Page images
PDF
EPUB

advantages of such an extension of biblical know- | as will satisfy all reasonable curiosity, and enable ledge would soon be apparent, in the growing matu- those who desire it, to make a proper application of rity and perfection of the Christian character, and those principles and rules that relate to the other in the increased usefulness and efficiency of the branch of our subject. Christian ministry.

9. Biblical learning is usually divided into two principal branches; namely, CRITICISM and INTER

PRETATION.

12. The following, then, will be the method of proceeding, in treating on the various topics comprised in this part of our work. First, we shall direct our attention to the text of the Bible, with (1) BIBLICAL CRITICISM treats of the laws by a view to ascertain, in a general way, its original which the genuineness or purity of the text is de-character, and the securities we possess for its precided, and by which it is to be restored where it may have been corrupted.

(2) BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION treats of the rules by which the sense of the text is to be educed and exhibited, and embraces all those various branches of learning usually comprehended under the head of biblical antiquities.

10. From this statement of the objects of these two branches of biblical learning, it will be perceived that the one is intimately connected with the other; and that some knowledge of each of them is indispensable to constitute a good interpreter.

sent integrity. This will bring under review the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, and the various accidents to which literary compositions are liable in passing down the stream of time, from a period antecedent to the invention of printing; more particularly those which have occurred to the sacred writings. Thence we shall be led to inquire into the character and value of various readings, or the different wording of the same passage in the several manuscripts and other extant documents comprising the sacred text, or portions of it; the sources in which they have originated; and the means we possess for correcting the errors that may have 11. The object of this work being to furnish the crept into the text. We may then review the prounlearned as well as the more erudite with a com- gress that has been made towards restoring the prehensive and practically useful digest of the text to its original purity, and the methods by several topics connected with the interpretation of which this has been effected. Having thus ascerthe Sacred writings, BIBLICAL CRITICISM will be tained the actual state of the books, the contents dispatched in a much more summary way than the of which it is proposed to investigate, we may matters incident to INTERPRETATION. The reason proceed, step by step, through the several rules of for this is, that CRITICISM pertains to the original interpretation. This will exhibit the means that text, and not to a translation-with which, only, may be legitimately employed for educing the sense we shall assume our readers to be familiar; all of the language used by the sacred writers, on the attempts to go into the minutiae of this branch of subjects of which they treat. Thus we shall be the subject, therefore, would tend only to perplex introduced to almost every variety of subject comand annoy, without affording any compensating ad-prised in the Bible, and clearly ascertain the nature vantage. We shall endeavour, however, to give of those qualifications that are indispensable to the such a general view of this part of biblical science sound interpretation of its contents.

CHAPTER II.

BIBLICAL CRITICISM.

1. THE immediate object of sound criticism, as | to restore the original readings that have been will have been perceived, is not to understand and excluded by them. interpret the Holy Scriptures, but to examine their 3. There are four principal sources from which genuineness and uncorruptness, to assign reasons criticism may draw those indications and helps on for deeming any particular passage to have been which it is principally to rely, partly to ascertain altered from its original state, and to propose the what changes have taken place, and partly to resurest means by which such passage may be re-store the original readings. The first is, an accustored, with the greatest certainty or probability, to its pristine condition.

2. The purpose of criticism is, therefore, twofold: in the first place, to discover the changes that have taken place in the original text; and then,

rate 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 manuscripts or copies which we have of them, origi

nating at various periods.
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.*

The third consists of the learned are not agreed, as to the language in which they were originally composed; namely, the Gospel of Matthew, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, the latter of which is attributed to Paul, upon very conclusive evidence. These books, it has been thought by very able critics, were written in the Hebrew, or rather in the Syro-Chaldaic tongue, which was the vernacular language of the Jews in the time of our Saviour; † and, consequently, that our present Greek text is only a translation from the originals. To enter into a critical investigation of this disputed topic would not accord with our present purpose; but a few remarks seem to be called for.

4. The sections comprised in this chapter, will be devoted to a review of the several topics pertaining to the criticism of the Bible, for the purpose of clucidating, as far as is necessary for general purposes, its materials and objects.

SECTION I.

THE HEBREW AND GREEK SCRIPTURES.

The Original Languages of Scripture-The Aramæan Language
--Language in which Matthew's Gospel and the Epistle to
the Hebrews were written Peculiar style of the New
Testament-The Genuineness of the New Testament de-

[ocr errors]

monstrable from its Style-Importance of Hebrew and Greek Learning to an Interpreter-Historical Account of the Hebrew Language-Various Schools of Hebrew Philology.

1. SPEAKING in general terms, it may be stated that Hebrew and Greek are the two languages employed by the Author of revelation, to convey a knowledge of his will and purpose to mankind.

5. The notion of a Hebrew original of these two compositions seems to have been suggested merely by the consideration, that they were intended primarily and specially for the instruction and use of Hebrew converts. It has been maintained by some writers, that several of the early Christian Fathers testify to the existence of a Hebrew text; but it will be found, upon examination, that those passages in their works upon which reliance is placed, are nothing beyond inferences or conjectures, which we are at liberty to take for what they may be deemed to be fairly worth. Their opinion was evidently founded upon the circumstance to which we have adverted-the adaptation of the books for the instruction of the Hebrews and not upon any facts relating to the actual existence of a Hebrew text.

2. THE BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT were, with the exception of a few passages, composed in the Hebrew tongue. The exceptions relate to passages written in the Chaldee dialect, the reasons for employing which in the places where it occurs, are sufficiently obvious. They are passages either consisting of transcripts from original documents, or comprising information specially designed to be communicated to the people by whom this dialect was employed. Thus, Jer. x. 11, which is pure Chaldee, introduced into the midst of a Hebrew composition, was to be addressed by the Jews to the Babylonian idolaters: "Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens." Several passages in the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters of Ezra, consist of copies of original let-the Jews to peruse them. ters and decrees, in the Chaldee tongue; and the book of Daniel, from the second chapter to the seventh, which is in this language, treats exclusively of the affairs of Babylon, and was, therefore, with the utmost propriety so written.

6. But such an assumption is as unnecessary as it is gratuitous. There is ample evidence that the Greek language was very commonly used by the Jewish people, after their subjugation by the Macedonian Greeks; and, what is perhaps still more to the purpose, that great numbers of them, in, as well as out of, Judea, read their own Scriptures in this tongue, in the version of the LXX. It was not necessary, therefore, that the books in question should be composed in the Hebrew language, either for the purpose of rendering them intelligible to the Jews, or of inducing The Greek tongue

3. THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT are all in the Greek language, which, being the most prevalent at the time they were penned, was the best adapted for works designed for general circulation. 4. There are but two of these books about which

*See Planck's Sacred Philology, chap. iv. Bib. Cabinet, vol. vii.

had been already consecrated by the Septuagint
translation, which was highly esteemed and
But if there were
venerated by the Hebrews.
no real necessity for employing the Hebrew lan-
guage in these works, there are, without doubt,
very urgent reasons for thinking that the Greek
was used. In the first place, a great multitude
of Jews, especially those who resided in Egypt,
and in whose necessities the Septuagint version
originated, were altogether ignorant of the Hebrew
language. The employment of it in these writings,

† See note on page 7.

therefore, would have effectually shut out such persons from their perusal, and thus have defeated the very object which their authors are supposed to have had in view by adopting it.* In the next place, it is to be remembered, that, although the gospel of Matthew and the epistle to the Hebrews may have been intended for the special use of the descendants of Abraham, they nevertheless contain unquestionable evidence that they were not intended for their exclusive use. Similar in their design to every other part of the sacred volume, and necessary to its completion, they were given for the use of all the churches of the saints (many of the earliest of which were composed of Greeks), and meant for universal dissemination. Such being the case, it was obviously proper that they should be written in Greek, because that language was then universally understood.t

7. We have already intimated, that there are other arguments, of a critical character, that oppose the theory of a Hebrew original of these two works; but we cannot, consistently with our plan of proceeding, do more than thus allude to them. Referring, then, those persons who may be desirous to see more upon the subject, to those works in which it is discussed, we close these suggestions with a good remark from Macknight, which will apply to Matthew's gospel, equally as to the epistles:-"It was proper that all the apostolical epistles should be written in the Greek language; because the different doctrines of the gospel being delivered and explained in them, the

* We hope we shall not be considered as speaking dogmatically upon a question involving so many and various considerations as the one under notice. The mere fact of being opposed to such scholars and critics as Grotius, Mill, Campbell, and Michaelis, with others too numerous to mention, would be alone sufficient to deter us from this.

"If, from the prevalence of the Greek language at the time of the apostles, we extend our view to the state of the Christian church in its earliest period, we shall find increasing probability of a Greek original. All the Gentile churches, established by the apostles in the East, were Greek churches; namely, those of Antioch, Ephesus, Galatia, Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, &c. Again, the first bishops of the church of Rome were either Greek writers, or natives of Greece. According to Tertullian, Clemens, the fellow-labourer of Paul, was the first bishop of Rome, whose Greek epistle to the Corinthians is still extant. But whether Clemens or Linus was the first hishop of Rome, they were both Greek writers, though probably natives of Italy. Anencletus was a Greek, and so were the greater part of his successors to the middle of the second century. The bishops of Jerusalem, after the expulsion of the Jews by Adrian, were Greeks. From this state of the government of the primitive church by Greek ministers-Greeks by birth, or in their writings-arises a high probability that the Christian Scriptures were in Greek."-(Bishop Burgess, in his Appendix to the "Vindication of 1 John v. 7.") We should be chargeable with disingenuousness, however, were we not to *apprise the reader that the learned prelate from whom we have quoted these remarks, did not employ them for precisely the

explanation of these doctrines could with more advantage be compared, so as to be better understood, being expressed in one language, than if in the different epistles they had been expressed in the language of the churches and persons to whom they were sent. Now, what should that one language be, in which it was proper to write the Christian revelation, but the Greek, which was then generally understood, and in which there were many books extant that treated of all kinds of literature, and on that account were likely to be preserved, and by the reading of which, Christians in the after ages would be enabled to understand the Greek of the New Testament? This advantage none of the provincial dialects used in the apostles' days could pretend to. Being limited to particular countries, they were soon to be disused; and few (if any) books being written in them which merited to be preserved, the meaning of such of the apostles' letters as were composed in the provincial languages, could not easily have been determined.” ||

8. It must not be supposed, however, that the Greek of the New Testament is of the pure classical style. On the contrary, it is of a very peculiar structure, partaking of the Alexandrian and oriental idioms, with a very large admixture of the peculiarities of the Hebrew phraseology. Hence it has not improperly been called HebraicGreek. This topic has been very elaborately discussed by critics, but the result of their labours is all that is practically valuable to the interpreter

same purpose as we have done; and it is highly probable that he would object to the application which is here made of them. Nevertheless, we cannot but think, that, taken in connexion with that view of the matter which we have above suggested, they are as cogent against the hypothesis of an exclusive Syro-Chaldaic original of Matthew and the Hebrews, as they are against the paradoxical notion of the learned author of "Palæoromaica."

which are easy of access, may be consulted: Lardner's Works, On the original of Matthew's gospel, the following works, vol. ii. p. 147, 4to.; Townson's Works, vol. i. p. 30; Marsh's Michaelis, vol. iii. pt. 1, p. 112; Whitby's General Preface; and Campbell on the Gospels, vol. iii. p. 2. On the epistle to the Hebrews, we need but refer to the first volume of professor Stuart's very elaborate and judicious "Commentary," which has been reprinted in this country under the eye of Dr. Henderson.

New Literal Translation of the Apostolical Epistles, preface to the Epistle to the Hebrews, sect. ii. and iii. It is proper to name a third hypothesis, relative to the original of Matthew's gospel, namely, that there were two editions published by the Evangelist, one in the Syro-Chaldaic language, for the information of the Jews in Judea ; the other in the Greek language, for the use of those in the provinces, and also for the Gentile churches. It will be perceived, that all the objections which have been urged against the other hypothesis do not apply to this, and as it removes some of the discrepancies by which the subject has been embarrassed, it may, perhaps, be deemed the best of the three.

of Scripture. Michaelis has thus characterized that this furnishes one of the most incontestable the style of the several writers of the New Testa- and satisfactory proofs of that important fact. ment; and his description will be found sufficiently The variation in style that prevails in the Old minute for general purposes.* Testament books, is found to correspond most exactly with the changes which the Hebrew language underwent, from time to time, by reason of the intercourse of the Jewish people with the adjacent nations; while the peculiarity of composition by which the New Testament books are characterized, affords decisive evidence of their Hebrew authorship, as well as of the particular era at which they were penned. ||

12. From what has now been said on the ori

9. The gospels of Matthew and Mark exhibit strong vestiges of the Hebraic style; the former presents harsher Hebraisms than the latter; and the gospel of Mark abounds with still more striking Hebraisms. The epistles of James and Jude are somewhat better; but even these are full of Hebraisms, and betray in other respects a certain Hebrew tone. Luke has, in several passages, written and classic Greek, of which the first four verses of his gospel may be given as an instance.ginal character of the sacred volume, the value In the sequel, where he describes the actions of Christ, he has very harsh Hebraisms; yet his style is more agreeable than that of Matthew or Mark. In the Acts of the Apostles he is not free from Hebraisms, which he never seems studiously to have avoided; but his periods are more classically turned, and sometimes possess beauty devoid of

art.

pure

John has numerous, though not uncouth, Hebraisms, both in his gospels and in his epistles; but he has written in a smooth and flowing language, and surpasses all the Jewish writers in the excellence of narrative. Paul, again, is entirely different from them all: his style is, indeed, neglected, and full of Hebraisms, but he has avoided the concise and verse-like construction of the Hebrew language,† and has, upon the whole, a considerable share of the roundness of Grecian composition. It is evident that he was as perfectly acquainted with the Greek manner of expression as with the Hebrew; and he has introduced them alternately, as either the one or the other suggested itself the first, or was the best approved.‡

10. Neither the limits nor the plan of this work will permit us to enlarge upon this topic. Mr. Horne has given numerous instances of the Hebraisms, Syriasms, and Latinisms, found in the New Testament; and also the canons which have been laid down by Ernesti and his commentator, Morus, by which to determine their force and meaning. §

11. It would be out of place here, to advert. at any great length, to the argument deducible from the style of the sacred writings, in favour of their genuineness; but we may be permitted to remark,

*Those who wish to see more upon this subject, may consult Michaelis on the New Testament, vol. i. p. 143, &c.; Schaeferi Institutiones Scripturistica, pars i. p. 137, &c.; Morus Acroases, vol. i. p. 202, &c.; Campbell's first Preliminary Dissertation to the Gospels; Planck's Essay, "De verâ naturâ et indole Orat. Græc. Nov. Test." translated in the second volume of the Biblical Cabinet; and Stuart's "Grammar of the New Testament," Andover, 1834.

and importance of Hebrew and Greek learning to
an interpreter of Scripture will be sufficiently
obvious. A critical dissertation
upon the original
languages of Scripture would be wholly out of
place in a work intended for popular use; but it
will be expected that we should give some histo-
rical account of these languages, in so far as that
is necessary in a bibliographical account of the
sacred text.

[ocr errors]

(1) The Hebrew language was so named by the forefathers of the Israelitish nation; but whether from Heber, one of the descendants of Shem (Gen. x. 21, 25; xi. 14, 16, 17), or after Abraham, who, from the circumstance of his having come from the other side of the Euphrates, was called the Hebrew, “the over passenger (from the rooty aber, to pass over), has long been a matter of controversy amongst the learned. It is a point not likely to be settled, nor is it of the slightest importance that it should be. It might also have been called the Jewish language, as being that employed by the subjects of the Jewish kingdom (2 Kings xviii. 26; 2 Chron. xxxii. 18; Isai. xxxvi. 11), and also the Canaanitish (Isai. xix. 18), not only because it was used in the country of Canaan by the Israelites, but also because the language of the Canaanites was, in its origin and genius, the same with that of the Hebrews. The Jews, after their return from Babylon, conferred upon it the title of the holy language.

(2) The antiquity of the Hebrew language is very great, and its original, in the opinion of the most learned men, must be referred to an age long prior to the origin of the Israelitish race.

The reader may see reason to modify this opinion, after reading chap. iii. sect. 7, on the Scripture Parallelisms.

Michaelis, Introduction to New Test. vol. i. p. 112.

§ Critical Introd. vol. ii. p. i. ch. 1, sect. 3.

On this topic the reader may consult Michaëlis, Introd. vol. i. p. 116, &c.; or Campbell's Preliminary Dissertations, vol. i. p. 50, &c.

Nay, it even seems to have been coeval with the human race, and to have been the language which, surviving the deluge with Noah, was the only dialect in the new world, and common to the succeeding generations (Gen. xi. 1). It afterwards contracted a degree of diversity among the different nations which bordered upon each other, such as we observe in the dialects of one and the same language; but, among the Hebrews, it seems probable, that, approaching nearest to its | primitive nature and genius, it of all the others retained the clearest marks of that simplicity which is peculiar to children, and points in no obscure manner to the infancy of the human race. Its adolescence, or the period of its development towards that degree of perfection which we find it to have attained in the writings of the

* This dialect is frequently called the Chaldaic, but very erroneously. With the language of Babylon, as Pfannkuche observes, we are well acquainted; but the true Chaldaic, which was, probably, more intimately related to the Persic, Median, Armenian, and Kurdic, nobody knows.

+ Upon the change that was effected in the language spoken in Palestine, after the return from Babylon, Dr. Pfannkuche's Treatise on the language of Palestine in the age of Christ unfolds a theory which may now be considered as settled, and finally received among the learned. He maintains that the language of Palestine was, in ancient times, the common language of Western Asia THE ARAMEAN, the same as that which was spoken by the CANAANITE natives, and which, subsequently, by the Hebrews-the progeny of Abraham, who was a new settler in that country-was called the Hebrew language, it being the peculiar language of that nation; that, by the Babylonish captivity, this old Hebrew tongue was expatriated by the Aramaic, which was current in Babylon, and which, as its pronunciation was somewhat broad and vulgar, bore the same relationship to the Hebrew as the lower Saxon dialect does to high German (or, as his translator suggests, as lowland Scottish does to English]; and that this Babylonian Aramaic soon became the national language of the Jews, the ancient Hebrew for some time still remaining the language of literature. By way of distinguishing this from other dialects, he proposes to call it by the simple name of PALESTINIAN ARAMAIC, or PALESTINIAN SYRIAC; Aramaic and Syriac being completely equivalent. See his Treatise on the Language of Palestine, in the age of Christ and his apostles,' in the BIBLICAL CABINET, vol. ii.

[ocr errors]

Dr. Rohr, who adopts Pfannkuche's theory, in all its essenfial points, has some remarks upon this subject, which, as they are brief and valuable, we shall transcribe in this note. They will supply information that we could not with propriety introduce into the text.

"At the time of Jesus Christ, the ancient Hebrew was completely extinct, even in its character of language of literature, and all the Jews of that period, residing in Palestine, spoke and wrote the Aramaic. Jesus, too, spoke this language; and the names Kephas (John i. 42), Boanerges (Mark iji. 17), Bar. nabas (Acts iv. 36), as also the expressions, Tabitha Kumi (Mark v. 45), Abba (Ib. xiv. 36), Eli, Eli, &c. (Matt xxvii. 46), are specimens of it. [Pfannkuche has collected many additional expressions, as specimens of this language, in the treatise already referred to, pp. 67-69. Josephus has also many Aramaic expressions in his “ Antiquities," and Wars, which the same critic has collected, pp. 70, 71.]

"People of biblical education spoke this language as it was written; but the common people, as generally is the case, spoke

[ocr errors]

Old Testament, does not extend beyond the age of David and Solomon, and the age of the prophet schools established by Samuel; its golden age lasted from the time of David to the Babylonian captivity, and, during this period, probably, great part of the sacred writings of the Jews was composed. After the invasion of Palestine by. the Assyrian and Chaldean rulers of Babylon, things were completely changed. The Jews of Palestine, along with their political independence, lost also the peculiar character of their language. The Babylonian-Aramaic dialect expelled the Hebrew, and gradually became the predominant language of Palestine, which it continued to be to the period of the Christian era, if not later. See Acts i. 19; xxi. 40; xxii. 2.+

[ocr errors]

(3.) There is a difference of opinion among

it in different dialects. The dialect of Jerusalem and Judea was most correct; but that which prevailed in Samaria, and particularly that of Galilee, was much more rude than the former, full of contractions and mutilations; letters were omitted in it, and one guttural exchanged for another; so that, for example, according to the careless and irregular pronunciation of the Galilean dialect, the same word might denote an ass, wine, wool, and a lamb to be sacrificed. A Galilean was, therefore, easily recognized by his pronunciation (Matt. xxvi. 73), and was never admitted as a public reader of Scripture in any synagogue of Judea.

"Jews residing abroad in Greek countries, particularly in Egypt, had completely adopted the Greek language as their own; and even in Palestine itself, where abhorrence against every thing foreign was affected, it seems that, partly through intercourse with Jews abroad who spoke Greek, partly through the neighbourhood to Syria and Egypt, where Greek was generally spoken, and partly from Greek residents, of whom, especially in Galilee and Perea, vast numbers dwelt among the Jews, the Greek had become generally known and current. This appears from Acts ii. 7-11, where Jews, from Greek countries and provinces, witnessing the enthusiasm which had seized the apostles and their friends, wondered that they expressed their religious thoughts and sentiments in Greek dialects, which they had been accustomed to hear abroad, and not merely, as was usual, in ancient Hebrew; likewise from Acts vi. 1-6, where a considerable number of the primitive members of the Christian community at Jerusalem is stated to have been Hellenistic, or Greek-speaking; and also from Acts xxii. 40, compared with xxii. 2, where the Jews expected Paul, who had been accused by Greek Jews, to address them in Greek, but were delighted to hear him speak to them in the language of the country. Whether Jesus himself spoke Greek, caunot be determined for certain, although it is highly probable; because in Galilee and Perea he was in frequent intercourse with foreigners; becanse even in Jerusalem an interview with him was sought by Greeks (John xii. 20), and these, surely, spoke no other language but Greek; because we must suppose that the conferences between Judas and Pilate, mentioned in John xviii. 33—37, and xix. 9—11, were certainly carried on neither in Aramaic nor Latin, but in Greek; and because Mary, in her conversation with Jesus (John xx. 14, seq.), seems to have made use of the Greek language, until she recognized him as arisen from the dead, when she instantly returns to the familiar Aramaic, to which, in daily intercourse with him, she was accustomed, and addressed him with the word Rabboni. The apostles, too, being Galileans, must be supposed to have been more or less acquainted with Greek, even during the three years of their familiar intercourse with

« PreviousContinue »