge for himself, without placing implicit reliance on the judgments of others. An ability to analyze a chapter by the aid of a Grammar and Lexicon, may indeed be acquired with moderate study in a few months ; and at present, when the facilities for acquiring Hebrew are so abundant, no student of theology need be, and scarcely any ought to be, without this ability. The reader is referred to the Biblical Repository, vol. i. No. ii. pp. 491 — 530, for a defence of the claims of the Hebrew language and literature on the attention of scholars in general, and particularly of students of theology — Tr. METHOD OF STUDY. 117 After the student has thus analysed a small part of any one of our Hebrew books, the first four or five chapters only of Genesis, for example, carefully exa- mining every word that they contain ; if he should read through the whole book, and perhaps a couple of books, or the Pentateuch, with the aid of a lexicon, drawing from this source the signification of every word with which he was unacquainted, and at the same time impressing it upon his memory ; he will have acquired almost all that is necessary, and all that can be obtained in this shorter method of study, for he will thus be almost in a situation to read all the other books of the Old Testament without a grammar or lexicon.* He also who studies Hebrew from its original sources, does not, properly speaking, acquire more knowledge ; his knowledge is only of another kind. He can state the reasons for the rules of the language, from the analogy of the other oriental languages, on the ground of his personal examination ; but still the rules which he also has acquired are identically the same as in the other case. He can satisfy him- self, moreover, from the usage of the cognate lan- guages, that a Hebrew word must have a certain defi- nite meaning ; but it is the same meaning which has already been introduced from these sources in the better class of lexicons of the language. The differ- ence, therefore, as I have already shown, consists in this, that the latter method enables us to make the very same discoveries which have already been made * Or rather by the occasional use of them — Tr. 118 METHOD OF STUDY. by gi'ammarians and lexicographers, and also to try the correctness of their discoveries, while in the former we must altogether depend upon these for our infor- mation. But this difference is not of very great im- portance, since there is sufficient reason, as already stated, on the whole, to depend upon them. But if indeed the examination and learning of others are, after all, to be relied on, so soon as the original sources themselves are abandoned, it may be said that, in this case, we may spare ourselves even this shorter course of stud}^ of the original languages of the Bible, and as well depend entirely upon the examination and learning of the translators. It would seem, indeed, to be a matter of indiffer- ence, whether we trust the word of a lexicographer or of a translator, that a Hebrew expression has the mean- ing attached to it by the one or the other ; for that the language has been studied from its original sources, may as w ell be supposed of the latter as of the former. If, therefore, only one such translation is at hand, it would seem capable of affording us as much service, and, at least, as much certainty, as may be derived from our own knowledge of the language, drawn merely from the grammar and a lexicon. It must be confessed, that this is not altogether idle. And yet this very objection tends to show, that such a knowledge of the language as may be acquired in the compendious method laid down, must not be re- presented as superfluous. In the translation of Luther, which is in most gene- ral use among us, it is by no means the case that we may always depend upon the fidelity of the transla- METHOD OF STUDY. 119 tor ; for although the service performed by Luther was exceedingly great for the time in which he lived,' yet, at present, the aid afforded by such a knowledge of the language as may be attained from our later Hebrew lexicons, supplies us in many places with a sense quite different from his ; and therefore we may still expect no small advantages from the use of them.^ With respect to more recent translations, as, for instance, that of the Old Testament by Michaelis, it may be granted that this difficulty may be removed. But here applies the observation which has been made in reference to profane philology, that the spirit of a work can never be represented in so clear and lively a manner, even in the best and most faithful translation, as it is displayed in the original language. The sense of a writer may be transferred into a foreign tongue ; but of his spirit, of the form in which he represents his viev/, and of the nicer adaptation of his ideas to this form, and even to each other, some thing must unavoidably be lost, because something oi all these is inseparably connected merely with his language. Whoever then can read him in his own language always possesses some advantage, and indeed not a small one, over the reader to whom he is intel- ligible only by means of a translation, even the most faithful that can be made. This consideration alone ought to have weight enough to induce every theolo- gian to obtain at least as much knowledge of Hebrew, * The remarks of the author respecting Luther's transh are applicable also to the standard version in English — 1 120 METHOD OF STUDY. as is required for that purpose ; and it should have the more weight in proportion to the facihty with which this knowledge may be gained, and the small degree of time and effort that it requires. In the second place. The necessity of studying the original language, applies to the Greek text of the New Testament, for reasons which I might almost say are more numerous and weighty ; and it applies here in proportion as the interpretation of the New Testa- ment is more important for the divine than that of the Old. In this case, too, it is easier to draw our know- ledge of the language of the New Testament immedi- ately from one of the original sources, by which it may be supplied with the greatest certainty. This is, as was before shown, the Septuagint ver- sion of the Old Testament. For, as it is certain that the Hellenistic language is susceptible of much illus- tration from the Oriental tongues, by the intermixture of which with the pure Greek it arose ; so is it equally certain that more light, which may be confidently trusted, is thrown upon it by that version alone, than can be introduced from all other sources. But this ver- sion is not so difficult of acquisition, nor so costly, nor so hard to use, that it may not be employed by every one, whose object is to learn the true spirit of the lan- guage, in which are comprehended the most important of our religious writings. It may, therefore, without hesitation perhaps, be considered as the duty of every one, to acquire at least as much acquaintance with this version as with the text of the Old Testament, since the advantages to be derived from it are so abundant, and, at the same METHOD OF STUDY. 121 time, so easily obtained. A mere grammatical know- ledge of the Hebrew text is sufficient, in order to make most of the idioms that distinguish the language of this version clear and observable. And merely to have caught as much of the spirit of the Hebrew language as always communicates itself by such a grammatical knowledge, and depends upon it, is sufficient almost to show how such a Greek language must originate among men accustomed to think only in Hebrew, when they would express in the former language those conceptions which they had always formed in the latter. In this way a preliminary acquaintance with the language of the New Testament, and of the Apostles, will become so familiar, that it must after- wards, as soon as uttered, be recognised as the same with the other. A method of studying this subject thus offers itself to our attention, as natural as it is easy and brief; which although indeed it cannot be altogether called a study of the sources for ourselves, is still by no means to be considered as merely historical, and dependent on compendious abridgements. Before the student begins his philological examina- tion of the New Testament, let him first read the Sep- tuagint version, but in constant connexion with the Hebrew text. In this reading, as often as a peculiar idiom of the Hebrew language occurs, his attention should be particularly directed to the manner in which the translator has expressed it. He should especially impress upon his mind the form and the expressions, in which national and religious ideas of the Jews have been translated. In order to fix them the more firmly I -'2 METHOD OF STUDY, in his memory, it would be well for him to make a short list of them ; and with this preparation let him then read the New Testament.^ This preparation will not only be attended with the result, that the student will not for a moment doubt respecting the kind of dialect that he finds in these writings, but it will have the still more important effect, that at the very first reading he will receive correct impressions respecting many important views, and this must have the most beneficial influence on his subse- quent proper study of interpretation. At the same time, it is also self-evident, that by continued and repeated reading of the New Testa- ment, and of that translation, in part connected, in part alternately, the language of both may and must become more familiar, even their minute peculiarities more observable, and the whole structure of the phraseology, which prevails in them, better known. But as soon as this course has been pursued to a cer- tain degree, the Concordance of the Septuagint by Trommius, and the Thesaurus of Biel, [or Schleus- ner,] may be used with the greatest advantage, as the principal and most excellent works to aid in studying the philology of the New Testament, in almost every particular case, and in every individual word. When, b}^ such a course, the student is in a situa- tion to draw for himself, from the richest sources, for a knowledge of the New Testament language, he may, * If to this course of preparation, the apocryphal books of the Old Testament, and some works in the common Greek dialect be added, it will be the more complete in itself, and the more advantageous in its results. — Tr. METHOD OF STUDY. 123 with the less hesitation, make use of the illustrations within reach, which have already been drawn from other sources, and collected together in particular works, with perfect confidence in the integrity of the collectors, and with the least possible difficulty. The illustrations referred to may be comprehended under two classes : those, on the one hand, which have been drawn from eastern sources, and also from Jew- ish of a more recent date, as from the Talmud and the Rabbins ; and on the other, those which are de- rived from classic Greek writers, in order to explain the New Testament usage. The principal works of the most celebrated scholars, who have taken the trouble to collect them, have already been mentioned. These works are not very numerous, nor are they verj^ difficult to obtain ; and, moreover, the advan- tages which they afii)rd, if a degree of accurate and mechanical arrangement be employed in the use of them, may be secured with an extremely trifling ex- pense both of time and labour. It will not require the private industry of a year, in order to extract, as far as may be necessary, all that has been collected to illustrate the New Testa- ment, by Lightfoot and Schottgen, from Hebrew and Rabbinical writers, by Eisner, Raphelius, Kypke, and others, from the Greek classics, and by Krebs and others, from Josephus and Philo.^ And since in '^ It is stated in the Biblical Repository, vol. iii. p. 757, that " Professor Theiie, of I^eipzig, announced in April 1832, that the exegetical part of Wetstein's New Testament, and all the remarks of the writers of Observationes in N. T., as Al- berti, Eisner, Krebs, Kypke, Lbsner, Munthe, Raphel, &c., 124 METHOD OF STUDY. the arrangement of what is extracted, it is evidently most natural and convenient to introduce every thing under the passages of the New Testament, which are thereby illustrated or explained, (for which purpose an interleaved edition may be used,) in a short time a treasure of philological notes may easily be laid up. When this is done, they naturally retain their useful arrangement, are susceptible of continued augmenta- tion with scarcely any additional trouble, and even in interpretation they are undoubtedly the most service- able of all helps, and very frequently render all others superfluous. The facility with which this method of studying the philology of the Greek Testament can be pursued may readily be urged as the strongest incentive to re- commend it to every one, especially as it is the only method in which a fundamental knowledge of the sub- ject is to be attained. It cannot be objected, that the acquisition of such a knowledge requires too much time, which ought to be devoted to other branches of theology ; on the contrary, it is evident, that in the other branches of theology, even in the most import- ant, the advantages of such a thorough knowledge of the language of the apostles are incalculable, and that a vast deal more depends upon it than upon the lan- guage of the Old Testament. Lastly, with respect to the limits, within which the were to be arranged together under his supervision, and pub- lished in one Corpus Observationum philologicarum in N. T." — I am unable to say whether this work has yet appeared. If executed with proper judgment, it would be an important acquisition to the library of any student. — Tr. METHOD OF STUDY. 125 study of sacred criticism may be restricted without injury, the following may be defined as almost self- evident. It is exceedingly clear, that personal application and practice of criticism are only possible in the case of a few, because the helps which are necessary for this purpose can, in their very nature, be employed only by a few. We must consequently be satisfied with using the discoveries of others, which, by the aid of some late works, can now be done with consider- able facilit3% So far as attention to this subject is required for in- terpretation, we may begin with one of the smaller critical editions of the Bible, in which only the most important various readings, or those of the most im- portant places, are collected, without considering the larger works of Kennicott and De Rossi, or Mill and Wetstein, to be necessary. All that is essential for this purpose is, simply to obtain certain conviction respecting the genuine reading of those places which are adduced in support of doctrine. Here then it be- comes necessary to acquire a knowledge of the vari- ous readings which are extant of such places, to draw them therefore from those works in which they are brought together, at the same time observing the grounds on which the value of each is determined. These may be found in such works, for instance, as Griesbach's New Testament. But those various read- ings of less moment, which relate to places of no great consequence, or do not at all affect the sense of a text, may, without disadvantage, be passed over in in- terpretation, however important they may frequently 1*26 METHOD OF STUDY. be for the critic properly so called, who often finds In them most valuable disclosures respecting the cha- racter, the a,ge, the derivation, and the family likeness of his manuscripts. It was therefore very necessary to form a collection of these ; but, by one who merely intends to make use of criticism in order to pave the way for the more solid interpretation, they may be regarded as quite indifferent, and therefore he may, without loss, omit the study of those larger works, the greatest part of which is occupied merely in discove- ries of this nature. Although, from the nature of the subject, the stu- dent is thus far exonerated from the obligation of a personal application to criticism, and is allowed to limit his examination to the most important of those critical treasures which have been brought to light by others ; yet there is one point from which no one should withhold his atteniion. It is at least necessary for every one to acquire some personal knowledge of the way in which criti- cism can proceed in making its discoveries, of the materials with which it is employed, and then also of the principles by which it must be governed, of the caution that must be used, and of the errors that are to be avoided. For this purpose, a foundation must by all means be laid in some historical information respecting the character of the sources which must be resorted to, the age, the manner of origin, and the characteristic properties of the manuscripts, in which confidence is chiefly to be placed, the most remark- able varieties which tend to show their derivation from different families or recensions, and also respect- METHOD OF STUDY. 127 ng what determines the value and the utility of the most ancient translations of the Greek text. This previous knowledge will enable the student to de- duce for himself most of those rules of criticism which must regulate in the detection of interpolations, and in the restoration of the genuine readings ; or cer- tainly to form a judgment of his own with regard to their correctness. Such a course, as that now suggested, will at least place the student in a situation, to examine, in some measure for himself, the grounds on which, among the various readings of a passage, a critic gives the preference to any particular one ; for although he is obliged to rely upon the historical accounts which he receives from the critic, although he must beUeve on his word that the reading is to be found in this or that manuscript, or is confirmed by the authority of this or that version ; yet he can now form his own judgment respecting the correctness or incorrectness of the opi- nion which had been drawn from the data. These remarks are sufficient to show, that every theologian should endeavour to obtain at least as much knowledge of criticism as is necessary for this pur- pose ; and the great ease with which this can be done adds weight to the obligation. In almost every in- troduction to the New or to the Old Testament, the most of what is required on this subject may be found. If a person wishes to go somewhat further into detail, he need only abstract one or two of the treatises on the principles of criticism which are introductory to Bengel's Apparatus Criticus, or Griesbach's works, and then it will scarcely give him any trouble, to add 128 METHOD OF STUDY. whatever may, from time to time, be altered — or per- haps only differently modified — in the old principles by the discovery of new, or the improvement m hich such discoveries may have actually made. The subjects, which have been stated, constitute those branches of learning which are comprehended in this work under the name of sacred philology ; and they should be studied in the manner above men- tioned by every one during his theological course of three years, and in this manner every one can cer- tainly study them with advantage. It is evident that in such a course, success depends chiefly upon a stu- dent's own industry, and that even the direction of a teacher is at most necessary only to give information respecting the literary helps, that is, the works which must be used. But experience gives still more cer- tainty than anticipation would justify us in assuming, that nothing but personal industry, directed by SOME WELL arranged SYSTEM, cau accomplish a vast deal in this department in a short space of time. EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY. PART II. HERMENEUTICS. CHAPTER I. The last branch of kno^^ledge which behDiigs to the study of exegetical theology, may very suitably be distinguished by the appropriate name of Hermeneu- tics.* The term Exegesis,'' taken in a limited sense, has been applied to it, and such an application of the word may easily be justified, since, according to the use of language, the very same thing maj^ be signified both by hermeneutics and exegesis. It may, however, still more easily be shown, that in the distribution of the various parts of theology, a distinction between these two should be observed ; or, that there are rea- sons for considering hermeneutics as one species of learning, which indeed belongs to a course of exege- getical study, and is subordinate to exegesis. In order to place this beyond the reach of doubt, it is only necessary to develope with accuracy the idea 3 From iof/.r,viuaf, to interpret Tr. '5 From ilvyiofixi, to expluiii — Tr. K 130 HERMENEUTICS. which the term expresses, and to set in a clear light the object to which it is particularly devoted. The general design of exegetical study, it is plain, is simply this ; to place us in such a situation, that we may be able to use the sacred Scriptures, wherein the divine truths of our religion must be contained, as the very sources of those truths, and from them derive our knowledge. Now, after satisfying ourselves, first of all, respecting their genuineness, their incorrupt- ness, and their origin, the very next condition which is required to understand and properly to use those writings, is, to become acquainted with the languages in which they Avere composed. A previous study of sacred philology is therefore necessary, although it is easy to see, and still more so to experience, that this alone is not enough to enable us thoroughly to attain the design in view. Knowledge of the languages does indeed appear to lead to it more nearly than any other. In fact, it is of itself sufficient, in many cases, to make us acquainted with the true sense of those writings, but not so in all, for there are very many in which something else is required. It is possible, vvhatever writing we may be examin- ing, very often to understand all the words by which a sentiment is expressed, while, at the same time, we are unable to discover any intelligible sense in them. And yet often er may we understand all the words of a sentence, and still not be certain of the writer's meaning, because his words may admit of various sig- nifications, and, when taken together, may give several different senses. Consequently, certain rules, direc- tions, and marks are necessary, to enable us to ascertain LAWS OF INTERPRETATION NECESSARY. loi and define what sense the author of a writing con- nected with the expressions which he selected, for this alone can be the true sense of the writing. It is this which makes hermeneutics a distinct branch of learning, and thus a particular part of exe- getical study ; for it is this which makes it obligatory to find out, examine, and apply those rules, aids, and directions of a higher character, by means of which, the true sense of our sacred Scriptures, can, without error, be investigated and perceived. But, before entering into the actual discussion of the question, whence hermeneutics must derive these rules and directions, and obtain these aids and marks to guide the inquirer, it may not be useless to dwell for a moment on a preliminary observation, the im- mediate purport of which is indeed only to place the necessity of this particular science in a clearer light, but which, at the same time, may give most of the re- sults in reference to that question. The necessity of hermeneutics is undoubtedly shown in the strongest light, from the fact which ex- perience attests, that our sacred Scriptures not only can be interpreted in the greatest variety of manner, but also that from time immemorial they have been so interpreted. All Christian sects, both those of an- cient, and those of modern times, have always known how to explain scripture in such a way, as to elicit their own particular opinions ; and since their opinions are often contradictory, some of them must therefore find there the very opposite views to those which meet the eyes of others. Let it be supposed now, that each of these sects 1.32 LAWS OF INTERPRETATION NECESSARY. announces its determination to proceed according to certain hermeneutical rules. Although, indeed, this would afford no favourable presentiment respecting the confident reliance which ought to be placed in them, yet it would be a strong proof of the absolute necessity of establishing such rules as a foundation to act upon. For whoever is not conscious of having conducted his interpretations according to such rules, cannot certainly think of attempting to defend or to oppose the correctness of an exposition. Now, there is not a single one of those sects Aviiling to confess, that they have interpreted in a merely arbitrary manner, and consequently every one of them does, by this very circumstance, allow the necessity of hermeneutics, but at the same time also, every one of them shows very plainly what sort of hermeneutics is necessary, or Mhat kind of rules ought to be established, in or- der to be useful. We ought, in one word, to have such rules as both can and must be regarded, generally, as true and binding. So long as such principles are applied as are admitted by one party only, and rejected by others, it is impossible to unite in the true meaning of Scripture, because it is impossible for the one party to convince the other of the truth of their interpreta- tions, or to show the falsehood of the opposite. But while this has always been attempted by each, even from the earliest periods, each has also maintained, that its own laws of interpretation are of such a na- lure, that they ought to be admitted by every one, for on no other supposition could a wish to make the attempt occur to any one's mind. On other grounds LAWS OF INTERPRETATION NECESSARY. 1'33 also, we know that each party is satisfied of this. Each, therefore, does certainly receive it as an axiom, that there are rules of interpretation, which are to be generally admitted as true, and that merely these and none others ought to be prescribed to hermeneutics. It might be foreseen, also, that it must be very possible to deceive one's self, either in ascertaining these rules, or in trusting too much to their generally connecting power, or even in the application of them ; for, if this were not the case, inquirers would not have been able to discover such various and conflict- ing views in the Bible. The true reason of this is immediately perceived, as soon as the source is nam- ed from which these rules must be drawn, and from which alone they can be drawn. This source need no longer be sought for ; for as soon as it is admitted, that the rules must be so framed, that they can be regarded as generally true and binding, only one can possibly be recognised. In a word, that which alone must be generally re- spected, and the authority of which must be generally acknowledged, is pure reason ; so that it is this alone from which hermeneutics can receive its directions, and borrow the respect which it requires. This prin- ciple must the more necessarily be allowed, as soon as we come to explain what God's revelation, or what the meaning of his declarations must be. The man whom reason cannot tell, that such a sense, and none other, lies in a revelation, is not bound to take it in this sense. If, then, it cannot be proved, that an in- terpretation of a passage in the Bible is agreeable to reason, or, in other words, that sound reason can iin(i ]o4 LAWS OF INTERPRETATION no Other sense in it than this, it ought not to be ex- pected, that a man should acquiesce in the interpre- tation.^ The whole art tlien, and the whole duty of herme- neutics, must consist simph^ in this, to explain with reason, that is, to explain in such a manner as is agree- able to those general laws of nature, according to a I have endeavoured to express the author's meaning, Avithont confining myself closely to his language. It is evi- dent that he speaks of reason uninfluenced by prejudice, and in this sense, the correctness of his remark is undeniable, as, truth must make its appeal to this principle. This is the foundation of argument. All truths must be agreeable to pure reason, although many are far removed from the grasp of limited reason which man is able to appropriate. What- ever truths are rejected by the understanding, are rejected from ignorance or prejudice. " Unto the word of Ood," says Hooker, " being in respect of that end for which God ordained it, perfect, exact, and ab. solute in itself, we do not add reason as a supplement of any maim or defect therein, but as a necessary instrument, with- out which we could not reap by the scripture's perfection that fruit and benefit which it yielded." — " Because the sentences which are by the Apostles recited out of the Psalms, to prove the resurrection of Jesus Christ, did not prove it, if so be the prophet David meant them of himself, this exposition there- fore they plainly disprove, and show by manifest reason, that of David the words of David could not possibly be meant. Exclude the use of natural reasoning about the sense of holy scripture, concerning the articles rf our faith, and then that the scripture doth concern the articles of our faith, who can assure us ? That which by right exposition buildeth up Christian faith, being misconstrued, breedeth error ; between true and false construction, the difference reason must show." Ecclesiastical Polity, Book iii. § 8. The whole section is particularly worthy of the reader's attention — Tr. FOUNDED ON REASON. 135 which the soul of man must always govern itself in forming its thoughts and conceptions, in convejang its conceptions to others, and in receiving those which others communicate ; or, in other words, all hermeneutics can be nothing else than unsophisticated logic applied to the explanation of scripture. It is unnecessary now to prove this. But the clear- er it is placed before our eyes, and placed before them as incontrovertibly true, the more natural does the question become, — whether such laws of interpretation, agreeable to reason, do really offer themselves, and whether from the general natural laws of thinking, such principles can be drawn, the truth, correctness, and applicability of which, can generally be per- ceived. Judging from experience, as already suggested, it would seem scarcely possible that such principles can exist, or else extremely difficult to discover them ; for otherwise, how could opinions, so numerous, so diver- sified, and even in part so contradictory, be deduced by interpretation from the Scriptures ? If true her- meneutics must derive its principles onl}'^ from the general laws of thinking, or, in a word, from logic, hermeneutics can be but one for all persons, as is the case with logic and reason. But then, all persons, by applying this one hermeneutics, would necessarily find only one and the same sense in the Scripture, or it is clear that they could not conduct their operations according to the same laws. This appears to be un- deniable, and therefore it is at least no less so, that these rules of a reasonable hermeneutics, which are 136 LAWS OF INTERPRETATION, &C. universally recognised as the true and only correct rules, are not very readily discoverable ; else, they would not have been so various as they must have been, if we may judge from the variety of interpreta- tions which have resulted. Yet the phenomena on which this conclusion has been founded, undoubtedly do often arise from a cause altogether different from this difficulty. The variety of interpretations and methods of in- terpreting, which, in various ages have gratified the fancy, originated much less frequently from variety in the principles of interpretation themselves, than from the various application which was made of them. There have, undoubtedly, been interpreters, who were guided by principles entirely false and unreasonable, and therefore their expositions bear in the very face of them the character of falsehood so remarkably, that the sound understanding perceives it at the first look ; but still, most interpreters, or certainly the greater number, proceeded upon principles altogether cor- rect, and differing from each other only in the appli- cation of them, for which many qualifications are re- quisite, which are not so easily found in connection, because they cannot be brought together without difficulty. This will show itself in the clearest light, when some of these principles of interpretation themselves are developed, which simple reason prescribes to her- meneutics, or which this alone derives from unsophis- ticated logic. Those only which are of the most ge- neral kind can naturally be selected, and consequent- FIRST LAW OF rNTERPRETATION. 137 ly, it will not be possible here to develope more than three or four, but these are of such a nature, that most of those which are more particular in their cha- racter, may readily be drawn from them. But this developeraent will most evidently show with what ease, on the one hand, these general rules can be formed, or at least be proved to human understand- ing to be correct and obligatory ; and at the same time also, on the other, how much the application of them requires and presumes ; how easily, therefore, they may be variously applied ; and how necessarily this must produce vai-iety of interpretation. CHAPTER II. I. The first of all the laws of interpretation is cer- tainly this : to endeavour to investigate the sense of a writing or passage which is to be interpreted accord- ing to the signification which the general usage of the language, or also the well known particular usage of the writer, connects with the words which he em- ploys. The' rule, in one word, amounts to this: we should seek, in the first place, the literal sense of every passage to be interpreted, as it must be afford- ed, either by the general usage, or by one which is peculiar to the writer. But why this nmst be sought first, is a point which need not be explained to any one ; for every man's natural sense will tell him why, and will also instinctively bring him first to this means of exposition. 138 FIRST LAW OF INTERPRETATION. It is indeed natural for every one to presume, that a man who intends to make himself understood by another, can use his words only in a sense which others also attach to them, or, if he uses them in ano- ther sense, can only use them in such a one as others will immediately recognise to be his. The reader will therefore take his expressions only in a signification in which every other man takes them when they occur also elsewhere, or in that in which he is elsewhere, as is well known, accustomed to employ them. Let a man first investigate this with care, and in most cases he will find very little more to be necessary in order to determine the true sense of his author. This no one has doubted, and no one can doubt, who is possessed of a sound understanding. Still, there have been expositors, as will be noticed hereafter in the history of this subject, who have maintained, that different principles may apply to the Bible ; who, for this very reason, do not deserve to be refuted. Yet, if all had agreed in this — if all interpreters had pro- ceeded on this first law of exposition, it would still be very easy to explain how the greatest variety of inter- pretations must, notwithstanding, be introduced, and equall}'^ evident is it whence they must spring. In the application of this principle all depends on the correctness and accuracy' of our knowledge of lan- guage, and these can, must, and will ever be exceed- ingly various. When an interpreter understands an expression merely according to the proper, and not also according to the figurative significations, -which the usage of language attaches to it, what widely different FIRST LAW OF INTERPRF.TATION. 139 expositions must he sometimes produce from the ex- position given by others ! Another may indeed have a sufficiently full and correct acquaintance with the ,£^eneral usage of language ; he may know with great accuracy all the significations in which a word is ge- nerally taken, while, at the same time, the particular usage of the writer is unknown to him : consequently, he does not know the precise meaning in which the writer is accustomed to use the word. How different then must be the sense which he finds, from that which another derives bj^ means of a nicer knowledge of lan- guage ! And if again another explains, according to the pure Greek idiom, what a third perceives to be a peculiarity of the Hellenistic dialect, how remarkably must their interpretations vary, merely from this one cause ! Scarcely anything but this single consideration, founded on fact, that in different periods of Christian- ity, and among its different sects, the knowledge of language has been exceedingly various, is necessary, in order to show most plainly, how, in different ages and among different sects, such vastly diversified and in part contradictory materials could be found in the Bible. All, or at least much the greater number (for, alas, the remark is not true of all,) had understanding enough to discern, that in explaining Scripture it must be the first care to understand the sense in M^hich the expressions of the writers were in part generally em- ployed in other places, and in part by themselves in particular. They all perceived too, that, for this pur- pose, it was necessary to become acquainted both with the language in general, and v. ith the particular usage 140 FIRST LAW OF INTERPRETATION. of the writers. Most of them supposed that they had formed such an acquaintance ; but how did this know- ledge of language appear in certain periods ? Was there not a time, when it was thought that everything in the Bible must be interpreted properly,* because the figurative language of the East was utter- ly unknown ? Was there not another time, when ex- positors would see no Hebraisms in the language of the New Testament, because it was taken for granted, that all which the Holy Spirit communicated by in- spiration to the apostles must be pure Greek ? And was there not again another, and a long period, when men could find no other sense in the expressions of Scripture, but what the doctrinal usage of language belonging to later centuries had connected with them, without a suspicion, that they themselves and their age could have attached to them any other ideas ? The result is evident. It is equally evident that such a result could not but take place ; and moreover, it is now evident, and the reason is also clear, that in- terpretation could not make sure progress, until sacred philology was cultivated with more zeal, and w^ith the assistance of superior aids, with better taste and more learning. Only the philologist can be an in- terpreter. It is true, that the oflSce of interpreta- tion requires more than mere philology or an acquaint- ance with language ; but all those other qualifications ^ This word is used in a technical sense, for literally, as in- deed the term figurative, which follows, would suggest. Comp. Ernesti's Elements of Interpretation, translated by Stuart, § 42, p. 21 — Tr See also Ernesti's Institutes, Bib. Cab. v. i. chap. 2. p. 40. SECOND LAW OF INTERPRETATION. l4l that may belong to it are useless without this acquaint- ance, whilst, on the contrary, in very many cases no- thing more than this is necessary, for correct interpre- tation. The truth of this observation will be shown by the additional general laws of interpretation, which must now be adduced, in reference to those cases, which mere knowledge of language is not sufficient to ex- plain. II. The second general law of interpretation is this : always to explain with a view to the spirit and mode of thinking of the age for which a writing was immediately intended ; or, to express this in clearer and more general terms, — that may always be consi- dered as the true sense of the writer to be explained, which, either alone, or at least as the most natural sense, could be suggested by his expressions to the men, to whom and for whom he wrote.^ * To prevent tlie possibility of misapprehending the author's meaning, I beg leave to suggest — vvhat, however, can hardly escape the observation of all discerning readers — that the rule does not direct the interpreter to allow the spirit and mode of thinking of the age to modify or do away the evident meaning of a passage, but merely to assist him in ascertaining what the meaning is. In connection with the subject, it may be proper to add another consideration, in itself very evident, and yet not sufficiently attended to by some modern commentators. Before the interpreter appeals to the spirit and mode of think- ing of his author's age, in order to illustrate a supposed diffi- culty, let him ascertain with as much certainty as the case will admit, what that spirit is, lest he apply a principle arising out of liis imagination, rather than one supplied by historic evi- deuce. It is said by some comnientators, that the na!'rative 142 SECOND LAW OF INTERPRETATION. When the rule is expressed in this form, the reason of it also is so clearly recognised, that no develop- ment can be necessary even to the most uneducated man. Every writer wishes indeed to be understood naturally. Consequently, he will not only always employ his expressions in the sense which his readers will connect with them, but, in the ideas which he com- municates to them, he will always be governed by their abihty to comprehend, and will pay regard to their particular manner of forming conceptions of sub- jects, and this either intentionally, or because, as it is common to the whole age, it is also his own. When, therefore, a reader meets in a work with ideas which he knows were in circulation among those for whom the work was intended, and were circulated in a certain definite form ; when he finds there not only particular words and phrases, but entire representa- of our Lord's temptation is only a parabolical representation of evil and distressing thoughts arising in his mind, which he strongly repressed, and thus prevented the natural result of such reflections : and this they say is represented, agreeably to the Jewish manner, and in the spirit of the apostolic age, as if the devil had assaulted him with temptations. So again, the account of an appearance of an angel to Zacharias, and also to Mary, merely denotes the providential agency of God, expressed according to the mode of thinking prevalent at that time. Before such representations of apparent facts can ad- vance any reasonable claim to attention, it ought to be shown that such was the manner of thinking, and of expressing one's thoughts in plain prose composition, among the Jews, when the New Testament was wrV;ten. Any reference to the ma- chinery of poetry would be entirely irrelevant. Let the reader compare what the author says on the abuse of higher criticism pages IGl, \Go — Tr. SECOND LAW OF INTERPRETATION. 143 tions and series of representations characteristic of the age in which the work originated : he may confidently presume, that the writer whom he would explain con- nected therewith the same sense which they must first present to his readers, even if grammatical exposition could discover in his expressions another sense. Other- wise, he must undoubtedly have been misunderstood, had he in this way expressed thoughts different from those which his contemporaries would thus have com- municated ; and certainly no rational writer will ex- pose himself to unavoidable misconception. We know, for example, what idea the Jews in the time of Christ associated with the phrase, " kingdom of heaven." If then we were to take this phrase in its grammatical and verbal meaning, we should most as- suredly explain it incorrectly ; for we may with the strictest propriety, indeed, we must assume it as indis- putable, that Christ and his apostles employed it in the same way as their nation,* for this plain reason, that their nation would not have understood them, if by this expression they had intended to convey to them a different idea. Yet, there are several cases where we are compel- » The author means, I suppose, that our Lord and his apos- tles, in common with their nation, used this phrase to express the authority and government of the divine Messiah. That our Lord attached to it a very different meaning from the one in which it was understood by the great body of the Jews, and the Apostles themselves originally, who employed the phrase to express their gross idea of a temporal reign, is too evident to require any proof. See Robinson's Lexicon from Wabl's {.'lavis, under /Sao-iXs/as; No. 4 Tr. 144 SECOND LAW OF INTERPRETATION. led to determine the sense of certain places of the Bible, solely from some local and temporary opinions, circumstances, or prejudices of the men for whom they were originally written ; or are compelled, first to ex- amine carefully what ideas these men could attach thereto ; since, by an interpretation merely grannna- tical, without regard to those historical circumstances, no sense can be discovered, or else one which, on other grounds, is plainly perceived to be erroneous. There are in the Gospels themselves several allusions to na- tional Jevrish opinions, or to particular sectarian views, especially those maintained by the Pharisees, — to tra- ditions and sayings of former times, preserved among the people, — to particular historical facts, which at the time particularly engaged the attention of the people, — and even to proverbs that were probably in most frequent use.^ a Illustrations of most of the author's remarks in this para- graph will be perceived by an examination of the following passages. 1 Cor. vi. 26, ss. xi. 10. Acts xxi. 21 — 26. Luke xvii. 20, 21, xix. 11. 2 Cor. xii. 2, last clause. Bev. i. 4, iv. 5. Matt, iii, 9. Rom. ix. 7. Several places in our Lord's sermon on the mount. John ix. 2. Matt. xxii. 17, 23. Mark vii. 3, 4. Luke xiii. I, 4, xix. 12. Matt. iii. 11. Luke iii. 16. Matt, xxiv. 21, (Comp. Ezek. v. 9. Dan. xii. 1. Joel ii. 2.) 28. Luke xxiii. 31, John i. 46, iv. 35, 37. In Luke ii. 27, the word " parents" is used in accommodation to popu- lar or legal opinion. Nolan indeed argues against Griesbach's preferring " father" to '* Joseph," in v. 33, from its being the language of an Evangelist, and consequentlj- expressive of his own opinion. Therefore, he "feays, the case is different from John i. 46, where the sacred historian merely relates the de- claration of Philip. L'e proceeds to say, that " from Luke ii. SECOND LAW OF INTERPRETATION. 145 In the epistles of St. Paul, several places may be found, where he argues as it were xar av^gwTov, from Jewish and GentiFe ideas ; and again there are others where he draws conclusions entirelj* according to the particular modes of rear,oning pursued by those with whom he had to do.* If, then, we are wholly unacquainted with these points, we shall find in most of these places either no sense, or what they contain will be unintelligible to us, or we shall elicit representations which are so plainly at variance with each other, with the connec- tion, with the views and sentiments of the writer, as known to us from other sources, that we must imme- diately perceive them to be incorrect. In such cases, it is a real pressure of necessity, which imposes on us the law, to have regard in our interpretation to the mode of thinking of the first read- ers, and to what they could and must have understood. 48 — 50, it will appear, that had St. Luke assigned any father to Christ but God, it must have been by grossly confounding what our I^ord had expressly distinguished." Inquiry into the integrity of the Greek Vulgate, p. 169, Note 135. Comp. also -page 475, Note 88 Yet certainly St. Luke might have applied the word " father" to Joseph, as he has the terra " parents" to Joseph and Mary, without exposing himself to any such charge. He merely adopts the current language ; or he may regard Joseph as legal father of Jesus. In either view, Nolan's ground is untenable. Other references might easily be added, but they are supposed to be unnecessary. — Tr. ' * The reader will find some observations on this point, and on the doctrine of accommodation as connected with it, in a subsequent note— T^r. L 146 SECOND LAW OF INTERPRETATION. Kven in the fact that such cases do exist, Hes the strongest proof that this must always be done naturally and without any violence ; and hence will it at the same time be most sensibly felt, how indispensable an acquaintance with the spirit and with the history of the age in which our sacred writings arose, an ac- quaintance with the mode of thinking of the men, and indeed, in some respects, an acquaintance with the per- sonal circumstances of the men, for whom they were originally composed, must be, for a correct interpre- tation, and one in which we may repose implicit con- fidence. But here, who does not again see what endless va- riety of interpretations must arise merely from variety in the nature and compass of the historical knowledge, which the interpreter's resources enable him to apply to exposition ? If sound understanding tells every man, that in interpreting he must place himself within the sphere of the ideas and views of the original read- ers, — if, moreover, all had the intention to do this, — and indeed, if all had actually done so, it could not i-eadily have happened, that all should have done so in an equal degree. One interpreter, who^ acquaint- ance with these ideas was intimate, must find them in many more places than another whose knowledge of them was only of a general nature. And there have been many interpreters who knew nothing at all of the local and temporary meaning of certain phrases and expressions in the Bible ; to whom, in fact, it never once occurred, that the early Jews could have attached other ideas to certain forms of speech than those which the literal sense of the terms expressed, THIRD LAW or INTERPRETATION. 147 and who consequently found nothing further therein but what was drawn out by this sense. III. But, along with this general rule of hermeneu- tics, a third must necessarily be connected, by which the application and the applicability of the second re- ceive some qualifications, without which indeed it ought to be immediately rejected. The rule is this: in interpreting a writing, constant reference should be had to the character, views, and known principles of the writer, from whom it originates. The palpable reason on which this rule is founded, is likewise very easy to be perceived by a mind of plain, good sense. The character of a writer is, in reality, nothing else than a combination of all that must mark out and modify his particular way of think- ing, of treating subjects, and of expressing himself. To explain the opinions and views of a writer from his character, is therefore in fact nothing else than always to go upon the supposition, that he has formed such conceptions as, according to the entire situation, and all the circumstances in w^hich he was placed, accord- ing to his own particular education, according to his personal relations, he could and must form most na- turally : and who will not always do this of his own accord ? It is also equally unnecessary to show, w hy particu- lar respect must likewise be paid to his design, and to his principles, as otherwise understood. This indeed is nothing else than to suppose, that a man of under- standing will not readily act in op[)osition to his own design-^will not, in general, easily contradict himself — will not without some evident cause alter his opinions : ]48 THIRD LAW OF INTERPRETATION. — and who feels not of liimself the reasonableness and even the irresistible force of this demand ? Very readily, too, may it be anticifjuted, that the application of these rules in interpreting the Bible in particular, must often be necessary, and that very much must depend upon it. Hence also it is, that no interpreter has ventured to abandon them ; only the application of them must be of the most varied kind, and of course the expositions resulting, must unavoid- ably be equally varied. One interpreter may have formed a diff(M-ent view of the character of a sacred writer from another, or may have asci'ibed to him a different design ; and thus he would find in him ideas altogether different from those which would be per- ceived by the other, although both had been govern- ed by the same principles.* a It wo'.ikl be easy to ilhistrate the truth of this remark, by referring merely to certain places in the gospel of St. John. An interpreter who presumes it to be the author's design to refute the errors of Cerinthus, will very readily discover the Gnostic aeons in the former part of the first chapter. Another who believes that the apostle intended to attack the heresy of the Doceta^, finds satisfactory evidence of this, in the particu- larity with which the account of our Lord's death is detailed, the piercing of his side with a spear, and the issuing out of blood and water. If it be assumed, that the Evangelist wrote in order to confute the notions of John the Baptist's disciples, that their master was the true JMessiah, clear proof is thought to be afi'orded by several passages. So important is it to form a right view of the character and design of a writer. The correctness of the three principles laid down in the text, will be allowed, I presume, by most readers. As is the case with respect to all general principles, much care is requi- site in applying them ; and from the tone and manner of the THIRD LAW OF INTERPRETATION. 149 Nothing can possibly prevent this, but as extensive and accurate historical acquaintance as can be formed with all the personal circumstances of a writer, and with all the local and temporary circumstances con- nected with his writing, united with a nice perception of the nature and operations of the soul ; which, un- happily, is not easily communicated, and is only to be comprehended by one who has a susceptibility of such impressions. CHAPTER III. These three general laws comprise almost all that can be prescribed to hermeneutics. Whatever parti- cular rules may still further be imposed, may at least with great propriety be drawn from them, or have their foundation in them. But if this be really so, who does not perceive, that sacred hermeneutics, or the art of expounding the Bible, may well be said to have no rules whatever, which are peculiar to itself? If these are the three great principles on which we must proceed in interpreting our sacred scriptures, it is evident that we must act in relation to the Bible, just as in relation to every other writing, must bring out its true meaning precisely by the same means as we would apply to any other book ; in a word, in ex- plaining the Bible, we must do the very same thing author's representations, I cannot but think him disposed to carry out the application beyond what the facts exhibited iii the scriptures require Tr. 150 SCRIPTURE TO BE EXPLAINED ON THE which sound understanding, and rational (which is also natural,) logic always require to be done, in ex- plaining every other book in the world. This is most undoubtedly the fact, and the correct- ness of this position may even be proved with irresis- tible evidence. It was the most extraordinary of all prejudices, which, in former ages, led to its denial, or at least prevented it from being openly asserted ; for not only is there no reason or circumstance that can be adduced to show the possibility of the contrary, but it may be proved on the strongest ground, a priori, that the fact could not possibly be otherwise. Even the particular connection which it may have with the inspiration of our sacred scriptures, the very peculiarity which they may thereby receive, and the characteristic features whereby this may distinguish them, not only can cause no difference in interpreting them, and in the principles or helps which must be applied in order to investigate, and in general to as- certain their meaning, but it binds us yet the firmer to those principles, and secures to us with the more certainty the result, which we may promise ourselves, from the application of these natural means. The more certain it is that these writings originated from God, the more thoroughly we may be convinced that it is he who has inspired the authors Avith their contents, the more clear and definite our ideas re- specting the manner of this inspiration, may become, the stronger must be our obligation, or the stronger must we feel it to be, to interpret them according to the rules which we would apply to every other book SAME PRINCIPLES AS OTHER BOOKS, 151 intended for man's use ; for God cannot have an- nounced himself to men in any other way than that which is adapted to men. And the more certainly may we also expect, by the aid of these general rules correctly applied, to discover with satisfactory confi- dence, the true sense of scripture ; which is not al- ways the case, with regard to a human writing. The ground of all those rules, the ground of the whole system of hermeneutics, rests solely and entirely on the supposition, that the author of a writing has thought according to the same laws, according to the same mode of reasoning, and also in the same order as other reasonable men. In human writings, this supposition may not unfrequently be erroneous : for it is not every writer who has always thought ac- cording to a correct mode of reasoning, and in a na- tural order. But as it is impossible that this can be the case with inspired writings, it is impossible that the principles of interpretation which are founded thereon, should ever lead us astray when applied to these writings. But, it is difficult to determine the limits of inspi- ration, and this difficulty is increased in proportion as we run out into particulars. In our own time, therefore, the extraordinary apprehension, which once prevailed, with regard to the principle, that it is ne- cessary to interpret the Bible like any human book, is almost entirely abandoned. There is one particular point, however, with respect to which an exception is considered as necessary, and this has arisen from the somewhat doubtful use which has been made of it by certain modern interpreters. It is necessary, there- 152 DOCTRINE OF ACC03IM0DATI0N. fore, to add here a few remarks in relation to it, for the point is one of great consequence, on which very much indeed depends ; and it is an important point, which, although first agitated in our own day, has already, in many instances, and certainly in some not without design, been involved in confusion.^ In connection with the second law of hermeneutics above stated, by which every book should be explain - a In the preceding- remarks, the author has expressed him- self in general and unqualified language. It cannot be denied, that the same principles must govern the interpreter of scripture, as are used in explaining other writings. And yet, the peculiar character of certain portions of scripture is such, as to allow, and very reasonably too, an interpretation, which could not with, certainty be elicited, without conceding such a view of their character as cannot be pretended to apply to that of any other writings extant. I refer to whatever portions of the Old Testament are really typical of events connected with the New Dispensation ; and also to those por- tions of the prophecies, which, while they declare truths and facts in immediate connection with that religious system un- der which the authors lived, do also announce other truths and facts of a subsequent age, and identified with doctrines and realities belonging to the Gospel. This is not the place to discuss the whole subject connected with this remark, but the scriptural fact on which it is founded, constitutes a strik- ing difference between some portions of scripture and ordinary writings. In such cases, therefore, the allowed principles by which writings in general are explained, are not of them- selves sufiicient The comment in the New Testament, which can in no case be proved to be incorrect, must be regarded by the Christian expositor in the light of a principle beyond the ordinary principles of interpretation, and must become an ad- ditional aid to him in eliciting the true meaning. Comp. Ps. viii. with Heb. ii. 6—9 — Tr. DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. 153 ed according to the spirit, the mode of thinking, and the views formed by those for whom it was imme- diately written, the question occurs : does this extend to erroneous and incorrect representations of the age which gave birth to our sacred scriptures ? or, in other words, is it to be presumed, that the authors of our sacred scriptures did themselves entertain the un- founded prejudices of their contemporaries, or at least have occasionally been governed thereby, have brought themselves down, and, to express myself in the usual phraseology, have accommodated themselves to tiiese prejudices ? It is easy to perceive how much depends on this question, for it were easy to anticipate, (and in our own time this has been brought home to us by experience,) what exceedingly diversified systems of doctrine may thus be framed, as the one or the other principle in- volved in the question is applied to interpretation. And on this account, the opposers of this accommoda- tion, that is, of the opinion, that our Lord and his apostles were occasionally influenced by the erroneous views of their day, have been so earnest on the point, that their zeal seems to have led them somewhat farther than was necessary, and probably indeed some- what farther than wisdom would have dictated. They have sometimes attempted to deny, what it is clear cannot be denied ; while they should have satisfied themselves with insisting on some limitations, which proceed so evidently from the very nature of the case, that their validity and correctness cannot possibly be doubted. 154 DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. The following observations in relation to this mat- ter may be sufficient to set it in its true light. They do not indeed by any means exhaust the subject, but they touch upon the principal points, which it is im- portant to notice in defining this question, and in deciding upon its merits ; and thus, inasmuch as this is not the proper place for a full development, they may at least obviate some part of the mischief which might arise from a distorted, half true, or par- tial representation.^ I. In the first place, no one need be alarmed, if he should hear it maintained, that in our holy scriptures, as well those of the New as those of the Old Testa- ment, passages occasionally occur, in which the authors, in which even our Lord and his apostles, accommodate to the views of their contemporaries, even when those views are erroneous. The idea from which, whether clearly or imperfectly conceived, such alarm may originate, and in some instances has originated, namely, that the sentiment is in the highest degree unworthy of the Holy Spirit, by whom those writings were inspired, can never in a general point of view justify him, for, in general, it is incorrect. a After some deliberation, I have concluded to omit a few passages in some of the following paragraphs, and in others to modify in some degree, the author's language, inasmuch as it is unnecessarily strong, even admitting the correctness of his views respecting accommodation. In reference to this subject, I beg leave to direct the reader's attention to Note vii ; at the same time requesting him to keep in mind the li- mitations suggested by the author himself. DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. 155 If it be not unworthy of a wise instructor, to bring himself down to the childlike conceptions of his pu- pils ; it cannot be unworthy of God, if, in the instruc- tions which he communicated to men, he should oc- CEisionally have done the same thing, in order to make the truths which, at the same time, he wished to con- vey to them, the more easily intelligible. Every shadow of indecorum is entirely removed, bj^ restricting the application of this principle to such cases, as do not come within the sphere of those views, which, according to the divine intention, are to be communicated only by a particular revelation, and thus, in a word, merely to those things, which, pro- perly speaking, do not belong to religious truths. For, in order to find in it any thing objectionable and improper, we must either assume, that God must have instructed men respecting every thing without excep- tion, on which they entertained incorrect sentiments ; or, that he must at least have expressed himself cor- rectly on all those subjects respecting which their ideas were erroneous, even with the danger of being unintelligible to them. It is evident, for instance, that if the sacred wri- ters, or the Holy Spirit who inspired them, had used perfectly correct language in reference to some points in their time generally misunderstood, for example, in reference to some natural phenomena, the true causes of which the knowledge of philosophy then prevailing was incompetent to explain ; either they could not have been understood by their contemporaries, or else to these a new system of natural philosophy must have been revealed. But if the one would have been 156 DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. senseless, and the other without an object, as every one will immediately perceive, what remains but to allow that God must have come down to the erroneous ideas of these men, in order to make those correct views which were to be communicated to them, in part more intelligible, and in part more impressive ? It is certainly then not necessary to deny that the sacred writers have done this, and that the prophets in the Old Testament, as the apostles in the New, have sometimes accommodated themselves to incorrect views of the people, to opinions generally prevailing in their time. What then should prevent us from ac- knowledging, that the prophets and apostles did not merely accommodate to these views, but that they themselves also, at least some among them, did par- ticipate in them, in common with their contem- poraries? Their inspiration, whatever ideas may be formed respecting it, and how far soever it may be extended, cannot possibly prove anything to the contrary, for it can in no way be injured by it. We cannot surely suppose, that the authors of the New Testament were of themselves so far in advance of their own age, as to have always possessed, on points not connected with religion, sounder, clearer and more refined ideas than their contemporaries ? In that case it would be necessary to suppose, that the power of inspiration was governed in its operations by the ability of the men on whom it acted to comprehend, as our Lord so evidently was in the oral instruction which he impart- ed to his disciples. They were not taught all things at once, they were not at once freed from all their DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. 157 prejudices. Why then, notwithstanding their inspira- tion, may not traces of these be still found in their writings ? But it is unnecessary to ask, whether this may be supposed, since it is impossible not to see that the fact is really so. It cannot, by any construction, but the most unnatural, be concealed, that our sacred writers, and even Christ himself and his apostles, did occa- sionally direct their instructions in reference to imper- fect views current in their age, and even to views not strictly correct; and as little can it be concealed, that the latter, the apostles, sometimes brought forward these views as their own, which most probably they held in common with their age. To prove this, it is not necessary to resort to exam- ples taken from the Old Testament. Are there not in the discourses of our Lord himself instances of the first which are altogether irresistible, and with regard to the last, have we not the most definite testimonies of the apostles themselves ? For example, when Jesus says to the Jews, in Matt, xii. 27 : " if I, according to your charge, cast out the demons through Beelzebub, through whom do your sons cast them out?" it is quite evident, that he rea- sons from the common opinion entertained by the Jews, as if the exorcists, who abounded among them, did really possess and exercise the power of expelling demons. But who supposes that any real truth lies at the bottom of this common conceit? And in the same conversation, when in v. 44, 45, he speaks of a demon going out of a man, wandering in waste and dry places, and afcerwards taking along with him 158 DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. seven others, and again returning to his old habita- tion, it is abundantly evident, that he took all these particulars from the Jewish doctrine respecting de- mons, which, as we learn from the apocryphal book of Tobit, ch. viii., had long been received among them : and who can persuade himself to admit these particulars as truths of the world of spirits, authenti- cated and established by him ? And, when in John iii. 8, he says to Nicodemus, respecting the wund, *' thou canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth," it cannot be doubted, that the very inade- quate, imperfect and erroneous acquaintance with the operations of nature which then prevailed in his na- tion is assumed as the standard. It were easy to adduce more instances to the same purpose, but these are quite sufficient to show (at least in general) beyond all doubt, that there are places in the New Testament, where our Lord accommodates his teaching or language to the prevalent erroneous views. That the apostles tliemselves cherished some of these errors, requires no further proof than what is afforded by their history and education, as delineated in their own writings. It is only necessary to consi- der, who these men were previously to their becoming associated with Christ, and under his particular direc- tion. We may see, even in their history, how much national prepossession, how many opinions entertained by the people generally, how many incorrect views, were held by them, even after they had enjoyed his instructions during three years. We need only weigh this fact, how long, even after the death of our Lord and the effusion of the Holy Ghost, they continued LIMITATIONS OF ACCOMMODATION. 159 to cling to their expectation of an earthly reign of the Messiah, to their attachment to the ceremonies of the Levitical law, to their Jewish peculiarities, and we shall find reason to believe, that, in other points, on which their Master, agreeably to his design, had im- parted to them no particular information, their con- ceptions were not clearer than those of their age and nation. We are not only authorized, but we are obliged to suppose, that, in points which have no con- nection with religion, the apostles thought, for the most part, with their age. Consequent^, it follows, as a fundamental rule of hermeneutics, that in inter- preting their writings, careful attention must be paid to this. CHAPTER IV. Together with these fundamental rules, it is neces- sary to connect two others, which spring immediately from them, and alone determine their applicability, as they must always lead us in making use of them. The first, their applicability, receives thereby some limitations, which are sufficient to remove all solici- tude from the mind of the most anxious interpreter, while they are so firmly settled in the nature of thfe subject, that the most liberal cannot possibly avoid acknowledging their claims. II. Whatever reasons there may be for supposing that our sacred writers have occasional!}^ expressed themselves according to the views of their age, and 160 LIMITATIONS OF ACCOMMODATION. even when these views were unfounded, yet, in the second place, this is never to be assumed in any par- ticular instance, unless supported by clear and proper signs, that such is the fact. In other words, it is never justifiable, on the principles of hermeneutics, to apply the doctrine of accommodation to any passage, unless it can be historically shown, that the passage does really contain an opinion prevalent at the time, and, farther still, unless it can be proved from internal evidence, that this prevalent opinion is erroneous. The justice of these requisitions, every man of sound understanding can easily be made to feel, if he has no interested motive to induce him to avoid their force. Whenever a writer's declaration is said to be accom- modated, it is also necessarilj^ implied, that nothing really true is contained in it. But, in relation to every writer, it is proper to require sufficient evidence of this, and, in relation to our sacred writers, it is still more re- quisite ; otherwise, truly, it would be very easy to ex- plain away whatever a man finds in the Bible which is disagreeable to him. Those persons who are not sa- tisfied with the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, need only have said, that from the earhest ages, — " it was a national idea of the Jews, to conceive of their Messiah as invested with the splendour of the Deity, as a per- son in whom resided the whole fulness of the God- head, and according to this idea is he represented, by the apostles." The opposers of the doctrine of the atonement might have spared themselves many very violent operations, which in former times, they di- rected against several of those passages of scripture DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION 161 that treat of this subject, if the discovery had been made at an earlier period that all those passages must be illustrated from Jewish views relative to sacrifice, from the shackles of which the apostles or first Chris- tians could not at once free themselves. With the very same facility, all other positive doctrines of Christi- anity, which may be regarded as ofi'ensive, may and must be removed from the New Testament, as soon as a man allows himself, without further proof, to con- sider everything that shocks his prejudices as merely current opinion of the Jews. But does not every man's common sense and feeling teach him now, that the very levity and trifling of such a procedure afford the strongest ground for concluding, that, in cases of this kind, it is an indispensable duty to allege proof? Here it must be particularly borne in mind, that it is by no means sufficient to be able to sho^v, that cer- tain representations found in the Bible, were views of the age in which the authors lived, or of the peo- ple among w hom they had constant intercourse ; it is necessary also to be able to prove their incorrectness, before a man should allows himself to find an accom- modation in the passages in which they occur. Will we, for example, represent the declarations of the apostles respecting the atoning efficacy of the death of Christ, as mere allusions to Jewish sacrificial views, which are therefore not to be understood literally ? It is then incumbent on us, not only to show, that the Jews really had such sacrificial views, but also to prove that they are really puerile ideas, in w^hicli no truth lies at the bottom. Will we — to adduce another illustration — will we maintain, that from til those 162 LIMITATIONS OF THE places in which Christ and his apostles speak of de- mons, nothing at all can be inferred in favour of the real existence of such kind of spiritual beings, because, in such cases, they have merely spoken according to the conceit of their age ? It is certainly then not enough to have shown, that a general belief in de- mons did then prevail, but it must also be shown that this belief of the age was a mere superstition, an er- roneous, false, and groundless conceit of the people. The cause which makes it proper and necessary to insist on this, is self-evident. An opinion is not al- ways and necessarily erroneous because it is popular. Among the views prevalent in an age, and the stock of ideas circulating in a nation, there may be some inter- mingled that are true. Our Lord, therefore, and his apostles may have been governed by certain opinions of their time, not merely because they were opinions of their time, but because, according to their own con- victions, the views which they afforded were true, cor- rect, and well founded. Thus, he may have spoken so often of demons, not merely because the people be- lieved in their existence, but because he believed in it himself; and therefore it is possible, that he has not, in this matter, accommodated to the popular ideas, and it must therefore be allowed to be possible, that by his declarations he has himself attested their exist- ence, and that it was his intention to attest it. Undoubtedly there may be cases in which the proof above spoken of may be dispensed with, because it would be unnecessary and superfluous to adduce it ; (of such cases I shall spe»ak further presently,) but in others again we can demand of the interpreter to bring DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. 163 the proof from internal grounds. As it is often easy to foresee the impossibility of satisfying this demand, its severity is proportionabh^ the more evident. Who will undertake to show, on internal grounds^ that no being can exist of such a nature, as the Jews in the time of Christ and his apostles, formed in their mind under the name of angels and demons ; or that the future resurrection of the dead, which the Jews must have expected from their Messiah, and the apostles certainly did expect from Christ, can never take place ? Most undoubtedly, the fact, that the Jews believed the one and the other, involves no reason why we should also admit them. Nothing but the certainty that they had been instructed in them by a divine re- velation can make them obligatory on us ; and hence it might appear to be sufficient, if, in relation to points of this kind, it were barely stated, that respecting them we are destitute of certainty. Yet, when the theolo- gian, who intends to form a system, the parts of which are properly connected, insists upon this, that the testi- mony of our Lord and his apostles must sufficiently supply this want, or rather, give to us this certainty ; when he urges this consideration, that these views of the Jewish people, which it is freely granted no evi- dence either external or internal could otherwise make credible to us, have been established by the authority of Christ, and on this account alone must be admitted by us as true, since we are as little able on internal grounds to reject as to admit them ; what will the in- terpreter allege on the other hand ? He will not ven- ture to saj^ to him again, that Christ, by apparently establishing this idea of the people, has merely come 164 LIMITATIONS OF THE down to the prejudices of his age, for this is the very point which his opponent denies. And how can he oblige him to concede it, but by proving to him, that in such declarations of Christ an accommodation must necessarily be admitted, because the opinions ap- parently established by him are of such a kind, that it is impossible he could have really intended to esta- blish them ; that is, in one word, by showing him, on internal grounds, the incorrectness of the opinions ? Thus is it certain beyond all doubt, that, in some cases at least, an accommodation never can with per- fect security be admitted, since it cannot be previous- ly determined, that the representation, in reference to which the accommodation is to be applied, was both an opinion, really prevailing at the time, and also an erroneous opinion. But now it were easy to antici- pate from this, how much the principle of accommo- dation, by this single demand, must lose of the danger- ous character which at first view it would seem to possess. It may be confidently said, that there are not many cases in relation to which those necessary previous proofs can be brought with suitable point, unless a man will help, or rather deceive himself with mere conjectures. This last has, in fact, already been done among us often enough, since it has been regard- ed as the proper business of a newly invented higher CRITICISM, to trace out, by the aid of the history and spirit of the age from which our sacred scriptures have come down to us, whatever may have been merely the common sentiments of the times. Yet, as it is easy to see, that this higlier criticism, however good may be the iiii;ention of its advocates, but too often can DOCTRINE OF ACCO^IMODATION. 165 produce nothing better than conjectures, since so few historical monuments of that age remain ; so is it also easy to perceive, that from the nature of the subject mere conjectm^e can determine nothing in relation to it, or can only determine with an interpreter whose in- clination to determine has already been formed. Onl}'^ let the principle above stated be assumed and applied, and no one need apprehend, that the method of inter- pretation under review can easily be abused to the in- jury of religion. III. Yet all the doubt, which would seem to attach to this point, is removed by subjecting it, in the third place, to a farther limitation, the reasonableness of which is also as evident to common sense as the preceding. It may, indeed, be supposed, that our Lord and his apostles were sometimes influenced by the erroneous views of their age, but — this is the limitation — it must not be supposed any farther than is consistent with their character, their design, and also their views, either as declared by themselves, or otherwise known with certainty. It has already been stated, as one of the fundamental rules of hermeneutics, that, in the in~ terpretation of every writing, constant reference must be had to the character and intention of the writer. The present limitation can therefore in reality add nothing more than this, that in no case should these rules be at all transgressed ; but the claim to this re- quisition is certainly as evident in the cases where an interpretation founded on accommodation, and one CO- incident with the design or character of the writer appear to come into collision, as it is in all others. But we must suppose, and we are justified in sup- i6G LIMITATIONS OF THE posing, that an intelligent teacher or writer will never come down to the erroneous views of the men for whom he is labouring, so far as to derogate from his character and oppose his design. As often there- fore as it can be shown, that by an assertion or de- claration he would have injured the one or the other, if he had been governed in making it by a condescend- ing adaptation to error, it is necessary to maintain, that no accommodation, but a real declaration of his own convictions is to be found there. With respect to this fundamental limitation itself, we shall not be required to contend with any one ; but, on the other hand, we must acknowledge, that it is not very easy to lay down general fixed principles, accord- ing to which it may always be infallibly determined, whether such an economical method of interpretation is consistent or not with the character and design of a writer. Probably indeed none can be given, which do not admit and require in particular cases some ex- ceptions, limitations and modifications, arising from the character of the particular case. It is necessary, therefore, almost in every individual instance, to form a judgment for one's self: indeed, in some of those cases which relate to determining the i&og., or the agreement of an alleged accommodation with the cha- racter of the writer, the moral feeling of the interpre- ter will always claim an influence, which cannot be made uniform by any rules.^ These difficulties apply, a This is certainly one of the most important considerations in reference to the explanation of such moral and religious writings as those in the Bible, which can be addressed to the understanding and conscience of an interpreter. The highest DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. 167 in a full degree, to our sacred writers, and even to the declarations of our Lord and his apostles ; for the most natural rule to decide by, which is applicable to them, that which arises from their entirely peculiar character, cannot itself be actually applied half so easily as at first view might be supposed. This rule seems to result from the most natural supposition, that Christ and his apostles, at least in whatever degree of moral purity, and the most extensive and truest views of divine truth which can now be attained, inasmuch as they bring the interpreter nearest to the enlightened and holy character of his author, place him in the best possible situation (ccBteris paribus^) to understand him. He can then enter more deeply into the feeling and spirit of the sacred writer, especially in relation to religious aflPections and hopes, which belong in different degrees to different grades of the Christian life. The minister of the Gospel, who is to interpret the holy scriptures to the people, cannot have this principle too deeply imprinted on his mind. And, as a practical principle, it should exercise habitual influence on his moral and religious habits. Indeed, on this same principle of correspondence of views with the writer to be explained, it may be added, that the more we enter into his feelings and associations, whether re- ligious, litei-ary or domestic, the more likely shall we be to seize on his real meaning. The reader who enters on the study of the prophecies relating to the Messiah, with a mind stored with the opinions of the ancient Hebrews, accustomed to the figures under which they represented those opinions, well versed in the language in which they expressed them, in the religious and political usages by which they illustrate them ; to say all in one word, with the feelings and views of a pious and intelligent ancient Hebrew, so far as under pre- sent circumstances they can be gained, will no doubt be best fitted to understand and appreciate those sublime instruc- tions — Tr, 16S HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. belonged to the religious instruction Avhich they in- tended to impart to the world, never could accom- modate to the views of their age, because this would have been in direct opposition to their design. But who does not feel, that closer and more accurate fixed principles are necessary, respecting what must belong to that religious instruction, and that a man must, above all things, be thoroughly satisfied with these principles, before he can with complete confidence apply the rules which are founded on them. What has been said may serve to mark out the chief points at least, on the accurate determination and adjustment of which still depend the laws, by which hermeneutics must be governed in such con- flicting cases, in fact, on which alone it can be go- verned with certaint3^a CHAPTER V. The history of this branch of knowledge, and of the manner in which it has been treated from the ear- liest ages, may very well be comprised in a short com- pass. But this is not the case with its literature, which is exceedingly rich. Still, a prehminary sketch of its history, although short, will be of use in order to facilitate a choice among the principal literary works belonging to this department, which, in a trea- tise of this kind, it is necessary to give. The history of hermeneutics may most suitably be divided into seven periods of time, which, although See Note VII. HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 169 of very unequal lengths, are yet distinguished by prin- ciples of interpretation peculiar to each, or at least by appropriate methods of exposition very observa- bly varying from the others. The characteristic traits of these methods and of these principles, im- press upon the exegetical works which we have of each of these periods, such marks of discrimination not to be misunderstood, that with regard to most of them, it is unnecessary to inquire after any other marks in order to ascertain the time to which they be- long. I. In the first two centuries it was hardly possible for the church to have any other principles of exposi- tion than those which the early Christians had in part brought over with them from Judaism, and in part received from the Jews. Those Christians who were properly Jewish could have no other ; and those who were converted to Christianity from Heathenism could not think of originating others for themselves, for as, along with the Christian religion they received the holy scriptures of the Jews, it was natural that they should consider it as incumbent on them to receive also the principles, according to which they had hither- to been explained by the Jews and their teachers. These principles are very well known. They amount to this : that although the words of scripture are to be explained according to the usage of language, yet frequently their grammatical sense is the least import- ant, and that almost all that they contain is allegory, or type, or prophecy. Many circumstances conspired to encourage the early fathers, who were possessed of some learning, 170 HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. to adopt this extraordinary method of interpretation. They saw that even the apostle Paul, in some of his epistles, where he was obliged to contend with Jewish Christians, had availed himself of it, as, for instance, in that to the Galatians, and thus they considered themselves as sufficiently authorized, not attending to the peculiar circumstances in which the apostle was placed, and to the particular object which he had in view. They were themselves incompetent to discover a better method of interpretation, because the greatest part of them were altogether unacquainted with the Hebrew language. But what principally recommend- ed this method to them was, that, in contending with the opponents of Christianity among the Jews, they were able to derive from it most important advantage for their opinions. By the aid which it afforded they were able to point out to the Jews, a multitude of pro- phecies in the Old Testament relating to Christ, the literal accomplishment of which could be shown with- out any trouble, to illustrate a multitude of types in it, the corresponding antitypes to which were to be found without difficulty in his history. It was therefore no wonder, that Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria, were so much captivated by this mode of exposition, as not only not to observe how insecure, unsteady, and deceptive it is, but to find in it their chief advantages.a II. But, in the commencement of the third cen- tury, a happier period for hermeneutics was introduc- ed by Origen, not so much by giving his contempo- raries rules for an improved interpretation, as by See Note VII L HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 171 exhibiting to them an example of improvement. It was, of course, impossible even for Origen at once to break loose from the old allegorizing method of interpreta- tion. His acuteness and perspicacity pointed out to him in the Bible frequent allegories and types, which no man before him had discovered. He also some- times intentionally availed himself of this allegorical method of interpretation, in order to oppose with the more effect certain crude opinions of his age, founded on an interpretation entirely literal ; as, for example, the gross representation of a resurrection of the flesh and an earthly reign of Christ during a thousand years, which in the second century was extensively prevalent. ^ Some of his pupils and admirers after- wards carried this point still further ; and hence it was, that, subsequently, when errors and heresies be- gan to be discovered in the writings of this most ex- traordinary man, he was subjected to the reproach of having been the inventor, or at least the greatest pro- moter of the allegorizing system of interpretation. But this reproach is in a high degree unmerited. If even Origen could not altogether free himself from the tendency of his age, yet it was this very man, who often enough and pointedly enough insisted, that in- terpretation should always be founded on the gram- ^ The author refers to the opinions of the early millenariens that, preparatory to the earthly reign of Christ, there should be a resurrection of the bodies of the saints, with all their or- dinary properties and propensities, fitting them for the enjoy- ment of corporeal delights. The reader may see proof of this opinion having been entertained in Whitby's " Treatise of the tnie Millenium," chap. 1. § iv., at the end of his com- mentary on the New Testament, fol. London, 1727 Tr. 17*2 HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. matical sense of the words ; that in ascertaining this sense, the usage of language should always first be consulted ; and that, until this can afford no suitable meaning, entirely corresponding with the connection and views of the writer, or in unison with his decla- rations as elsewhere expressed, no allegorical, typical, or spiritual signification can properly be resorted to. He it was, who pointed out to his contemporaries the method of correcting the grammatical and historical sense of scripture with a typical and allegorical one ; a method, which undoubtedly was afterwards nmch abused. By these means he taught them most im- pressively that acquaintance with language and with history is necessary in every case in order to secure a correct interpretation, and by these means alone did he perform a service with regard to hermeneutics, which entitled him to the thanks of all succeeding ages. ^ III. In the period immediately subsequent to that of Origen, the effects of his example became very * See Ernesti's dissertation, de Origine Inteipretationis li- brorum sacroi*um grammaticae auctore, in his Opuscula philo- logica Critica, 1776, pp. 288, ss. A translation of it may be found in Professor Hodge's Biblical Repertory, vol. iii. No. 2, pp. 245 — 2G0. Roseniniiller, in his History of Tnter- pretation before referred to, thinks that Ernesti has been as liberal in his praises of Origen, as others have been in their censures. See Part iii. p. 22, 155. And yet Erasmus does not hesitate to say, "plus me docet Christianse philosophiae unica Origenis pagina, quara decern Augustini." This, says Jor- tin, is " laudari a viro laudato." See his remarks on Ec- clesiastical History, vol. ii. p. 112. Lond. 1805. Some judi- cious scholars, however, have thought such praise extrava- gant Tr. HISTORY OF HEBMENEUTICS. 173 evident ; for in the fourth century interpretation as- sumed a form greatly improved. This state of things was chiefly owing to the fact, that now there were more interpreters, who had formed their taste by an acquaintance with the works of the old Greek and Roman authors, and they were not able entirely to keep out of view, the effect which the study of them produced on their mental character, however will- ingly they would often have done so, in commenting on the Bible. This was the case with Eusebius, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Isidore of Pe- lusium, and Theodoret, among the Greek interpreters of the fourth and fifth centuries, and with Jerome, Augustin, Pelagius and Cassian among the Latins. It is true, that in these authors we do often enough meet with the allegorical and mystical expositions ; but it is at the same time impossible not to perceive, that the}' were influenced by a feeling, which always brought them back again to a more intelligent method of in- terpretation. Many of them, as Chrysostom, Theodore and Au- gustin, felt also, that it was sometimes necessary to lay down, as the ground of grammatical interpretation, a particular usage of language belonging to the sacred writers ; they had even an indistinct impression that the particular spirit of the age of these writers must be regarded ; and they were not afraid in many cases to proceed upon the supposition, that by a judicious accommodation they had occasionally come down even to the erroneous views of their own time. We not unfrequently find, therefore, in the exegeti- cal works of these fathers, inter])retations of the most excellent and striking character, and it is to be ascrib* 174 HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. ed to two causes onl}'- that they are not to be found there in greater abundance. The one is, their very great want of acquaintance with the spirit of the old lan- guages of the east, a defect, which must have a most in- jurious influence on their interpretations not only of the Old Testament, but also of the New. The other cause is to be found in the unhappy controversies, which were carried on during those periods, in such vexatious number, and with such scandalous warmth. In these cases, it became too much the practice, to allow them- selves to modify their interpretation according to the convenience of their polemics ; that is to say, to ex- plain the Bible in such a manner as was best adapted to advance the interest of the various opinions which they defended. Even the best and most acute wri- ters among the fathers of those times, as Theodore of Mopsuestia, (for the polemic authors, Jerome and Augustin, are quite out of the question,) could not entirely guard against the fault of sometimes finding in the Bible merely what M'ould serve to support their opinions, and of finding it there simply because they required it for that purpose : an evil, which in the fol- lowing ages became still worse. IV. It may be said with truth, that the whole pe- riod from the seventh to the sixteenth century was destitute of hermeneutics, merely for this reason, that it was by the polemics of the times completely subject- ed to the yoke of doctrinal divinity. The truths, which it was thought proper to find in the Bible, were now brought into a system, which the church by her authority and influence had frequently declared to be the only true one. No man therefore ventured to HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 175 find any thing further in the Bible, which was not adapted to this system, and still less any thing which stood in opposition to it. In these circumstances, it might be considered the wisest course that could be adopted, to abandon all idea of originality, and be contented with collecting the interpretations of the ancient fathers, on which the church had impressed the stamp of orthodoxy ; and then it could not be long, until circumstances became such, as to make this abandonment absolutely neces- sary, because all ability and all helps for original in- terpretation were lost. In the ninth century all knowledge of history and languages had almost entirely vanished. The bar- barous Vulgate gradually became elevated to the im- portance of the only text, and the glossa ordinaria to the character of the only commentary on the Bible, which was used and allowed to be used in the church ; because these were the only text and commentary that could be used. And even in the use of the Vul- gate, not only was no offence taken at the prodigious multitude of the grossest errors which had crept into it, but it was appealed to in argument and interpre- tation, with as much confidence, as could ever have been placed in the original text itself. Neither did the scholastic age, which immediately followed this, introduce a more favourable change for hermeneutics : on the contrary, it is rather to be said, that its fate became thereby the more unfortunate. The scholastics, indeed, were a class of men, who at first gave themselves but little trouble on this point, for to them it was not a matter of much consequence, 176 HISTORY OF HER3IENEUTICS. whether they could prove their opinions from scrip- ture or not, since they were persuaded that the truth of them could be demonstrated from the principles of their philosophy. However, towards the end of the twelfth century, some extraneous circumstances led them to pay more attention to the scriptures than they had formerly done, and consequently they were obliged to go farther into the subject of interpreta- tion. Hence there arose successively many sects, who wished to draw the Bible from that total oblivion into which it had sunk, and who were willing to find things in it quite different from what had hitherto been usu- ally dictated to the people, and what they had been accustomed to hear. Beside these, since the time of saint Bernard, an important party had been formed in opposition to the new scholastic divines, which, al- though soon oppressed by them, were not completely put down, but continued to maintain an influence principally in the monasteries, and on many occasions withstood them with great earnestness, which produced a correspondent impression. These denominated them- selves the party of the biblical divines. They assumed a degree of importance, as if they were the more tena- cious of adhering to the scriptures, in proportion as the others seemed to disregard them. They were the principal agents in bringing back again the mystical method of interpretation, in order to make themselves conspicuous in some way, and by these means they frequently acquired a consideration, which threatened to be dangerous to the scholastics. These theologians, therefore, v/ere themselves reduced to the necessity of HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 177 coming down to interpretation, which, at the same time, was subjected to the most lamentable treatment it had ever experienced. Equally incompetent to discover as to appl\' the simple and natural principles of an intelligent herme- neutics, they returned to the allegorizing system, which they pursued with far more extravagance than it had ever been pursued by the Jews. Whatever the wildest imagination and the most unnatural force could press out of a word of scripture, was given as the genuine meaning, without the least regard to connection, design, character of the writer, and coherence of his ideas ; and for the most part adopted the more willingly in proportion as it was senseless and irrational. But in truth they could not easily produce any other result, whenever they attempted to expound for themselves ; since they had no knowledge of languages, no appre- hension of a historical sense of scripture, and not the most distant idea of a spirit peculiar to the age in which the scriptures originated. Still, in fact, this injurious treatment did not alFect the Scripture itself, but only the Vulgate ; for it was only to this version that they were able to apply their efforts of interpretation, and therefore, the mischief was not so particularly great. V. Yet, before Luther made his appearance, some minds of the higher order were desirous of putting a stop to this confusion, and therefore occasional exam- ples occur of a method of interpretation, less offensive to sound understanding. But the influence of these persons was not greatly efficacious, until that impetuo- sity of character, by which this reformer \^as led to 178 HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. the improvement of so many other things, was also di- rected to this subject, and broke through the obstacles that opposed him. After Erasmus and some other men of the same class, he and Melancthon were the restorers of hermeneutics ; and this effect was pro- duced principally by again bringing forward the gram- matical system of interpretation, by re-establishing the literal sense in its rights, by granting anew to the usage of language its paramount importance, and by not granting, or at least not seeking, either mystical or allegorical significations, whenever the other would afford a consistent sense, and one adapted to the views of the writer. Thus the way to a rational interpretation was re- opened. But it was necessary to set out entirely afresh, and therefore it became somewhat tedious, and the fatal impediment, which in the fourth century had ar- rested the progress of the understanding in pursuing this course, again but too soon presented itself. Luther was forced to form his new system of interpretation amidst noisy con troversies ; he became forced thereto by the very controversies in which he was himself en- gaged ; and therefore it was natural enough that he should occasionally apply it in favour of them, al- though in other circumstances he would have regard- ed this as an abuse. This most excellent man did, in fact, very often direct his interpretation merely with a view to his polemics : but this was done by his im- mediate successors ; it was done by those divines, who, after his death, and that of Melancthon, constituted the ruling party in the Lutheran church, so much liiore frequently, that this may be given as the discri- HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 179 minating character of our hermeneiitics, from the end of the sixteenth century to the beginnnig of our own. Amidst the hottest internal controversies, the Lu- theran system of doctrine was fully completed in the form of concord. This system necessarily possessed its own interpretation ; and as by the general union in one symbol wherein it was contained, the system itself became firmly established as unalterable, so also was of course that interpretation. Every dictum pro- bans by which a point in the form of concord had been proved, or was thought to have been proved, must now always be so explained as to remain useful in reference to this proof; otherwise the prevailing theology would immediately complain of a departure from the system of doctrine. Along with this, however, it must be said, that the interpretation always proceeded on the correct prin- ciple, that the literal and grammatical sense must first be investigated, and that this must be determined by the usage of language. This was the point to whicli chief attention was always directed ; but this usage, instead of being derived from the sources v/hich alone can afford it with any certainty, from other contem- poraneous writers, from the spirit of the time or from the spirit of the kindred languages, from the character- istic formation of mind and mode of thinking of the different sacred writers themselves, and from compar- ing their works together, was derived merely from the uncertain, second hand source of doctrinal divinity. That is, all expressions were taken merely in the sense in which this privileged divinity liad taken them; this was presumed to be the only true sense, and then, as 180 HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. was natural, the same sense was always found in every place which this system of divinity had found there. The impropriety and mischief of this method could certainly be the less observed, while so little refined and accurate knowledge of languages was possessed, with only here and there obscure impressions of a his- toric sense ; in truth, attachment to the doctrinal the- ology even prevented the exegetical from being able to strengthen those impressions, and from using all its eiforts to advance such a nice and thorough know- ledge. When, therefore, towards the middle of the last century, Cocceius, among the reformed divines, again attempted to find everywhere in the Bible alle- gories, t3^pes, tropes, and prophecies, many of our di- vines zealously opposed the novelty ; but when al- most at the same time, Grotius and some other men of refined taste and more enlarged views attempted, by penetrating more deeply into the spirit of the lan- guages and history of the times of our sacred writers, to withdraw interpretation from the authority of doc- trinal divinity, a violent outcry was raised against them, and for more than half a century laborious ef- forts were made to hinder the diffusion of the light, which these men had thus enkindled.^ VI. Hermeneutics experienced yet another change, which at one time gave it a new distinguishing fea- ture, but which happily it did not long retain. With the commencement of our century, the newly rising a The reader is requested to peruse, in connection with these remarks of the author, the latter part of note on p. C4. HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 181 party, called pietists, began to devote themselves par- ticularly to the interpretation of the Bible, because they considered it as necessary, and certainly not without reason, to revive a zeal for the study of it, which had become very greatly diminished. But, unhappily, this party brought rather too much enthu- siasm and too little learning to this subject, and this would necessarily impart to their method of interpre- tation a peculiar character. This consisted in press- ing each word of the text, until every idea, which by mere possibility it might contain according to its ety- mology, was forced out ; for, by this operation, the " prsegnantes sensus scripturae," to use their own lan- guage, and the holy emphasis of its expressions, which had heretofore been neglected, could alone be received in all their fulness. Had this been done according to a reasonable me- thod, some real gain might perhaps have resulted ; but from that which was generally pursued, any advan- tage could, in the nature of things, but very seldom be obtained : and, in truth, the effect must often have been injurious. These expositors might have endea- voured, and sometimes with the hope of a very happy result, to determine the whole extent and the full em- phasis of an idea involved in any word or turn of expression from the general or particular usage of language in the Bible, from which alone confident conclusions could be drawn. But, instead of this, they generally adhered merely to the etymological or grammatical connection, from which they deduced the strangest conclusions ; without reflecting, that, in a multitude of cases, the conventional, and the parti- ]8*2 HISTORY OF HEIIMENEUTICS. cular usage of the sacred writers, could not have been so accurately directed either by etymology or gram- mar. If, for example, the apostles, by a Hebraism, had used, h instead of dta, if they had written, " in the name of Jesus,"" instead of, " through the name of " Jesus ;" a peculiar emphasis was supposed to lie in the particle h, expressly intended by the apostle, be- cause, if this were not the case, he could as M^ell have employed the word dla. When St. Paul says of Christ that he is v'Trs^v-^uhlc, (Phil. ii. 9,) the term must express much more than the idea of Christ's ex- altation in general, for otherwise the apostle would not have added force to the verb b-^ocfj by compound- ing it with the preposition vTrs^. But that the first in-^ stance is nothing but a Hebraism, and that with re- spect to the other, it was a very common usage with the Greeks, to employ such compound words inter- changeably with the simple, and in the very same sense with them, these sticklers for emphatic phrase- ology would by no means allow, because such a concession would completely demolish the whole foundation of their emphasis. This extravagant trifling could not long continue, and indeed it would scarcely have lasted to the middle of our own age, had it not been for a time assisted by the counte- nance of some men, who in other respects were very reasonable and deservedly esteemed, as, for instance, the pious and learned Bengel. Yet this system was the sooner dissipated, when some other divines of de- cided reputation, as Ernesti, announced themselves in opposition to it. ^ a See Note IX. HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 183 VII. Through the efforts of these men, and espe- cially of the last named scholar, hermeneutics came in the end to the form in which it is at present; or rather, it received the principal characteristics of which it may now boast. It may with propriety be said of it, that, in the present day, by means of a nicer and more funda- mental knowledge of language, it can acquire much greater certainty respecting the grammatical sense of scripture, and by means of more enlarged literary in- vestigations, can throw much clearer light on the historical sense than formerly ; that, at the same time, it has laid aside the prejudice, which had previously restrained it from paying sufficient attention to the spirit of the age for which those writings were imme- diately intended ; and that, in fine, it has seized and applied this same spirit in a degree far beyond what could possibly have been done in its earlier periods. It may therefore be given as the distinguishing characteristic of the interpretation of our own time, that it proceeds on the principle that each sacred writer thinks and speaks according to the spirit of his age, and consequently must be explained according to that spirit.^ This may also without hesitation be given as its chief advantage ; although it cannot at the same time be denied, that this principle has been occasionally carried too far, and that consequently a C. A. G. Keil : de historica librorum sacrorum interpre- tatione ejusque necessitate, Lips. 1788, 4to ; translated into German hy C. A. Wempel, Leipz. 1793, 8vo The reader is requested to keep in mind the limitations already laid down, in order to qualify the application of this principle. — Tr. 184 HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. injurious effects have now and then resulted. Such effects are principally to be apprehended, from the facility with which it might so often be erroneously assumed, that the sacred writers, in many of their de- clarations, in which the older theology found positive doctrines have been governed merely by views of their own age.^ It may also be a more unfavourable circumstance, that no settled principles have yet been agreed on, whereby to define the bounds of this ac- commodating method of interpretation, although the subject had been warmly discussed for twenty years, when Semler gave new life to the excitement in rela- tion to the scriptural doctrine respecting demons, and began by his " ceconomicum dicendi genus" to explain it away. But notwithstanding this, we may proba- bly anticipate more benefit hereafter, than we need fear disadvantage. It was not altogether unnatural that interpretation, in the first joy that it experienced in being freed from the fetters of doctrinal divinity which it had so long carried, should, with the feelings which this must excite, have gone somewhat further than necessity or propriety justified ; but, for this very reason, it may be hoped with the more probability, that in time it will of itself become right ; and then even doctrinal divinity will undoubtedly derive the greatest advantages.^ a If the author had lived to the present time, he would have seen his anticipations realized. Indeed the extravagant and licentious wildness of some among the late German com- mentators, is far beyond what he could with any reason have expected — Tr. b The concluding remarks of this chapter on the influence WORKS ON INTERPRETATION. 185 CHAPTER VI. After this brief history of interpretation, which gives a view of the most remarkable changes it has undergone, I proceed to make a statement of the most useful works in this department, and which in each of the periods noticed have been principally used. To express an opinion respecting the particular cha- racter of these works, and to estimate their relative value, must be unnecessary ; for a mere statement of the periods to which they belong, or from which they have originated, is, in some degree, sufficient for this purpose. The works themselves must be divided into two classes, to the former of which are to be appropriated those which contain proper directions relating to her- meneutics, which develop and exhibit the rules and principles of a correct method of interpretation, or in which they are individually and particularly marked out and illustrated, in their application to all the books of our sacred scriptures, or only to a limited number. The second class will comprise the most remarkable and useful of those writings, in which these principles are actually applied to the interpretation either of the whole Bible, or of particular books ; in other words, our principal commentaries, expositions, para- which the principles of Kant's philosophy might have in pro- ducing mystical and allegorical interpretations, are omitted. 3 83 WORKS ox INTERPRETATION. phrases, &c., of every age, on the Old and New Test- aments. [. With respect to the first class of these literary productions, no man will expect to find, in the early and middle ages, any work in which hermeneutics is reduced to the form of a distinct branch of knowledge, and the theory of it drawn out in what may be called a philosophical manner. Of the period of the Fathers, properly so termed, there are scarcely two works of this kind, which can with propriety be here introduced, and of the following, not a single one. In the four books of Augustin " de doctrina Christi- ana," we not only find some scattered observations, which look like directions for a correct interpretation of scripture, but, in lib. iii. cap. 30, he has introduced the seven rules, so called, for investigating and ascer- taining the sense of scripture, " regulag ad investigan- dum et inveniendam scripturarum intelligentiam," which are the production of a contemporaneous writer of the name of Ticonius, of whom we have no further knowledge. These rules do not exhibit much pene- tration, although they show the author to have pos- sessed extraordinary ingenuity. Another work belonging to this period, which has equal claims to notice in this review, is a composition under the title, Eicdyooy^ iig rag kiag y^a(pdg, " Intro- duction to Sacred Scripture," by a writer of the name of Adrian, who was probably contemporaneous with Augustin, although the age in which he lived cannot be accurately determined. * But there is no reason to * This Introduction, with some other writings of the same kind, was published in Greek by David Hoeschell, at Augs- WORKS ON INTERPIIETATIOX. ] 87 place, as is usually done, among the list of writers on theoretical hermeneutics, Eucherius, bishop of Lyons, in Gaul in the fifth century, on account of his In- structio ad filium Salonium, " Instruction addressed to his son Salonius," which has come down to us in two books; for this "Instruction" does not contain, properly speaking, any directions for the interpreta- tion of scripture. The first book merely illustrates some difficult passages, and the second explains the Hebrew names which occur in the Bible. From this time we find, in the literary history of hermeneutics, a space of one thousand years, which presents nothing but a mere blank ; for not until the latter half of the sixteenth century do we meet "with any true and scientific directions for correct interpre- tation ; and, in fact, the work which contains them may, without hesitation, be regarded as the first of this class. The book referred to is, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, the " Key to the Sacred Scripture," of the celebrated Matthias Flacius, which came out originally at Basle, in folio, in the year 1567. » The first part of which this Clavis consists, may be called a biblical lexicon, for most of the words and phrases in scrip- ture are explained in it in alphabetical order. But the second is actually and strictly a treatise on herme- neutics, and one alike honourable to the acuteness of Flacius, and to his learning. This is very willingly burg, in 1602, 4 to. It has also been introduced in the Critici Sacri, torn. viii. of the London edition — Tr. a Among the old editions of the Clavis, the principal is that which was pubhshed at Jena in 1675, fol. with a preface by John Musaeus — Tr, 188 WORKS ON INTERPRETATION. acknowledged, even by our recent exegetical writers, notwithstanding all the imperfections of the work, and is confessed by Simon himself; and the truth of it is more particularly evident, upon a comparison of this first work with the greater part of those, which, in the next century, were composed in imitation of it, b}'^ many divines of our church. Among these, the following may probably be re- garded as worthy of particular notice : — Wolfgang Franz : Tractatus theologicus novus et perspicuus de interpretation e sacrarum literarum maxime legitima. Wittenbergae, 1619, (5th edition, 1708,) 8vo. John Conrad Danhauer : Hermeneutica sacra — seu methodus exponendarum sacrarum literarum, Argen- tor. 1754, 8vo. Augustin Pfeiffer : Hermeneutica sacra, sive trac- tatio luculenta de interpretatione sacrarum literarum. Dresdse, 1684; an enlarged edition, with a preface by Benedict Carpzov. entitled: Thesaurus hermeneuti- cus, &c. Lips. 1690, 4to. Many of our divines, as Glassius, Gerhard, Olea- rius, and others, in the more comprehensive works which they composed, introduced whatever branches of literature belonged to exegesis, and particularly those relating to the theory of hermeneutics ; yet, in general, they merely made the Clavis of Flacius their ground-work, or raised upon it those principles only which had already been developed in this work, while they were not always able to seize and express them with that nice precision which Flacius had given to them. Notwithstanding, there are in most of their WORKS ON INTERPRETATION. 189 works excellent precepts for grammatical interpreta- tion ; for the error of the hermeneutics of this period lay only in this, that the historical sense was too much neglected, and the grammatical interpretation depend- ed on assistance which was too insecure. The characteristic marks by which interpretation, from the beginning of the present century, was for some time distinguished, in consequence of the pietis- tical controversies, are particularly conspicuous in the following works, in which its character was, in part, originally formed. Herman Augustin Francke : Prelectiones herme- neuticae — ad viam dextre indagandi et exponendi sen- sum scripturas sacrae. Halae, 17'2S, 8vo. Joachim Langius : Hermeneutica sacra. Halae, 17.33, 8vo. John James Rambach : Institutiones hermeneuticae sacrae, variis observationibus, copiosissimisque exem- plis biblicis illustratae — cum prefat. J. Franc. Bud- dagi. Jenae, 1723, 8vo. These institutions of Rambach soon became the principal work and manual of hermeneutics, and there- fore were not only very often reprinted, but also illus- trated by many divines with particular commentaries. Thus, for instance, Ernest Frederic Neubauer pub- lished, at Giessen, in 1738, extensive and profound illustrations of llambach's "Institutiones," and Andrew Rp.iersen, at Copenhagen, 1741, Tabulae synopticae in institutiones Rambachii, " Synoptical view" of the same work. Among these works, others also made their appear- ance, some of which were expressly intended to op- 190 WORKS ON INTERPRETATION. pose the principles of interpretation peculiar to the pietists ; and others contained generally the theory of hermeneutics more completely formed. To the former of these classes belong : — Valentine Ernst Loscher : Breviarium Theologiae exegeticse, legitimara scripturae sacrse interpretationem tradens. Wittenberg. 1719, 8vo. Martin Chladenius : Institutiones exegeticae. Wit- tenberg. 1725, 8vo. Of the others, the following is particularly conspi- cuous : — Solomon Deyling : De scriptures recte interpre- tandae ratione et fatis. Lips. 1721 ; and yet more so, the work of a reformed divine — John Alphonso Turretin : De S. Scripturee inter- pretandas methodo tractatus bipartitus — Trajecti Thu- niomm, (that is Dort,) 1728. A new and enlarged edition, by Teller, counsellor of the superior consis- tory, was published at Frankfort on the Oder, in 1776, 8vo. The following works, however, were those which gradually prepared the way for the free hermeneutics of our own time, and which principally promoted its more general introduction and application : Sigismund James Baumgarten : Unterricht von Auslegung der heiUgen Schrift, " Instructions on the interpretation of the Sacred Scripture." Halle, 1742, 8vo. The same author's Ausfiihrlicher Vortrag Uber die hermeneutik, " Complete view of hermeneutics," Halle, 1769, 4to. John Solomon Semler : Vorbereitung zur theolo- WORKS ON INTERPRETATION. 191 gischen hermeneutik, Th. iii. " Preparation for theo- logical hermeneutics, in three parts," Halle, 1759 — 1768, 8vo. The same author's Apparatus ad liberalem Novi Testamenti interpretationem, Halee, 1767, 8vo., and Apparatus ad liberalem Veteris Testamenti interpre- tationem, ib. 1773, 8vo. And as the most distinguished work in reference to this result : John Augustin Ernesti : Institutio inter- pretis Novi Testamenti. Ed. quar. cura Christoph. Frid. Ammon. Lips. 1792, 8vo. ^ In addition to what has been said, it is necessary to remark, that the proper epoch, in which our herme- neutics began perfectly to avail itself of the full liberty which characterises it, is to be placed in the years 1771 — 1775. In this period, Semler, on the one side, in his controversies respecting the scriptural doctrine of demons, and, on the other. Teller, in his lexicon of the New Testament, applied the principle, that the Bible should be interpreted in the spirit of its age, in a manner quite novel, which gave a new form to our interpretation. It is sufficiently certain, that the prin- ciple, in itself, and also even as extended to the ac- commodating system of interpretation, which it was applied to justify, was not then originally invented. It was even known and made use of by some of the older Greek fathers. ^ The Socinians had occasionally employed it with great freedom, and Grotius with ^ Ji^ee Note X. ^' See M. Frederic Augustin Cams — Historia antiquior sen- tentiarum ecclesiae Grsecae de accommodatione Christo impri- mis et apostolis tributa. Lips. 1703, 4ta. — Tr. 192 WORKS ON INTERPRETATION great success. But even on this very account it had, until this time, been strongly opposed in our church ; and, in the year 1729, it was warmly attacked by Ram- bach, in his Dissertatio contra hypothesin de Scrip- turae Sacrae ad erroneos vulgi conceptus, " A Disser- tation against the hypothesis of accommodating scrip- ture to commonly received erroneous conceptions." Hence it was that the application which the divines already named, and many others that followed them, made of it, did not pass without opposition. Those of Tubingen, particularly, declared themselves verj^ earnestly against the new accommodating system of hermeneutics. A dissertation by the Chancellor Reuss, De ceconomia qua Christus in docendo usus fuisse di- citur. Tubing. 1773, 4to, " On the economical method which Christ is said to have employed in teaching," and another by Dr. Storr, De sensu historico Scrip- tures Sacrae, Tiib. 1782, " On the historical sense of Scripture," a contains many admonitions against the application of this method too extensively and without sufficient scrupulousness, which do undoubtedl}' de- serve to be very attentively considered. Another more modern production, which appeared in 1788, 8vo, un- der the title, Bemerkungen iiber die Lehrart Jesu in Riicksicht auf jiAdische Sprache und Denkungsart, " Remarks on our Lord's method of teaching, in re- ference to the language and mode of thinking of the Jews, by C. Vict. HaufF, Offenbach on the Maine," ^ This most valuable treatise may be found in Storr's Opus- cula Academica, vol. i. pp. 1 — 88. It was translated into Eng- lish by J. W. G. (Professor Gibbs, now of Yale College.) and published at Boston in 1817, in 12m'> — Tr. WORKS ON INTERPRETATION. 193 has the avowed design of hmiting the abuse of this method ; and to the same point has the author of another work, still more recent, directed his attention : Ueber die Lehrart Jesu und seiner Apostel, in wie- fern sich dieselben nach den damals herrschenden Volksmeinungen gerichtet haben, " On the method of teaching pursued by Christ and his apostles ; how far they have been governed by the prevailing opinions of the people," by Frederic Behn, Lubeck, 1791, 8vo. We have, indeed, reasons enough for wishing this principle to be limited within certain bounds ; but un- less time, or some new direction which the spirit of our theological investigation may perhaps receive from a collision with the critical philosophy, should be able to eflfect more than has been effected by the attempts thus far made at limitation, there does not really seem to be much ground soon to hope for it. The most probable reason for such an expectation may still be found in the circumstance, that this new exegesis can- not be carried much farther than it has already been extended. II. The second class of hermeneutical works, which must here be introduced, comprehends those in which the theoretical principles of interpretation are really applied to the explanation of the whole Bible, or to some of its separate books. Here, however, a selec- tion becomes the more necessary, in consequence of their immense number ; and for this reason, from among each of the various classes into which they again divide themselves, a few only will be given, ex- cept, indeed, with respect to the latest and most use- ful productions. 194 COMMENTARIES. It will not, therefore, be thought necessary to men- tion all those Fathers, who have laboured, in their own particular way, to explain the Scriptures in separate works — in commentaries, or what are called para- phrases. Their exegetical works are also always to be found in the collections of their writings, which are, for the most part, sufficiently known ; and some of those works, in w^hich their interpretations in par- ticular are collected, have been before cited under the name of catenae patrum. ^ Among the hermeneutical works of the following ^ With respect to the characteristics, and the different spi- rit, estimate, and value of interpretations of the Fathers in general, or only some particular Fathers, decisions, but ex- ceedingly various in their nature, may be found in all larger works on the doctrine of the Fathers. We have a work par- ticularly on this subject by Whitby ; De sacrarum scriptura- rum interpretatione secundum patrum commentarios. l^on- don, 1714. On the mystical method of interpreting, John Chi'istian Coester has written ; Dissertatio de mysticarum in- terpretationum studio ab ^gyptiis maxime patribus repeten- do, Halae, 1760; and on that of Origen, John Augustin Er- nesti ; De Origene, interpretationis grammaticse auctore, &c. On the interpretation of many of the Fathers, a course of historical treatises, De fatis interpretationis sacrarum litera- rum in ecclesia Christiana, has been published by Dr. Rosen- miiller at Leipzig, at different times ending in 1794, in ix. programs. [These programs were afterwards altered and enlarged by their author, and gave rise to his Historia Interpretationis, the work referred to in Note 8. His assertions respecting the character of the interpretation of the first century, and of the first half of the second, except as applied to the epistle as- cribed to Barnabas the Apostle, are certainly unfounded.— Tr.] COMMENTARIES. 195 and of more modern ages, it is proper to mention those, in the first place, which comprehend the whole Bible, accompanying the text throughout with expla- natory observations. Some of this class are best known under the name of glossed Bibles. The prin- cipal work of this kind, in the Roman Catholic church, is the Bible, with what is called the glossa ordinaria, which was compiled as early as the ninth century by Walafrid Strabo, and soon acquired so much consi- deration, that it was quoted by the scholastics under the name of " auctoritas." It was originally a catena of the interpretations of many of the Fathers ; but it received from time to time considerable accessions, and in the more modern editions new matter was al- most always added. One of the most complete, and, even now, most in use in the Roman church, appear- ed in the last century under the title, Biblia Sacra, cum glossa ordinaria, novis Patrura Graecorum et La- tinorum explicationibus locupletatse cum postilla Ni- col. Lirani — a Leandro a S. Martino. T. vi. Antwerp. 1634, fol. Among the commentators of the fifteenth century, there is one who deserves to be particularly mention- ed, as he is distinguished in a very superior manner. This is Alphonso Tostatus, bishop of Avila in Spain. His works were collected and published at Cologne, in 1612, in twenty-seven folios, of which his commentaries on the whole Bible alone occupy the first twenty-four. Among the works of this class, which were com- posed after the reformation by divines of our church, — in other words, among the German glossed Bibles, 196 COMMENTARIES. of which Luther's translation was the text, — the fol- lowing formerly stood in highest repute : The Bible, which bore the names of Weimar, Er- nest, or, from the place in which it was printed, Nu- remberg, with the title, Biblia Sacra — verdeutscht von Dr. Luther, und auf Verordnung Hezzog Ernest zu Sachsen von etlichen reinen Theologen erklaert — erste Ausg. 1640 ; — neuste mit Ernst Sal. Cyprians Vorrede — Nlirnberg, 1736, fol. " Biblia Sacra, trans- lated into German by Dr. Luther, and illustrated by some sound divines, at the command of Ernest, duke of Saxony. First edition, 1640 — last, with a preface by Ernest Solomon Cyprian, Nuremberg, 1736, fol." The work of PfafF on the Bible, Tubingen, 1729; and to this may be added a more modern publication of the same class, namely. Die heilige Schrift mit Anmerkungen ; " The H0I3' Scripture, with annota- tions, by Dr. John Godfrey Koerner, in three parts," Leipzig, 1770—1773, 4to. Different from these, although belonging to the same class, are several other works, in some of which likewise the continuous text of the whole Bible, and in others that of the Old or New Testament in parti- cular, is explained by observations annexed, but in which a new translation is also made the ground- work. Among the more recent of this kind, the principal place is due to the celebrated Wertheim translation of the Bible, by John Lawrence Schmid, on account of the excitement it produced at the time of its publica- tion, and also on account of the surprise which this must now occasion us. But as emperor and empire COMMENTARIES. 197 were both wrought into a state of ferment against this translator and his work, only the first part of it made its appearance, under the title, Die Gottlichen Schrif- ten vor den Zeiten des Messias, durch und durch mit Anmerkungen erlaeutert ; " The Divine Writings be- fore the time of the Messias, illustrated throughout with notes," Werth. 1736, 4to. Entire, and undoubtedly far more beneficial as re- spects genuine acquaintance with Scripture, is the translation of the Old Testament, with notes, by John David Michaelis, which appeared at Gottingen, in thirteen parts, 1769-83, 4to. ; and the same author's translation of the New Testament, Gottingen, in three parts, 1789-92, 4to. ; — Uebersetzung des Al- ien Testaments, and Uebersetzung des Neuen Testa- ments. To these works must be added, Uebersetzung und erlaeuterung der heihgen Biicher Neuen Testaments; *' Translation and exposition of the sacred books of the New Testament," by Dr. John Henry Molden- hauer, 4 vols, in 4to., Leipzig, 1763-70, and of the Old Testament, 6 vols, in 4to. Quedlinburg, 1774 —78. Of the modern German translations of the New Testament in particular, only those two which are most dissimilar need be mentioned; namely, John Albert Bengel's, printed at Stuttgard, 1764, 8vo, and the famous one of Bahrdt, with the title, Neueste Of- fenbarungen Gottes in Briefen und Erzaehlungen ; — " Last Revelations of God, in epistles and narrations," in four parts. Riga, 1773, 8vo. A second class of works, belonging to this depart- 198 COM3IENTARIES. ment, is formed of the commentaries, which are extant. Some of them extend over the whole Bible ; some are limited to the Old, or to the New Testament in parti- cular ; and some again are confined to certain books of the one or the other. The commentaries that we have of Luther on al- most all the books of the Bible, deserve the first place ; but it is unnecessary to mention them here, because they are both generally known and appreciated. But, next to his works, no expositions were formerly more highly esteemed in our church than those of John Brentz, the celebrated Wurtemberg divine, which likewise extend almost over the whole Bible, and fill seven of the eight folio volumes, of which the collec- tion of his works consists. The principal divines of the reformed church, also, Zwingle, Oecolampadius, Martin Bucer, Conrad Pelican, made the interpretation of the Bible, a chief object of their learned and industrious efforts to ad- vance the general good, and thereby acquired as much reputation for a purer religious knowledge as those of our own. Yet all their labours in this department must unquestionably yield to those of John Calvin, who, in his commentaries on all the books of the Bible with the exception of the Apocalypse, displayed a learning, an acuteness, and a spirit, which distinguished him from all his contemporaries, and allowed him to con- tend with Melancthon himself for the highest place. * a It must be exceedingly gratifying to a candid mind to hear a Lutheran divine bear such full and unequivocal testi- mony in favour of Calvin. With all the faults of this cele- COMMENTARIES. 199 His commentaries, also, fill almost the first seven vo- lumes of his works, the collection of which was pub - lished at Amsterdam, from the year 1667, in nine folios. Of the last century, it is not necessary to mention more than the principal work of this kind, namely, that of Grotius: Annotationes in Vetus et Novum Testaraentum ; for it must at that time have been re- garded as a principal work, since Abraham Calovius thought it necessary to compose in opposition to him his Biblia illustrata, in four folios. Frankfort, 1672- 76. Notwithstanding all the learning which this work of Calovius contains, and to which even Richard Simon himself does justice,^ it is now almost forgot- ten, while the annotations of Grotius, which had only been introduced in the collection of his works, have been considered, even in our own day, by some of our most esteemed theologians, as worthy of a parti- cular edition. They have been published by George Louis Vogel, and John Christopher Doederlein, en- brated reformer, (and " who can understand his own ?") he must be allowed to have been a man of extraordinary industry and intellect. A divine of the church of England, who, on comparison, will not be found inferior in profoundness of thought, and elevation of character, to the greatest and best of any age or country, speaks of him as " incomparably the wisest man that ever the French church did enjoy, since the hour it enjoyed him." Hooker's Preface to his Ecclesias- tical Polity, § 2, beginning. A new and cheap edition of Calvin's Commentary on St. Paul's epistles, including the He- brews, was published in three neat and closely printed octavo volumes at Halle in 1831, by Professor Tholuck Tr. * See his Histoire crit. des Commentateurs, chap, xviii. 200 COMMENTARIES. larged with their own additions, at Halle, 1775 — 76, in three vols, in 4to. The following great works of the last century and of our own, are prominent on account of their contain- ing collections of the expositions of various interpre- ters, which, however, must unavoidably produce a strange mixture of good and bad. The work, entitled : Critici sacri, or Anglicani. It came out originally at London, in 1660, in nine folio volumes,^ afterwards at Frankfort, in 1697, in seven folios, and at the same time at Amsterdam, with some additions, which were separately printed in 1700, 1701, by the publishers of the Frankfort impres- sion, in two supplementary volumes. An epitome of this great compilation, pubhshed by Matthew Poole, who was also an English divine, with the title : Synopsis criticorum aliorumque scrip- turae sacrae interpretum et commentatorum, Tom. v. London. This work contains even a greater treasure of scriptural illustration than the former, because the author drew from more numerous sources, than his predecessors. It was reprinted as early as 1679, at Frankfort and Utrecht, and in 1712, at Frankfort, a second time, with a preface by John George Pritius, in the same number of volumes. To the same class of publications belongs a later work of this kind in German, and undertaken by Ger- man theologians, namely : " the holy scriptures of the a The English scholars, who united in the compilation of this work, were John Pearson, Anthony Scattergood, FranciiJ Gouldman, and Richard Pearson. COMMENTARIES, 201 Old and New Testaments, together with a complete illustration of them, being a compilation of the choicest remarks of English writers, and enlarged with many additions of German divines, Baumgarten, Dietelmaier, Doederlein, Brucker, and others. In nineteen volumes, 4to. Leipzig, 1749 — 1770. Among the exegetical works, in which the Old Testament in particular was illustrated, there is scarce- ly one, if we except the late work of Michaelis, which can be compared to the Commentary of the learned John Le Clerc, or Clericus.^ Altogether, it consists of five volumes, folio, the first of which was published in 1693. But, on the scriptures of the Old Testament, there has not been such frequent labour bestowed, at least not on them as a whole, as on those of the New, which from the earliest periods have occupied the industrious attention of many learned men. A very happy illustration of this industry is pre- sented in the paraphrases of Erasmus on the New Testament, which were pubhshed in parts from the year 1317, and in the edition of his works by Le Clerc, Leyden, 1703 — 1706, ten vols. foHo, are col- lected in the seventh volume. Soon after Erasmus, and, in part contemporaneous with him, James Faber published his commentaries on the four Gospels, on the epistles of St, Paul, and on the Catholic epistles, which appeared at Metz, Paris, and Basle, from 1522 to 1527, in fol. The remarks, by which Theodore Beza had illus- a App. Note XI. 202 COMMENTARIES. trated the text in several of his editions of the New Testament, were collected together by Erasmus Schmid, in his posthumous work, containing a ver- sion of the New Testament, with notes and observa- tions. Nuremb. 1658, fol. Very valuable, also, are the paraphrases on the whole of the New Testament, which Moses Arayrault published at Saumur, in eight volumes, from 1644 to 1651. The French translation of the New Testament, with remarks by John Le Clerc, appeared at Amster- dam, 1703, two vols. 4to. ; — another French transla- tion, with explanations by Beausobre and Lenfant, at Amsterdam, 1741, two vols. 4to. ; — and the celebrated New Testament, with moral reflections by Father Pas- quier Quesnel, which produced so much excitement in the Roman church, was published originally, in 1687, at Paris ; and afterwards, much enlarged, at Brussels, in 1702, in eight vols. 8vo. Of the English works of this kind, it will be suffi- cient to mention three. The New Testament, with annotations, by Henry Hammond, D.D. It was translated from English into Latin by Le Clerc, and pubUshed at Frankfort, in 1714, in two vols. fol. A paraphrase and commentary on the New Testa- ment, by Daniel Whitby, D.D. London, 1727, two vols, fol. A paraphrastic interpretation of the New Testa- ment, with critical notes, by Philip Doddridge, D.D. London, 1738 — 1747, three volumes in 4to. ^ It was » It is entitled, " The Family Expositor," &c. The seventh COMMENTARIES. 203 translated into German, and published, in four vo- lumes 4to., at Magdeburg, 1750. Of the commentaries on the New Testament which have been written by our own divines, a much more extensive list might be made, and it is consequently the more necessary to limit it to some of the more modern. A mass of learning is contained in John Christopher Wolf's Curas philologicae et criticae in Nov. Test, in four volumes, 4to., Hamb. 1738-41. » Almost as much learning, but less acuteness, may be found in Christopher Augustin Heumann's expo- sition of the New Testament, in twelve parts, Hanov. 1730-1763, 8vo. An excellent work, although less learned, is John Albert Bengel's Gnomon Novi Testamenti. Ed. tert. Tubingae, 1773, 4to. An abridged translation made its appearance under the title, Das Neue Testament mit eingeschalteten Erklaerungen als ein Auszug der Arbeiten des seligen Bengels — " The New Testa- ment, accompanied by explanatory remarks, an epi- tome of the works of the late Bengel," by David Christian Michaelis, Lips. 1769, 4to. Of the same kind as this last work is, Das Neue Testament mit einem genauen Inhalt, Sinn, Zusam- edition, with a life of the author, by Andrew Kippis, D.D. was published at London, 1792, in six volumes, 8vo. ; and, l^ely, an edition has appeared in one very large octavo volume, 1825. The critical notes are valuable for their learning and good sense ; the paraphrase rather enfeebles the text ; the practical improvement is excellent. — Tr, a It was also published in five volumes 4to. at Basle, 174 1. — Tr. 204 COMMENTARIES, menhang und Ammerkungen versehen, — " The New Testament, with an accurate view of the contents, sense, connexion, with notes," by John David Nico- lai, in two parts. Bremen, 1775. Of a diiferent character, and intended for the really learned interpreter, is the following work : — Novum Testamentum Graeciim perpetua adnotatione illustra- tum, a Joh. Benj. Koppe. Gottengae, tom. i. iv. 1778, 1783, 8vo. Upon the death of the author, this work was interrupted, and it has not yet been completed by the learned men, who since that event have pub- lished some volumes. The young interpreter, who is entering upon the subject, will find a very useful sub- stitute, in a work intended for him, by John George Rosenmiiller : Scholia in Nov. Test. tom. i. — iv. No- rimberg, 1777-83, 8vo.a * This is the same Rosenmiiller who Avrote the '' History of Interpretation," before mentioned in Note 8, and the student, who consults his work, should keep in view the prin- ciples of the author as there intimated. For a fuller account of Koppe's publication, see Home, vol. ii. App. pp. 278-9. Hein- richs, a very prominent commentator in that work, is to be read with caution, especially on the Hebrews. In 1827, Dr. S. T. Bloomfield published his Recensio Synoptica, or critical digest and synoptical arrangement of the most important an- notations on the New Testament, &c. London, eight vols. 8vo. Mr Home, vol. ii. App. pp. 283-4, gives a particular account of this most laborious work. The same learned author pub- lished last year a new edition of " the Greek Testament, with English notes, critical, philological, and exegetical, in two vols. 8vo." It is beautifully printed, at Cambridge. The text, which is " formed on the basis of the last edition of R. Ste- phens, adopted by Mill," without " deviation, except on the most preponderating evidence," (Preface, p. x.) occupies the COMMENTARIES. 205 Lastly, some of those hermeneutical works must not be passed over unnoticed, which illustrate and explain separate books of scripture. In fact, this class of compositions justifies the highest degree of expecta- tion ; for it is to be presumed, that the industry of an interpreter, who confined himself to one particular book, will have produced greater results, than the in- dustry of another, whose attention was divided among several. And, in truth, this is the case with many of these works. But, since the number of such inter- pretations is considerable, it becomes the more diffi- cult to make a selection, as only two or three of the most valuable or recent on each particular book shall be introduced. The interpretation of Genesis has, in our own times, been very greatly facilitated by means of a work en- titled, Conjectures sur les memoires originaux, dont il paroit, que Moyse s'est servi pour composer le livre de la Genese, — par Jean Astruc. Bruxelles, 1753, 8vo. ^ But all which, partly since and partly before upper part of the page, and the notes, in two columns, the lower. This is probably the most useful single publication that the student of the New Testament can procure. The indefa- tigable author has accumulated a mass of valuable information, of which his work contains more than any other similar one of its size. From the brevity of its plan, the young interpreter may occasionally find somewhat of obscurity. To avoid this in all cases, when so much matter is condensed, is perhaps im- possible ; it would certainly be unreasonable to expect it — Tt» ^ This refers to the theory, that Moses composed tiie book of Genesis from previously existing documents, some of which were probably written by the earlier patriarchs. For an ac- count of this theory, the reader is referred to Jahn's Intro- 206 COMMENTARIES. that time, has been done and attempted correctly to settle the interpretation of that book, is now brought together in J. G. Eichhorn's Urgeschichte — " Primi- tive History :" an edition of which has been publish- ed, with an introduction and remarks, by Dr. John Philip Gabler, in two parts, 1791-93, 8vo.^ On the other books of Moses, so far as relates to the history of the formation of the Israelitish common- wealth, and the code of laws which they contain, the work of Michaelis on the Mosaic law is undoubtedly the best commentary. ^ In the beginning of the last century, Nicolas Se- rarius published, at Mayence, a commentary on most of the other historical books of the Old Tes- tament, which, in the judgment even of Simon, duction. Part ii. § IC, with the notes. The Rev. George Bush, assistant Professor of Hebrew and Oriental literature in the New York university, has published, in three volumes, 12ntio., a work which may be read with much pi-ofit- It is entitled, Questions on Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus, with notes — Tr. ^ As this work contains some interpretations exceedingly forced, and explains allegorically most of the history in the first three chapters of Genesis, the reader who examines it would do well to read in connexion with it a Dissertation on the Fall of JMan, by the Rev. George Holden, M.A. London, 1823 Tr. ^ This work, written originally in German, was translated into English by Alexander Smith, D.D., and published at Lon- don, in 1814, in four volumes, 8vo. See Home, vol. ii. App. pp. 353-4., who suggests, that it should be " consulted with great caution," as it partakes of the character of many modem German publications. Michaelis is undoubtedly very prone to indulge in conjectural criticism — Tr. COMMENTARIES. 207 is equally distinguished for its learning and acute- ness. a We have an exposition of the Hagiographa in the work of John Henry Michaelis : Adnotationes ube- riores philologico-exegeticae in libros Hagiographos Vet. Test. torn. iii. Halse, 1645-1751, 4to.> In works of this class, the Psalms in particular are most frequently explained ; but the most recent work is that of Dr. George Christ. Knapp, who published a translation of them, with remarks, at Halle, 1778-82, 8vo : — Die Psalmen — uberstetzt und mit Anmer- kungen. On Job, the principal work is that of Albert Schul- tens, entitled, Liber Jobi, cum nova versione et per- petuo commentario. Lugd. Bat. tom. ii. 4to. 1737. A new edition of this work, somewhat abridged, was published by George Louis Vogel, at Halle, in two vols. 8vo. in 1773-4. The same author's book on the Proverbs must take precedence of all others : Proverbia Salomonis, cum ^ His commentary on the books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Kings, and Chronicles, first came out at Mayence, in part after his death, in the years 1609, 1610, 1617, fol. ^ These notes on the Hagiographa are exceedingly useful. They are not all by the author, to whom they are ascribed by Planck. Those on Ruth, Nehemiah, Esther, and Ecclesiastes, are by John James Rambach, edited by J. H. Michaelis; those on Chronicles, Ezra, Job, the Psalms, and the Song of Solomon, are by the last named writer; and those on Pro- verbs, Lamentations, and Daniel, by Christian Benedict Mi- chaelis. De Wette's Introduction to the Psalms, translated from his Commentary by J. Torrey, Professor of languages in the university of Vermont, may be found in the Biblical Re- pository, vol. iii. pp. 445, ss. — Ti\ 208 COMMENTARIES. commentario. Lugd. 1748, 4to. This work also was published by Vogel in 1769, accompanied by a valu- able auctarium, by William Abraham Teller. Less comprehensive is the translation of the Pro- verbs of Solomon, with explanatory^ remarks, by John Christopher Doederlein ; the second edition of which was printed at Altorf in 1782, 8vo. Der Prediger Salomo, mit einer Erklaerung nach dem Wortsverstand, von Moses Mendelsohn, aus dem Hebraeischen iibersetzt von Joh. Jac. Rabe, — " The book of Ecclesiastes, with an interpretation according to the literal sense, by Moses Mendelsohn ; translated from the Hebrew by John James Rabe. Anspach, 1771, 4to." This is, in various respects, a valuable work. On the Song of Solomon, which has suffered more by incorrect interpretation than any other book, we have all that is learned in John Mark's Commenta- rius in Canticum Salomonis. Amstel. 1703, 4to. The commencement of an improved method of treat- ing this poem was made in the small work of John Frederic Jacobi, in 8vo, printed in 1771, with the title : Das durch eine leichte und ungekiinstelte Erklaerung von seinen Vorwiirfen gerettete hohe Lied ; " the Song of Solomon delivered, by an easy and unaffected interpretation, from the imputations cast upon it." This improvement it reallj^ received in a publication of Dr. Hufnagel : Salomos hohes Lied gepriift, iibersetzt und erlaeutert ; " Solomon's Song examined — translated and explained." Erlangen, 1784, 8vo. With respect to the prophetical books of the Old COMMENTARIES. 209 Testament, we may consider the two following works in the light of general introductions. Nicolas Guertler : Systema theologiee propheticae. Ed. sec. Francof. 1724, 4to. Christian Augustin Crnsius : Hypomnemata ad Theologiam propheticara. Tom. ii. Lips. 1764, 1771, 8vo.^ The prophecies of Isaiah in particular, have lately occupied the attention of many scholars. In addition to the older production of Campegius Vitringa : Comment, in Esaiam — ed. no v. Basil. Tom. iii. 1732, a In addition to the works on this subject mentioned by Home, Vol. ii. App. pp. 214, ss., a treatise written by John Smith, Fellow of Quesn's College, Cambridge, is worthy of notice. It may be found in the 4th volume of Watson's Tracts, pp. 207, ss. — Among the latest and most valuable pub- lications on this subject, may be mentioned Christologie des Alten Testaments und Commentar iiber die JMessianischen Weissagungen der Propheten, Christology of the Old Testa- ment, and Commentary on the Prophecies relating to the Messiah, by Dr. E. W. Hengstenberg. The first part of this work, in two thin octavo volumes, containing a general intro- duction, prophecies in the Pentateuch, Psalms, and Isaiah, with discussions connected with the subject, was published at Berlin in 1829. It has been translated into English by Pro- fessor Keith, of the Episcopal Theological Seminary, Alexan- dria, and will very soon be published. The second part, con- taining a Commentary on Zechariah and Daniel's Seventy weeks, made its appearance in 1832. Between the publication of these two parts, the learned author issued an able defence of the authenticity of Daniel against the objections of Ber- tholdt and others, and of the integrity of Zechariah, in one volume, 8vo. Berlin 1831. These works are among the very best of the late German Theological productions — Tr. P 210 COMMENTARIES. fol.,^ we have a work of Doederlein : Esaias — ex recensione textus HebrEei cum notis, Altorf. Ed. sec. 1780, 8vo ; and a new English translation, with notes, by Robert Lowth, D. D. London, 1778, 4to. This was translated into German by John Benjamin Koppe, and published with additions and observations, at Leipzig in three vols. 8vo. 1779, 1780. ^ For a long time we possessed scarcely any thing on Jeremiah, except the Commentary of Henry Venema, Leowarden, 1765, two volumes 4to. But at present we have, in addition, the work of John David Michaelis, entitled : Observationes philologicae et criticae in Jeremiae Vaticinia et Threnos — edid. multisque animadversionibus auxit — Joh. Frid. Schleusner, Getting. 1793, 4to.*= a It has several times been pu1)lished, in two vols, folio. — -Tr. [The publication of a German translation of this work, compressed, was commenced by Anthony Frederick BUsching in 1749-51, at Halle, in two vols. 4to.] b For a notice of this work, and the discussions it gave rise to respecting the genuineness of some of Isaiah's prophecies, see Jahn's Introduction, Part ii. (§ 104, note a) pp. 350, s. The latest work on Isaiah is the Commentary of Gesenius, in three vols. 8vo., very learned, but, as might be supposed from the author's known principles, neological — Tr. c [The more recent work of the lately deceased Gottlob Leber Spohn, professor of theology at Wittemberg : Jeremias Vates e versione Judseorum Alexandrinorum ac reliquorum in- terpret. Grajc emendatus — Lips. 1794. 8vo. does not belong to the class of interpretations.] Vol. ii. of Spohn's work was published by his son in 1823. — A notice of Blarney's Jeremiah may be seen in Home, V. ii. App. p. 2G8 Tr. COMMENTARIES. 211 The prophecies of Ezekiel, and particularly of his latter temple, received at the very beginning of the last century, very learned interpretations in the fol- lowing work : Hieron. Pradi et Joh. Bapt. Villalpan- di in Ezekielem explanationes et adparatus urbis ac templi Hierosolymitani — illustratus. Romas, Tom. iii. 1569 — 1604, fol. ; but a work of more utility is that of John Frederick Stark : Comment, in prophetam Ezekielem. Francof. 1731, 4to. Ancient and modern attempts to remove the diffi- culties in the collection of Daniel's prophecies are to be found in Martin Geier's Prselectiones academicae in Danielem. Lips. 1762, 4to. Herman Venema — Dissert, ad vaticin. Danielis : Cap. ii. vii. viii. Leovard, 1745, 4to, and Exposition of the book of Daniel — by John Chris- topher Harenburg, in two parts. Blankenburg, 1770-72, 4to.a Lastly, on the twelve minor prophets, we have, besides a large number of interpretations on separate books,'' the work of John Marck : Commentarius in a In addition to the work of Hengsteuberg mentioned in note, p. 209, the following publication is particularly worthy of notice. Commentar iiber das Buch Daniel, Commentary on the book of Daniel, by H. A. C. Havernick. Hamburg, 1832. This is a learned, orthodox and able Commentary. The au- thor is a friend of Hengstenberg, and has recently been set- tled as a Professor in the new Theological School at Geneva, Switzerland. He is said to be " a devoted Christian, and deeply skilled in the Oriental languages." — Tr. b Among these the most distinguished is the Commentary of Edward Pococke on Hosea and Joel. Oxford 1G85-U1, fol- For a notice of Horseley's Hosea, Pococke on Hosea, Joel, 212 COMMENTARIES. xii prophetas minores — in Pfaff's edition. Tubing, 1734, fol. Translations of the prophets, with the exception ot Jonah, by Christian Godfrey Struensee, in three vols. Halberstadt, 1769-73, 8vo. Prophetae Minores ex recensione Textus Hebraei cum notis Joh. Aug. Dathe. Halte, ed. ii. 1779, 8vo. Among the expository writings on particular books of the New Testament, none are more important and necessary than those which, under the name of Har- monies of the Evangelists, comprehend the four Gos- pels, illustrate one by means of the others, and endea- vour, by comparing their accounts, to determine throughout the true chronological order of these works and of the history of Christ. But as this, un- liappily, has been done in almost all cases, in various methods, it becomes necessary to attempt to compare some of them together.^ Among the older works of this kind the best, un- doubtedly, is that of Martin Chemnitz : Harmonia Micah, and Malachi, Blayney's Zechariah, Newcome's Eze- kiel and minor Prophets, with other English works, see Home, pp. 271, ss — Tr. a In Home, Vol. ii. App. p. 121, ss. a full account may be seen of Harmonies of the Old and New Testaments, of the four Gospels, of parts of the Gospels, and of the Acts of the Apostles, with the Apostolic Epistles. Newcome's Harmony of the Gospels, which is probably more used than any other, was published at Andover, in 1814, in one vol. 8vo. It is '' reprinted from the text and select various readings of Gries- bach."— Tr. COMMENTARIES. 213 quatuor Evangelistarum — quam Polycarpus Lyserus continuavit — Johannes Gerhardus perfecit. Ed. nov. Hamburg. Tom. iii. 1704, fol. To the end of the last century belong the follow- ing: Bernhard Lamy : Commentarius in Harmoniam et concordiam quatuor evangeliorum. Tom. i. Paris. 1699, 4to ; and Harmonia evangelica, cui subjecta est historia Christi ex quatuor evangeliis concinnata — auct. Jo. Clerico. Amstelod. 1698, fol. Later works of this kind are these : John Reinhard Rues : Harmonia Evangelistarum. Tom. iii. Jense, 1727-30. 8vo. John Albert Bengel's richtige Harmonie der Evan- gelisten, " accurate harmony of the Gospels." Third sdition, Tiibingen, 1766, Svo. Harmony of the Gospels, by Eberard David Hau- ber, together with the same author's life of Jesus Christ, drawn from the four Gospels, and remarks on the harmony. Lerago, 17^37, 4to. New Harmony of the Gospels, by Ernest Augustus 3ertling. Halle, 1767, 4to. Some illustrations of the Gospel of St. Matthew, in particular, are contained in the Commentary of Solomon Van Till, which appeared in 1708 at Frank- fort, translated from the Dutch, and at the time of its publication was greatly valued. Also the Dubia evangelica discussa et vindicata of Frederic Span- heim, published at Geneva, 1704, in three vols. 4to. relates principally to this Gospel. In addition to these, we have: James Eisner's 214 COMMENTARIES. Commentarius critico-philologicus in evangelium Matthaei — cum iiotulis Ferdin. Stosch, Zvvolliae, Tom. ii. 1769, 4to. But the third volume, which appeared at Utrecht in 1773, contains a Commen- tary on the Gospel of St. Mark. On the great question relating to this evangelist, whether he was an epitomist of St. Matthew or not, we have two treatises ; one by Koppe, of the year 1780, which maintains the negative, and another by Griesbach, counsellor of the consistory, published in 1789, asserting and proving the affirmative. On St. Luke ; — Observationes philologicae et theo- logicse in Lucse cap. ix. priora, auct. Carolo Segaar, Trajecti, 1766, 8vo. On St. John ; — the old valuable work of Frederic Adol. Lampe : Commentarius analytico-exegeticus — Evangelii secundum Johannem. Tom. iii. Amstelod, 1724 — 26. 4to. A later and still more valuable pub- lication is that of Storr, CJeber den Zweck des Evan- geliums und der Briefe Johannis, " on the design of the Gospel and Epistles of St. John.' Tiibingen, 1786, 8vo.a On the Acts ; — John Louis Lindhammer's Aus- a A notice of other works on St. John's Gospel may be found in Home, V. ii. App. pp. 289 — 91. In addition to those mentioned by him, amon^ the most valuable of which is that of Tittmann, it may be proper to mention here two Ger- man works of great merit. The one is a Commentary in one vol. 8vo., by Dr. Augustus Tholuck, and the other in two vols. 8vo. by Dr. Frederic LUcke, Bonn, 1820, to which are prefixed general discussions respecting the Gospel of St. John. COMMENTARIES. 215 fiihrliche Erklaening und Anwendung der Apostel- geschichte, " Copious explanation of the Acts of the Apostles, with application." Halle, 1725, fol. Also : Dissertatio in Acta Apostolorum, by John Ernest Immanuel Walch. Jenae, 1756-59-61. Tom. iii. 4to. Of the epistles of St. Paul there are so many in- terpretations, that it is impossible to take notice of any but the more modern. Among these belong the paraphrases of three dis- tinguished English scholars, which in a manner con- stitute one whole, namely ; A paraphrase of Paul's Epistles to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and Corinthians, by John Locke, London, 1709, 4to. This was translated into German by John George Hoffman, and published at Francfort, 1769, two vols. The author, although occasionally somewhat mystical in his views of religion, enters very much into the spirit of the Evangelist, and the second volume particularly may be read with great profit. This is true also of his Commentary on the Epistles of St. John, which is contained in his 3d volume, printed in 1825. The work is continued in a Commentary on the Apocalypse, which I have not yet been able to procure. He denies this to have been the production of St. John. The Commentary of Kuinoel on the Gospels and Acts in 4 vols. 8vo., is well known. The author has introduced into his work many German theories, some of which he refutes, while he adopts no small proportion. It is very useful as a philological commentary, although inferior in this respect to a later work on the Gospels, by C. F. A. Fritzsche. Both of these writers are of the neological school. Their commen- taries are in Latin. — Tr. 216 COMMENTARIES. 4to. A paraphrase of the Epistles of Paul to the Colossians, Philippians, and Hebrews, by James Pierce, London, 1724, 1733, 4to. Also, a para- phrase of the Epistles to the Thessalonians, Phile- mon, Timothy, and Titus, by George Benson, Lon- don, 1734, 4to. This also was translated into Ger- man, together Avith his paraphrase on the Catholic epistles. Leipsig, 1761, four vols. 4to. From the scholars of our own country, we have the following works : Exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul to the Gala- tians, Ephesians, PhiHppians, Colossians, Thessalo- nians, and Philemon, by Sigismund James Baumgar- ten ; to which some contributions were made by Semler. Halle, 1767, 4to. Paraphrase and notes on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, by John David Michaelis. Gottingen, 1750, 4to. A Paraphrastic interpretation of the Epistle to the Romans, by Gotth. Traug. Zacharise, Giittingen, 1769, 8vo. Also, on the two Epistles to the Cor- inthians, 1769, and on those to the Galatians, Ephe- sians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, 1770, 8vo., both works published at Gottingen by the same author. Of the Epistles of St. Paul taken separately, those addressed to the Romans and Hebrews have occu- pied the attention of the greatest number of inter- preters. On the former, there are among the later works — A Paraphrase, with notes on the Epistle to the COM3IENTABIES. 217 Romans, by John Taylor, London, 1745, 4to. A German translation was published at Berlin in 1759, 4to. Benedict Carpzov: Stricturae in epistolam Pauli ad Romanos. Helmstad. ed. sec. 1758. Christian Frederic Schmid : Annotationes in Epist. Pauli ad Romanos.^ Lips. 1777, 8vo. On the Hebrews ; — John Andr. Cramer's Erklae- rung des Briefes an die Hebraer, " Explanation of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in two parts," Copen- hagen, 1758, 4to ; also Baumgarten's, with Masch's notes, and additions by Semler, Halle, 1763, 4to. ; and that of Michaelis, in two parts, Frankfort, 1762, 1764, 4to. A new translation of the Epistle to the Hebrews, by Morus. Leipz. ed. sec. 1781, 4to. The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, illustrated by Dr. Storr. Tubingen, 1789. 8vo, A complete introduction to the Epistle to the He- brews, by Werner Charles Ziegler. Gottingen, 1790, 8vo. Epistola Pauli ad Hebraeos Greece, perpetua anno- tatione illustrata a J. H. Heinrichs. Gottingse, 1792, Svo.'' a Tholuck's Commentary on the Romans has lately been translated into the English by the Rev. R. Menzies, and forms Vol. v. of the Biblical Cabinet. b This work of Heinrichs constitntes the 8th volume of the Koppian Commentary, and has been already mentioned in a previous note. Among the latest and most useful works on the Hebrews, it is proper to mention the commentary of Maclean, London, 1819, 2 vols. 8vo., and that of Professor 218 COMMENTARIES. On the Epistles which are called Catholic, there is, besides the paraphrase of Benson, a brief exposi- tion by Zachari^, Gotting. 1776, 8vo., and also a work by David Julius Pott : Epistol. Catholicae Graece, perpetua annotatione illustratse. Vol. i. ii. Getting^ 1786, 90, 8vo. Lastly ; among the great variety of works which have been published on the Revelation of St. John, the following only can be here mentioned : The Revelation of John, or rather of Jesus Christ, interpreted, by John Albert Bengel. Second edi- tion, Stuttgard, 1746, 8vo. John Christopher Harenberg: Erklaerung der Stuart, in 2 vols. 8ro., a second edition of which, in one large volume, has recently made its appearance The same au- thor's Commentary on the Romans, in one vol. 8vo. is also a valuable accession to our stores of biblical literature. The work of Borger on the Epistle to the Galatians is a learned and judicious commentary. Storr's interpretation of the Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon, with historical notices respecting those to the Corinthians, and an interpretation of St. James, may be found in his Opuscula Acaderaica, in 3 vols. 8vo. A short essay, by the same au- thor, on the connection between St. Paul's Epistles to the He- brews and Galatians may be found in the Commentationes Theologicse, edited by Velthusen, Kuinoel, and Euperti, vol. ii. pp. 394 — 420. Storr's works are too highly appreciated to require any recommendation. On the first Epistle of St. Peter, Professor Steiger of Geneva, has lately published a volume, which is said to be a work of great excellence ; and on the Epistle of St. Jude, Laurmann's Nota? Criticae et Com- mentarius, Groningae, 1818, 8vo. is well worthy of attention. The Latin version of the epistles, by G. S. Jaspis, illustrated with brief notes, is also an useful book. — Tr. OBJECT TO BE PROPOSED. 219 OfFenbarung Johannis, " Interpretation of the Re- velation of John." Brunswick, 1759, 4to. Maranatha — or the book of the coming of the Lord. By J. G. Herder. Riga, 1779, 8vo. And, the latest work which has appeared on this book of scripture, J. G. Eichhorn : Commentarius in Apocalypsin. Tom. ii. Gottingse, 1791, 8vo.* CHAPTER Vll.b After this brief list of the principal literary works relating to the interpretation of scripture, nothing further is necessary, with respect to this last branch of knowledge belonging to the studj^ of interpretation, than to subjoin some observations on the method by which we may, \\ith the most facility and success, not only comprehend those principles, but also apply them with some degree of readiness. These observations a The reader may see a brief abstract of Eichhorn's scheme in Home, V. ii. App. pp. 308-9 ; also notices of other works on the Apocalypse, pp. 307-13 ; Those of Lowman and Wood- house are generally considered as among the most satis- factory — Tr. b Although a large proportion of the contents of this chapter is particularly appropriate to theological students who pursue a course of divinity in German universities ; yet the general sentiments which it expresses, and the exposure of in- correct views and meagre preparation which it makes> are equally applicable in our own age and country. The reader will very easily accommodate the author's remarks to the state of theological study among ourselves, so as to advance his own improvement. — Tr. 220 OBJECT TO BE PROPOSED. may ba reduced to a small compass. For, on the one hand, in this subject all depends simply on the cor- rect determination of the object proposed by any one in the study of hermeneutics, from which the obser- vations then flow of themselves ; and, on the other, after what has already been stated, it can hardly be further necessary, to recommend it on any peculiar grounds. Now, with respect to that object, it may certainly be presumed, that the principal aim of every one who applies himself to the study of hermeneutics must be this : to place himself, by means of this knowledge, in such a situation, as will enable him, by the aid of correct principles, to explain the Bible for himself, and with his own eyes to discover its contents ; and further, to apply his knowledge as a test of the inter- pretations of others, thereby forming a judgment re- specting the results to which they have arrived. We may safely suppose, that every man, who is clearly conscious of any design on this subject, will have this two-fold view ; at least, it is easy to show, that one of these objects cannot be possessed without the other, and that either this design, or none that is rea- sonable, must be contemplated. But here it cannot possibly be concealed, that, ac- cording to the usual way of pursuing an exegetical course at most of our universities, this does not seem to be the principal aim of the greater proportion of students. The usual way is, to attend (whenever it is practicable to do so,) one or more courses of exe- getical lectures on all the books of the Bible, to hear these interpreted by an instructor, and merely to en- OBJECT TO BE PROPOSED. 221 deavour to note down his interpretations as fully as possible, and then — to lay them up for future use.^ If we may judge according to this view of the case, the design of the great proportion would seem to be this : to collect together, during their theological course at the university, from the oral instruction of one or more teachers, a complete commentary, if pos- sible, on the whole Bible : for nothing beyond this design can be attained by such a method. But, that this cannot be the design which a man ought to have, is in the strongest manner brought home to the feel- ings, because it does not in any degree at all corres- pond with the trouble which his acquisitions must have cost him. a The practice mentioned by the author, is not even yet fallen into disuse. Dwight, in his travels in Germany, p. 194, relates " an anecdote illustrative of the eagerness of students to write down every thing that the professor utters. A young man from Hesse Cassel, who had passed three years at the University of Heidelberg, having finished his education, started for home with nearly twenty volumes of notes which he had taken at the lectures. On the way, his trunk, con- taining his note book, was cut off from the carriage. In con- sequence of this robbery, he returned to Heidelberg, and studied three years longer, to provide himself with a trunk full of learning." This anecdote, as the traveller remarks, exhibits the pi-actice in a ludicrous light. But as the notes taken '' contain not only abstracts of the lectures, but a list of all the authorities referred to, wiih the chapters and sec- tions," it is plain that they may be very useful to the stu- dents in future life, especially to those who cannot con- veniently procure many books. Other advantages arising from the practice of taking notes, will readily suggest them- selves — Tr. 222 OBJECT TO BE PROPOSED. If, indeed, this is the ultimate object vhich a man aims at, if nothing more is wished than to have a commentary, which may afterwards be consulted, to which he may resort when pressed with a difficult text, and which may supply materials sufficient in general for interpretation within the family circle, and in the pulpit ; this may be attained with much greater ease, and undoubtedly at a much cheaper rate. We have already printed commentaries in abundance. We have them of all kinds, in all forms and sizes, of desirable brevity, and of desirable length, in Latin and in German. It is only necessary for a man to accommodate himself with one or two of these, and he has all that he wants ; he can spare himself the trouble of making notes on four or five courses of exegetical lectures, which, in this case, would be a labour altogether superfluous. Undoubtedly, there might often be a very great difference between the commentary which a man may procure, and the exegetical course of lectures which he may hear ; yet there are late works of this kind, highly valued, and indeed with great reason, which in part have given the tone to the whole interpreta- tion of our age, and those every professor himself, in preparing his lectures, must use. This then is a con- sideration which removes almost all the difference which could arise ; or, at least, renders it unimpor- tant. For one, who contents himself with merely hear- ing an exposition of what the Bible contains, it is not of very great importance, at least in a principal re- spect, what the interpretation is. Whether he rely OBJECT TO BE PROPOSED. 223 upon an old commentator, or a modern interpreter, in all eases he can only see with the eyes of another ; in all cases, he is only led by the guidance of another. And, so long as he cannot himself determine whether the way in which he is conducted is the right one, his confidence is nothing but a blind faith, which must induce him to follow indifferently the good or the bad guide, to receive as true the most erroneous in- terpretations, as well as the most correct. For this purpose, it is plain that no particular study is requi- site. If a man is wiUing to content himself with this, he may spare himself the labour of interpretation al- together. Hence, then, it is most clearly evident, that a very different design from this must be pro- posed, and this can be none other than the one al- ready stated. In pursuing the study of hermeneu- tics, the onlj^ design which can, with any appearance of reason, be aimed at, is, to learn how to interpret for one^s self, and to form a judgment, on sure funda- mental principles, respecting the conclusions, which the interpretation of others has deduced from the Bible. In reference to this design, and only to this, must the method also be determined, by which we should be guided in the subject under consideration. If this point be admitted, the necessity of the fol- lowing conditions, and the propriety of the directions resulting from them, for the study of interpretation, will strike every one of themselves. The first condition is this : no one should venture to begin interpreting for himself, or even to suppose that he has acquired the ability necessary for such a task, before he has collected sufficient philological 224 METHOD OF ATTAINING IT. knowledge of the languages of our sacred writers, from the sources before adduced, and in the method already laid down. It has been shown in this work, that philological acquaintance with language is the first and most necessary aid and instrument in inter- preting ; and, as it is a self evident truth, that no man can explain a book while he is unacquainted with the language in which it was written, this at any rate need not be further developed, although it may be the more necessary to take some notice here of the very absurd method which is too often pursued in studies of this nature. The usual manner in our universities is, to begin with hearing exegetical lectures, before the student has acquired grammatical knowledge enough to ena- ble him to understand even the words of the original text ; and, in fact, not a few, who are earnest in pur- suing a thorough course of study, begin in this way for the very purpose of learning biblical philology, and of becoming acquainted with the language of scrip- ture. A part of this object they may also, in some degree, secure in this way. In interpreting before a class, every professor must of course point out the signifi- cations of the words, the characteristics of his author's language, the peculiarities of his style and grammar. All of this a student may apprehend, observe, and at all events note down, and thus he may collect a con- siderable number of fragments of biblical philology of no little use. But, in most cases of this kind, what can a man do with such fragments ? Not to urge that they are nothing but fragments, — that for the most METHOD OF ATTAINING IT. 225 part they suppose an acquaintance with the first and most necessary grammatical principles of the lan- guage to have been already made, — that no teacher, in an exegetical collegiate course, can enter into these, — that what he draws from higher philology can be of no use to those who are not conversant in the ele- ments of grammar ; — to set aside all this, who can expect immediately to seize upon these scattered philological notices, as they must be given in the lecture of an instructor, in reference to their sources, their reasons, and objects, so as to be able to apply them himself with safety ? If a man cannot do this, or does not desire to do it, he does, in fact, what is equivalent to a formal renunciation of any purpose of interpreting for himself. It is therefore absolutely necessary, to bring to the study of hermeneutics a knowledge of the first princi- ples, at least, of the grammar of the sacred languages. For this study can teach us nothing more than how to ascertain the sense of scripture by the assistance of that knowledge of its languages. It can only show us, how we must apply philology to interpretation, in order to be certain whether the interpretation is cor- rect. It is, therefore, in the very nature of things, indispensably necessary to have previously acquired that knowledge. Secondly, — The next thing, then, to be done un- doubtedly is, or should be, to become acquainted with the principles of hermeneutics, with those general rules which sound understanding prescribes, and those means of assistance and invention which logic must supply. In fact, the knowledge of these is now in- 226 METHOD OF ATTAINING IT. dispensable ; but this knowledge may he procured in more ways than one, and it is by no means a matter of indifference which of them shall be selected. These principles and rules can be readily enough found in the best directions for hermeneutics which are most accessible. Neither are these principles so numerous as to require any great trouble to extract them from these directions, or any great effort to re- tain them in memory ; much less are they so abstract, as to demand particular acuteness or deep thought, in order to penetrate into the grounds of them, and thus become convinced of their truth. If we proceed on this direct course, we certainly can arrive quickly and easily enough at an acquaintance with them ; but still considerable advantages appear to be possessed by another, which, although it does not so promptly lead to the same result, accomplishes the object with equal certainty. We may ourselves draw these rules and principles of hermeneutics even from examples wherein they are appHed, and thereby secure the advantage of making ourselves acquainted at the same time with the prin- ciples themselves, and \^'ith the manner, with the be- nefits, with the talent of applying them ; and thus we shall the sooner acquire a readiness in this matter. Yet it is probable that both of these methods may be connected without inconvenience, and this would un- doubtedly be the most useful course. At all events, there would certainly be no loss of time, if a student, preparatory to his first exegetical course, should ap- ply himself for some days to the Interpres of Ernesti, in order to obtain from it the rules which should guide METHOD OF ATTAINING IT. 2*27 him in interpreting. A few days only would be quite sufficient for this purpose. Let him then be shown by an instructor — not how these rules can be applied — but their actual application in interpreting, and by the interpretation of the scriptures let them as it were be brought before him : in other words, let him attend to a course of instruction according to these rules, and thus learn the art of applying them from the proce- dure of his interpreter. That he ought not in this stage to venture himself to make the appHcation, and immediately to exercise himself in interpreting, is too plain to need proof: for in the first effort it wdll certainly be found that this re« quires some experience, which can only be gradually obtained by attentive observation of the endeavours of others. But this observation is undoubtedly made with the most effect, by attending a course of interpre- tation, and hstening to the oral instruction of a teach- er. It may indeed be drawn also from any commen- tary on the Bible, or on some separate book. We need only ask ourselves, in regard to any interpreted passage, why the commentator has explained it in this way and not in another, and we shall not only in general easily ascertain the rule by which he was go- verned, but also be in a situation to perceive the par- ticular manner in which he applied it. But in the oral lecture of an instructor, we see as it were this very ap- plicatiota ; we can observe the proper rise of the inter- pretation, the gradual growth and formation of the true sense of a passage interpreted according to those rules; we perceive, with clearer apprehension, how the whole business can be conducted, how much fore- 228 METHOD OF ATTAINING IT. sight m£ij be directed to it, where it may be abbreviat- ed or lightened; v,e learn also, along with these, many practical advantages, and in this way we certainly shall approach nearer to the object in view in a short space of time, than we could possibly do in a longer period, spent in pursuing a course of study entirely private. The benefit of exegetical lectures is, in this view of the subject, strictly and unequivocally determined : but, even in this view, is it also very evident how, and for what purpose, they can and ought especially to be used. In such collegiate courses, it should not be the principal point, merely to learn what the instructor explains from the Bible, but to notice how he explains it. In other words, we should not regard it as the great object of attention, simply to hear another in- terpret what the Bible contains, but rather this : to ASCERTAIN HOW WE MAY BE ABLE OURSELVES TO DISCOVER ITS CONTENTS. Wc inust therefore pay more attention to the teacher's method of interpreta- tion than to his interpretation itself, more to the man- ner than to the results of his exegesis, more to the reasons from which he shows the true sense of a pas- sage of scripture, than to that sense itself which he shows as the true one. The ground of this may be seen in that design which a man should have in the study of hermeneu- tics, and which alone can properly be called reason- able. But, in order to attain this object, it is not necessary to attend lectures on the whole Bible and all its separate books ; it can \eTy well be attained by METHOD OF ATTAINING IT. 229 hearing a course of instruction on some. It may in- deed, notwithstanding this, be requisite to attend par- ticular expositions of some books of the Old Testa- ment and of some of the New ; and in peculiar cir- cumstances, and with certain objects in view, it may also be very useful, if opportunity offer, to hear more than one interpreter on the same book. The tyro in hermeneutics during this period, or in this term of his course, can derive little or no advantage from what are called Cursoria, or brief outlines. Undoubtedly they ma}" be useful in a variety of respects, and the more cer- tainly if the whole Bible is gone through with them ; but their utility is confined to those who are prepared for them by other means, and who have approached the close of the third term, which they have to pass through. After the student has acquired, in the proposed way, some clear ideas respecting the practical appli- cation of the principles of hermeneutics, then, in the third and last place, it is time for him to begin to ex- ercise himself in interpreting ; for which no particular directions are now necessary. In order the sooner to acquire a readiness and a confidence in this matter, it is perhaps of chief importance, to undertake it at first rather slowly, to adopt nothing without benig able to give one's self an accurate account of the reasons which have led to its adoption, and not to advance a step without a clear consciousness of the causes which make it necessary. In order to acquire this habit the more readily, it would be very proper, to select de- signedly, for the first efforts in interpretation, some passages of scripture, the exposition of which involves •230 METHOD OF ATTAINING IT. several difficulties. If we exereise ourselves at first with very easy passages, we may very soon be led in- to the error of supposing the business of hermeneutics much lighter than it is, or to congratulate ourselves on having acquired a greater ability in conducting it than is really the fact. On the other hand, we can in no event lose any thing, if we originally venture on difficult places : for if in the attempt we find them too difficult for our abilities, we thereby experience, with the utmost certainty, what deficiencies in our know- ledge still remain to be supplied ; and if we succeed in the effort, we may be certain of a favom-able result in reference to all easy places. The correctness of these attempts of our own will be best put to the proof, by comparing the interpretations thus deduced, with others which can easily be found in the abundance of commentaries extant. That, by pursuing this method, a man does and must learn to become his own interpreter, is not only a matter of experience, but is also to be presumed. Still, however — and this consideration aifords the most suitable conclusion to the whole subject — it is certain- ly most clearly evident, that no one can ever learn to interpret for himself, unless he has acquired the neces- sary knowledge of all the literature already intro- duced as belonging to exegetical theology.^ a SeeApp. Note XII. APPENDIX. TRANSLATOR'S NOTES. The notes appended to this work are added by the Translator, in order to give the student who is unacquainted with criti- cism and interpretation a general view of the most promi- nent points connected with the subjects to which the author refers. If he wishes to acquire a more minute knowledge of the several topics brought before him, the sources of in- formation are abundant ; and the most important and use- ful are pointed out in the course of the work. More par- ticular references will occasionally be made in the notes. [In reprinting this work, it has been thought advisable to tran- spose the shorter notes fi-om the Appendix, where they were originally placed by the Translator, to the pages of the text to which they respectively belong, as being more convenient for reference.] NOTE I. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say, — " with which the Hebrew was anciently in part identified " The proba- bility appears to be, that the Hebrew is only one dialect of a language, which was originally employed as the medium of communication in Syria, Phoenicia, Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Arabia and Ethiopia. From the different appellations given 232 APPENDIX. by the Patriarch Jacob and his father-in-law to a heap of stones erected as a pledge of mutual amity,a it is evident, that in some respects at least, the language of the Syrians differed at that early period from that of the Hebrews. And yet, from the whole patriarchal history, it would seem not less evident, that the difference could not have been very consider- able or extensive ; and an examination of the monuments which remain of both, establishes the conclusion, that they were radically the same. Abraham, his son, grand-sons, con- nexions and dependents, are constantly represented as migra- tory. But no diiBculty seems to have existed in communicat- ing with the different tribes or nations among whom they travelled ; and from this it would appear to be a reasonable inference, that one dialect, sufficiently common for the pur- poses of general intercourse, must have been then in use. If it should be said, that like the merchants of ancient times and of the middle ages, the patriarchs could have acquired suffi- cient knowledge of the various tongues of the people among whom they travelled ; this must be allowed. But such a sup- position will not meet all the difficulties of the case, as an ac- quisition of various languages in this way is hardly to be as- sumed of all the members of their large families, or ratlier of extensive bodies of men, as they are more properly to be re- garded. If Abraham's own family supplied him with 318 na- tive servants able to bear arms, ^ it is plain that his domestic establishment must have amounted, at least, to 1500 souls. Unless the several dialects approximated sufficiently near each other to constitute some general medium of communication, it will be difficult to account for the apparent facility with which Rachel converses with Jacob. And that this is the true so^ lution of the phenomena is strengthened by subsequent facts. When Moses leaves Egypt and connects himself with the Midianitesin Arabia, he is able to converse with the daughter of the priest in the language, which in his youth he had learn- ed in the family of his Hebrew parents. When his Midianite father-in-law visits him in the desert, they have no difficulty in holding intercourse with each other. It is worthy of notice a Gen. xxxi. 47, b See Gen, xiv. 11. APPENDIX. 233 also, that some centuries afterwards, as late as the time of the Judges, the language spoken by the Midianites, who are none other than Arabians, was understood by the Hebrews without an interpreter. This is plain from the fact, that Gideon, who had entered at night the camp of the enemy, understood the narration of a dream which he heard one Midianite communi- eating to his companion.^ The supposition that Gideon's knowledge was peculiar to himself, does not seem to be pro- bable. NOTE II. To assist us in forming a correct idea of the criticism of the New Testament, some general knowledge of the most import- ant manuscripts is necessary, which it is the design of this note to communicate. It must of course be very general, as a particular and altogether satisfactory account cannot be ob- tained, except by consulting various authors and examining fac-similes. See Simon's Histoire Critique du texte du Nou- veau Testament, Chap, xxix — xxxiii. pp. 336, ss., also his Dis- sertation Critique sur les principaux Actes Manuscrits, append- ed to his Histoire Critique des principaux Commentateurs du N. T. ; ^Vlichaelis' Introduction to the New Testament, tran- slated from the German and considerably augmented with Notes, &c. by the Eight Rev. Herbert Marsh, D. D. F. R. S. Vol. II- Part I. pp. 159, ss. Edit. iii. ; Home's Introduction, Vol. II. pp. 97, ss. Edit. vii. Lond. and Montfaucon's Palaeo- graphia Grseca. The two last works contain specimens from which the reader may acquire a sufficient acquaintance with the different characters in which manuscripts were written. See also Biblical Cabinet, Vol. iv. Ernesti's Institutes, transla- ted by the Rev. C. H. Terrot. There are many manuscripts which contain readings that may be called characteristic. These are either derived from the same source, or are copies one of another : and the affinity a See Judges vii. 13—15. 234 APPENDIX. wliich ihey bear to each other has induced critics to form them into classes, each class corresponding in a great degree with what is meant by an edition, as the term is appled to printed books. This classification or relationship is called by Semler a recensio, and the same word is used by Griesbach. ^ Bengel^ employs the term familia or natio ; Michaelis (in Marsh's Translation,) uses edition, Laurence ^ text ; and Nolan e class. In the greatest number of manuscripts the Gospels only are contained : a considerable number comprehend the Gospels, the Epistles and Acts ; a few the Apocalypse. The whole of the New Testament is seldom to be found in one manuscript. As several have chasms, it is not to be concluded that a manu- script accords with the commonly received text, because it is not referred to in a critical edition as differing from it ; for the passage or even the book in which it occurs may be wanting. It must be observed, that there are certain manuscripts which are called in Greek a.va.yvu(TiJt.itra from a.vxyivuax,ca, to read, and in Latin lectionaria. The portions which they contain are those which were appointed to be read in the public service of the church, and hence they derive their name. The text of the lectionaria was occasionally altered to accommodate to the approved readings of a particular period ; and introductory clauses were often added to prepare the hearer or reader for the history or discourse that was to follow. Such introductory clauses are sometimes retained in our Book of Common Prayer. See, for example, the Gospels for the sixth and ninth Sundays after Trinity, for St. Philip and St. James' day, and that for All Saints' day — From these and other circumstances the evi- a Apparatus ad liberalem Novi Testamentiinterpretationem, Halae, 1767, 8vo. b SymboljB Critics ad supplendas et corrigendas variarum Novi Testa- menti lectionum coUectioncs. Haile, 1785, 8vo. Vol II. Also in the Pro- legomena to his New Testament. c Apparatus Criticus ad Novum Testamentum, Tubings, 1763, 4to d Remarks upon the systematical classification of Manuscripts adopted by Griesbach in his edition of the Greek Testament. Cxford, 1814, 8vo pam- phlet. e An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or received text of the New Testament. London. 1815. APPENDIX. 225 deuce which these manuscripts afford in determining the cor- rectness of readings in general, is less to be relied on than that of others. In some manuscripts the Greek text is accompanied by a Latin translation, with which, in the opinion of certain critics, it has been made to correspond. Hence the text of such manu- scripts has been said to latinize ; but this charge is thought by some of the best critics to be unfounded. When a Latin ver- sion accompanies the text, the copy is called a Greek-Latin manuscript. The manuscripts which are of principal importance in re- lation to controverted readings are the following. They are all, with the exception of the three last, written in uncial characters, that is, in large or capital letters. The first, which is designated in critical editions by an A, was presented to Charles L by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, and is now in the British Museum. It is called the Alexandrine Manuscript, (Codex Alexandrinus,) because Cyril is said to have brought it from Alexandria, of which place he had been patriarch. It contains the whole Bible. The Old Testament, which is the Septuagint version, is in three folios. The New is in one, and commences with Matt. XXV. 6, the preceding part being wanting. On the antiquity of this manuscript, critics have been greatly divided in opinion. Some have ascribed it to the latter half of the fourth century, some to the fifth, others to the sixth, and others again will not allow it to le more ancient than the eighth. A fac-simile of it, containing the New Testament was published by Dr. Woide at London, in 1786, in one splen- did folio. The next important manuscript is called the Vatican, (Codex Vaticanus,) and is usually referred to in critical edi- tions by a B. Its name is derived from the Vatican Lib- rary at Rome, where it is preserved. It contains the whole Greek Bible. In the New Testament the order of the books is as follows : the Gospels, the Acts, the seven Catholic Epis- tles, St. Paul's Epistles, with the exception of those to Timo- 236 APPENDIX. thy, Titus and Philemon, and the latter part of that to the Hebrews from ix. 14, a^iiytov ru 6iu. The remainder of the manuscript is lost, and consequently it wants the Apocalypse of St. John ; although this and the latter part of Hebrews have heen added by a modern transcriber. It is disputed whether this or the Alexandrine manuscript is of higher anti- quity; and different critics have assigned it different dates, from the fourth century to the seventh. The third manuscript to be mentioned is generally denoted by a C. It is a Codex rescriptus, (in Greek TrKXifi-^'/irTo;,) and is so called because over the original writing — which compre- hended the whole Greek Bible, and which was imperfectly erased — the works of Ephrem the Syrian were written ; and thus the material was made to contain two different publica- tions. This expedient was occasionally resorted to in ancient times, in consequence of the difficulty of procuring parchments or other substances suitable to be used for writing. The manuscript has many chasms. It is placed by some critics in the seventh century ; by others in the sixth. Another manuscript particularly deserving of notice, is called the Cambridge, (Codex Cantabrigiensis,) or Beza's (Codex Bezae,) or Stephen's /S', and is designated by D. It was given to Cambridge by Beza in 1581, for which reason it is known by both these names ; and because some of the best critics have identified it with a manuscript used by Robert Stephens, and marked /S' in his celebrated edition of 1550, it has received also the third of the above mentioned appellations. It is a Greek-Latin manuscript of the Gospels and Acts, with many chasms. The arrangement of the Gospels is that which is usual in Latin copies, thus : Matthew, John, Luke, Mai-k. Some have thought that the Cambridge manuscript is corrupt- ed from the Latin, because many of its characteristic readings agree with the Vulgate, and many with some of the Old Latin versions. But this agreement only shows that their testimony respecting readings coincides: it by no means proves that either was altered from the other ; although, if it did, it is ob- vious that the Latin might as readily have been altered from APPENDIX. 237 the Greek as the Greek from the Ijhtin. In the opinion of the most judicious and accurate critics, this manuscript can- not possibly be more modern than the eighth century, and most probably was written in the fifth ; although it may have been written considerably before that period. The next manuscript in uncial letters is the Clermont, (Codex Claromontanus.) This also is a Greek-Latin manu- script, marked D. Although the letter which designates it is the same as that of the preceding manuscript, no confusion can possibly arise, as the Clermont contains no other part of the New Testament except St. Paul's epistles. It is preserved entire in the Roval Library at Paris, certain sheets, which are said to have been stolen, iiaving been replaced. Dr. Blill supposed this manuscript to be the second part of the Codex Canta])rig!eiisis ; an opinion which is satisfactorily refuted by Wetstein. It is assigned by the critics to the sixth or seventh century. Three other manuscripts, written in small characters, are principally worthy of attention, because of the intimate con- nexion they have met with the much contested passage in 1 John V. 7' The first of these, which contains the whole New Testa- ment, is called the Montfort or Dublin Manuscript, (Codex IMontfortianus or Dublinensis,) and is quoted by Erasmus in his note on 1 John v. 7, under the name of Codex Britannicus, because he was informed that a Greek manuscript containing the above mentioned text,a had been found in England. J^o particulars of its history can be traced farther back than this period, 1519 — 1522. It belonged to Dr. Montfort, a Cam- bridge theologian, who lived in the former half of the seven- teenth century, and afterwards became the property of Arch- bishop Usher, who presented it to the library of Trinity College, Dublin, where it now is, and whence it has derived its other title. On the authority of this manuscript alone, Erasmus in- serted 1 John v. 7, in his third edition, having omitted it in his a See Critici Saeri, Tom. viii. Col 272. 238 APPENDIX. first and second ; and he inserted it in consequence of a pro- mise he had made of introducing it in his next edition, if any Greek manuscript containing it should be found. Hence the suspicion has ariseji that the manuscript was written for this very purpose. It is universally allowed that it is very modern, and probably was not written before the fifteenth century, as it is divided according to the Latin chapters introduced by Hugo in the thirteenth, which is not the case with any Greek manuscripts written before the fifteenth, when, in consequence of the fall of Constantinople, the Greeks fled into the west of Europe. As some of its readings are remarkably coinci- dent with those of the Latin Vulgate, it is very likely that its author was not a little indebted to this version. Compare in the same chapter of St. John verse 6, its reading, X^ia-ToV (instead of TvzZfjt.a,,') I omits oLyiov after the first jrvsiJ^a, and ol Ijefore the se- cond fAct^rv^ovvri? , both of which are to be found in this manu- script. But it ought to be recollected, that this quotation occurs in his defence addressed to James Lopez Stunica, (a Spanish divine with whom he had a controversy on this sub- ject,) in which most probably he trusted to his miemory. In his third edition, where he professes to introduce from the Codex Britannicus what was wanting in his own manuscripts, this controverted passage agrees exactly with the Codex Dublin- ensis. The second of these manuscripts, which also contains the whole New Testament, is known by the name of the Codex Ravianus or Ravii or Berolinensis, containing also 1 John v. 7. This manuscript was brought from the East by Professor Rave of Upsal, and is now in Berlin, hence its titles. It is generally admitted by critics that it is an imposture, a copy of the Greek text in the Complutensian Polyglot, of which it is said to look like a fac-simile. It even copies from this edition APPENDIX. 239 errors of the press, from which it may be inferred that the writer's knowledge of Greek was very limited. Where its readings differ from the Complutensian, as they frequently do, they agree with the textuary or marginal readings in the third edition of Stephens. When Erasmus challenged Stu- nica to produce a single Greek manuscript containing 1 John V. 7j he would undoubtedly have appealed to the Codex Ravi- anus, had he known of its existence. The other manuscript is the Codex Ottobianus, preserved in the Vatican liiitrary, and numbered 298. It contains the dis- puted passage, although somewhat different from the common leading, thus : — a,To rod «^av5, 7rcx.rr,^, Xoyog, xu) ttviv/izu ayio* xai 01 T^ei; ii$ to iv Uffi. Ksta ~oetg iiciv oi fia^Tvoivrs; kto r?tS yvs — Scholtz, who discovered this manuscript and made it known, avscribes it to the fourteenth century. The lateness of its date diminishes the value of its testimony in favour of the text in question. See Lee's Prolegomena toBagster's Polyglot. Prol. vi. Sect. ii. p. 72. NOTE III. For some notice of the Targums, see Jahn, pp. 64 — 68, and the aiithors there mentioned, with Le Long An account of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which the author both here and elsewhere erroneously mentions as a " version," may also be found in Jahn, pp. 135 — 141, and Le Long. A new Polyglot in one splendid folio volume has lately made its appearance under the following title : — Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, textu sarchetypos versionesque praecipuas, necnon versiones recentories, Anglicanum, Germanicam, Italicam, Gallicam et Hispanicam ccmplectentia. Accedunt Prolego- mena in textuum archetyporum versionumque antiquarum crisin literalem, auctore Samuele Lee, S. T. B. &c. Londini, sumptibus Samuelis Bagster, 1831. In this Polyglot the Hebrew is from Van der Hooght's edition, the Hebrew New Testament, by William Greenfield ; the Septuagiut, from the 240 APPENDIX. Vatican of Cardinal Carafa : the Greek Testament, according to the received text ; the Vulgate from the editions of Sixtus V and Clement VI 1 1. The English translation is accompan- ied with marginal readings and parallel places; the German is that of liUther : the French, of Ostervald ; the Italian, of Diodati ; the Spanish of Father Scio. — An appendix is also added containing the New Testament in Syriac, the Peshito, according to Widmanstadt's edition of 1555, with a collation of the edition published by the British and Foreign Bible So- ciety ; the Samaritan Pentateuch, according to Kennicott's edition ; various readings of the Septuagint, from Grabe's edi- tion ; and a collection of various readings of the New Testa- ment, fiom Griesbach — The whole work is exceedingly beauti- ful, but in so small a type as to make the use of it very in- convenient. The Prolegomena to this work are a series of learned dis- quisitions on the various topics connected with biblical criti- cism. As they have been printed in a small quarto volume of 75 pages, and can be obtained (I believe) separately from the Bible, I add the following notice of the subjects discussed, in order that the reader may have a genei-al idea of their con- tents. Prol. I. Sect i. De Scripturis sacris, earumque revelatione, indole, scopo, &c. Sect. ii. De lingua qua primitus patefactae sunt Scripturae Sacrae, ejusque antiquitate, natura atque usu. Sect. iii. De Sacri textus originibus, atque conservatione. Sect. iv. De sacrarum scripturarum fatis durante theocratia. Sect. v. De statu sacri textus, Judaiis in Babylonia degenti- bus. Sect. vi. De Christianismi ortu, ejusque in sacras literas vi effectrice. Sect. vii. De masorae origine et incrementis. Sect. viii. De masora, qualis sc. sese nunc in Bibliis Rabbinicis no- bis ob oculos ponit. Sect. ix. De ablationibus et correction- ibus e scribis factis. Sect. x. De vocibus quibusdam legendis, quamvis in textu scriptae non reperiantur. Sect. xi. De ea masorae parte quae graramaticen, sive interpretationem sacri textus exegeticam, spectat. Sect. xii. Comparatio textus He- braici in locis quibusdam Geneseos, cum Chaldaica Onkelosi, APPENDIX. 241 necnon Syriaca versione quam Peshito appellant, sparsis hinc inde notis criticis. Sect. xiii. De textus Hebraici fatis ab anno C. N. 500, ad hunc usque diem. Sect. xiv. De codicibus Hebraicis MSS. in India Orientali et Sina reperiundis. Prol. II. Sect. i. De Pentateucho Samantano, ejusque versionibus, Samaritica, Graeca, et Arabica. Sect. ii. De versione Samari- tico-Cbaldaica, ejusque sequacibus, Graeca et Arabica. Sect. iii. Collatio versuum quorundam textus Hebraici editionis Samaritanae, cum versione Chaldaico-Samaritica, Chaldaica Onkelosi, et Arabica Al»u Said. — Prol. III. Sect. i. De ver- sionibus Syriacis Arabicisque ex iis factis. Sect. ii. De ver- sionibus Veteris Foederis Syriacis, quae e Graeco fuerint ciisae. Sect. iii. De recensione Karkapliensi Syriaca. Sect. iv. De Novi Foederis versione Syra, Peshito dicta. Sect. v. De ver- sionibus Syriacis, Philoxeniana et Hierosolymitana. Sect. vi. De versionibus Arabica, sc. et Persica ex Peshito Syrorum, factis. — Prol. IV. Sect. i. De Septuaginta Graecorum ver- sione virali. Sect. ii. De operibus criticis Origenis, Bibliis sc. Tetraplis, HexapHs, &c. Sect. iii. De notis Origenianis, As- terisco, Obelo, Lemnisco, Hypolemuisco, Sect. iv. De Aquila ejusque versionibus S. S. Graecis. Sect. v. De Symmacho ver- sioneque ejus Graeca. Sect.vi. De Theodotior.is versione. Sect. vii. De reliquis versionibus, Quinta, Sexta, Septima, Hexapla- ribus. Sect. viii. De versione Graeca Venetiis baud ita pridem reperta — Prol. V. Sect. i. De Vulgatis Latinorum versioni- bus, antiquiore sc. et Hieronymiana. Sect. ii. De versione Vulgata Latina Hieronymiana. — Prol. VI. Sect. i. ii. De crisi Novi Testamenti, ejusque textus Graeci statu hodierno Man- tissa. De interpretatione scripturarum sacrarum exegetica. NOTE IV. To the lexicographal works mentioned by the author, the following are added, some of which are of later date than that of his publication. Those of Avenarius, Calasio, Schindler, 242 APPENDIX. Castell, Robertson, Stockius, Gusset, and David Levi, with some others of less authority, are omitted. Johannis Buxtorfii Lexicon Chaldaicum, Talmudicum et Ral»binicum, folio, Basil, 1640. This most laborious work (opus triginta annorum,} was prepared by the father, and published^ with some improvements, by the son. There is no other work which can be substituted in its place. Parkhurst's Hebrew Lexicon, London, 1799, large Cvo. although it contains much learning, is superseded by others, compiled on more correct philological principles. The author rejects the use of the points, and is devoted to the philosophi- cal and biblical views of Hutchinson. A compendious Lexicon of the Hebrew language, in two volumes, thick 12mo, vol. i. containing an explanation of every word which occurs in the Psalms, with notes ; vol. ii. being a Lexicon and Grammar of the whole language. By Clement C. JMoore (now LL. D. and Professor of Oriental and Greek Literature in the general Theological Seminary of the Prot. Epis. chxirch,) New-York, 1809 — This work will be found very useful to a beginner in Hebrew, for whom it is jirinci pally designed. Ciesenius' Hebrew Lexicon, in German, appeared at Leip- zig, in two volumes, 8vo. in 1810 — 12; and in 1815, the au- thor published at the same place, an abridgement of his work, with some improvements. Tbe larger lexicon was translated into Lnglish by Christopher Leo, and published in two parts, 4to. at Cambridge, (England,) Part i. in 1825, and Part ii. in 1828. In 1824, the Rev. Josiah W. Gibbs, A M., of the Theolo- gical Seminary, Andover, pu'.»]ished a Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, including the Biblical Chal- dee, from the German works of Gesenius just mentioned, with improvements, in one vol. 8vo. This valuable work was re- printed at London, in 1827- In 1828, Mr. Gibbs, now professor of Sacred Literature in the Theological School in Vale College, published at Andover, a iMannal of Hebrew and Engl sh Lexicon, including the Bib- lical Cbaklee, designed particularly for beginners. This IMaii- APPENDIX. 243 ual is intended to assist students of Hebreiv, until the author shall be able to prepare a second edition of his larger work ; which, if I may form an opinion from a printed specimen that I have seen, will be a great improvement of the first. Lexicon JManuale Hebraicum et Chaldaicum in Veteris Testamenti libros, post editionem Germanicam tertiam Latine elaboravit, multisque modis retractavit et auxit Guil. Gese- niiis, Philos. et Theol. Doct., &c. Lipsiae, 1833. Royal Uvo. This work is a great improvement of the author's former work. He is preparing a still more extensive Lexicon in Latin, one part of which in thin 4to, appeared last year — The reader will find a valuable article of Gesenius translated from the original German, " on the sources of Hebrew philo- logy and lexicography," in the Biblical Repository, vol. iii. pp. L ss., and also in a subsequent volume of the Biblical Cabinet. NOTE V. To the list of grammars and works of a grammatical cha- racter given by the author, tiie following must be added, as they are among the most important for an English student. A Hebrew grammar, with a copious Syntax and Praxis, by Moses Stuart, Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theio- gical Seminary at Andover, 8vo. 1821 — This work is founded chiefly on the Hebrew grammar of Gesenius. The third edi- tion considernbly condensed and improved, was published in 1828, and the fourth in 183L In the mean time the author published " Dissertations on the importance and best method of scudying the original languages of the Bible, by Jahn, Gesenius and Wyttenbach," tianslated from t!ie original Latin, 8vo Pamphlet, 1821. In 1827, the Rev. Samuel Lee, D. D. Professor of Arabic, and since regius Professor of Hebrew, in the University of Cambridge, published a grammar of the Hebrew language, compiised in a series of Lectures, 8vo. The learned author published in 1832 a second ed tion of his work, enriched with much original matter. 244 APPENDIX. In 1829, Professor Stuart published at Andover, a Hebrew Chrestomathy, designed as the first volume of a course of He- brew study, 8vo. A second volume was issued in 1830. A Manual of Hebrew Grammar, for the use of beginners. By J. Seixas, Andover, 1833, 8vo. pp. 54. Winer's Chaldee Grammar, to which is appended a Chres- tomathy or Collection of portions for reading, selected from the Targums, is a very useful compilation. The title of the book is : Grammatik des Biblischen und Targumischen Chal- daismus, von Dr. George Benedict Winer. Leipzig, 1824, 8vo. A Manual of the Chaldee language, containing a Chaldee (irammar, chiefly from the German of Professor G. B. Winer ; a Chrestomathy, consisting of selections from the Targums, and including the whole of the biblical Chaldee, with notes ; and a vocabulary adapted to the Chrestomathy, with an ap- pendix on the Rabbinical character and style by Elias Riggs, A. M. Boston, 8vo. 1^32. [Stier Neu geordnetes lehrgebaude der Hebraischen Sprache, 8vo. Lips. 1833. " It is the best work now extant in any language on the ele- ments of what is usually called the Etymology of Hebrew. Its excellence consists especially in always establishing the rule of general grammar before he proceeds to its applicatiim to Hebrew." — Quarterly Jour n. of Education, No. XIII. Jan. 1834. Ewald's Grammatik der Hebraischen Sprache des Alten Testament, 8vo. Leipz. 1828. " This and his other works were received with great applause by the Orthodox party in Germany. The characteristics of his grammar consist in his manner of accounting for the ge- neral rules, and in his attempts to refer the rules and their exceptions to more general principles than Gesenius." — Quarterly Journal of Education, No. XIII. Jan. lc>34. ] NOTE Vf. If the reader wishes to see a particubir account of the most celebrated editions of the Greek Testament that were publish- ed before Griesbach's, he will find it in Marsh's Michaelis, APPENDIX. 245 Vol. ii. Part i. pp. 429, ss. Home's Introduction, Vol. ii. Part ii. Appendix pp. 10, ss. and Le Long's Bibliotheca Sacra, Masch's edition, Part i. Cap. ii. pp. 189, ss. A brief view is given also in Marsh's Lectures. As the edition of Griesbach is much used, and has given rise to considerable discussion, and as later editors of great learning and acumen have differed somewhat from this dis- tinguished scholar in their views of certain important princi- ples, and consequently have arrived at different results, it may not be unprofitable to lay before the young student, for whom principally those notes are intended, a general view of that critic's system, together with a few of the most pro- minent objections which have been urged against it, Griesbach's Prolegomena is divided into seven sections, of which the following is an outline, SECTION I. The first section examines the origin and authority of the commonly received text, and shows that a new recension is neither improper nor unnecessary. The author tells us, that before the publication of the re- ceived text in the Elzevir edition, a different editors followed different authorities ; some made use of Erasmus, some of the Complutensian text, while some selected from both, and avail- ed themselves also of other sources. The materials made use of by Erasmus and the Complutensian editors were exceedingly imperfect. Their manuscripts were few in number, and com- paratively of modern date and little value. They wanted the best and most ancient manuscripts; all the oriental versions also, with the Gothic and Slavonic; and although they did possess a Latin translation, it was not the Italic, They wanted also the works of the Greek fathers, of whom Erasmus in his second edition mentions only Athanasius, Nazianzen, and Theophylact ; and indeed the copies of the fathers which they did possess abounded with errors. a This edition takes its name from the printer, who is celebrated for the beauty of his impressions. !246 APPENDIX. They were also unacquainted with the proper method of using even the imperfect helps within their reach. They had not established any fixed laws of criticism. Hence it is that Erasmus, in his fourth edition, inserted readings taken from the Complutensian text, in tlie place of those which he had be- fore introduced into his third. The accuracy of this text is suspected, and on good grounds ; although it may be difficult to say how far its inaccuracy extends. It is plain, that in some places the" editors altered and interpolated against the authority of their own manuscripts, and that they were too much attached to the Vulgate version. So also was Erasmus, who in his last edition yielded to the clamouis of his adversa- ries, and made alterations on the doubtful authority of the Complutensian edition. Since the time of these editors about five hundred Greek manuscripts had been discovered, all of which were unknown to them ; and a more enlarged view of the subject has greatly improved the ability of critics to em- ploy these materials to greater advantage. For these and other reasons, it would be idle to suppose that they ought to be implicitly followed. The author tlieri proceeds to show that the editions of Ste- phens also are not to be relied on, and that as works of criti- cism they are of little authority. He gives an account of the manuscripts used by that celebrated editor, and considers his /S' as the same with the Cambridge manuscript, Beza's account of which is, he thinks, erroneous. Beza's New Testament of 1559 is the text of Stephens' fourth edition ; his subsequent publications were compiled by himself. He had better helps than his predecessors, among which may be found the Cambridge and Clermont manuscripts, the Syriac version, and in some books of the 'Sew Testament the Arabic. But Beza did not make a thorough use of them, and Wetstein has shown in his Prolegomena that he cannot be vindicated from the charge of negligence. He has expressed his approbation of readings not introduced by him into the text ; and sometimes he has introduced readings from one version or manuscript only, and sometimes even from conjec- ture. APPENDIX. 247 The Elzevir, or received text, which made its appearance in 1624, is not founded on manuscripts, but follows the third or fourth edition of Stephens, except in about one hundred places, in most of which it follows Beza. Where it differs from him, the authority by which it is governed is uncertain. The received text then is founded upon those of Beza and Stephens, the former of whom followed the latter, with the exception of some places altered according to his own pleasure and without sufficient authority. Stephens pursued the track of Erasmus, except in a very few places and in the Apocalypse, where he preferred the Complutensian readings. Erasmus compiled his text, as he could, from a very small number of manuscripts, and those rather modern, without any other helps except the Vulgate interpolated, and inaccurate editions of a few of the fathers. From the above sketch it is abundantly evident, that the sanction of the received text by no means determines the cor- rectness of readings. In the sixteenth and seventeenth cen- turies about twenty editions were printed, no two of which entirely agreed, as each editor corrected and altered the text according to his own judgment, acting on the testimony be- fore him. Through the diligence of critics it has been proved, that the oldest manuscripts and versions, and also the quota- tions in the fathers, differ in words and phrases, and sometimes in sentences, while they agree in important and fundamental truths. Nor in the former is uncertainty the necessary conse- quence; but some are shown to be certainly preferable, others probably so, and those which require further investigation, a few perhaps excepted, of little moment. SECTION II. This section states the design which the author had in view in preparing his edition. His intention was, to collect in a small compass the critical apparatus which lay dispersed in various works, and to pre- pare an edition of the Gi-eek Testament which should contain 248 APPENDIX. a text freed from considerable errors, accompanied by such helps as might facilitate interpretation ; to exhibit the more important various readings, and the authorities on which they are supported, together with the judgment of the editor re- specting them, expressed with perspicuity, and at the same time briefly and with modesty. The utility of such a work for students of theology is un- questionable. For although an intimate acquaintance with criticism is by no means necessary for every clergyman, yet every one ought to be guarded against such errors as prevent an accurate knowledge and proper use of scripture : and this does certainly require som.e acquaintance with it. Nothing gives greater acuteness, or tends more thoroughly to prepare the mind for interpretation than criticism. Many places, doubtless, corrupted in the common editions, cannot be correct- ly understood without it. Many also have given rise to con- troversies of which a clergyman ought not to be ignorant, as, for example, those connected with the true readings in Acts XX. 28. 1 Tim. iii. 16. I John v. 7; but, in order to form a sound opinion respecting such places, it is necessary to begin by examining others which are of less importance. To all this it may be added, that a critical collection of various readings must exhibit many valuable expositions of antiquity. I. The first object which Griesbach had in view was, to present his readers with a text as correct as possible. Every reading of any moment which might appear preferable to the received, is placed either in the text or the inner margin — He does not presume that his edition is not susceptible of improve- ment. Far from it. That it is so, is clearly evident from what follows. A vast number of manuscripts have been collected by critics, some of which have been examined in particular places only, or in a hasty manner ; whereas, if the examination had been complete, and the results fully made known, many read- ings which are now in the inner margin, would probably have been placed in the text. The ancient versions do not afford a critic all the aid that might be obtained from them ; a Syriac edition from the best manuscripts is a desideratum ; the Armen- APPENDIX. 249 ian is suspected of varj'ing from the best copies, and of being adapted to a more modern Greek text ; of the Sahidic and Je- rusalem-Syriac, fragments merely have been puldished ; the Slavonic manuscripts ought to be carefully examined, also those of the 01 1 Latin version. All the Greek fathers should be examined, as Origen is in the Symbolse Criticae, The origin, the primitive characteristics, and the changes of each recen- sion, hav^e not been sufficiently investigated ; nor indeed can this be done, until further extracts shall have been made from the fathers : when, therefore, different readings occur in differ- ent recensions nearly of the same antiquity, it is almost impos- sible to determine which are genuine. In the best manu- scripts, interpolations, the origin of which is very difficult to be explained, require the diligence and acumen of future critics. These considerations illustrate the extreme difficulty of pro- curing a text absolutely perfect — He remarks, further, that the collections of Mill, Wetstein and others are imperfect ; — that they occasionally ascribe to manuscripts, versions, and fa- thers, readings which do not exist in them, which he professes to know from personal examination ; — that later editors have corrected errors of former, and later still will correct those in- to which their predecessors had fallen; and this, not by fol- lowing any one manuscript, but by investigating the primitive readings of each class. II. It entered into the editor's design, to note those readings which, although not preferred by him, he considered as of equal authority with those retained, or nearly so with those prefer- red ; those also which, if inferior, are not to be despised, or which with some colour of truth might seem probable to other critics. These he has separated from the mass, and appropri- ated to them descriptive marks, after the example of Bengel. III. It w^as his intention also to subjoin a suitable collec- tion of various readings, such as appeared to him most worthy of notice. They are of the following character : — Such as are not improbable ; — such as may assist in distinguishing the genuine reading from interpolations ; — such as may elucidate the hit-tory of the (ireek text, and aid in discovering the cha- 250 APPENDIX. racier of ancient recensions and remarkable classes ; — sucli as are found in many valuable books, or have crept into some editions, or have remarkably changed the sense, or may illus- trate the forms of speech employed by the sacred writers. Of these he has not designedly omitted one, although he freely grants, that some not unworthy of attention may have escaped his notice, as must be the case in every attempt to reduce within a small compass such an immense collection of various readings. He then gives a view of his plan more in detail, with the names of the authors and collators whom he has ex- amined. For the benefit of younger students, he has intro- duced a few specimens of conjecture. ^ Readings, which may be classed in the list which follows, he has omitted. Such as are found in but few manuscripts, and those of the more mo- dern date ; — such as are evidently taken from parallel places in the Gospels, or have crept into the text from lectionaries ; — such as refer to orthography, particularly of proper names, or to the order of the words, except in places where the order affects the sense, or the authority of a word, or where the best manuscripts agree in a different order from the received ; — also, unusual forms of words, which forms frequently occur in the most ancient manuscripts ; — the article ; — the participles Xiyuv and a-rox^Jus ; — and very many words, which are often com- muted in manuscripts. In these cases he has omitted the various readings, unless they occurred in very many manu- scripts, or in some of the more valuable, or else certain causes existed for remarking a difference of reading, which would otherwise be of no moment. Some readings, which are found very often, are only noticed at their first occurrence. IV. Although the author did not intend his work to su- a See, for example, Acts vii. 14, where, to remove a difficulty, Bcza con. jectures ^uvris to ^'^ the true reading, instead of ^ivrt. Eut, as Frtlis has remarked, this would be a solecism, as grammatical correctness would require 'Tta.ffa.i?. It is to be regretted that Griesbach should have admitted any con. jectures bearing on fundamental doctrine, and he is certainly to be censured for having allowed a place to the conjectural reading haZ^ox Sioi in John i. 1, of the Sociiiian Crellius, APPENDIX. 251 persedethe use of former editions, which ought to be consulted by those who apply themselves to criticism, or wish thoroughly to investigate the authority and true reading of a text; yet he did expect it to supply in some measure the want of them. V. Lustly : it was not so much his object to augment and correct the collection of readings made by his predecessors, as to make a proper use of them. SECTION iir. In this section Griesbach presents a view of the more im- portant critical observations and rules by which he was go- verned. In examining various readings, the internal goodness is to be regarded as well as the weight and consent of testimony. Internal goodness is determii:ed by the fact, that a particular reading suits the manner, style, scope and other circumstances of the author ; or l)y this, that it can be shown to be prol)able that all others have sprung from it. In applying this latter criterion, we must keep in mind the general causes which lead transcribers into error, and also the particular causes which aifect transcribers of the i>^ew Testament, and especial- ly that arising from the diflference of its style from that of classic Greek. From that canon of criticism which prefers the reading which will account for the origin of the others with the greatest facility, the following rules, among others are deduced. 1. A shorter reading is preferable to a longer and more verbose, unless destitute of ancient and weighty authority. The reason is, that transcribers have always been more dis- posed to add to the text than to omit what belongs to it, and it is more likely that incidental circumstances should give rise to additions than to omissions. He goes on to show particu- larly in what cases either is to be preferred. ^ a Those readings which are evidently glosses on the text, although they are afterwards mentioned by Griesbach, very properly come under this rule. Comp. John iii. 6, where, after the words fccpl Uti, 0"^ Greek manuscript, 252 APPENDIX. 2. The more difficult and obscure reading is superior to one extremely plain, a 3. The harsher reading, that for instance which is elliptical, or which contains a Hebraism or a solecism, is preferable to the smoother. ^ 4. The less usual to the more common. 5. The less emphatic phraseology to the contrary, unless the context and design of the writer require emphasis. ^ a prima manu, and some other authorities add, on ix, tni trxpxos lyivr/iSn ; and after