r on what grounds the certainty or credibility rests, that its author was inspired. II. 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 com- posed, 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 prepared and to whom they were originally directed. The nearer we can arrive at certainty on all these points, the stronger must be our conviction of the truth of the others. INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 21 III — 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 esta- blishing this most important principle upon divine attestation, the testimony of Christ, and making some useful observations with respect to its application, 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. 2* i EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY PART I. SACRED PHILOLOGY CHAPTER The third of those different branches of litera- ture which belong to exegetical theology,* is what is called sacred philology. It may readily be sup- posed, 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 knowledge has been assigned to it ; but this variable- ness 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 indiffer- ence to what these names are applied, and in what manner, provided they are applied, so as to compre- hend the whole. No apology therefore can be necessa- ry, if, in this work, whatever belongs on the one side, " The two former are apologetic divinity, and history of the car.on. as stated in the introductory chapter. Tr. 24 SACRED PHILOLOGY. to an 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 appro- priated to the department of sacred philology. Criti- cism, it is true, might be represented as a distinct branch of knowledge, and philology be confined to acquaint- ance with language, yet it can produce no incon- venience 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 employed, or to which its labors must be directed. The know- ledge 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 necessary, 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 was 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 pre- NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 25 sent it is universally acknowledged, that the dialect of the New-Testament contains a multitude of peculiari- ties, which are as foreign to the true Greek idiom as their occurrence in the language of the apostles is na- tural* 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, according to the method which not a very long time since pre- vailed in almost all our schools, has learned only the Greek of the New Testament, will undoubtedly find the Greek of Demosthenes, of iEschines, and of Thucy- dides, 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 language of the New Testament will no longer be altogether strange to him, although still not altogether familiar. This betrays too plainly to be mistaken an intermixture of the peculiari- ties of a foreign dialect, or rather of an entirely foreign tongue, which must be found therein ; and indeed, if the reader is not altogether unacquainted with the in- termingled language, 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 * Note II. ■ K7 />'/ 26 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 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 con- necting particular phrases and words, in the frequent repetition of certain figures of speech, he immediately recognizes men, accustomed from childhood to think in an oriental tongue ; and from these indications 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 expression in the na- tional 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 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 intercourse with foreigners and strangers ; so is the latter applica- ble to most of the writers of the New Testament, who, with the exception probably of St. Paul and St. Luke merely, had undoubtedly no other facility in the use of NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 27 language, than that mechanical ability which inter- course, hearing and exercise can supply. It is evident, then, that nothing but a miracle could have enabled the apostles to speak and wnte pure Greek, and this miracle would have been not only without an object, but in direct opposition to the object in view, since it would have made them less intelligible 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 senti- ments of his new religion. It was therefore not only a groundless notion, but in fact somewhat irrational, which, from reverence to the Holy Spirit, by whom the scriptures were inspired, was maintained in former times and supposed to be obligatory, that they are written in the very purest dialect. On the contrary, their allowed inspiration would rather justify the pre- vious conjecture, that their language cannot be pure Greek. For, undoubtedly, the reasoning is clear and satisfactory, that if these writings are inspired, they are probably composed in the popular language of the men for whom they were immediately intended, and consequently in the corrupt dialect intermingled with Hebraisms and Chaldaisms, into which the genuine Greek must unavoidably have degenerated among the Jews in Palestine. Yet these conjectures and supposi- tions are by no means necessary, for the evidence is conspicuous and incontrovertible, and they are the less necessary, as at present a divine is scarcely to be found who doubts the fact. 28 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. CHAPTER II. If now this is the 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 proportionably erroneous interpretations, and to misconceptions 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 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 hs and «, which in the New Tes- tament are so very often employed, contrary to all Greek usage, merely in the signification of the Hebrew prefix J- 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 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 29 also in the sense in which they are in part taken pure Greek, but which, by the intermixture of a Hebrew 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 endeavored 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 connected in their minds with the Hebrew word. They selected therefore the term which expressed their conceptions the most fully, and in its customary acceptation came nearest their whole idea, or else that which was a literal translation of the Hebrew word, although in its usual signification designating something else : but still it was their intention to express thereby the very same idea, which the Hebrew word usually suggested to their minds. With regard to many words, very frequently occur- ring m the New Testament, this case undoubtedly applies. When, for example, the apostle wished to express the idea of the Hebrew word Di 7fc?, simply the Greek c^m 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 rfftfMj must be amplified or * Or, at least, according to the Hebrew or Syro- Chaldaic idiom. — Tr. ft I 3 30 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. elevated, according to the Hebrew suggested by 0)^12? . The same is undoubtedly true of the words foa«os, Sy tos , i6fa a\fi6eta, 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 <5t*aioj, wherever it occurred in the New Testament, only the Greek forensic meaning of righteous, were always able to give sense and connexion to the places where they thus explained it; and yet the interpretation which this led them to give it in some places was very unsound, since with respect to many 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*"l¥. 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 princi- NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 31 pally on this account is the study of this language altogether indispensable, to enable us to interpret 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 extremely 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 notwith- standing this, it is very evident, that we could succeed much better, particularly, we could distinguish the inter- mixture with far more accuracy, observe it probably much more frequently, and note its characteristic marks with much more certainty, if we were in possession of many works of this period, written in the same dialect. But here we are completely at a loss ; for even the writings of the almost contemporaneous 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. 32 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. is. on that account, in other respects the more useful. I 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 Hellenistic language, but it maybe considered in a certain 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 interpreters, who at the wish of Ptolemy Philadelphus were dispatched from Jerusalem to Alexandria, 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 language, and the attention paid to the 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 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 33 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 unquestionable, is principally important in showing its utility in illustrating the language of the New Testa ment. In this version the Hellenistic language must originally have been formed, for in it the Greek was employed probably for the first time to express the 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 favor the general estima- tion in which it was held by the Jews, as this estima- tion also must necessarily in course of time have made the Greek of the version the common dialect 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.t The religious sentiments of the whole nation were moulded in no other Greek form but that in which they had Notelll t Note IV. 3* 34 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. been received in this translation, for the people were accustomed from childhood to think of them in no other. It was therefore 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 distinguished, 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 origi- nal infallibly shows what the translators intended to denote by them. And even with regard to those oriental forms connected with Greek expressions of which the Septuagint affords no examples, 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 expressions, 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 * Note V. STUDY OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. 35 clear, that a part of its utility must arise from an acquaintance 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 compre- hends, 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- cessary to show. We see, at the first look, that it has so much that is peculiar, characteristic, and, especially in comparison with our modern and western languages, remarkable, that its acquisition cannot be facilitated by an acquaintance with most others : and yet. in another view, and in consequence of other circumstances, we might almost as easily be led to suppose, that, notwith- standing 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 number and have little variety. The characteristic properties which mark its formation, its connexions, its inversions, must undoubtedly be altogether new to one. who from 36 STUDY OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. his youth has always been accustomed to a western language ; but on the other hand, it remains the more constant, it is subject to fewer changes, it has always the same forms, which the reader meets with 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 language 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 certainly in itself quite correct, and it would undoubt- 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 sufficient 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 language, for the oftener we find a word employed, and employed by various authors and in various connexions, 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 eer- STUDY OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. 37 tainty ; and this may make the acquisition of an ex- ceedingly poor language often more difficult 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 labor, because 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 thousand 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 meaning 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 partly 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 * Note VI. 38 STUDY OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. the Septuagint, we know that six other Greek versions of the Old Testament were composed ; for Origen in his Hexapla, besides that and the translations of Theo- dotion, 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 Tes- tament. 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 understanding 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 we receive further 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 differently turned, by which they represent them ; we become more familiar with those forms of the oriental mode of thinking ; and, lastly, we are able to arrive at more perfect con- viction of the correctness of whatever 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 i SACRED CRITICISM. 39 quite the contrary with the others. In the Arabic, the difficulty arises from its richness, and in the Samaritan, 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 interpret the holy scriptures. It is proper now to treat of the third branch of literature belonging to this subject, namely, sacred criticism. The nature of this department, and the subjects in which it is occupied, will show in the clearest manner, why it is very properly 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 present 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 10 SACRED CRITICISM. sustained some change. And, in the latter case, when it has reasons to conjecture that an alteration has taken place, its province is, to propose the surest means, by which the place may be restored, with the greatest certainty or probability, to its original 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 acquaint- ance, in all their extent, with those principles, by which the genuineness of a writing may be examined, 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 writ- ings, 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 which have not directly corrupted a writing. This can afford criticism sufficient employment, even in those writings the integrity of which is already attested, as criticism can here perform sufficient service. It is this especr ally, 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 gene- ral, is satisfied with very few principles and helps ; but to discover and correct all isolated alterations, in the smallest points, very many more and in part entirely- SACRED CRITICISM. 41 different are necessary, the application of which is more difficult, even in the proportion in which it often becomes 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 instan- ces. It is altogether inconceivable that writings, some of which were to be preserved several thousand years merely by means of transcribed copies, and which were in fact preserved by those means, under the hands of a vast variety of men, whose opinions respecting their contents were equally various, should have remained, without any alteration, 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 supposition, we certainly cannot be surprised, if each of those writings discloses innumera- ble 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 corrupter. 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 previously convinced that essentially no corruption has thereby been pro- duced. Something, nevertheless, has the scripture thereby lost. The sense of the author may at least 4 42 SACRED CRITICISM. 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 mat- ters of importance, and the contents essentially suf- fered, 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 application of criticism to the treatment of the Bible is quite as necessary and useful, as to that of any ancient writer. Indeed, with regard to the former, it must be more useful and more necessary, in the same proportion in which its contents are to us more important and inter- esting. 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 pre-supposed that in neither may criticism venture to derive aid or satisfaction from empty conjectures. Merely to suppose that interpola- tions 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 mat- ters 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 compli- SACRED CRITICISM. 43 cated 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 peculiarities of the language, wherein not merely the 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 ecclesiastical 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 import of what is drawn from each may so easily be altered. In forming an estimate of this, such a variety of points must be considered, that it becomes necessary to take some notice of each in particular. 44 PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE. 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 natural, and on this account also it is principally to be relied on ; and indeed in most cases it is easiest to be applied. The greatest part of those interpolations, which have arisen merely from incidental errors of copyists, inter- change of particular letters, transpositions and omis- sions, must generally be discovered by this ; and often they are thus infallibly discovered ; for in the greatest number of such cases the transcriber must have com- mitted an error, as the altered word must almost always receive a form or termination 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 6? in the nominative, where the rules of gram- mar require the accusative, we may believe with the greater certainty that hv is the genuine original reading, in proportion as it is easy to conceive how readily the error may have arisen, merely through the interchange of the two letters, from a transcriber acquainted with the PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE. 45 language, and much more from one who was ignorant of it.* In this way a multitude of errors may not only 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 accord- ing 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 various read- ings the pure Greek should always be preferred, more interpolations would undoubtedly be made than re- moved ; 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 efc is used in a multitude of places in the New Testament, where every pure Greek dialect would have employed h , and this has occasion- ally induced a transcriber to change the former, which he supposed to be erroneous, into the latter, which in his judgment was more correct. In many of these places therefore we rind various readings, of which one has th and the other h, and we may almost infalli- bly conclude the latter to be interpolated, as the use of ak for iv is one of the most remarkable peculiarities of the Hellenistic language, in which and not in pure Greek the apostles wrote. * Note VII. 4* 46 PECULIARITIES OP LANGUAGE. 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- 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 PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE. 47 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 connexions 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 Iris 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. No other knowledge of language than this deserves the name of critical, and we are fully justified in distinguishing it from that which is merely philo- logical 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 criticism of the sacred scriptures, and how neces- sary it is in that principal subject, the restoration of 48 COMPARISON OF MANUSCRIPTS. the original and genuine readings in interpolated places. It is very often, for instance, the case in those writings, that transcribers, who possessed no sach cri- tical 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 simi- lar 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 knowledge of language to the want of which it is alone to be attri- buted. But it cannot be denied, that there are innumerable other cases, in which this help is not of itself sufficient. 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 procured. This is un- doubtedly the resource in which it is necessary for it most frequently to take refuge : and, in the one depart- ment of its duty, this can also with the greatest ease and certainly afford assistance : 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 relied 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 COMPARISON OF MANUSCRIPTS. 49 must necessarily have undergone a change. And again, when all agree, an interpolation can hardly be supposed, unless in some word a striking gram- matical error occurs, which is not to be explained by any peculiarity, 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, notwith- standing all this uncertainty, they are not entirely use- less for that purpose : but to make use of them very many cautions and rules are necessary, which criticism must observe, and conditions, which it must prescribe to itself. These rules and conditions cannot always be fully complied with ; and even where this is practica- ble, 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 great- est number. Criticism therefore really assumes it as a 50 COMPARISON OF MANUSCRIPTS. principle, that the reading of an older manuscript is generally preferable to that of one which is more modern, and is with greater probability to be regarded as the original reading ; for it concludes, and not with- out reason, that the copy which approaches the nearer to the age of the original must contain fewer aberra- tions from it than one more remote, or that the writing which has passed through fewer hands must have been subjected to fewer changes. And in general this may be perfectly correct. 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 allowed ? how many cases must be granted to be possible 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 would make it still more modern. But if it be as old as that century, and if we have many of equal antiquity, they are still four hundred years removed from the autographs. In this course of time numer- ous 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 im- portance should be attached to their antiquity. 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 * Note VIII COMPARISON OF MANUSCRIPTS. 51 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 favor 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 possession of a manuscript written in the third or indeed in the second century ; can criticism venture to consider its age alone as a sufficient reason for conclud- ing 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 accu- racy of a manuscript,' must certainly be added to those, before we can decide upon its genuineness from its antiquity. More easily still may we deceive ourselves, and to much greater danger of error shall we be exposed, if we determine the genuineness of a reading by the greater or less number of the manuscripts which contain it, and consequently found our decisions upon the agree- ment of many against a few. The reason why 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. 52 CLASSIFICATION OF MANUSCRIPTS. 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 reasons, to regard the genuine reading as interpolated, and to introduce in its place another which they supposed 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 contained- 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 shown, for instance, that a manuscript, 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 favor of the genuineness of that reading ; for all the presumptions for this conclu- sion are, that the manuscripts belong to different families, and all against it, that, in manuscripts altogether dis- tinct from each other, a passage might be interpolated in exactly the same way. Yet, however useful to criticism this view of the derivation of manuscripts may be, and this distribution of them into certain classes, which is undoubtedly RECENSION OF MANUSCRIPTS. 53 necessary, it will always involve a multitude of diffi- culties, 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 conclu- sion, 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 manu- scripts, amounting to some hundreds, which we have of the writings of the New Testament. Another re- cension, 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 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 re- storing 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 indeed Soften happens, that the mere shape of a letter, the position of a line, the form of a mark of abbreviation, the similar i * This subject of recensions will come under consideration sub- sequently in a, note. Tr. 5 54 USE OF THE VERSIONS. sounds of some words, the necessity of a division of a word, and several minor circumstances of this kind, enable us to conjecture with confidence, 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 wished, and which, considering the prodigious degree of learning and labor which has already been exhausted, we are doubly tempted to wish for. Yet this learning and labor are not to be regretted, since assistance of this kind is absolutely necessary for criticism. And, on the other hand, it cannot be doubted, that the advantage, in correcting the sacred text, which criticism might draw from the collation of manuscripts, would be still more equivocal, unless it were able to add also a third means, which is particularly well adapted to try the genuineness of the benefit, 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, although it must be allowed that it is applicable exclusively to the New Testament. USE OF THE VERSIONS. 55 Some of the versions which we have of it are con- siderably older than all our manuscripts. The Syriac, for example, belongs most probably 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 determined, from one of these versions, what was the reading of the manu- script from which 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 certainty, and how this information may be obtained from them, is self-evident ; but it may also be remarked, 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 important 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 56 QUOTATIONS IN THE FATHERS. 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 determinate as they are certain. In such cases, the reading given in the version, may with confidence be regarded as the reading of the manuscript, and the authority of this manuscript may often with sufficient certainty be con- sidered 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 applying 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 the 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 criti- cism. 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 gen- eral of all the older ecclesiastical writers who 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 ean avail itself of those works. QUOTATIONS IN THE FATHERS. 57 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 con- tained 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 certain whether the ancient author transcribed the quoted pas- sage 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 might conjec- ture 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 sometimes 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 certain proof that it was added by some later hand. The first quota- tion, therefore, in which it occurs, affords 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- 18 QUOTATIONS IN THE FATHERS. ness of 1 John v. 7, that no Greek father even to the fourth century seems to have been acquainted with 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.* From this example it is also exceedingly evident, that the conjectures which by these means are afforded to criticism, it may expect for the most part to be able to strengthen on other grounds both external and in- ternal ; 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 manu- script, 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 util- ity which can be afforded by this help to criticism, may also be determined with sufficient accuracy. In connexion with the others it can supply criticism with many very valuable results, but independently the data which it affords 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 employ in attaining its objects, must the character of these objects be most perspicuously exhibited. * Note IX. HISTORY OF SACRED PHILOLOGY. 59 CHAPTER VII. In giving an account of the literary helps which may be used in the study of criticism and of sacred philology in general, in proportion as it might be neces- sary to go into particulars, would it be easy to antici- pate 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 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 gradually improved condition. With the exception of the labors which Origen, in his Hexapla bestowed on the philology and criticism 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 language, particularly the Hebrew; but, which was still more to> be lamented, they had no conception of the necessity of accurate acquaintance with this subject, for the purposes of correct interpretation. In the middle ages all learned acquaintance with languages was entirely lost. In consequence of the total * Note X. 60 HISTORY OF SACRED PHILOLOGY. ignorance which prevailed on this subject, a great number of the grossest philological errors, 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, this very state of things afforded the immediate occasion for some of its most distinguished restorers to apply their industry to this altogether uncultivated field, and to endeavor 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 celebrated Erasmus of Rotterdam with respect to the Greek, and with a zeal and success, which alone must have made their names immortal, if they had per- formed 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 afterwards pursued still further 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 abund- ance of hostile treatment. Neither he, nor the two - HISTORY OF SACRED PHILOLOGY. 61 Stephenses, nor even the example of the great promoter of the Complutensian Polyglot, was able to awaken a feeling only somewhat general in favor of criticism. But still, learning in languages flourished again in full bloom from their age ; although some 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 consequently became qualified to offer to the German nation the most beneficial of all presents, in Luther's translation of the Bible. But more efficacious than the example and the exhortations of Luther and Melancthon, was the necessity, which soon pressed upon the divines of the newly established church, to defend themselves 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 indis- pensable requisite of a learned divine. Greek and Hebrew studies were now pursued with great ardor by the Protestants, and were also employed with peculiar zeal in making known to the Roman i Catholics numerous errors in their Vulgate. But for the more accurate study of the Hebrew 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 entirely 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 62 HISTORY OF SACRED PHILOLOGY. 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 must have been introduced from another source than that, and also that another was required for its illustra- tion. But the whole direction which the spirit of the- ology had taken at the end of the sixteenth century, and which was introduced in the following, was neces- sarily unfavorable in the highest degree to this disco- very. Exegetical theology was unhappily altogether 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 there- 1 fore even the grammar of the languages of scripture 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 doctrinal theology, to be the only ancient and genuine idiom, and it even de- clared it impious merely to doubt whether the Apos- tles 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 significa- tion of their expressions, nothing more was regarded than the convenience which might thereby result, or which had long ago resulted to doctrinal theology. The unavoidable consequences of such a course are i HISTORY OF SACRED PHILOLOGY. 63 shown, even in a stronger light than was absolutely necessary, by the whole state of theological literature in the preceding century. In order gradually to bring the subject into its right course, it was therefore very suitable and proper, 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 ob- serve the advantages which the study of these can af- ford : for this most immediately prepared the way for the direction, which the philological study of the New Tes- tament 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 Septuagint transla- tion, in the writings of Philo, and in the oriental lan- guages ; and as these sources were made purer and more useful, by the industry of many learned men who successively applied their labors to them, and at the same time also the study of oriental literature was carried incomparably farther than it had ever been ^before, by the application of Erpenius, Schultens, pReiske, Michaelis and others, it was very natural that sacred philology should soon assume among us a per- fectly new form. With still greater reason may sacred criticism be considered as literature of our age and altogether new. Richard Simon indeed,* the great man who may be * Note XI. 64 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 al- most universal cry of heresy with which they were received, and the real persecution which rewarded their labors, 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 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 or account of the bold auda- city with which, as it was thought, he treated the Bible.* The labors, in our own age, of Michaelis, Griesbach, Matthaei, in the criticism of the New Testament, and * Note XII. HELLENISTIC CONTROVERSY. 65 of Houbigant, Kennicott, De Rossi, in that of the Old, ire 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 remark- able. It will also be necessary to separate from each other, those which belong to the knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew languages, and also those in which the labors of criticism in relation to the Old and New Testaments are contained. Thus the valuable helps in each of these departments, afforded by the collec- tions of the learned, can the more easily be perceived, from the improved order in which they are arranged. C HAPTER VIII. 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 Helle- nistic — 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 variou* 66 HELLENISTIC CONTROVERSY. 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, under- took 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 controversy, until the signal^ was given by Sebastian Pfochen in the following work. Diatribe de linguae Graecae 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 conceived to be the truth, or else confirmed their obstinacy, so that they defended with equal earnestness the positions of Pfochen. Hence a literary war arose which con- tinued even in our own century. In 1639, Joachim Jung published in Germany his Sententiae 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 HELLENISTIC CONTROVERSY. 67 represented all defenders of the Hellenistic idiom as hateful heretics. In the same year therefore, Daniel Wulfer wrote a vindication of them: Innocentia Hellenistamm vindicata. But now Grosse directed against him his Observationes pro triade observationum — apologeticae'; and as the amiable and learned John Mus^eus, in a Disquisitio de Stilo Novi Testamenti, which he pub- lished in 1641, did not altogether declare himself in his favor, he attacked this good man so severely in a Tertia defensio triados, which came out at Hamburg, in 1641, that Musaeus found himself compelled to pub- lish in 1642, Vindiciae disquisitionis de stilo Novi Testa- menti. Even this did not impose silence on Grosse, who sent into the world a fourth defence of his Trias, which was published at Hamburg 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 intention- ally in an express Exercitatio de lingua Hellenistica, which in 1643 he published at Leyden. On the other hand, the no less celebrated Salmasius published, in reply to him, not less than three controversial works that same year, the contents and character of which are easily recognized from their titles. That of the first is : Salmasii Hellenistica — sive commentarius con- troversiam de lingua Hellenistica decidens; of the second : Funus linguae Hellenisticae, sive Confutatio 63 HELLENISTIC CONTROVERSY. 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 Instrument, Loud. 1648, defended with much warmth the party and opinion of the Hellenists. In Switzerland this was done principally by Samuel Werenfels, in a treatise 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 by John Vors- t i us as its principal conductor, in his Philologia sacra — de Hebraismis Novi Testamenti, Leyden, 1658, to which in 1665 he published a second part, under the title : Commentarius de Hebraismis Novi Testamenti,* after Horace Vitringa had attacked the first in a publication entitled : Specimen annotationum ad philo- logiam sacram Yorstii. In order to give posterity a correct view of the proceedings of this memorable controversy, two learned 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 * The best edition of this work is that of Fischer, published at Leipzig, in 8vo, 1778. Tr. HELLENISTIC CONTROVERSY. 69 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 former in a treatise de textu Novi Testamenti Greeco, Halas, 1707, endeavored to produce an accommodation, 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 Wittemberg given new life to the controversy. This zealot for the purity of the style of scripture published in 1732, Vindiciae Novi Testamenti ab Ebra- ismis 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. 6* 70 SOURCES TO ILLUSTRATE THE 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 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 published 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 compare that which was first made public at Rome in 1772, folio, under the title: Daniel, secundum Septuaginta, and in 1773 was reprinted at Goettingen according 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. LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 71 Jac. Usserii Syntagma de Graeca Septuaginta in- terpretum versione. Lips. 1695. Isaac. Vossii Dissertationes de LXX interpretibus, eorumque translatione et chronologia. Hag. Com. 1661. Ant. Van Dale, Commentatio super Aristeam de LXX interpretibus. Amstelod. 1705. Jo. Ernest Grabe, Dissertatio de vitiis versioni LXX ante Originis aevum illatis. Oxon. 1710. J. M. Hassencamp, Dissertatio de Pentateucho LXX interpretum Graeco non ex Ebraeo sed ex Sama- ritano textu converso. 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. Hafhiae, 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 al- together indispensable. The older of the two is : Abra- ham Tromii Concordantise Graecae versionis LXX interpretum, Amstel. 1718, folio ; and the more mo- dem : Jo. Christ. Biel Novus thesaurus philologicus, sive lexicon in LXX et alios interpretes et scriptores apocryphos Veteris Testamenti. Ex auctoris manu- cripto edidit et praefatus est E. H. Mutzenbecher. Vol. hi. Hag. Com. 1779—1781, 8vo. To this last work Dr. J. F. Schleusner has made very valuable additions, in two collections which he has published 72 SOURCES TO ILLUSTRATE THE with the title : Spicilegia lexici in Septuaginta post Bielium. Lips. 1784, 1786.* 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 already- 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, Horae Hebraicae et Chaldaicae in quatuor Evangelistas, Acta Apostol. — separat. ed. a Bened. Carpzov. Lips. 1684.t Christ. Schoettgenii Horae Hebraicae et Tal- mudicae in universum Novum Testamentum. Vol. ii. Dresd. 1733, 1744. 4to. Gerh. Meuschenii Novum Testamentum 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 wri- tings. Lond. 1746—1748. Vol. iii. folio. * Note XIII. t All the works of Lightfoot, comprehending of course his Ho- rae, were published in English in two large folio volumes, in London in 1684. A new edition in several volumes 8vo, has recently ap- peared. Tr. LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 73 Johan. Bened. Carpzovii Exercitationes sacrae in epistolam Pauli ad Hebraeos ex Philone Alexan- drino Helmstad. 1750. Johan. Tob. Krebs, Observationes in Novum Testamentum ex Flavio Josepho. Lips. 1755. Those illustrations which are drawn from pure Greek writers to illustrate the dialect of the New Testament, are brought together principally in the fol- lowing works. Georg. Raphelii Annotationes in Novum Testa- mentum ex Xenophonte collectae. Hamb. 1720, ed. secund. — By the same author : Annotationes in Novum Testamentum ex Polybio et Arriano collectae, ib. 1715 ; — and Annotationes philological in Novum Testamentum ex Herodoto collectae. Luenenburg, 1731. Johan. Henr. Von Seelen, Specimen observa- tionum ad loca Novi Testamenti — ex Plutarchi libro de institutione puerorum. Lubec. 1719. Lamb. Bos, Diatribae, sive exercitationes philolo- gicee, in quibus Novi Testamenti loca quaedam ex profanis auctoribus illustrantur. Franecker, 1700. Ge. Guil. Kirchmeyer, Dissertatio de parallelis- rao 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 auctoribus Graecis et antiquitate exponuntur et illustrantur. Tra- jecti, 1728. Car. Henr. Langii Observationes philologicae in 74 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 sacrae in libros Novi Testamenti, ex auctoribus potissimum Graecis et antiquitate. Wratisl. 1752. Elias Palairet, Observationes philologico-criticae m sacros Novi Testamenti libros, quorum plurima loca ex auctoribus Greeds illustrantur, vindicantur et expo- nuntur. Lugd. Batav. 1752. Casp. Frid. Munthe, Observationes philologicae in sacros Novi Testamenti libros ex Diodoro Siculo collectas. Havniae, 1755. Frid. Lud. Abresch, Dilucidationes Thucydidese, 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 Grasco- Latinum in Novum Testamentum. Tom. ii. Lips. 1792. Svo.t CHAPTER IX. The helps to facilitate an acquaintance with the original language of the Old Testament, may very properly be comprised in three classes. First, sources from which the original knowledge of the language of the Hebrew Bible must be drawn, * Note XIV. t Note XV. LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 75 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, as Grammars, Lexicons, Concordances, and Collections of idioms of the language. Thirdly, we may add, those particular works, which illustrate by philological observations the language of separate books or single passages of the Old Testament. I. 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 lan- guages, are the principal sources, and almost 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 completely proved by John Frederic Fischer, in a treatise de versioni- bus Graecis libroram jYeteris Testamenti literarum Hebraicarum magistros. Lips. 1772. The superiority of the Greek versions in this respect arises from their number : for in addition to the Septuagint, there existed 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 76 SOURCES TO ILLUSTRATE THE down to us in a most lamentably imperfect state : still, some fragments of it remain, which can always be used, and which have been used, with much advantage. These were collected as early as the last century by John Drusius, in his Fragmenta veterum interpretum Graecorum in totum vetus Testamentum. Arnhem. 1622. But the most meritorious service in this depart- ment 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 folios, which, abridged in certain places, and provi- ded 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 correctly estimated, but their application also greatly facilitated. The latter is done in the work of John Fred. Fischer, entitled : Clavis reliquarum versionum Grae- carum veteris Testamenti. Lips. 1758, and in John Aug. Scharfenberg's Animadversiones, quibus frag- menta versionum Graecarum Veteris Testamenti illus- trantur. Specim. 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 Grascis Veteris Testamenti inter- pretibus. Halae. 1770. * Note XVI. LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 77 Joh. Aug. Dathe, Dissertatio in Aquilae reliquias interpretationis Hoseae. Lips. 1757. Car. Aug. Thieme — pro puritate Symmachi. 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. Hebraeorum Vet. Test. MSS. generibus a Judaeis et non-Judaeis descriptis. Rostoch. 1772. But in oppo- sition to this work several publications appeared, which were answered by Tychsen in his Tentamen vindi- cated, 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. 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 * Note XVII. 78 SOURCES TO ILLUSTRATE THE 1514 — 1517, in six folios, under the auspices of cardinal Ximenes. The second is the Antwerp, which ap- peared in 1569 — 1571, in eight folios, and is often refer- red to under the title : Biblia regia Philippi II. 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 vo- lumes folio, in 1657. The most complete accounts of these Polyglots may be found in Le Long's Discours historique sur les principaux editions de Polyglottes. Paris, 1713* 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 folios, 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- lished at Frankfort in 1700 by Job Ludolf and Nis- sel. Still it may easily be supposed, that very labori- ous investigations, partly historical and partly philolo- gical and critical, were necessary, before these versions could be made useful in illustrating the Hebrew text. We must therefore, by all means, make ourselves ac- quainted with the results of those investigations. These are to be found most fully in Richard Simon's Histoire critique des versions ; in the Appara- tus Biblicus of Brian Walton, Zurich, 1670, or, as it is entitled in the latest edition published by Dathe at Leipzig, 1777, the Prolegomena in Biblia Polyglotta ; in Kennicott's two dissertations on the state of the • Note XVIII. LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 79 printed Hebrew text, Oxford, 1753. 1759 ; in Houbi- gant'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-Biblicus, Parma, 1782. On the Samaritan Pentateuch in particular, which gave rise to the most laborious and also the most con- tested discussions, the greatest mass of information may be found in Morini Exercitationes in utrumque Samaritanum Pentateuchum, Paris. 1631, in opposi- tion to which Henry Hottinger published his Exer- citationes antimorinianae de Samaritano Pentateucho, Tigur. 1644, whereupon Morin gave to the world his Opuscula Hebraeo-Samaritana, Paris. 1657. Later discussions on the controverted questions connected with these works are contained principally in Frid. Lmman. Schwartz Exercitationes historico-criticae in utrumque Samaritanum Pentateuchum, Witteb. 1756. and in Nouveaux eclaircissemens sur Tontine et le Pentateuque des Samaritains, 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 language 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 Hebraeae, edit. sec. Lugd. 1761, and in John David Michaelis' Beur- ! theilung der Mittel, welche man anwenden kann, die | ausg estorbene Hebraeische Sprache zu erlernen und 80 SOURCES TO ILLUSTRATE THE zu verstehen, view of the means to be used, in order to acquire a knowledge of the dead Hebrew language, Goettingen. 1757. II. Of the second class of literary helps for acqui- ring 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. Gotting. 1790, 4to. J. D. Michaelis Supplementum ad Lexica Hebra- ica. P. i — vi. Gotting. 1792. Joh. Simonis Lexicon manuale Hebraicum et Chaldaicum. Halae, 1756. Also the authors Observa- tiones Lexic. in Supplementum Lexici manualis, Halae 1762, edit. tert. auct. Joh. Godfr. Eichhorn, 1793. Joh. Cocceii Lexicon Hebraic, et Chaldaic. auct. ed. a J. C. F. Schultz. T. ii. Lips. 1777. Joh. Buxtorfii Concordantiae Bib. Heb. Basil. 1632.* 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 Hebraicse. Edit, quint. Basil. 1651. Joh. Adr. Danzii Literator Hebraeo-Chaldaeus. Jenae, 1745. * Note XIX. LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 81 John Henry Michaelis' erleichterte Hebraeis- ohe Grammatik, Hebrew grammar made easy, Halle, 1745. Schultens' Institutiones ad fundamenta lingiia3 Hebraeae. Ludg. Bat. 1745. Institutiones ad fundamenta linguae Hebraeae edit. Nic. Guil. Schroeder. Groening. 1766, and Francof. 1778. J. D. Michaelis HebraeischeG rammatik nebst einem Anhang von gruendlicher Erkenntniss dersel- ben. Hebrew grammar with an appendix on a funda- mental acquaintance with it. Third edition, Halle, 1778. William Fred. Hezel's ausfuehrliche Hebrae- ische iSprachlehre. Complete Hebrew grammar, Halle, 1777. To these must be added, on account of the Chaldee, which is to be considered as one of the languages of the Bible, and not merely as a kindred dialect intended to aid in acquiring the Hebrew : Jac. Altingii Synopsis institutionum Chaldaic. cumadnot. Joh. Simonis, Halae, 1749. Joh. Frid. Hirtii Bibliorum analyticorum pars Chaldaica, praemissa introductione ad Chaldaismum biblicum. Jenae, 1757. J. D. Michaelis Grammatica Chaldaica. Goettin- gen, 1771. Some idioms and peculiarities of the biblical Hebrew are collected and explained in the following works : Joh. Jac Breitinger, brevis de idiotismis lin- guae Hebraicae commentarius. Tigur. 1737. 82 SOURCES TO ILLUSTRATE THE Christoph. Theodos. Walter, Ellipses He- braeae. 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 He- braeo-Chaldaicarum. Jenae, 1734. Joh. Christ. Storr, Observationes ad ana- logiam et Syntaxin Hebraeam pertinentes. Tubing. 1779/ III. 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. Schroeder we have a commentary of the same kind on the tenth Psalm, published at Groe- ningen 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 r 1706. * Note XX. LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 83 Christ. Bened. Michaelis Observation es philo- gicae denominibus propriis Hebrseorum. Halae, 1729. Jo. Simonis Onomasticon Vet. Test. Halse. 1741 ; also, the same author's areanum formamm nominum linguae Hebrsese, Halse, 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 r 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: Roeert Lowth de sacra poesi Hebrseorum prgelectiones academical, Oxon. 1753, and afterwards published at Goettingen 1758 and 1761, with the notes of John David Michaelis ;* 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' labors. * Note XXI, 84 LITERARY HELPS TO 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 incorruptibility 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 controversy, were there mentioned. These wri- tings of Capel and Simon, and particularly of the latter, contain not only the reasons which make a cri- tical treatment of the Hebrew text necessary, but also such an admirable development of the means which can and must be employed for that purpose, the man- ner in which they should be used, the caution to be applied and the method to be pursued, that the princi- pal work of this learned man, his critical history of the text of the Old and New Testaments, will always retain 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, Cri- tica sacra. Amstel. 1693 ; Humfrey Hody, de Biblio- rum 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 BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 85 and Cethib are to be ascribed to Ezra, who thus desig- nated on the margin of his copy the various readings which he discovered in some manuscripts. Also : Joh. Reinhardi Commentar. de notis marginalibus sacri codicis Masorethicis, Witteb. 1674 ; Aug. Pfeiffer de Masorah, ejus nomine, materia, forma, 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 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 edition of which, printed at Paris in 1723 in two folios, was republished, enriched with very large additions, by Andrew Gottliee Masch, at Halle in 1778-1785, in five volumes, quarto.* Yet on these sources and the use of them generally, very much may be learned from the above mentioned Apparatus Biblicus or Prolego- mena 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 into 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. • Note XXII. 86 LITERARY HELPS TO Erh. Andr. Frommann, Quaestio philologica, an variae lectiones ad Codicem V. T. ex Mishna colligi possint. Coburg. 1761. — Joh. Aug. Dathe, Prolusio de difficultate rei criticae. in V. T. came dijudicanda. Lips. 1762. — Gottfr. Less, de cura, quam praesens textus Hebraei 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, Judae- orum codicis sacri rite scribendi leges ad recte aestiman- dos codices manuscriptos antiquos 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, 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 Testa- ment. They are as follows : Joh. Bened. Michaelis Biblia Hebraica. Halae, 1720, Tom. ii. 4to.* Biblia Hebraica cum notis criticis — Car. Franc Houbigant. Paris. 1753. Tom. iv r . fol. Yetus Testamentum Hebraicum cum variis lec- tionibus ed. Benjam. Kennicott. Oxon. Tom. i. 1776. Tom. ii. 1780, fol. De Rossi, Apparatus Hebraeo-biblicus, Parmae, ♦ Note XXIII. BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 87 1782; also, by the same author: Variae lectiones V. T. Parmae, 1784, vol. ii. fol. There are again some works, which in part con- tain, among other matter, separate portions of the Hebrew text, in part critically collated from particular manuscripts, which may be considered as a sort of supplement to the collection of Kennicott. Of these the following are the principal. Kritisches Collegium ueber die drey wichtigste Psal- men 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 He- braica continentium notitiam, cum Sylloge variarum lectionum 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 Fred- eric Hezel's Versuch einer Geschichte der biblis- chen Kritik des A. T. : Essay towards a history of the Biblical criticism of the Old Testament ; which made its appearance at Halle in 1780, 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 fa- cilities to be relied on for investigating this department were much more numerous, and much more accessible, than those relating to the other. Every library of some respectability could enumerate many Greek ma- OO LITERARY HELPS TO nuscripts. 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 compari- sons criticism must necessarily have advanced to a greater degree of perfection. These comparisons dis- closed, as soon as they were instituted, many differences or various readings. As early as the 16th century, Erasmus and the two Stephenses drew the conclusion, , that the most important consequences must result from collecting these various 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 ge- nuine might be ascertained and the original restored. Their principles also were constantly improving, as additional caution in the application or use of them j was found to be necessary, and a more correct standard established whereby to estimate the results which they afforded. Beside some important works of the preceding cen- tury already mentioned, in which these principles and |j 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 fol- lowing, partly of that century and partly of our own, are deserving of particular notice. Jo. Sauberti variae lectiones textus Graeci Evan?. Matthiae — cum epicrisi de origine, usu, auctoritate va- riarum N. T. lectionum in genere. Helmstad. 1672. BIBLICAL CRITICISM. S9 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 criticomm 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 variamm lectionum Jo. Millii in N. T. Lond. 1710. Joh. Guil. Baier, Dissertatio de variantium lec- tionum usu et abusu. Altorf. 1712. Joh. Lud. FREYde 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 criticse N. T. Tubing. 1746. Anthony Blackvvall's sacred classics defended and illustrated, (Critica Sacra N. T. a Christ. Wollio 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. Joh. Jac. Griesbachii curae in historiam textus Graeci 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- ♦ Note XXIV. 8 90 LITERARY HELPS TO ticed, together with the labors which have been applied 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 critical edition of this version was prepared by John Albert Widmanstadt at Vienna in 1555, which was re- printed in the Antwerp Polyglot in 1575 with an ap- pendix of various readings. It first appeared complete 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 by Edward Pococke in 1630. The whole was afterwards published by Charles Schaaf in 1717 at Leyden in 4to, accompanied by a Syriac lexicon of the New Testament in an additional volume.f The most extensive and complete accounts of these Syriac versions have been given by Glocester Rid- ley, in his dissertatio de Syriacarum versionum indole ac usu, which is appended to Wetstein's Libelli ad cri- sin 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 versio- * Apocalypsis ex MS. Scaligeri — Syriace, op. Lcdov. de Dizc. 1627. t Note XXV. BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 91 nibus 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 Curse in versionem Sy- riacam Actuum Apostolorum, of J. D. Michaelis, published at Goettingen in 1775. There are also several Arabic versions of the New- Testament. At least, the impressions in the London 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, dis- sertatio do Evangeliis 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 Gr^vius, and a more modern by Abraham Wehloc, London, 1657. An Armenian version was printed at Amsterdam in 1668 by Bishop Use an, 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 * The following publications deserve to be particularly mentioned : Versio Syriaca Philoxeniana Sacrorum Evangeliorum, Joseph White, cum vers. Lat. Oxon. Vol. II. 1778. 4to. Novi Testamenti versiones Syriacae, Simplex, Philoxeniana et Hierosolymitana, cum observatt. et tabb. sen. ab J. G. C. Adler : Hafnise. 1789. 4to. 92 LITERARY HELPS TO relating to it is collected in the preface by Christ. Bened. Michaelis to the Evangelium secundum Matthaeum 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 greatest degree of information is to be found in the Thesaurus epistolicus la Crozianus, which was published 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 them, which are generally referred to by the names 1 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 attention of the greater number of scholars, to collect them to- gether, to prepare them for publication, and to decide upon their merits. The principal works in which this is done, and where these fragments are collected, are as follows : Yulgata antiqua Latina et Itala versio Evangelii secundum Matthaeum. Ed. studio Johan. Martianay. Paris. 1698. Acta Apostolorum Greeco-Latine e cod ice Laudiano. Ed. Thomas Hearnius. Oxon. 1715. Biblia Sacra Latinae versionis, seu Vetus Itala, opera Pet. Sabatier. Remis. 1743. hi. fol. BIBLICAL CRITICISM 93 Evangeliarium quadruplex Latinae versionis an- tique — 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, which 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 ecclesiasticarum, Paris. 1678 ; also Blanchini's Vindi- ciae canonicarum scripturarum Vulgatae Latinse, Ro- mae, 1740, with the observations and treatises contained in his Evangeliarum quadruplex ; and J. S. Semler's appendix to Wetstein's Prolegomena, published by him at Halle in 1764. Lastly : — in our age the first effort of much import- ance has been made to employ the old Gothic version of Ulphilas to the criticism of the New Testament. As early as the year 1670 indeed, George Stiern- hielm published at Stockholm Evangelia Gothice translata ab Ulphila, with parallel northern versions and a Glossarium Ulphilo-Gothicum ; but a far better edition appeared at Oxford under the following title : Sacrorum Evangeliorum Versio Gothica cum interpre- tatione Latina et notis Erici Benzelii ed. Edw. Lye. 1750. John Ihre, in his Ulphilas illustratus, threw much additional light on this version ; but in the year 1763, superintendent Francis Ant. Knittel made public a Versio Gothica Ulphilas nonnullorum capitum epistolse ad Romanos, which he had found in a manuscript of the Wulfenbuttel library. Many 8* 94 LITERARY HELPS TO writings relating to this Gothic version, by Ihre, Hup- pel, Esberg, Gordon and Wachter, may be found in a collection of Ihre, with the title : Scripta versio- nem Ulphilanam illustrantia, edited by Buesching. 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 labor and brought together : although there are some collections from writings of the fathers, which appear to have been made, principally with the view of bringing together more closely what they con- tain that is useful in criticism and interpretation. 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 Catenae Patmm has been invented. Thus, for example, we have a catena of twenty-one Greek fathers on the Gospel of St. Mat- thew, published by Peter Possin, at Toulouse 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 ; Baltha- sar Corderius a catena Patrum on St. John, Ant- werp, 1630 ; and John Hentenius with Morellus another, on the Acts, the epistles of St. John and the catholic epistles, Paris, 1631. The literary and his- torical notices of the Catenae have been collected by Thomas Ittig in a separate work : de bibliothecis et catenis patrum, Lips. 1707 ; but on the use that can be BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 95 made of them in the criticism and interpretation of the New Testament, and the advantages that may be ex- pected to result, Dr. Noesselt has published a work en- titled : Observationes de catenis patrum Graecorum 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 prepared ; in other words, to state those editions of the New Testa- ment, in which the various readings are collected, esti- mated according to their value, and judged according to the degree in which their genuineness is more or less probable. Among the olde ditions, it is proper to mention in the first place, the Greek text in the Oompluten- sian 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 in 1766 published at Halle his Genauere Untersuchung der schlechten Beschaffenheit des zu Alcala gedruckten Neuen Testaments ; Critical Examination of the incor- rect character of the New Testament printed at Alcala ; in reply to which John Melch. Goetze printed at Hamburg in the same year, Ausfuehrliche Vertheidi- gung des Complutensischen Neuen Testaments mit beygefuegten kritischen Anmerkungen gegen Semler; The Complutensian New Testament defended at length against Semler, with accompanying critical remarks.! ♦Note XX VI. t Note XXVII. 96 LITERARY HELPS TO 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 1522 frequently differ from each other, because in each of them the editor endeavored to im- prove 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 Curcell^e- us, and John Fell of England, meritoriously aided the cause of criticism, the former in his edition published 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. 1707, fol. It was re- published in 1710 at Amsterdam by Loins Kuster, with a larger and better arranged collection of various readings. Bengel followed Mill. His critical edition of the BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 97 New Testament, with his Apparatus Criticus, first ap- peared at Tuebingen in 1734. A greater treasure than even that of Bengel was af- terwards collected by John James Wetstein, whose Novum Testamentum Graecum, cum variantibus lec- tionibus codicum manuscriptorum, editionum aliarum, versionum et patrum, 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. Yol. i. ii. 8vo.* Another service for the criticism of the New Testa- ment has been accomplished still more recently by the same learned man, in his Symbolae criticae ad supplen- das et corrigendas variarum Novi Testamenti lectionum collectiones — cum descriptione et examine multorum codicum Graecorum Novi Testamenti. Hal. T. I. 1785. T. II. 1793, 8vo. In 1788, the new critical edition of the New Testa- ment by Professor Matth^ei 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 Yaticanae Barberinae et cet. 1784, 4to, and a year earlier : Novum Testamentum ad codicem Yindobonensem Graece ex- pressum. Yarietatem lectionum addidit Franc Car. Alter. Prof. Gymnas. Yindob. vol. ii. Yiennae, 1787, in royal octavo. * Note XXVIII. 98 METHOD OF STUDY. 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 for- mer, given to the world in 1789,* was the result of the application of Woide, and for the latter, published in 1 793, at the cost of the university of Cambridge, we are indebted to the labors of Thomas Kipling. Codex Theod. Bezse Cantabrigiensis, Evangelia et Acta Apos- tolorum complectens, quadratis Uteris Grseco-Latinus — Academia aspirante venerandas has vetustatis reliquias summa fide adumbravit — expressit, edidit — codicis his- toriam — notasque adjecit Thomas Kipling, S. T. P. Cantabrig. 1793. Vol. ii. fol. Thus they have been brought within the reach of the learned, and can be more generally and more easily used. CHAPTER XI. 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 dis- cussions 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 * Horne says, 1786. Introduction, Vol. II. Part II. Appendix p. 19. METHOD OF STUDY. 99 divine, but it may actually admit of doubt whether it is possible for every one. The inquiry deserves atten- tion ; for should these doubts in the end really prove to be well founded, it will certainly be more corres- pondent 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 success. But it may be almost anticipated, that these doubts will appear en- tirely 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 becomes the first requsite 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, deter- mines to study the philology of the Hebrew language for himself, must himself discover by means of the helps that can be employed, its spirit, its character, 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 oriental languages which have sprung from it or are connected 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 knowledge respecting them as may be confidently relied on. It is indeed true, that this knowledge has frequently been collected and brought together from those scat- 100 METHOD OF STUDY. 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 signifi-, cations of its words ; it is nothing more than the results I of the inquiries of others, which we thereby assume as true, without having examined into their truth for our- selves, or being able to conduct such an examination. From this last circumstance principally, 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 seel 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 may indeed in the lexicons be taken from this source with perfect correctness : but if the student has no know- ledge of Arabic, it is evident that he must depend upon the truth and fidelity of the compiler of the lexi- con, or of the first scholar who discovered the Arabic roots, and assume it as true, that the signification of the Hebrew words is correctly given. Whatever reasons or whatever presumptions we may have in METHOD OF STUDY. 101 favor 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 substantial know- ledge 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 particular 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 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 collections of Kennicott and De Rossi relating to the Old Testa- ment, 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 judgment on the value of the various readings, and to estimate the degree of their probable genuineness or spuriousness. But what must be the foundation of this judgment ? and from what must this estimate proceed 1 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, 9 102 METHOD OF STUDY. to the fate they have undergone, which must all be considered in forming this judgment ? This informa- tion and these conjectures, — on the correctness of which the most, or properly speaking the whole de- pends, — we must believe on the word of the collector, who collated and described the manuscripts. 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 acquaint- ance thus obtained neither does nor can always satisfy every wish, became particularly observable among our scholars on the appearance of Kennicott's edition i 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 impossible. 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 4 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 undertaking. METHOD OF STUDY. 103 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 J 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 distinct 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 with these languages is of little or no use ; for the very fact 104 METHOD OF STUDY. that they are to be used in order to illustrate another, shows that a mere grammatical knowledge of their let- ters, their forms and some of their words, cannot be very extensively applied. For this purpose a philoso- phical 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 irrepa- rable loss ; for it may in fact be shown, that to study those branches of learning for one's self from original sources is, in general, to be considered as much unne- cessary as it is impossible. We have certainly every reasonable motive to place sufficient confidence in the results of the investigations which have been pursued on these subjects by scholars, who 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 dis- closures this is a point which must come into serious consideration, of which the deceit that was practised in relation to the famous codex Ravianus, by which so many critics were imposed upon, affords a very re- markable 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 re- ally 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. METHOD OF STUDY. 105 When Schulten, 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 sanc- tioned by the Alexandrine manuscript, the student who has no knowledge of Arabic may confidently regard the signification of the Hebrew word given by Schultens as the true one, and he who has never seen the Alex- andrine manuscript may still be secure of having the reading contained in it; for Schultens was not the only man who found the signification referred to in the Ara- bic, and many besides Mill have examined the Alexan- drine 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 cre- dible. Indeed we must rest satisfied with such evi- dence in a hundred other cases ; and we do satisfy our- selves with it even in a multitude of cases where we are not necessarily obliged to do so, No reason there- fore 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 un- necessary expense of labor 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 vast deal more than has hitherto been drawn from them. Yet even this suggests ano- 106 METHOD OF STUDY. ther circumstance, which makes it still more evident, that a personal examination of the original sources of this learning cannot be necessary in general 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 Scrip- tures is still susceptible of very great improvement, by a further cultivation of oriental literature in general, en- riching 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 dis- coveries, by still further pursuing its investigations in the road which has been opened for it with so much trouble. There is therefore great reason to wish that many more scholars would devote themselves entirely or principally to this kind of literature, from which so much may be derived. Yet we may confidently be- lieve, 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 already cultivated in respect to the languages of the Bible, that it can supply sufficient exegetical materials for a gene- rally 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 sufficient certainty be considered as secured in all important and principal places against interpolations not yet discovered, and also may always come to a probable conclusion as to the genuine reading. It was this that was necessary to be done, since otherwise interpretation could not have taken one step with security. It is this therefore, METHOD OF STUDY. 107 which every one who intends to make theology his study necessarily requires ; but he requires nothing more. Since now he can secure this merely by an in- dustrious 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. 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 obliged to examine the whole subject of theology within a limited period, and who would not confine his attention to this particular department ; in other words, every one who must run through his whole theological course in the usual space of three or four years, not only may with- out hesitation dispense with studying the subjects un- der consideration from their proper original sources, but he may do so without disadvantage. But to guard against the possibility of being misunderstood, I would remark, that this assertion is by no means equivalent to saying, that the student may continue utterly igno- rant 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 108 METHOD OF STUDY. little labor, and consequently to make it the more pal- pable, that an indisposition to undertake this little is utterly unpardonable. 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 lexi- con and a grammar, in order in the shortest possible 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 horologium ; yet in fact a vast deal more time is not required for this purpose. These rules are subsequently the more readily impressed upon the memory in the business of analyzing, which must immediately afterwards be un- dertaken ; 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.* The exercise of analyzing is generally supposed to be the most difficult, and therefore undertaken with the • Note XXIX. METHOD OF STUDY. 109 I greatest reluctance ; in fact it is often entirely neglect- ed. But it is clearly impossible r ever to acquire a fun- damental knowledge of a dead language, without much practice in analysis. It consists simply 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 analyzed according to a rule, is in fact a confirmation of the rule. 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 ac- quired 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 know- ledge ; 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 * Or rather by the occasional use of thera. Tr. 110 METHOD OF STUDY. 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 himself, moreover, from the usage of the cognate languages, that a Hebrew word must have a certain definite meaning ; but it is the same meaning which has already been introduced from these sources in the better class of lexicons of the lan- guage. The difference therefore, as I have already shown, consists in this, that the latter method enables us to make the very same discoveries which have al- ready been made by grammarians and lexicographers, and also to try the correctness of their discoveries, while in the former we must altogether depend upon these for our information. But this difference is not of very great importance, 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 ori- ginal sources themselves are abandoned, it may be said that, in this case, we may spare ourselves even this shorter course of study 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 indifference, whether we trust the word of a lexicographer or of a translator, that a Hebrew expression has the meaning attached to it by the one or the other ; for that the language has been studied from its original sources, may as well be supposed of the latter as of the for- mer. If therefore only one such translation is at hand, it would seem capable of affording us as much METHOD OF STUDY. Ill 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 represented as superfluous. In the translation of Luther which is in most gen- eral use among us, it is by no means the case that we may always depend upon the fidelity of the translator ; 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 He- brew 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 view, and of the nicer adaptation of his ideas to this form, and even to each other, some- * The remarks of the author respecting Luther's translation are applicable also to the standard version in English. Tr. 112 METHOD OF STUDY. thing must unavoidably be lost, because something of all these is inseparably connected merely with his language. Whoever then can read him in his own language always possesses some advantage, and in- deed not a small one, over the reader to whom he is intelligible 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 theologian to obtain at least as much knowledge of Hebrew, as is required for that purpose ; and it should have the more weight in proportion to the facility 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 Testament is more important for the divine than that of the Old. In this case too, it is easier to draw our knowledge of the language of the New Testament immediately from one of the original sources, by which it may be sup- plied 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 t METHOD OF STUDY. 113 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 time so easily obtained. A mere grammatical knowledge of the Hebrew text is sufficient, in order to make most of the idioms that distinguish the language of this ver- sion clear and observable. And merely to have caught as much of the spirit of the Hebrew language as al- ways communicates itself by such a grammatical know- ledge 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 concep- tions 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 afterwards as soon as uttered be recognized 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 abridgments. Before the student begins his philological exami- nation of the New Testament, let him first read 10 114 METHOD OF STUDY. the Septuagint version, but in constant connexion with the Hebrew text. In this reading, as often as a pecu- liar idiom of the Hebrew language occurs, his atten- tion should be particularly directed to the manner in which the translator has expressed it. He should espe- cially impress upon his mind the form and the expres- sions, in which national and religious ideas of the Jews have been translated. In order to fix them the more firmly 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 re- specting the kind of dialect that he finds in these wri- tings, 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 con- tinued and repeated reading of the New Testament and of that translation, in part connected, in part al- ternately, the language of both may and must become more familiar, even their minute peculiarities more ob- servable, and the whole structure of the phraseology which prevails in them, better known. But as soon as this course has been pursued to a certain degree, the Concordance of the Septuagint by Trommius, and the Thesauirus of Biel, [or Schleusner,] may be used with the greatest advantage, as the principal and most ex- •Note XXX. METHOD OP STUDY. 115 cellent works to aid in studying the philology of the New Testament, in almost every particular case, and in every individual word. When, by 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, 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 collect- ors, 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 derived 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 col- lect them, have already been mentioned. These works are not very numerous, nor are they very difficult to obtain ; and moreover, the advantages which they afford, if a degree of accurate and mechanical arrange- ment be employed in the use of them, may be secured with an extremely trifling expense both of time and labor. 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 Testament, by Lightfoot and Schoettgen, from Hebrew and Rabbinic cal writers, by Eisner, Raphelius, Kypke and others, from the Greek classics, and by Krebs and others, from 116 METHOD OF STUDY. Josephus and Philo.* And since in 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 suscepti- ble of continued augmentation with scarcely any addi- tional trouble, and even in interpretation they are un- doubtedly the most serviceable 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, especial:/ 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 important, 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 language of the Old Testament. Lastly ; with respect to the limits, within which the study of sacred criticism may be restricted without in- jury, the following may be defined as almost self-evi- dent. It is exceedingly clear, that personal application and * Note XXXI. METHOD OF STUDY. 117 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 considerable facility. 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 respect- ing the genuine reading of those places which are ad- duced in support of doctrine. Here then it becomes necessary to acquire a knowledge of the various read- ings 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 readings 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 interpretation, however important they may frequently be for the critic properly so called, who often finds in them most valuable dis- closures respecting the character, the age, the derivation, and the family likeness of his manuscripts. It was there fore very necessary to form a collection of these ; but, 10* 118 METHOD OF STUDY. 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 there- fore he may without loss omit the study of those larger works, the greatest part of which is occupied merely in discoveries of this nature. Although, from the nature of the subject, the student is thus far exonerated from the obligation of a personal application to criticism, and is allowed to limit his exa- mination to the most important of those critical trea- sures which have been brought to light by others ; yet there is one point from which no one should withhold his attention. It is at least necessary for every one to acquire some personal knowledge of the way in which criticism 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 man- ner of origin, and the characteristic properties of the ma- nuscripts, in which confidence is chiefly to be placed, the most remarkable varieties which tend to show their derivation from different families or recensions, and also respecting what determines the value and the uti- lity of the most ancient translations of the Greek text. This previous knowledge will enable the student to deduce for himself most of those rules of criticism which must regulate in the detection of interpo- METHOD OP STUDY. 119 lations, and in the restoration of the genuine readings ; or certainly 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 pre- ference to any particular one ; for although he is obliged to rely upon the historical accounts which he receives from the critic, although he must believe 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 endeavor to obtain at least as much knowledge of criticism as is necessary for this purpose ; and the great ease with which this can be done adds weight to the obligation. In almost every introduction 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 whatever may from time to time be altered — or perhaps only differently modi- fied — in the old principles by the discovery of new, or the improvement which such discoveries may have actu- ally made. 120 METHOD OF STUDY. 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 mentioned by every one during his theological course of three years, and in this manner every one can certainly study them with advantage. It is evident that in such a course, success depends chiefly upon a student's own industry, and that even the direction of a teacher is a* most necessary only to give information respecting the literary helps, that is, the works which must be used. But experience gives still more certainty than antici- pation would justify us in assuming, that nothing but PERSONAL INDUSTRY, DIRECTED BY SOME WELL AR- RANGED system, can accomplish a vast deal in this department in a short space of time. EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY- PART II. HERMENEUTICS. CHAPTER I. The last branch of knowledge which belongs 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 r 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 may 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 ot learning, which indeed belongs to a course of exegetical study, and is subordinate to exegesis. In order to place this beyond the reach of doubt, it is only necessary to develop with accuracy the idea which the term expresses, and to set in a clear light the object to which it is particularly devoted. • From Ip^vevoi, to interpret. Tr. t From s^iryio^ai, to explain. Tr. 122 HERMENEUTICS. 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 incorruptness, and their origin, the very next condition which is re- quired to understand and properly to use those writings is, to become acquainted with the languages in which they were composed. A previous study of sacred phi- lology 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 ap- pear to lead to it more nearly than any other. In fact, it is of itself sufficient, in many cases, to make us ac- quainted with the true sense of those writings, but not so in all, for there are very many in which some- thing else is required. It is possible, whatever writing we may be exami- ning, 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 oftener may we understand all the words of a sen- tence, and still not be certain of the writer's meaning, because his words may admit of various significations, and when taken together may give several different senses. Consequently, certain rules, directions and marks are necessary, to enable us to ascertain and de- fine what sense the author of a writing connected with LAWS OF INTERPRETATION NECESSARY. 123 e 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 di- rections 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 mo- ment on a preliminary observation, the immediate pur- port 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 results in reference to that question. The necessity of hermeneutics is undoubtedly shown in the strongest light from the fact which expe- rience 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 in- terpreted. All Christian sects, both those of ancient 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 124 LAWS OF INTERPRETATION NECESSARY. m announces its determination to proceed according to certain hermeneutical rules. Although indeed this would afford no favorable 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 certain- ly think of attempting to defend or to oppose the cor- rectness of an exposition. Now, there is not a single one of those sects willing to confess, that they have interpreted in a merely arbitrary manner, and conse- quently every one of them does, by this very circum- stance, 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 what kind of rules ought to be established, in order to be useful. We ought, in one word, to have such rules as both can and must be regarded generally, as true and bind- ing. So long as such principles are applied as are ad- mitted 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 interpretations, or to show the falsehood of the opposite. But while this has always been attempted by each, even from the ear- liest periods, each has also maintained, that its own laws of interpretation are of such a nature, 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 also we know that LAWS OF INTERPRETATION NECESSARY. 125 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 pos- sible to deceive one's self, either in ascertaining these rules, or in trusting too much to their generally con- necting 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 conflicting views in the Bible. The true reason of this is imme- diately perceived, as soon as the source is named 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 recognized. 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 principle 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 interpretation of a passage in the Bible is agreeable to reason, or, in other words, that sound reason can find no other sense in it 11 126 LAWS OF INTERPRETATION than this, it ought not to be expected, that a man should acquiesce in the interpretation.* The whole art then, and the whole duty of herme- neutics must consist simply 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 which the soul of man must always govern itself in forming its thoughts and conceptions, in conveying its concep- tions 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 perceived. 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 herme- neutics must derive its principles only from the general laws of thinking, or, in a word, from logic, hermeneu- tics 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 * Note XXXII. FOUNDED ON REASON. 127 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 undeniable, and therefore it is at least no less so, that these rules of a reasonable hermeneutics, which are universally recog- nized 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 interpretations which have resulted. Yet the phenomena, on which this conclusion has been founded, undoubtedly do often arise from a cause al- together 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 correct, and differed from each other only in the application of them, for which many qualifications are requisite, which are not so easily found in connexion, because they can- not 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- 128 FIRST LAW OF INTERPRETATION. 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 consequently it will not be possible here to develop more than three or four, but these are of such a nature, that most of those which are more particular in their character may readily be drawn from them. But this development will most evidently show with what ease, on the one hand, these general rules can be formed, or at least be proved to human understanding to be correct and obli- gatory, — 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 variety of interpretation, CHAPTER I. The first of all the laws of interpretation is cer- tainly this : to endeavor to investigate the sense of a writing or passage which is to be interpreted, according to the signification which the general usage of the lan- guage, or also the well known particular usage of the writer, connects with the words which he employs. The rule, in one word, amounts to this : we should seek, in the first place, the literal sense of every pas- sage to be interpreted, as it must be afforded either by the general usage, or by one which is peculiar to the writer. Bat why this must be sought first, is a point which need not be made intelligible to any one, for FIRST LAW OP INTERPRETATION. 129 erery man's natural sense will tell him, which will also instinctively always bring him first to this means of exposition. 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 an one as others will immediately recognize to be his. The reader will therefore take his expressions only in a signification in which every other man takes them when they oc- cur 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 equally 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 11* 130 FIRST LAW OP INTERPRETATION. according to the figurative significations, which the usage of language attaches to it, what widely different expositions must he sometimes produce from the expo- sition given by others ! Another may indeed have a sufficiently full and correct acquaintance with the ge- neral usage of language ; he may know with great ac- curacy all the significations in which a word is gene- rally taken, while, at the same time, he 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 by 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 Christianity and among its different sects, the knowledge of lan- guage 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 Bi- ble. 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 which 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- FIRST LAW OF INTERPRETATION. 131 pose, it was necessary to become acquainted both with the language in general, and with the particular usage 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 utterly unknown ? Was there not another time, when expo- sitors 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 inspiration 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 sus- picion, 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 with the as- sistance of superior aids, with better taste and more learning. Only the philologist can be an in- terpreter. It is true, that the office of interpreta- tion requires more than mere philology or an acquaint- ance with language ; but all those other qualifications that may belong to it are useless without this acquaint- * Note XXXIII. 132 SECOND LAW OP INTERPRETATION. 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 explain. 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 considered 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.* When the rule is expressed in this form, the reason of it also is so clearly recognized, that no development 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 ex- pressions in the sense which his readers will connect with them, but, in the ideas which he communicates to them, he will always be governed by their ability to comprehend, and will pay regard to their particular manner of forming conceptions of subjects, 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 • Note XXXIV. SECOND LAW OP INTERPRETATION. 133 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- 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- led to determine the sense of certain places of the Bi- ble, solely from some local and temporary opinions, cir- cumstances or prejudices of the men for whom they were originally written ; or are compelled, first to examine carefully what ideas these men could attach thereto ; •Note XXXV. 134 SECOND LAW OP INTERPRETATION. since, by an interpretation merely grammatical, with- out 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 national Jew- ish opinions, or to particular sectarian views, especially those maintained by the Pharisees, — to traditions and sayings of former times, preserved among the people, — to particular historical facts, which at the time par- ticularly engaged the attention of the people, — and even to proverbs that were probably in most frequent use.* In the epistles of St. Paul, several places may be found, where he argues as it were wO' 'dvdpwirov, from Jewish and Gentile ideas ; and again there are others, where he draws conclusions entirely according to the particular modes of reasoning pursued by those with whom he had to do.t 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 connex- ion, 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 in- * Note XXXVI. t The reader will find some observations on this point, and on the doctrine of accommodation as connected with it in a subsequent note. SECOND LAW OF INTERPRETATION. 135 terpretation to the mode of thinking of the first read- ers, and to what they could and must have understood. Even in the fact that such cases do exist, lies 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 interpreta- tion, and one in which we may repose implicit confi- dence. 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 thus, — and indeed, if all had actually done so, it could not readily have happened, that all should have done so in an equal degree. One interpreter, whose acquaintance 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 lo- cal and temporary meaning of certain phrases and ex- pressions in the Bible ; to whom, in fact, it never once occurred, that the early Jews could have attached 136 THIRD LAW OF INTERPRETATION. other ideas to certain forms of speech than those which the literal sense of the terms expressed, and who conse- quently 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 receive some qualifications, without which indeed it ought to be immediately rejected. The rule is this : in inter- preting a writing, constant reference should be had to the character, views and known principles of the wri- ter, 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 re- ality, 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 him- self. 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 which he was placed, ac- cording to his own particular education, according to his personal relations, he could and must form most naturally : and who will not always do this of his own accord ? It is also equally unnecessary to show, why parti- cular 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 opposition to his own THIRD LAW OF INTERPRETATION. 137 design, will not, ordinarily, easily contradict himself — will not without some evident cause alter his opinions: — and who feels not of himself the reasonableness and even the irresistible force of this demand? Very readily, too, may it be anticipated, that the ap- plication of these rules in interpreting the Bible in par- ticular must often be necessary, and that very much must depend upon it. Hence also it is, that no inter- preter has ventured to abandon them ; only the appli- cation of them must be of the most varied kind, and of course the expositions resulting must unavoidably be equally varied. One interpreter may have formed a different view of the character of a sacred writer from another, or may have ascribed to him a different de- sign : and thus he would find in him ideas altogether different from those which would be perceived by the other, although both had been governed by the same principles.* 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, unhap- pily, is not easily communicated, and is only to be com- prehended by one who has a susceptibility of such im- pressions. * Note XXXVII. 12 138 SCRIPTURE TO BE EXPLAINED ON THE CHAPTER III. These three general laws comprise almost all that can be prescribed to hermeneutics. Whatever particu- lar 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 pro- ceed in interpreting our sacred scriptures, it is evident that we must act in relation to the Bible just as in re- lation to every other writing, must bring out its true meaning precisely by the same means as we would ap- ply to any other book ; in a word, in explaining the Bible, we must do the very same thing which sound understanding and rational (which is also natural,) lo- gic always require to be done, in explaining every other book in the world. This is most undoubtedly the fact, and the correct- ness of this position may even be proved with irresisti- ble evidence. It was the most extraordinary of all pre- judices, 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 ad- duced 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 connexion which it may have with the inspiration of our sacred scriptures, the very SAME PRINCIPLES AS OTHER BOOKS. 139 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 ap- plied in order to investigate and in general to ascertain 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 with their contents, the more clear and definite our ideas respect- ing 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 intended for man's use; for God cannot have announced him- self to men in any other way than that which is adapt- ed to men. And the more certainly may we also ex- pect, by the aid of these general rules correctly ap- plied, to discover with satisfactory confidence the true sense of scripture ; which is not always the case with regard to a human writing. The ground of all those rules, the ground of the whole system of hermeneu- tics, 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 unfre- quently be erroneous ; for it is not every writer, who has always thought according to a correct mode of 140 DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. reasoning, and in a natural order. But as it is impossi- ble 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, there- fore, the extraordinary apprehension, which once pre- vailed, with regard to the principle, that it is necessary 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 consi- dered as necessary, and this has arisen from the some- what doubtful use which has been made of it by cer- tain modern interpreters. It is necessary, therefore, to add here a few remarks in relation to it, for the point is one of great consequence, on which very much in- deed depends ; and it is an important point, which, al- though first agitated in our own day, has already in many instances, and certainly in some not without de- sign, been involved in confusion.* In connexion with the second law of hermeneu- tics above stated, by which every book should be ex- plained 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 sa- cred scriptures did themselves entertain the unfounded tNote XXXVIII. DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. 141 prejudices of their contemporaries, or at least have oc- casionally been governed thereby, have brought them- selves down, and, to express myself in the usual phra- seology, have accommodated themselves to these pre- judices ? 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 accommodation, 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 somewhat 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. 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 deci- ding 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 12* 142 DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. arise from a distorted, half true, or partial representa- tion.* I. In the first place, no one need be alarmed, if he should hear it maintained, that in our holy scrip- tures, as well those of the New as those of the Old Testament, passages occasionally occur, in which the authors, in which even our Lord and his apostles, ac- commodate to the views of their contemporaries, and in fact when those views are erroneous. The idea from which, whether clearly or imperfectly conceived, such alarm may originate, and in some instances > ^ias originated, namely, that the sentiment is in the ] highest degree unworthy of the Holy Spirit, by whom i those writings were inspired, can never in a general i point of view justify him, for in general it is incorrect. If it be not unworthy of a wise instructor, to bring him- self down to the childlike conceptions of his pupils ; it cannot be unworthy of God, if, in the instructions which he communicated to men, he should occasion- ally have done the same thing, in order to make the truths which, at the same time, he wished to convey to them, the more easily intelligible. Every shadow of indecorum is entirely removed, by 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 com- municated only by a particular revelation, and thus, in < a word, merely to those things which, properly speak- ing, 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 » * Note XXXIX. DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. 143 men respecting everything without exception on which they entertained incorrect sentiments ; or, that he must at least have expressed himself correctly 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 sense- less 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 intel- ligible, 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 acknowledg- ing, that the prophets and apostles did not merely ac- commodate to these views, but that they themselves also, at least some among them, did participate in them in common with their contemporaries ? 144 DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. 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 neces- sary to suppose, that the power of inspiration was gov- erned 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 imparted to his disci- ples. They were not taught all things at once, they were not at once freed from all their prejudices. Why then, notwithstanding their inspiration, may not traces of these be still found in their writings 1 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 DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. 145 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 afterwards taking along with him seven others, and again returning to his old habitation, it is abundantly evident, that he took all these particu- lars from the Jewish doctrine respecting demons, which, as we learn from the apocryphal book of To- bit, ch. viii, had long been received among them : and who can persuade himself to admit these particulars as truths of the world of spirits authenticated and es- tablished by him ? And when in John iii. 8, he says to Nicodemus, respecting the wind, "thou canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth," it cannot be doubted, that the very inadequate, imperfect and er- roneous acquaintance with the operations of nature which then prevailed in his nation 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 146 DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. his teaching or language to the prevalent erroneous views. That the apostles themselves 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 in- structions 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 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 concep- tions were not clearer than those of their age and na- tion. We are not only authorized, but we are obliged to suppose, that, in points which have no connex- ion with religion, the apostles thought lor the most part, with their age. Consequently, it follows, as a fundamental rule of hermeneutics, that in inter- preting their writings, careful attention must be paid to this. LIMITATIONS OF ACCOMMODATION. 147 CHAPTER IV. Together with these fundamental rules, it is ne- cessary to connect two others, which spring immedi- ately from them, and alone determine their applicabili- ty, as they must always lead us in making use of them. The first, their applicability, receives thereby some li- mitations, which are sufficient to remove all solicitude from the mind of the most anxious interpreter, while they are so firmly settled in the nature of the subject, that the most liberal cannot possibly avoid acknow- ledging their claims. II. Whatever reasons there may be for supposing that our sacred writers have occasionally expressed themselves according to the views of their age, and 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 re- ally contain an opinion prevalent at the time, and, far- ther still, unless it can be proved from internal evi- dence, that this prevalent opinion is erroneous. The justice of these requisitions every man of sound un- derstanding can easily be made to feel, if he has no in- terested motive to induce him to avoid their force. Whenever a writer's declaration is said to be accom- modated, it is also necessarily implied, that nothing j really true is contained in it. But, in relation to every 148 LIMITATIONS OF THE writer, it is proper to require sufficient evidence of this, and, in relation to our sacred writers, doubly suf- ficient ; 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 satisfied with the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, need only have said from the earliest ages, — 'it was a national idea of the Jews, to conceive of their Messiah as invested with the splendor of the Deity, as a person in whom resided the whole fulness of the Godhead, and according to this idea is he represented, by the apostles.' The opposers of the doctrine of the atone- ment might have spared themselves many very violent operations, which, in former times, they directed against several of those passages of scripture 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 Christians could not at once free themselves. With the very same fa- cility, all other positive doctrines of Christianity, which may be regarded as offensive, may and must be re- moved from the New Testament, as soon as a man al- lows himself, without further proof, to consider every- thing that shocks his prejudices as merely current opi- nion of the Jews. But does not now every man's common sense and feeling teach him that the very le- vity and trifling of such a procedure afford the strong- est 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 show, that cer- DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. 149 tain representations found in the Bible, were views of the age in which the authors lived, or of the people among whom they had constant intercourse ; it is ne- cessary also to be able to prove their incorrectness, be- fore a man should allow himself to find an accommo- dation 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 which no truth lies at the bottom. Will we — to adduce another illus- tration — will we maintain, that from all those places in which Christ and his apostles speak of demons, no- thing at all can be inferred in favor of the real exist- ence of such kind of spiritual beings, because, in such cases, they have merely spoken according to the con- ceit of their age ? It is certainly then not enough to have shown, that a general belief in demons did then prevail, but it must also be shown, that this belief of the age was a mere superstition, an erroneous, 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 i 13 150 LIMITATIONS OF THE 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 existence, 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 speak further presently,) but in others again we can demand of the interpreter to bring the proof from internal grounds. As it is often easy to foresee the impossibility of satisfying this demand, its severity is proportionably 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 fu- ture 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 i one and the other, involves no reason why we should also admit them. Nothing but the certainty that they e had been instructed in them by a divine revelation can t make them obligatory on us ; and hence it might ap- ' pear to be sufficient, if, in relation to points of this i kind, it were barely stated, that respecting them we are DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. 151 destitute of certainty. Yet, when the theologian, who intends to form a system the parts of which are pro- perly connected insists upon this, that the testimony 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 evidence 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 interpreter al- lege on the other hand ? He will not venture to say to him again, that Christ, by apparently establishing this idea of the people, has merely come 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 decla- rations of Christ an accommodation must necessarily be admitted, because the opinions apparently establish- ed by him are of such a kind, that it is impossible he could have really intended to establish 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 previously 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 er- 1 roneous opinion. But now it were easy to anticipate I from this, how much the principle of accommodation, by 152 LIMITATIONS OF THE this single demand, must lose of the dangerous charac- ter 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 regarded 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 higher criticism, however good may be the inten- tion of its advocates, but too often can produce nothing better than conjectures, since so few historical monu- ments of that age remain ; so is it also easy to per- ceive, that from the nature of the subject mere conjec- ture can determine nothing in relation to it, or can only determine with an interpreter, whose inclination to de- termine has already been formed. Only let the prin- ciple above stated be assumed and applied, and no one need apprehend, that the method of interpretation un- der review can easily be abused to the injury of reli- gion. 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 pre- ceding. It may indeed be supposed, that our Lord and his apostles were sometimes influenced by the erroneous DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. 153 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 no- thing 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- posing, that an intelligent teacher or writer will never come down to the erroneous views of the men for whom he is laboring, below what is not derogatory to his character and opposed to his design. As often therefore as it can be shown, that by an assertion or declaration 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, J whether such an economical method of interpretation is 13* 154 LIMITATIONS OF THE 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 excep- tions, limitations and modifications, arising from the character of the particular case. It is necessary, there- fore, almost in every individual instance, to form a judgment for one's self : indeed, in some of those cases which relate to determining the '»»0os, or the agreement of an alleged accommodation with the character of the writer, the moral feeling of the interpreter will always claim an influence, which cannot be made uniform by any rules.* These difficulties apply, in a full degree, to our sacred writers, and even to the declarations oft 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 the least in whatever belonged to the religious instruction which they intended to impart to the world, never could accommodate 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 confi- dence 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 ad- ♦ Note XL. DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. 155 justment of which still depend the laws, by which her- meneutics must be governed in such conflicting cases, in fact, on which alone it can be governed with certainty.* 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 preliminary sketch of its history, although short, will be of use in order to faci- litate a choice among the principal literary works be- longing to this department, which, in a treatise of this kind, it is necessary to give. The history of hermeneutics may most suitably be divided into seven periods of time, which although 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, impress 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 belong. I. In the first two centuries it was hardly possible for the church to have any other principles of exposition than those which the early Christians had in part brought over * Note XLI. 156 HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 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, ac- cording to which they had hitherto been explained by j 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 gramma- tical sense is the least important, 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, 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 HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 157 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.* II. But, in the commencement of the third century, a happier period for hermeneutics was introduced by Origen, not so much by giving his contemporaries rules for an improved interpretation, as by exhibiting to them an example of improvement. It was, of course, im- possible even for Origen at once to break loose from the old allegorizing method of interpretation. His acuteness and perspicacity pointed out to him in the Bible frequent allegories and types, which no man be- fore him had discovered. He also sometimes inten- tionally 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 inter- pretation entirely literal ; as, for example, the gross re- presentation 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 afterwards carried this point still further; and hence it was, that, subsequently, •Note XLII. tNoteXLIIL 158 HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. when errors and heresies began to be discovered in the writings of this most extraordinary man, he was subjected to the reproach of having been the inventor, or at least the greatest promoter of the allegorizing sys- tem 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 interpreta- tion should always be founded on the grammatical 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 cor- responding with the connexion and views of the wri- ter, or in unison with his declarations as elsewhere ex- pressed, 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 undoubt- edly was afterwards much abused. By these means he taught them most impressively, 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 evi- dent ; for in the fourth century interpretation assumed a form greatly improved. This state of things was ■ Note XLIV. HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 159 chiefly owing to the fact, that now there were more in- terpreters, who had formed their taste by an acquaint- ance with the works of the old Greek and Roman au- thors, and the effect which the studies of them produced on their mental character, they were not able entirely to keep out of view, however willingly they would often have done so, in commenting on the Bible. This was the case with Eusebius, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Isidore of Pelusium, 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 allegorical and mystical ex- positions ; but it is at the same time impossible not to perceive, that they were influenced by a feeling, which always brought them back again to a more intelligent method of interpretation. Many of them, as Chrysostom, Theodore and Au- gustin, felt also, that it was sometimes necessary to lay down as the ground of grammatical interpre- tation, a particular usage of language belonging to the sacred writers ; they had even an indistinct im- pression 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 interpretations of the most excellent and striking character, and it is to be ascribed to two causes only that they are not to be found there 160 HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 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 injurious 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 al- low themselves to modify their interpretation accord- ing to the convenience of their polemics ; that is to say, to explain 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 writers 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 would serve to support their opinions, and of rinding 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 peri- od from the seventh to the sixteenth century was des- titute of hermeneutics, merely for this reason, that it was by the polemics of the times completely subjected 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 autho- rity and influence had frequently declared to be the only true one. No man therefore ventured to find any thing further in the Bible, which was not adapted to HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS 161 this system, and still less any thing which stood in op- position 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 in- terpretations 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 necessary, be- cause all ability and all helps for original interpretation were lost. In the ninth century all knowledge of history and languages had almost entirely vanished. The barba- rous Vulgate gradually became elevated to the impor- tance 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 ; be- cause these were the only text and commentary that could be used. And even in the use of the Vulgate, not only was no offence taken at the prodigious multi- tude of the grossest errors which had crept into it, but it was appealed to in argument and interpretation, 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 favorable change for hermeneutics ; on the contraiy, 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, 14 162 HISTORY OF HERMENEUTIC3. whether they could prove their opinions from scripture or not, since they were persuaded that the truth of them could be demonstrated from the principles of their phi- losophy. However, towards the end of the twelfth century, some extraneous circumstances led them to pay more attention to the scriptures than they had for- merly done, and consequently they were obliged to go farther into the subject of interpretation. 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 ac- customed 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 prin- cipally 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, were themselves reduced to the necessity of HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 163 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 apply 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 connexion, 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 affect 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 there- fore 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 impetu- osity of character, by which this reformer was led to 164 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 resto- rers of hermeneutics ; and this effect was produced principally by again bringing forward the grammatical 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 grant- ing, or at least not seeking, either mystical or allegori- cal 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 arrested 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 controversies ; 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 favor of them, although b in other circumstances he would have regarded 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 immediate succes- sors ; it was done by those divines, who, after his death and that of Melancthon, constituted the ruling party in the Lutheran church, so much more frequently, that HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 165 this may be given as the discriminating character of our hermeneutics from the end of the sixteenth century to the beginning 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 it- self 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 have1)een 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 princi- ple, 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 which chief attention was always directed ; but this usage, instead of being derived from the sources which alone can afford it with any certainty, from other contempo- raneous writers, from the spirit of the time or from the spirit of the kindred languages, from the characteristic formation of mind and mode of thinking of the different sacred writers themselves, and from comparing their works together, was derived merely from the uncertain, second Jiand source of doctrinal divinity. That is, all expressions were taken merely in the sense in which this privileged divinity had taken them, this was pre- 14* 166 HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. sumed to be the only true sense, and then, as was natu- ral, the same sense was always found in every place which this divinity had found there. The impropriety and mischief of this method could certainly be. the less observed, while so little refined I 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 I strengthen those impressions, and from using all its ef- i forts to advance such a nice and thorough knowledge. When therefore, towards the middle of the last cen- tury, Cocceius, among the reformed divines, again at- tempted to find every where in the Bible allegories, types, tropes and prophecies, many of our divines zea- ; lously opposed the novelty ; but when, almost at the same time, Grotius and some other men of refined taste I and more enlarged views attempted, by penetrating more deeply into the spirit of the languages and history of the f times of our sacred writers, to withdraw interpretation from the authority of doctrinal divinity, a violent outcry ; was raised against them, and for more than half a cen- f tury laborious efforts were made to hinder the diffusion I of the light, which these men had thus enkindled.* VI. Hermeneutics experienced yet another change, p which at one time gave it a new distinguishing feature, J but which happily it did not long retain. With the : commencement of our century, the newly rising party, called pietists, began to devote themselves particularly to the interpretation of the Bible, because they consi- *The reader is requested to peruse, in connexion with these re- marks of the author, the latter part of Note XI. Tr. HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 167 dered 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 enthusiasm and too little learning to this subject, and this would necessarily im- part to their method of interpretation a peculiar charac- ter. This consisted in pressing each word of the text, until every idea, which by mere possibility it might contain according to its etymology, was forced out ; for, by this operation, the 'prsegnantes sensus scripturse,' to use their own language, 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 advantage could, in the nature of things, but very seldom be ob- tained : and, in truth, the effect must often have been injurious. These expositors might have endeavored, and sometimes with the hope of a very happy result, to determine the whole extent and the full emphasis 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 connexion, from which they deduced the strangest conclusions ; without reflecting, that, in a multitude of cases, the conventional, and the particular usage of the sacred writers, could not have been so accurately directed either by etymology or grammar. If, for example, the apostles, by a Hebraism, had 168 HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. used, h instead of sia, 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 fe, expressly intended by the apostle, because if this were not the case he could as well have employed the word 6ia. When St. Paul says of Christ that he is iirepfyaidtu, (Phil. ii. 9,) the term must express much more than the idea of Christ's exaltation in general, for otherwise the apostle would not have added force to I the verb ty»w by compounding it with the preposition i tmf* But that the first instance is nothing but a He- . braism, and that with respect to the other, it was a very common usage with the Greeks, to employ such ; compound words interchangeably with the simple, and in the very same sense with them, these sticklers for emphatic phraseology would by no means allow, be- cause such a concession would completely demolish j the whole foundation of their emphasis. This extrava- gant 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 decided reputation, as Ernesti, announced themselves in oppo- sition to it.* 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. Note XLV. HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 169 It may with propriety be said of it, that, in the present day, by means of a nicer and more fundamen- tal knowledge of language, it can acquire much greater certainty respecting the grammatical sense of scripture, and by means of more enlarged literary investigations, 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 immediately 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 wri- ter 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 conse- quently 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 * C. A. G. Keil : de historica librorum sacrorum interpretations | ejusque necessitate, Lips. 1788, 4to ; translated into German by 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. 170 HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. own age.* It may also be a more unfavorable cir- cumstance, that no settled principles have yet been agreed on, whereby to define the bounds of this accom- modating method of interpretation, although the sub- ject had been warmly discussed for twenty years, when Semler gave new life to the excitement in relation to the scriptural doctrine respecting demons, and began by his 'oeconomicum dicendi genus' to explain it away. But notwithstanding this, we may probably 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 ne- cessity 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 doc- trinal divinity will undoubtedly derive the greatest f advantages.! 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 * Note XLVI. t The concluding remarks of this chapter on the influence which the principles of Kant's philosophy might have in producing mys- tical and allegorical interpretations, are omitted. WORKS ON INTERPRETATION. 171 the periods noticed have been principally used. To express an opinion respecting the particular character of these works, and to estimate their relative value, must be unnecessary ; for a mere statement of the pe- riods 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 again 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, paraphrases, &c, of every age, on the Old and New Testaments. I. 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 intro- duced, and of the following, not a single one. In the four books of Augustin ' de doctrina Christia- ! na,' we not only find some scattered observations, which 172 WORKS ON INTERPRETATION. look like directions for a correct interpretation of scrip- \, ture, but in Lib. iii. cap. 30, he has introduced the j seven rules, so called, for investigating and ascertaining the sense of scripture, 'regulse ad investigandum et inveniendam scripturarum intelligentiam,' which are ; the production of a contemporaneous writer of the name of Ticonius, of whom we have no further know- ledge. These rules do not exhibit much penetration, ,, although they show the author to have possessed ex- i traordinary ingenuity. Another work belonging to this period, which has r equal claims to notice in this review, is a composition , under the title, Eicdyayf, m rasdeias ypa^ag, l Introduction 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 place, as is usually done, among the list of writers on theoretical hermeneutics, Eucherius, bishop of Ly- ons, in Gaul in the fifth century, on account of his ' In- structs ad fllium Salonium,' ' Instruction addressed to his son Salonius,' which has come down to us in two i books ; for this ' Instruction' does not contain, properly speaking, any directions for the interpretation of scrip- ture. 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 her- meneutics, a space of one thousand years, which presents * This Introduction, with some other writings of the same kind, was published in Greek by David HoESCHEL,at Augsburg, in 1602, 4to. It has also been the London edition. WORKS ON INTERPRETATION. 173 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 interpretation ; and, in fact, the work which contains them may, without hesi- tation, 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 Fla- cius, 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 occurring in scripture are ex- plained in it in alphabetical order. But the second is actually and strictly a treatise on hermeneutics, and one alike honorable to the acuteness of Flacius and to his learning. This is very willingly acknowledged, even by our recent exegetical writers, notwithstand- ing all the imperfections of the work, and is confessed by Simon himself; and the truth of it is more particu- larly evident, upon a comparison of this first work with the greater part of those, which, in the next cen- tury, were composed in imitation of it, by many di- vines 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 interpretatione sacrarum literarum maxime legitima. Wittenbergae, 1619, (5th edition, 1708,) 8vo. John Conrad Danhauer : Hermeneutica sacra * Among the old editions of the Clavis, the principal is that, which was published at Jena in 1675, fol., with a preface by John Musjeus. 15 174 WORKS ON INTERPRETATION. — seu methodus exponendarum sacrarum literarum, Argentor. 1754, 8vo. Augustin Pfeifper : Hermeneutica sacra, sive tractatio luculenta de interpretatione sacrarum litera- rum. Dresdae, 1684 ; an enlarged edition with a pre- face by Benedict Carpzov, entitled : Thesaurus hermeneuticus, &c. Lips. 1690, 4to. Many of our divines, as Glassius, Gerhard, Ole- arius, 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 excellent precepts for grammatical interpretation ; 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 depended on as- sistance 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 pietistical controversies, are particularly conspicuous in the fol- lowing works, in which its character was, in part, ori- ginally formed. Herman Augustin Francke : Praelectiones her- meneuticae — ad viam dextre indagandi et exponendi sensum scripturae sacra?. Halae, 1723, 8vo. WORKS ON INTERPRETATION. 175 Joachim Langius : Hermeneutica sacra. Halae, 1733, 8vo. John James Rambach : Institutiones hermeneu- ticae sacrae, variis observationibus, copiosissimisque ex- emplis biblicis illustratae — cum praefat. J. Franc. Budd^ei. 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 published, at Giessen, in 1738, extensive and profound illustrations of Rambach's 'Institutiones,' and Andrew Reiersen, 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 oppose the principles of interpretation peculiar to the pietists, and others contained generally the theory of herme- neutics more completely formed. To the former of these classes belong : Valentine Ernst Loescher : Breviarium The- ologiae exegeticae, legitimam scripturae sacrae interpre- tationem tradens. — Wittenberg. 1719, 8vo. Martin Chladenius : Institutiones exegeticae. — Wittenberg. 1725, 8vo. Of the others, the following is particularly conspi- cuous : Solomon Deyling : de scripturae recte interpre- tandae ratione et fatis. Lips. 1721 ; and yet more so, the work of a reformed divine : 176 WORKS ON INTERPRETATION. John Alphonso Turretin : de S. Scripturae in- terpretandae methodo tractatus bipartitus — Trajecti Thuniorum, (that is Dort,) 1728. A new and enlarged edition, by Teller, counsellor of the superior con- sistory, 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 heiligen Schrift, ' Instructions on the in- terpretation of the sacred scripture.' Halle, 1742, 8vo. The same author's Ausfuehrlicher Yortrag ueber die Hermeneutik, 'Complete view of hermeneutics,' Halle, 1769, 4to. John Solomon Semler : Vorbereitung zur theolo- 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, Halse, 1767, 8vo., and Apparatus ad liberalem Yeteris Testamenti interpreta- tionem, ib. 1773, 8vo. And, as the most distinguished work in reference to this result : John August in Ernest i : Institutio interprets Novi Testamenti. Ed. quart, cura Chris- toph.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 * Note XLVII. WORKS ON INTERPRETATION. 177 which characterizes it, is to be placed in the years 1771 — 1775. In this period, Semler, on the one side, in his controversies respecting the scriptural doc- trine 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 principle, in itself, and also even as extended to the accommodating system of interpretation, which it was applied to justify, was not then originally invent- ed. It was even known and made use of by some of the older Greek fathers.* The Socinians had occa- sionally employed it with great freedom, and Grotius with 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 Scripturae Sacrae ad erroneos vulgi conceptus, 'A Dissertation against the hypothesis of accommodating scripture 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 Tuebingen, particularly, declared themselves very ear- nestly against the new accommodating system of her- meneutics. A dissertation by the chancellor Reuss, De oeconomia qua Christus in docendo usus fuisse di- citur, Tubing, 1773, 4to, ' On the economical method which Christ is said to have employed in teaching, 5 * See M. Frederic Augustin Carus : Historia antiquior sen- tentiarum ecclesiae Grsecas de accommodatione Christo imprimis el^ apostolis tributa. Lips. 1793, 4to. 15* 178 WORKS ON INTERPRETATION. and another by Dr. Storr, De sensu historico scrip- turae sacrse, Tueb. 1782, ' On the historical sense of scripture/* contain" many admonitions against the ap- plication of this method too extensively and without sufficient scrupulousness, which do undoubtedly de- serve to be very attentively considered. Another more modern production, which appeared in 1788, 8vo, un- der the title, Bemerkungen ueber die Lehrart Jesu in Ruecksicht auf juedische Sprache und Denkungsart, ' Remarks on our Lord's method of teaching in refe- rence to the language and mode of thinking of the Jews, by C. Vict. Hauff, Offenbach on the Maine, has the avowed design of limiting the abuse of this method ; and to the same point has the author of ano- ther work, still more recent, directed his attention : Ueber die Lehrart Jesu und seiner Apostel, in wie fern dieselbe sich nach den damahls herrschenden Volks- meynungen gerichtet haben, ' On the method of teach- ing 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 prin- ciple to be limited within certain bounds : but, unless 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 effect 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 * This most valuable treatise may be found in Storr's Opuscula Academica, Vol i. pp. 1 — 88. It was translated into English by J. W. G. (Professor Gibbs, now of Yale College,) and published at Boston in 1817, in 12mo. Tr. COMMENTARIES. 179 reason for such an expectation may still be found in the circumstance, that this new exegesis cannot be carried much further 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 se- lection 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 useful productions. It will not therefore be thought necessary to men- tion all those fathers, who have labored, in their own particular way, to explain the scriptures in separate works, in commentaries, or what are called paraphra- ses. 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 which their interpretations in particular are collected, have been before cited under the name of catenae patrum.* * With respect to the characteristics, and the different spirit, es- timate and value of interpretations of the fathers in general, or only- some particular fathers, decisions, but exceedingly various in their nature, may be found in all larger works on the doctrine of the fa- thers. We have a work particularly on this subject by Whitby : de sacrarum scripturarum interpretatione secundum patrum com- mentaries. London, 1714. On the mystical method of interpreting, John Christian Coester has written : Dissertatio de mysticarum interpretationum studio ab iEgyptiis maxime patribus repetendo, Halas, 1760 ; and on that of Origen, John Augustin Ernesti ; de Origene, interpretationis grammatics auctore, &c. On the interpretation of many of the fathers, a course of histo- rical treatises de fatis interpretationis sacrarum literarum in ecclesia 180 COMMENTARIES. Among the hermeneutical works of the following 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 explanatory- observations. Some of this class are best known un- der the name of glossed Bibles. The principal 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 consideration, that it was quoted by the scholastics un- der the name of ' auctoritas.' It was originally a cate- na 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 almost always added. One of the most complete, and even now most in use in the Roman church, appeared in the last century under the title : Biblia Sacra, cum glossa ordinaria, novis Patrum Graecorum et Latinorum ex- plicationibus locupletatae cumpostilla Nicol.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 mentioned, 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- Christiana, has been published by Dr. Rosenmueller at Leipzig, at different times ending in 1794, in ix. Programs. t t Note XLVIII. COMMENTARIES. 181 posed after the reformation by divines of our church, in other words, among the German glossed Bibles of which Luther's translation was the text, the following formerly stood in highest repute. The Bible, which bore the names of Weimar, Ernest, or, from the place in which it was printed, Nuremberg, with the title : * Biblia sacra — ver- deutscht von Dr. Luther, und auf Verordnung Hez- zo£ Ernest zu Sachsen von etlichen reinen Theolo- gen erklaert — erste Ausg. 1640 ; — neuste mit Ernst Sal. Cyprians Vorrede — Nuernberg, 1736, fol. — Bi- blia Sacra — translated 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 — Nu- remberg, 1736, fol. The work of Pfaff on the Bible, Tuebingen, 1729 ; and to this may be added a more modern pub- lication, of the same class, namely : Die heilige Schrift mit Anmerkungen, 'the holy 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 particular, 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- 182 COMMENTARIES. tion, and also on account of the surprise which this must now occasion us. But as emperor and empire 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 Goettiche Schriften vor den Zeiten des Messias, durch und durch mit An- merkungen erlaeutert, ' the divine writings before 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 trans- lation of the Old Testament with notes, by John Da- vid Michaelis, which appeared at Goettingen, in 13 l parts, 1769-83, 4to ; and the same author's transla- tion of the New Testament, Goettingen, in three parts, 1789-92, 4to ; Uebersetzung des Alten Testaments ; and Ubersetzung des Neuen Testaments. To these works must be added, Uebersetzung und erlaeuterung der heiligen Buecher Neuen Testaments ; 1 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. Q,uedlinburg, 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 : Neu- ' este OrTenbarungen Gottes in Briefen und Erzaehlun- gen ; f Last revelations of God in epistles and narra- tions,' in 4 parts. Riga, 1773, 8vo. COMMENTARIES. 183 A second class of works, belonging to this depart- 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 labors 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 I from all his contemporaries, and allowed him to con- U tend with Melancthon himself for the highest place.* His commentaries, also, fill almost the first seven vol- U umes of his works, the collection of which was pub- * Note XLIX. 184 COMMENTARIES. 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 Yetus et Novum Testamentum ; for it must at that time have been re- garded as a principal work, since Abraham Calo- vius 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 forgotten, 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 par- ticular edition. They have been published by George Louis Vogel and John Christopher Doederlin, enlarged 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 interpreters, which, however, must unavoidably produce a strange mixture of good and bad. The work, entitled : Critici sacri or Angli- cani. It came out originally at London in 1660, in nine folio volumes,t afterwards at Frankfort in 1697, in seven folios, and at the same time at Amsterdam * See his Histoire crit. des Commentateurs, chap, xviii. t The English scholars, who united in the compilation of this work, were John Pearson, Anthony Scattergood, Francis Gouldman, and Richard Pearson. COMMENTARIES. 185 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, published by Matthew Poole, who was also an English divine, with the title : Synopsis criticorum aliorumque scrip- turae sacrse 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 Priti- us, 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 Old and New Testaments, together with a complete il- lustration of them, being a compilation of the choicest remarks of English writers, and enlarged with many additions of German divines, Baumgarten, Dietel- maier, Doederlein, Brucker, and others. In nine- teen 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 * Note L. 16 186 COMMENTARIES. has not been such frequent labor 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 published in parts from the year 1517, and in the edition of his works by Le Clerc, Leyden, 1703 — 1706, ten vols, folio, are collect- ed 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 M the Catholic epistles, which appeared at Metz, Paris and Basle, from 1522 to 1527 in fol. The remarks, by which Theodore Beza had il- lustrated the text in several of his editions of the New Testament, were collected together by Erasmus Schmid, in his posthumous work, containing a version of the New Testament, with notes and observations. Nuremb. 1658. fol. Yery valuable also are the paraphrases on the whole of the New Testament, which Moses Amy- rault 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 Am- sterdam, 1703, two vols. 4to ; — another French trans- lation, with explanations by Beausobre and Len- fant, at Amsterdam, 1741, two vols. 4to ; — and the celebrated New Testament, with moral reflections by father Pasquier Q,uesnel, which produced so much B COMMENTARIES. 187 excitement in the Roman church, was published ori- ginally in 1687 at Paris, and afterwards, much enlarg- ed, 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 published 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 Testament, with critical notes, by Philip Doddridge, D.D. Lon- don, 1738 — 1747, three volumes in 4to.* It was trans- lated into German, and published in four volumes, 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 Chris- topher Wolf's Curae philologicae et criticae in Nov. Test, in four volumes, 4to, Hamb. 1738-41 .t Almost as much learning, but less acuteness, may be found in Christopher Augustin Heumann's exposition of the New Testament, in twelve parts, Hannov. 1750—1763, 8vo. An excellent work, although less learned, is John * Note LI. t It was also published in five volumes 4to, at Basle, 1741. Tr. 188 COMMENTARIES Albert Bengel's Gnomon Novi Testament!, Ed. tert. Tubingae, 1773, 4to. An abridged translation made its appearance under the title : Das Neue Testa- ment mit eingeschalteten Erklaerungen als ein Auszu^ der Arbeiten des seligen Bengels, 'the New Testament accompanied by explanatory remarks, an epitome 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- menhang und Ammerkungen versehen, 'the New Tes- tament, with an accurate view of the contents, sense, connexion, with notes,' by John David Nicolai, in two parts. Bremen, 1775. Of a different character, and intended for the really learned interpreter, is the following work : Novum Testamentum Graecum 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 com- pleted by the learned men, who since that event have published some volumes. The young interpreter who is entering upon the subject, will find a very use- ful substitute, in a work intended for him, by John George Rosenmueller : Scholia in Nov. Test. Tom. i— iv. Norimberg, 1777-83, 8vo.* Lastly, some of those hermeneutical works must not be passed over unnoticed, which illustrate and ex- plain 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 * Note LII. COMMENTARIES. 189 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 interpre- tations is considerable, it becomes the more difficult 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, entitled : 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 that time, has been done and attempted, correctly to settle the interpretation of that book, is now brought together in J. G. Eich horn's Urgeschichte, 'primi- tive history,' an edition of which has been published, with an introduction and remarks, by Dr. John Phi- lip Gabler, in two parts, 1791-93, 8vo.t 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. i In the beginning of the last century Nicolas Sera- rius published, at Mayence, a commentary on most of the other historical books of the Old Testament, * Note LIII. t Note LIV. ± Note LV. 16* 190 COMMENTARIES. which, iii the judgment even of Simon, is equally dis- tinguished for its learning and acuteness.* We have an exposition of the Hagiographa in the work of John Henry Michaelis : adnotationes ube- riores philologico-exegeticse in libros Hagiographos Yet. Test. Tom. iii. Halse, 1645—1751, 4to.t 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, 1782, Svo. Die Psalmen — ueberstetzt und mit Anmer- kungen. On Job the principal work is that of Albert Schultens, entitled : Liber Jobi cum nova versione et perpetuo 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. Svo, in 1773-4. The same author's book on the Proverbs must take precedence of all others : Proverbia Salomonis cum commentario. Lugd. 1748, 4to. This work also was published by Vogel in 1769, accompanied by a valuable auctarium by William Abraham Tel- ler. 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. * 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. t Note LVI. COMMENTARIES. 191 Der Prediger Salomo, mit einer Erklaerung nach dem Wortsverstand, von Mosen Mendelsohn, aus dem Hebraeischen uebersetzt von Joh. Jac. Rabe, s the Book of Ecclesiastes, with an interpretation ac- cording to the literal sense, by Moses Mendelson, 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 treating this poem was made in the small work of John Frederic Jacob i, in 8vo, printed in 1771, with the title : Das durch eine leichte und ungekuenstelte Erklaerung von seinen Vorwuerfen gerettete hohe Lied ; < the Song of Solomon delivered, by an easy and unaffected interpretation, from the imputations cast upon it.' This improvement it really received in a publication of Dr. Hupnagel : Salomos hohe Lied gepreuft. uebersetzt und erlaeutert; 'Solomon's Song examined — trans- lated and explained. 5 Erlangen, 1784, 8vo. With respect to the prophetical books of the Old Testament, we may consider the two following works in the light of general introductions. Nicolas Guertler : Systema theologiae prophe- ticae. Ed. sec. Francof. 1724, 4to. Christian Augustin Crusius : Hypomnemata ad Theologiam propheticam. Tom. ii. Lips. 1764, 1771, 8vo.* * Note LVII. 192 COMMENTARIES. 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. nov. Basil. Tom. iii. 1732, fol.,* we have a work of Doederlein : Esaias — ex recensione textus Hebrgei 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 observa- tions, at Leipzig in three vols. 8vo. 1779, 1780. t For a long time we possessed scarcely any thing on Jeremiah, except the Commentary of Henry Ve- nema, Loewarden, 1765, two vols. 4to. But at pre- sent we have, in addition, the work of John David Michaelis, entitled : Observationes philologicae et / criticae in Jeremiae Vaticinia et Threnos — edid. mul- tisque animadversionibus auxit — Joh. Frid. Schleus- ner. Goetting. 1793, 4to.t The prophecies of Ezekiel, and particularly of his latter temple, received at the very beginning of the last century, very learned interpretations in the following work : Hieron. Pradi et Joh. Bapt. Villalpan- j, di in Ezekielem explanations et adparatus urbis ac >> * It has several times been published, in two volumes folio. Tr. The publication of a German translation of this work, compressed, was commenced by Anthony Frederic Buesching in 1749-51, at Halle, in two vols. 4to. t Note LVIII. t The more recent work of the lately deceased Gottlob Leber Spohn, professor of theology at Wittemberg: Jeremias Vates ever- sione Judaeorum Alexandrinorum ac reliquorum interpret. Graec. emendatus — Lips. 1794. 8vo., does not belong to the class of inter- pretations. Vol. ii. of Spohn's work was published by his son in 1823. — A notice of Blayney's Jeremiah may be seen in Home, p. 233. Tr. COMMENTARIES. 193 templi Hierosolymitani — illustratus. Romae, Tom. iii. 1569 — 1604, fol.- but a work of more utility is that of John Frederic Stark : Comment, in prophetam Ezekielem. Francof. 1731, 4to. Ancient and modern attempts to remove the diffi- culties in the collection of DanieFs prophecies are to be found in Martin Geier's Prselectiones academic® in Danielem. Lips. 1762, 4to. Herman Venema — Dissert, ad vaticin. Danielis : Cap. ii. viii. viii. Leovard, 1745, 4to, and Exposition of the book of Daniel — by John Christopher Harenburg, in two parts. Blanken- burg, 1770-72, 4to.* Lastly, on the twelve minor prophets, we have, be- sides a large number of interpretations on separate buuks.t the work of John Marck : Commentarius in xii prophetas minores — in Pfaff's edition. Tubing. 1734. fol. Translations of the prophets, with the exception of Jonah, by Christian Godfrey Struensee, in three vols. Halberstadt, 1769-73, 8vo. Prophetse Minores ex recensione Textus Hebraei cum notis Joh. Aug. Dathe. Halae, 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- * Note LIX. t Among these the most distinguished is the Commentary of Edward Pococke on Hosea and Joel. Oxford 1685-91, fol. For a notice of Horseley's Hosea, Pococke on Hosea, Joel, Micah,nadMalachi,Bi.AYNEY's Zechariah, Newcome's Ezekiel and minor Prophets, with other English works, see Home, pp. 234, ss. Tr. 194 COMMENTARIES. monies of the evangelists, comprehend the four Gos- pels, illustrate one by means of the others, and en- I deavor, by comparing their accounts, to determine ( throughout the true chronological order of these works and of the history of Christ. But as this, unhappily, 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 quatuor Evangelistarum — quam Polycarpus Lyse- rus continuavit — Johannes Gerhardus perfecit. Ed. nov. Hamburg. Tom. iii. 1704. fol. To the end of the last century belong the following: Bernhard Lamy : Commentarius in harmoniai et concordiam quatuor evangeliorum. Turn. i. Paris. 1699, 4to ; and Harmonia evangelica, cui subjecta est r ! historia Christi ex quatuor evangeliis concinnata — auct. Jo. Clerico. Amstelod. 1698, fol. Later works of this kind are these : John Reinhard Rues : Harmonia Evangelista- rum. Tom. iii. Jenae, 1727-30. 8vo. John Albert Bengel's richtige Harmonie der I Evangelisten, 'accurate harmony of the Gospels.' Third edition, Tuebingen, 1766, 8vo. Harmony of the Gospels, by Eberard David Hauber, together with the same author's life of Jesus Christ, drawn from the four Gospels, and remarks on f> the harmony. Lemgo, 1737, 4to. New harmony of the Gospels, by Ernest Augus- tus Bertling. Halle, 1767, 4to. *NoteLX. im COMMENTARIES. 19a Some illustrations of the gospel of St. Matthew in particular are contained in the commentary of Solo- mon Van Till which appeared in 1708 at Frankfort, translated from the Dutch, and at the time of its publi- cation was greatly valued. Also the Dubia evangeli- ca discussa et vindicata of Frederic Spanheim, pub- lished at Geneva, 1704, in three vols. 4to, relates prin- cipally to this Gospel. In addition to these, we have : James Elsner's Commentarius critico-philologicus in evangelium Matthaei — cum notulis Ferdin. Stosch, Zwolliae, Tom. ii. 1769. 4to. But the third volume, which ap- peared at Utrecht in 1773, contains a commentary on the gospel of St. Mark. On the great question relating to this evangelist, I whether he was an epitomist of St Matthew or not, we ■ have two treatises ; one by Koppe, of the year 1780, j which maintains the negative, and another by Gries- bach, counsellor of the consistory, published in 1789, asserting and proving the affirmative. On St. Luke ; — Observations philological et theo- logical in Lucae cap. ix. priora, auct. Carolo Segaar, Trajecti, 1766, 8vo. On St. John ; — the old valuable work of Freder- ic Adol. Lampe : Commentarius analytico-exegeticus — Evangelii secundum Johannem. Tom. iii. Amste- lod. 1724-26, 4to. A later and still more valuable publication is that of Storr, Ueber den Zweck des Evangeliums und der Briefe Johannis, ' on the design of the gospel and epistles of St. John.' Tuebingen, 1786, 8vo.* * Note LXI. 196 COMMENTARIES. On the Acts ; John Louis Lindhammers Aus- fuehrliche Erklaerung und Anwendung der Apostel- geschichte, ' Copious explanation of the Acts of the apostles, with application.' Halle, 1725, fcl. Also : Dissertatio in Acta Apostolorum, by John Ernest Immanuel Walch. Jenae, 1756-59-61. Tom. hi. 4to. Of the epistles of St. Paul there are so many inter- pretations, 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 Co- rinthians, by John Locke, London, 1709, 4to. This was translated into German by John George Hoffman, and published at Francfort, 1769, two vols. 4to. — A j paraphrase of the epistles of Paul to the Colossians, Philippians and Hebrews, by James Pierce, London, 1724, 1733, 4to. — Also, a paraphrase of the epistles to i the Thessalonians, Philemon, Timothy, and Titus, by George Benson, London, 1734, 4to. This also \ was translated into German, together with his para- phrase 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, Philippians, Colossians, Thessaloni- & ans, and Philemon, by Sigismund James Baumgar ten ; to which some contributions were made by H Semler. Halle, 1767, 4to. COMMENTARIES. 197 Paraphrase and notes on the epistles of Paul to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus and Philemon, by John David Michaelis. Goettingen, 1750, 4to. A paraphrastic interpretation of the epistle to the Romans, by Gotth. Traug. Zachari^e, Goettingen, 1769, 8vo. Also, on the two epistles to the Corinthi- ans, 1769, and on those to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, 1770, 8vo, both works published at Goettingen by the same author. Of the epistles of St. Paul taken separately, those addressed to the Romans and Hebrews have occupied the attention of the greatest number of interpreters. On the former, there are among the later works — A Paraphrase with notes on the epistle to the Ro- mans, by John Taylor, London, 1745, 4to. A German translation was published at Berlin in 1759, 4to. Benedict Carpzov : Stricturse 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 Hebraeer, ' Explanation of the epistle to the Hebrews, in two parts,' Copenhagen, 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, 64, 4to. A new translation of the epistle to the Hebrews, by Morus. Leipz. ed. sec. 1781, 4to. 17 198 COMMENTARIES. The epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, illustrated by Dr. Storr. Tuebingen, 1789, 8vo. A complete introduction to the epistle to the He- brews, by Werner Charles Ziegler. Goettingen, 1790, 8vo. Epistola Pauli ad Hebrseos Greece, perpetua anno- tation illustrata a J. H. Heinrichs. Goettingae, 1792, 8vo.* On the epistles which are called Catholic, there is, besides the paraphrase of Benson, a brief exposition by Zachari^e, Goetting. 1776, 8vo, and also a work by David Julius Pott : Epistol. Catholicse Grace, perpetua annotatione illustratae. Vol. i. ii. Goettingae, 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 Hareneerg : Erklaermiff der OrTenbarung 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. Gottingae, 1791, 8vo.t * Note LXII. t Note LXIIL OBJECT TO BE PROPOSED. CHAPTER VII 199 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 study of interpretation, than to subjoin some observations on the method by which we may, with the most facility and success, not only comprehend those principles, but also apply them with some degree of readiness. These observations may be reduced to a small compass. For, on the one hand, in this subject all depends simply on the correct determination of the object proposed by any one in the study of hermeneutics, from which the observa- tions 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 cor- rect principles, to explain the Bible for himself, and with his own eyes to discover its contents ; and fur- ther, to apply his knowledge as a test of the interpre- tations of others, thereby forming a judgment respect- ing the results to which they have arrived. We may safely suppose, that every man, who is clearly con- scious of any design on this subject, will have this two-fold view ; at least, it is easy to show, that one of * Note LXIV. 200 OBJECT TO BE PROPOSED. these objects cannot be possessed without the other, and that either this design, or none that is reasonable 7 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 exegetical lectures on all the books of the Bible, to hear these in- terpreted by an instructor, and merely to endeavor 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 r 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. If, indeed, this is the ultimate object which a man aims at, if nothing more is wished than to have a com- mentary, 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 puU * Note LXY OBJECT TO BE PROPOSED. 201 pit ; 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 de- sirable brevity and of desirable length, in Latin and in German. It is only necessary for a man to accomo- date himself with one or two of these, and he has all that he wants ; he can spare himself the trouble of taking notes on four or five courses of exegetical lec- tures, which, in this case, would be a labor altogether superfluous. Undoubtedly there might often be a very great dif- ference 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 interpretation of our age, and those every professor himself in pre- paring his lectures must use. This then is a conside- ration which removes almost all the difference which could arise ; or at least, renders it unimportant. 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 upon an old commentator or a modern interpreter, in all cases 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 in- duce him to follow indifferently the good or the bad 17* 202 OBJECT TO BE PROPOSED. guide, to receive as true the most erroneous interpreta- tions as well as the most correct. For this purpose, it is plain that no particular study is requisite. If a man is willing to content himself with this, he may spare himself the labor of interpretation altogether. Hence, then, it is most clearly evident, that a very dif- ferent design from this must be proposed, and this can be none other than the one already stated. In pursu- ing the study of hermeneutics, the only 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 fundamental 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 knowledge of 1 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 ac- quaintance with language is the first and most neces- sary aid and instrument in interpreting ; and, as it is a self evident truth, that no man can explain a book while he is unacquainted with the language in which METHOD OF ATTAINING IT. 203 it was written, this at any rate need not be further de- veloped, 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 enable him to understand even the words of the original text ; and, in fact, not a few, who are earnest in pursuing 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 scripture. 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 significa- tions of the words, the characteristics of his authors 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 part they suppose an acquaintance with the first and most necessary grammatical principles of the language to have been already made, that no teacher in an exe- getical 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 elements of grammar ; to set aside all this, who can easily expect immediately to seize upon these scattered philological notices, as they must be given in the lecture of an in- 204 METHOD OF ATTAINING IT. structor, 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 de- sire 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 or- der to be certain whether the interpretation is correct it is therefore, in the very nature of things, indispensa- bly necessary to have previously acquired that know- ledge. Secondly : the next thing then to be done undoubt- edly 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 indis- pensable ; but this knowledge may be procured in more ways than one, and it is by no means a matter of ^difference 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, METHOD OF ATTAINING IT. 205 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 ano- ther, 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 applied, and thereby secure the advantage of making ourselves acquainted at the same time with the princi- ples themselves, r and with the manner, with the bene- fits, 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 apply himself for some days to the Interpres of Ernesti, in or- der to obtain from it the rules which should guide in interpreting. A few days only would be quite sufficient for this purpose. Let him then be shown by an in- structor — not how these rules can be applied — but their actual application in interpreting, and by the in- terpretation 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 pro- cedure of his interpreter. 206 METHOD OF ATTAINING IT. That he ought not in this stage to venture himself to make the application, and immediately to exercise himself in interpreting, is too plain to need proof; for in the first effort it will certainly be found that this re- quires some experience, which can only be gradually obtained by attentive observation of the endeavors of others. But this observation is undoubtedly made with the most effect, by attending a course of interpre- tation, and listening 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 ge- neral 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 application ; we can observe the proper rise of the interpretation, 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 foresight may be directed to it, where it may be abbre- viated or lightened ; we learn also along with many f practical advantages, and in this way we certainly I 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; METHOD OF ATTAINING IT, 207 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 inter- pret what the Bible contains, but rather this : to as- certain HOW WE MAY BE ABLE OURSELVES TO DIS- COVER its contents. We must therefore pay more attention to the teacher's method of interpretation than to his interpretation itself, more to the manner than to the results of his exegesis, more to the reasons from which he shows the true sense of a passage 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 reasonable. 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 very well be attained by hearing a course of instruction on some. It may indeed, not- ' withstanding tins, be requisite to attend particular ex- positions of some books of the Old Testament and of some of the New ; and in peculiar circumstances and with certain objects in view, it may also be very use- ful, if opportunity offer, to hear more than one inter- preter 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 Cur- 208 METHOD OF ATTAINING IT. soria, or brief outlines. Undoubtedly they may be use- ful in a variety of respects, and the more certainly if the whole Bible is gone through with them ; but their utili- ty 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 applica- tion of the principles of hermeneutics, then in the third and last place, it is time for him to begin to exercise himself in interpreting ; for which no particular direc- tions are now necessary. In order the sooner to ac- quire a readiness in this matter and a confidence, it is perhaps of chief importance, to undertake it at first rather slowly, to adopt nothing without being 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 pas- sages of scripture, the exposition of which involves several difficulties. If we exercise ourselves at first with very easy passages, we may very soon be led into 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- METHOD OF ATTAINING IT. 209 ledge still remain to be supplied ; and if we succeed in the effort, we may be certain of a favorable 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 affords 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 introduced as belonging to exegetical theology.* * Note LXVI. 18 TRANSLATOR'S NOTES. The notes appended to this work are added by the translator, in order to give the student who is unacquainted with criticism and inter- pretation a general view of the most prominent 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 information are abundant ; and the most important and useful are pointed out in the course of the work. More particular references will occasionally be made in the notes. NOTE I. This observation, which is one of great practical im- portance, might easily be illustrated, by showing, that in general those writers, whose acquaintance with langua- ges is but limited, are more remarkable for inaccuracy in forming or developing their thoughts, than others, whose philological knowledge is considerable. In theological controversy, its truth is most conspicuous : and many a dis- cussion 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 employed. " Explain terms ;; is one of the rules laid down by Claude, in his admirable Essay on the Composition of a Sermon, and it is no less important for the theological writer, than for the Christian preacher. It is said of Plato that he accustomed his pu- pils to define with precision the ideas which they attached to language. See Voyage d'Anacharsis, Chap. vii. Tom. h\ p. 141, ed. Paris, 12mo, 1810. 212 NOTES. NOTE II. I have retained the word " dialect" which is used by the author, although it is not considered by some critics as accurately applied to the Greek of the New Testament. See a very able article on the nature and character of this Greek style, by Henry Planck, son of the author of this work, in the Biblical Repository, conducted by Edward Robinson, D. D. late Professor Extraordinary in the Theo- logical Seminary at Andover, Vol. I. No. iv. pp. 638 — 689. In this Essay the influence of the Macedonian conquests, and also of the Hebrew language on the Greek of the New Testament, is traced by the hand of a master. NOTE III. 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 disser- tations of Pfannkuche and Hug, in the Biblical Repository, Vol. I. No. ii. pp. 317—363, and No. iii. pp. 530—551, with the introductory remarks of the editor in No. ii. pp. 309 — 317. He will there find a brief historical sketch of the controversy on this subject, and a view of the evidence in favor of the use of each language respectively. NOTE IV. 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 ver- nacular ; it is evident that the intercourse with those per- sons which the ordinary occupations of life required must NOTES. 213 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 declara- tion of the author requires, therefore, some modification. note v. When it is considered that the character of the Greek of the New Testament is not Hebraistic merely, but partakes 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 influ- ence 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 referred to, pp. 656, 657. He divides them into three classes ; first, writers subsequent to the age of Alexander ; second, writers who have treated ex- pressly of this style, viz. the grammarians, scholiasts, and lexicographers ; and third, writings which have come down to us composed in the later diction, such as the Alexan- drine and other Greek versions, the New Testament itself, the Apocryphal books of the Old and New Testaments, and the apostolical fathers. NOTE VI. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say, — "with which the Hebrew was anciently in part identified." The probability appears to be, that the Hebrew is only one dia- lect of a language, which was originally employed as the medium of communication in Syria, Phoenicia, Mesopo- 18* 214 NOTES. tamia, Babylonia, Arabia and Ethiopia. From the differ- ent appellations given by the patriarch Jacob and his father- in-law to a heap of stones erected as a pledge of mutual amity,* 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 considerable 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, connexions and dependents, are constantly represented as migratory. But no difficulty seems to have existed in communicating 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 purposes 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 sufficient knowledge of the various tongues of the people among whom they travelled ; this must be allowed. But such a supposition will not meet all the difficulties of the case, as an acquisition of various languages in this way, is hardly to be assumed of all the members of their large families, or rather of extensive bodies of men, as they are more properly to be regarded. If Abraham's own family supplied him with 318 native servants able to bear arms,t it is plain that his domestic establishment must have amount- ed, at least, to 1,500 souls. Unless the several dialects approximated sufficiently near each other to constitute some general medium of communication, it will be diffi- cult to account for the apparent facility with which Rachel * Gen. xxxi, 47. t See Gen. xiv, 14. NOTES. 215 converses with Jacob. And that this is the true solution of the phenomena is strengthened by subsequent facts. When Moses leaves Egypt and connects himself with the Midianites in Arabia, he is able to converse with the daugh- ter of the priest in the language, which in his youth he had learned 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 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 under- stood 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 communicating to his companion.* The supposition that Gideon's knowledge was peculiar to himself, does not seem to be probable. NOTE VII. In applying the principle laid down in the text the greatest possible caution is necessary. In the first place, we should be intimately acquainted both with the ordinary and peculiar grammatical forms of the language. Altera- tions of the text may often be traced to the want of this. Several various readings in Greek manuscripts have arisen from the transcribers' ignorance of the principle of attrac- tion. Then again an author may be accustomed to sole- cisms not occurring in any other writer of the New Tes- tament. Let the critic be on his guard lest he mar the text of his author, at the very time when he imagines that he is correcting it. This has probably been the fact in several instances, and particularly in the Apocalypse of * See Judges vii, 13—15. 216 NOTES. * 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 prin- ciple. The reader will not fail to remark the limitations to which he himself restricts it. note vui. To assist us in forming a correct idea of the criticism of the New Testament, some general knowledge of the most important 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 ac- count cannot be obtained, except by consulting various authors and examining fac-similies. See Simon's Histoire Critique du texte du Nouveau Testament, Chap, xxix — xxxiii, pp. 336, ss., also his Dissertation Critique sur les principaux Actes Manuscrits, appended to his Histoire Cri- tique des principaux Commentateurs du N. T. ; Michaelis' Introduction to the New Testament, translated from the German and considerably augmented with Notes, &c. by the Right Rev. Herbert Marsh, D. D. F. R. S. Vol. II. Part I. pp. 159. ss. Edit. iii. ; Horne's Introduction, Vol. II. pp. 97, ss. Edit. vi. Lond. and Montfaucon's Palceo- graphia Greeca. The two last works contain specimens from which the reader may acquire a sufficient acquaint- ance with the different characters in which manuscripts | were written. There are many manuscripts which contain readings that may be called characteristic. These are either de- rived from the same source, or are copies one of an- other ; and the affinity which they bear to each other has ' induced critics to form them into classes, each class corres- ponding in a great degree with what is meant by an edi- NOTES. 217 tion, as the term is applied to printed books. This classi- fication or relationship is called by Semler* recensio, and the same word is used by GiiiESBACH.t BengelJ employs the term familia or natio ; Michaelis (in Marsh's Trans- lation,) uses edition ; Laurence^ text ; and Nolan|| class. In the greatest number of manuscripts the Gospels only are contained ; a considerable number comprehend the Gos- pels, 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 con- cluded that a manuscript accords with the commonly re- ceived 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 dvayvdjanara, from dvayivcjcrKw, to read, and in Latin lectionaria. The portions which they con- tain are those which were appointed to be read in the pub- lic 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 * Apparatus ad liberalem Novi Testamenti interpretationem, Halas, ! 1767, 8vo. f Symbolae Criticae ad supplendas et corrigendas variarum Novi Tes- tamenti lectionum eolleetiones. Halle, 1785, 8vo. Vol. II. Also, in the Prolegomena to his New Testament. t Apparatus Criticus ad Novum Testamentum, Tubingae, 1763, 4to. § Remarks upon the systematical classification of Manuscripts adopt- ed by Griesbach in his edition of the Greek Testament. Oxford, 1814, 8vo. pamphlet. II An Inquiry into the integrity of the Greek Vulgate or received text of the New Testament. London, 1815. 218 NOTES. our Book of Common Prayer. See, for example, the Gos- pels for the sixth and ninth Sundays after Trinity, for St. Philip and St. James' day, and that for All Sainte' day. — From these and other circumstances the evidence which these manuscripts afford in determining the correctness 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 manuscripts has been said to latinize ; but this charge is thought by some of the best critics to be unfounded. When a Latin version accompanies the text, the copy is called a Greek-Latin manuscript. The manuscripts which are of principal importance in relation 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 I. by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, and is now in the British Museum. It is called the Alexandrine Manuscript, (Codex Alexan- drinus,) 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, cri- tics have been greatly divided in opinion. Some have as- cribed 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 be 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 splendid folio. NOTES. 219 The next important manuscript is called the Vatican, (Codex Vaticanus,) and is usually referred to in critical editions by a B. Its name is derived from the Vatican Li- brary 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 Cath- olic Epistles, St. Paul's Epistles, with the exception of those to Timothy, Titus and Philemon, and the latter part of that to the Hebrews from ix, 14, fyw/zoi/ ™ 0e$. The re- mainder of the manuscript is lost, and consequently it wants the Apocalypse of St. John ; although this and the latter part of Hebrews have been added by a modern transcriber. It is disputed whether this or the Alexandrine manuscript is of higher antiquity ; and different critics have assigned it different dates, from the fourth century to the seventh. The third manuscript to be mentioned is generally de- noted by a C. It is a Codex rescriptus, (in Greek na\in\pri<7Tos,) and is so called because over the original wri- ting — which comprehended 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 publications. This expedient was oc- casionally 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 centu- ry ; by others in the sixth. Another manuscript particularly deserving of notice, is called the Cambridge, (Codex Cantabrigiensis,) or Be- za's, (Codex Bezm,) or Stephen'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 220 XOTES. by Robert Stephens, and marked /?' in his celebrated edi- tion 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 arrange- ment of the Gospels is that which is usual in Latin copies, thus: Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. Some have thought that the Cambridge manuscript is corrupted 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 respect* ing 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 the Greek as the Greek from the Latin. In the opinion of the most judicious and accurate critics, this manuscript cannot 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 manuscript, marked D. Although the letter which desig- nates 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 Royal Library at Paris, certain sheets, which are said to have been stolen, having been re- placed. Dr. Mill supposed this manuscript to be the second part of the Codex Cantabrigiensis ; 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 NOTES. 221 connexion they have with the much contested passage in 1 John v. 9. The first of these, which contains the whole New Tes- tament, is called the Montford or Dublin Manuscript, (Codex Montfortianus or Dublinensis,) and is quoted by Erasmus in his note on 1 John v. 7, under the name of Codex Brittanicus, because he was informed that a Greek manuscript containing the above mentioned text,* had been found in England. No particulars of its history can be traced farther back than this period, 1519 — 1522. It belonged to Dr. Montfort, a Cambridge theologian, who lived in the former half of the 17th century, and afterwards became the property of Archbishop 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 au- thority of this manuscript alone, Erasmus inserted 1 John v. 7, in his third edition, having omitted it in his first and second ; and he inserted it in consequence of a promise he had made of introducing it in his next edition, if any Greek manuscript containing it should be found. Hence the suspicion has arisen 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 in- troduced 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 read- ings are remarkably coincident with those of the Latin Vulgate, it is very likely that its author was not a little in- debted to this version. Compare in the same chapter of * See Critici Sacri Tom. viii. Col. 272. 19 222 NOTES. St. John verse 6, its reading, Xptards (instead of rrvtfya,) ianvk d\rj9eia with the Vulgate, " Christus est Veritas." It has been conjectured that the Codex Brittanicus of Erasmus was a different manuscript from the present Mont- fortianus or Dublinensis, because Erasmus in quoting from it 1 John v. 7, omits aym after the first ttmS/io, and hi before the second ixaprvpovvres, both of which are to be found in this manuscript. But it ought to be recollected, that this quo- tation occurs in his defence addressed to James Lopez Stunica, (a Spanish divine with whom he had a contro- versy on this subject,) in which most probably he trusted to his memory. In his third edition, where he professes to introduce from the Codex Brittanicus what was wanting in his own manuscripts, this controverted passage agrees exactly with the Codex Dublinensis. 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 Complu- tensian Polyglot, of which it is said to look like a fac-sim- ile. It even copies from this edition 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 Stunica to produce a single Greek manuscript containing 1 John v. 7, he would undoubtedly have appealed to the Codex Ravianus, had he known of its existence. NOTES. 223 The other Manuscript is the Codex Ottobianus pre- served in the Vatican Library and numbered 298. It contains the disputed passage, although somewhat different from the Common reading, thus : and tov dvpavov. itarhp, Myos, kcu Trvevpa iyiov, koX hi rpeis els rd iv tiai. Kai rpits eiaiv bi fiaprvpovvrss and rfjf yrjs — .Scholtz, who discovered this manuscript and made it known, ascribes it to the 14th century. The lateness of its date diminishes the value of its testimony in favor of the text in question. See Lee's Prolegomena to Bagster's Polyglot. Prol. vi. Sect. ii. p. 72. NOTE IX. 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 probably, by assistance obtained from the Vulgate, have given 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, Augustin, and other Latin Fathers, on the genuine 8th verse, in connexion with John x. 30, who de- duce the doctrine of the Trinity by a mystical interpretation of "the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood." Griesbach says also, that the Lateran council 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™^ before ayiov. In the following century, Manuel Calecas, a Greek who had become a convert to the Latin church, and was perhaps a Dominican friar, in his zeal to establish the addition of Jilioque to the creed of the Greeks, wrote a book " de fide et principiis catholics fidei," in which he endeavors to maintain his position that Scripture adds the Holy Spirit as third to the Father and Son, and intro- 224 NOTES. duces these Words : TpeTi hvtv hi jxapTVpovvres, b narhp, b \6yos kcl\ rd nvtv/xa to ayiov. He OlTlltS iv ro> ovpavat and bvTOi bt rpeTs Iv riaiv. But a few more efforts would soon produce the text as now received. Accordingly, in the next or 15th century, we find another Greek monk, Joseph Bryennius, quoting the very words of the received text with the exception of rd Tzvevjia to ayiov instead of to ayiov Ttvtvfia. And it is remarka- ble, that in the omission of the last clause koX bi rptn tis to Iv tioiv in the 8th verse, and in the reading b Xpioros Ictiv h dXrj0«a in the 6th, the quotation agrees with the Vulgate ; and therefore there is considerable reason for suspecting that it was formed by the aid of that version. The same coin- cidence 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 Criti- cus, pp. 452 — 481, Michaelis' Introduction, Vol. iv. Part ii. pp. 412 — 442, Horne's Introduction, Vol. iv. pp. 462 — 487, and the authors there referred to. NOTE X. For an account of the labors of Origen and Jerome, i see Jahn's Introduction, Part i. pp. 51, ss. 75, ss., and the authors there referred to, to which add Masch's edition of Le Long's Bibliotheca Sacra. NOTE XI. As the author more than once introduces the name of i Father Simon with terms of unqualified approbation, it seems 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 re- presentations of certain phenomena connected with the cri- NOTES. 225 ticism and interpretation of the Bible, are partial, and appear to border on extravagance, to say the least ; and not a few of the conclusions which he draws from them, are forced and illogical. The unwary reader of his works might easi- ly be led to suppose, that the authenticity of several books of the Old Testament, and the certainty of the interpreta- tion of them as they exist in the Hebrew originals, are sub- jects very much involved in the mists of obscurity and doubt. Thus, according to his prepossessions, he might be led either to scepticism, or to Roman Catholic 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 favorably 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. I refer to such com- mentators as Grotius, Le Clerc, and J. D. Michaelis. The reader is hereby cautioned against acquiescing entirely in all the sentiments of the author relating to those writers. NOTE XII. The same charge was advanced against Mill. His collection of various readings would destroy, it was ima- gined, the authority of the sacred text, and this extraor- dinary supposition is maintained by Whitby, in his Ex- amen variarum Lectionum Millii, which was printed at London in 8vo, 1720, and is also appended to the second volume of his Paraphrase and Commentary on the New Testament, fol. 1727. Its absurdity must be evident to every reflecting mind, as the collecting of various read- ings is the only way in which the text can be satisfacto- 19* 226 NOTES. rily settled. This is conclusively demonstrated by the learned and acute Dr. Richard Bentley in his Remarks on Mr. Collin's Discourse on Free Thinking. The 6th edi- tion of this able work was printed at Cambridge, in 1725. It was written under the assumed name of Phileleutherus 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 introduc- tory 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 coun- try. The names of a few of the most distinguished Eng- lish writers 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 in- tended limits. Such an one may be fouud in other books, and especially in Dr. Horne's Introduction, sixth edition, Vol. ii. Part ii. Appendix. NOTE XIII. The same author afterwards published a larger work in five volumes, 8vo, far superior to any of the kind that pre- ceded it : Novus Thesaurus Philologico-criticus in Septua- ginta et reliquos Interpretes Graecos ac Scriptores Apocry- phos Veteris Testamenti. Lipsise, 1820 — 1. NOTES. 227 NOTE XIV. In addition to the sources referred to by the author the common and Macedonian dialect, as found in many of the later Greek writers may be mentioned. See the treatise of Planck referred to in Notes n, and v. Also Fischer's Prolusiones de vitiis Lexicorum Novi Testamenti, and F. W. Sturz de dialecto Macedonica et Alexandrina, 8vo. Lips. 1808. NOTE XV. Another Lexicon made its appearance in 1822, at Leip- zig, with the following title : Clavis Novi Testamenti Phi- lologica, usibus Scholarum et juvenum Theologiae studio- sorum accommodata, auctore M. Christ. Abrahamo Wahl. This is a more accurate work than Schleusner's, especially in the account 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 He- braistic 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 convenient Lexicon to the New Testa- ment, 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 grammarians, and by the results of 228 NOTES. his own investigations. He hopes to be able to complete the work in the course of the present year. NOTE XVI. 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 errors. He adds : " In the last century, several learned men, particularly Semler, Scharfenberg, Doederlein, Matthrei, Bruns, Adler, Schleus- ner, Loesner, and Fischer, corrected many parts of the preceding collections, and increased them by large addi- tions. It is much to be wished that all were published in a single collection." NOTE XVII. To the works mentioned in the text may be added the following : An Inquiry into the present state of the Sep- tuagint 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. NOTE XVIII. For some notice of the Targums, see Jahn, pp. 64 — 68, and the authors there mentioned, with Le Long. — An ac- count 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 Sa- cra Polyglotta, textu sarchetypos versionesque praecipuas, necnon versiones recentiores, Anglicanum, Germanicam, NOTES. 229 Italicam, Gallicam et Hispanicam complectentia. Acce- dunt Prolegomena 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 edi- tion, the Hebrew New Testament, by William Green- field ; the Septuagint, from the Vatican of Cardinal Cara- fa ; the Greek Testament, according to the received text ; the Vulgate from the editions of Sixtus V and Clement VIII. The English translation is accompanied with mar- ginal readings and parallel places ; the German is that of Luther ; 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 Society ; the Samaritan Pentateuch, according to Kennicott's edition ; various readings of the Septuagint, from Grade's edition ; and a collection of various readings of the New Testament, from Griesbach. — The whole work is exceedingly beautiful, but in so small a type as to make the use of it very inconvenient. The Prolegomena to this work are a series of learn- ed disquisitions on the various topics connected with bib- lical criticism. As they have been printed in a small quarto volume of 75 pages, and can be obtained (I be- lieve) separately from the Bible, I add the following no- tice of the subjects discussed, in order that the reader may have a general idea of their contents. Prol. I. Sect i. De Scripturis sacris, earumque reve- latione, indole, scopo, &c. Sect. ii. De lingua qua primi- tus patefactae sunt Scripturae Sacra?, ejusque antiquitate, natura atque usu. Sect. iii. De Sacri textus originibus, 230 NOTES. atque conservations. Sect. iv. De sacrarum scripturarum fatis durante theocratia. Sect. v. De statu sacri textus, Judaeis in Babylonia degentibus. Sect. vi. De Christianis- mi ortu, ejusque in sacras literas vi effectrice. Sect. vii. De masorae origine et increments. Sect. viii. De masora, qualis sc. sese nunc in Bibliis Rabbinicis nobis ob oculos ponit. Sect. ix. De ablationibus et correctionibus e scribis factis. Sect. x. De vocibus quibusdam legendis, quamvis in textu scriptae non reperiantur. Sect. xi. De ea masorae parte quae grammaticen, sive interpretationem sacri textus exegeticam, spectat. Sect. xii. Comparatio textus He- braici in locis quibusdam Geneseos, cum Chaldaica On- kelosi, necnon Syriaca versione quam Peshito appellant, sparsis hinc inde notis criticis. Sect. xiii. De textus He- braici 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 Samaritano, ejusque versionibus, Samaritica, Graeca, et Arabica. Sect. ii. De versione Samaritico-Chaldaica, ejusque sequacibus, Graeca et Arabica. Sect. iii. Collatio versuum quorundam textus Hebraici editionis Samaritanae, cum versione Chaldaico-Samaritica, Chaldaica Onkelosi, et Arabica Abu Said. — Prol. III. Sect. i. De versionibus Syriacis Arabicisque ex iis factis. Sect. ii. De versionibus Veteris Fcederis Syriacis, quae e Graeco fuerint cusae. Sect. iii. De recensione Karkaphensi Syriaca. Sect. iv. De Novi Foederis versione Syra, Peshito dicta. Sect. v. De versionibus Syriacis, Philoxeniana et Hierosolymitana. Sect. vi. De versionibus Arabica, sc. et Persica ex Peshito Syrorum, factis. — Prol. IV. Sect. i. De Septuaginta Grae- corum versione virali. Sect. ii. De operibus criticis Ori- genis, Bibliis sc. Tetraplis, Hexaplis, &,c. Sect. iii. De notis Origenianis, Asterisco, Obelo, Lemnisco, Hypolem- NOTES. 231 nisco. Sect. iv. De Aquila ejusque versionibus S. S. Grae- cis. Sect. v. De Symmacho versioneque ejus Graeca. Sect. vi. De Theodotionis versione. Sect. vii. De reliquis versionibus, duinta, Sexta, Septima, Hexaplaribus. Sect. viii. De versione Graeca Venetiis haud ita pridem reperta. — Prol. V. Sect. i. De Vulgatis Latinorum versionibus, antiquiore sc. et Hieronymiana. Sect. ii. De versione Vul- gata Latina Hieronymiana. — Prol. VI. Sect, i., ii. De crisi Novi Testamenti, ejusque textus Graeci statu hodierno. — Mantissa. De interpretatione scripturarum sacrarum exe- getica. NOTE XIX. To the Iexicographal works mentioned by the author, the following are added, some of which are of later date than that of his publication. Those of Avenarius, Cala- 9IO, SCHINDLER, CASTELL, ROBERTSON, StOCKIUS, GuSSET, and David Levi, with some others of less authority, are omitted. Johannis Buxtorfii Lexicon Chaldaicum, Talmudi- cum et Rabbinicum, folio, Basil. 1640 This most labo- rious 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 8vo., 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 philosophical 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. £32 NOTES. ii, being a Lexicon and Grammar of the whole language. By Clement C. Moore, (now L. L. D. and Professor of Oriental and Greek Literature in the general Theological Seminary of the Prot. Epis. church,) New- York, 1809. — This work will be found very useful to a beginner in He- brew, for whom it is principally designed. Gesenius' Hebrew Lexicon, in German, appeared at Leipzig, in two volumes, 8vo, in 1810 — 12 ; and in 1815, the author published at the same place, an abridgment of his work, with some improvements. The larger lexicon was translated into English 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, published 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 reprinted in London, in 1827. In 1828, Mr. Gibbs, now Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theological School in Yale College, published in Andover, a Manual Hebrew and English Lexicon, includ- ing the Biblical Chaldee, designed particularly for begin- ners. This Manual is intended to assist students of He- brew, until the author shall be able to prepare a secon 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 Manuale Hebraicum et Chaldaicum in Veteris Testamenti libros, post editionem Germanicam tertiam Latine elaboravit, multisque modis retractavit et auxit Guil. Gesenius, Philos. et Theol. Doct, &c. Lipsiae, 1833. Royal 8vo. This work is a great improvement of the au- NOTES. 233 thor's former work. He is preparing a still more extensive Lexicon in Latin, one part of which in thin 4to, appeared i last year. — The reader will find a valuable article of Gesenius translated from the original German, "on the sources of Hebrew philology and lexicography" in the Bib- lical Repository, vol. iii. pp. 1. ss. NOTE XX. To the list of grammars and works of a grammatical character given by the author, the following must be added, as they are among the most important for an English stu- dent. A Hebrew grammar, with a copious Syntax and Praxis, by Moses Stuart, Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theological Seminary at Andover, 8vo. 1821. — This work is founded chiefly on the Hebrew grammar of Gesenius. The third edition considerably condensed and improved, was published in 1828, and the fourth in 1831. In the mean time the author published "Dissertations on the importance and best method of studying the original languages of the Bible, by Jahn, Gesenius and Wythnn- bach," translated from the original Latin, 8vo Pamphlet, 1821. In 1827, the Rev. Samuel Lee, D. D. Professor of Ara- bic, and since regius Professor of Hebrew, in the University of Cambridge, published a grammar of the Hebrew lan- guage, comprised in a series of Lectures, 8vo. The learn- ed author published in 1832 a second edition of his work enriched with much original matter. In 1829, Professor Stuart published at Andover, a He- brew Chrestomathy, designed as the first volume of a course of Hebrew Study, 8vo. A second volume was issued in 1830. 20 234 NOTES. A Manual Hebrew Grammar, for the use of beginners. By J. Seixas. Andover, 1833, 8vo, pp. 54. Winer's Chaldee Grammar, to which is appended a Chrestomathy or Collection of portions for reading, select- ed from the Targums, is a very useful compilation. The title of the book is : Grammatik des Biblischen und Tar- gumischen Chaldaismus, von Dr. Georg Benedict Winer, Leipzig, 1824, 8vo. A Manual of the Chaldee language, containing a Chal- dee Grammar, 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 appendix on the Rabbinical character and style. By Elias Riggs, A. M. Boston, 8vo, 1832. NOTE XXI. 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 trans- lator, at London, in two vols. 8vo, in 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. The work of Herder has been translated into English by President Marsh of Burlington College. It will short- ly be published in two volumes 12mo. The first volume is already printed. NOTE XXII. This edition of Le Long contains more satisfactory in- formation on the various topics connected with the criti- cism of the Old Testament than any single work to which NOTES. 235 the student 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 varie- ties in Hebrew manuscripts, tables exhibiting different read- ings in various editions of the Bible, and a particular ac- count 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, wheth- er with points or without ; of portions of the Bible, begin- ning 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 uni- ted or separate. All this most methodically 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 account of Poly- glots, and the fourth of the editions of the Apocryphal books. — Part second treats of the versions of the sacred books. It is divided into three volumes ; the first giving an account 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 vo- lume a chronological index is subjoined. 236 NOTES. NOTE XXIII. This Bible of Michaelis is particularly valuable, not only for its general accuracy, but principally for the exten- sive and useful annotations with which the learned and pious editor has enriched the text, and especially the Psalms and Prophets. Rosenmueller 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 Van der Hooght, Amsterdam, 1705, remarkable for the beauty of its typo- graphy. 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 di- gessit et graviores lectionum varietates adjecit, Johannes Jahn, Phil, et Theol. Doct. &c." For an account of this edition see Horne, 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. NOTE XXIV. An edition of Wetstein's Prolegomena was published in 8vo, at Halle, in 1764, by Joh. Sal. Semler, who ac- companied it with notes, and added an appendix on the older Latin recensions in various manuscripts and speci- mens of Greek and Latin chirography. NOTES. 237 NOTE XXV. As it is exceedingly desirable, that the student of the Bible should acquire some knowledge of Syriac, and as this may be done with a very moderate degree of labor after having 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 re- ferred to the appendix to a " Treatise on the use of the Syriac language, by John David Michaelis, translated from the German by John Frederic 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, p. 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. NOTE XXVI. This opinion was generally supposed to be correct when the author prepared his work. It was founded " partly on several passages in the prefaces to the Complu- tensian Bible, in which the editors boast of having received from the apostolic library of Pope Leo X. very ancient and valuable manuscripts, which had afforded them great assist- ance ; partly on some expressions 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 can- not conclude from the readings of the one to those of the other." Thus far Michaelis, in his account of the Vati- can manuscript. Introduction, Part I. vol. ii. pp. 348 — 9. 20* 23S NOTES. Marsh, on the passage just quoted, (note 347,) gives a spe- cimen 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. Horne's Intro- duction, vol. ii. Part ii. appendix, pp. 27. ss. edit. vi. NOTE XXVII. A more complete account of this controversy may be found in Marsh's Michaelis, ubi sup. pp. 431 — 442, with the notes. NOTE XXVIII. If the reader wishes to see a particular account of the most celebrated editions of the Greek Testament that were published before Griesbach's, he will find it in Marsh's Michaelis, vol. ii. Part. i. pp 429, ss., Horne's Introduc- tion, vol. ii. Part ii, Appendix pp. 10, ss. and Le Long's Bib- liotheca 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 prin- ciples, 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 prominent objections which have been urged against it. NOTES. 239 Griesbach's Prolegomena is divided into seven sec- tions, 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 recen- sion is neither improper nor unnecessary. The author tells us, that before the publication of the received text in the Elzevir edition,* different editors fol- lowed different authorities ; some made use of Erasmus, some of the Complutensian text, while some selected from both, and availed themselves also of other sources. The materi- als made use of by Erasmus and the Complutensian editors were exceedingly imperfect. Their manuscripts were few in number, and comparatively of modern date and little value. They wanted the best and most ancient manu- scripts ; all the oriental versions also with the Gothic and Slavonic ; and although they did possess a Latin transla- tion, 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. 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 the place of those which he had before introduced into his third. The accu- racy of this text is suspected, and on good grounds ; al- though it may be difficult to say how far its inaccuracy ex- tends. It is plain, that in some places the editors altered * This edition takes its name from the printer, who is celebrated for the beauty of his impressions. 240 NOTES. and interpolated against the authority of their own manu- scripts, and that they were too much attached to the Vul- gate version. So also was Erasmus, who in his last edi- tions yielded to the clamors of his adversaries, 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 employ these materials to greater advantage. For these and other rea- sons, it would be idle to suppose that they ought to be im- plicitly followed. The author then proceeds to show that the editions of Stephens also are not to be relied on, and that as works of criticism they are of little authority. He gives an account of the manuscripts used by that celebrated editor, and con- siders his /?' 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 New Testament, the Arabic. But Beza did not make a thorough use of them, and Wetstein has shown in his Pro- legomena 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 conjecture. The Elzevir, or, received text, which made its appear- ance in 1624, is not founded on manuscripts, but follows the third or fourth edition of Stephens, except in about one NOTES. 241 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 pursu- ed 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 correctness of readings. In the sixteenth and seven- teenth centuries about twenty editions were printed, no two of which entirely agreed, as each editor corrected and al- tered the text, according to his own judgment, acting on the testimony before him. Through the diligence of critics it has been proved, that the oldest manuscripts and versions, and also the quotations 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 consequence ; 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 242 NOTES. critical apparatus which lay dispersed in various works, and to prepare an edition of the Greek Testament which should contain 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 respecting them expressed with perspicuity, and at the same time briefly and with modesty. The utility of such a work for students of theology is unquestionable. For although an intimate acquaintance with criticism is by no means necessary for every clergy- man, yet every one ought to be guarded against such errors as prevent an accurate knowledge and proper use of scrip- ture ; and this does certainly require some acquaintance with it. Nothing gives greater acuteness, or tends more thoroughly to prepare the mind for interpretation than criti- cism. Many places, doubtless corrupted in the common editions, cannot be correctly understood without it. Many also have given rise to controversies 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. 1 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 prefera- ble to the received is placed either in the text or the inner margin. — He does not presume that his edition is not sus- ceptible of improvement. Far from it. That it is so is clearly evident from what follows. A vast number of manu- NOTES. 243 scripts have been collected by critics, some of which have been examined in particular places only or in a hasty man- ner ; whereas, if the examination had been complete and the results fully made known, many readings 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 Armenian is suspected of varying from the best copies, and of being adapted to a more modern Greek text ; of the Sahidic and Jerusalem-Syriac fragments merely have been published ; the Slavonic manuscripts ought to be carefully examined, also those of the Old Latin version. All the Greek fathers should be examined, as Origen is in the Symbol® Critical. The origin, the primitive characteristics, and the changes of each recension, have 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 different recensions nearly of the same antiquity it is almost impossible to determine which are genuine. In the best manuscripts, interpolations, the ori- gin of which is very difficult to be explained, require the dili- gence and acumen of future critics. These considerations illustrate the extreme difficulty of procuring a text absolute- ly perfect. — He remarks further, that the collections of Mill, Wetstein and others are imperfect ; — that they occa- sionally ascribe to manuscripts, versions and fathers, read- ings 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 into which their predecessors had fallen; and this, not by following any one manuscript, but by investigating the pri- mitive readings of each class. 244 NOTES. II. It entered into the editor's design, to note those readings which, although not preferred by him, he consi- dered as of equal authority with those retained, or nearly so with those preferred ; those also which, if inferior, are not to be despised, or which with some color of truth might seem probable to other critics. These he has separated from the mass, and appropriated to them descriptive marks, after the example of Bengel. III. It was his intention also to subjoin a suitable col- lection 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 dis- tinguishing the genuine reading from interpolations ; — such as may elucidate the history of the Greek text, and aid in discovering the character of ancient recensions and re- markable classes ; — such as are found in many valuable books, or have crept into some editions, or have remarkably changed the sense, or may illustrate the forms of speech employed by the sacred writers. Of these he has not de- signedly 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 examined. For the benefit of younger students, he has introduced a few specimens of conjecture.* Readings, which may be classed in the list which follows, he has omitted. Such as * See, for example, Acts vii. 14, where, to remove a difficulty, Beza conjectures irdvTes to be the true reading, instead of irivre. But, as Krebs has remarked, this would be a solecism, as grammati- cal correctness would require ndaais. It is to be regretted that Griesbach should have admitted any conjectures bearing on funda- mental doctrine, and he is certainly to be censured for having allow- ed a place to the conjectural reading deov for deds in John i. 1, of the Socinian Crellius. NOTES. 245 are found in but few manuscripts, and those of the more modern date ; — such as are evidently taken from parallel places in the Gospels, or have crept into the text from lec- tionaries ; — 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 \ty