Page images
PDF
EPUB

subject, much may be found in J. D. Michaelis, Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. I p. 128, seq.

§ X. Rules for discovering the usus loquendi of the

New Testament. With these things premised concerning style in general, it is easy to propose rules for discovering the usus loquendi, and for tracing out and interpreting particular passages.

Rule 1. We must study the Greek authors who most nearly resemble the sacred writers.

The attention of the sacred critic must be directed not only to such writers as used the popular style, but also to such as lived in or near the Apostolic age, and who did not imitate the ancient style of the Attic writers.

For when by the prowess of Alexander the Great, the Macedonian empire had stretched over almost the whole earth, the Greek language was also widely extended. This was a new bond of union among the nations. And as the conquered nations adopted much of the Grecian idiom, so the Greek language became warped from the native purity which it had when confined within the borders of Greece ; and from its intercourse with Asiatics, Africans, and Europeans, it acquired many barbarisms. The epoch of the Greek language, when it underwent so great a change, is called in the history of literature, the Macedonian. And these new forms are called the Macedonian dialect.

The principal author in this new style was Polybius, who flourished about 200, B.C. It might be truly said, that one perfectly acquainted with the best Greek authors, when he came to this, would find every thing so different, that it would be almost necessary to learn the language anew. He differs from others in the signification of words, and in using words and phrases entirely new.

The reader may profitably use the Lexicon Polybianum, added to the edition of Ernesti. Lips. 1763-4, 8vo. (lately enlarged by John Schweighheuser, a new editor of Polybius. Lips. 1789-95, Tom. VII. E.)

After Polybius, the chief writer in this style was Diodorus Siculus, who flourished in the age of Julius Cæsar, near the Apostolic times. The comparison of both these writers is important. For after the time of Alexander the Great, the Jews who were scattered through Egypt, Syria, and other provinces, assumed this new style, as may be easily perceived from the Apocryphal writings.

Such is the preface to Luke's Gospel, which accords precisely with the style of Polybius and Diodorus, and is written without Hebraisms. Such is the last chapter of Acts, and Luke vii. 40, to the end. In the other books, many forms, derived from this source, are scattered, as παραδειγματίσαι, Μatt. 1. 19, δογματίζειν, Col. ii. 20, καταβραBéusiv, to defraud, Col. ii. 18. Hence, as PETR. WESELING, from Diodorus, and Geo. RAPHAEL, from Polybius and Diodorus, have shown, more benefit may be derived from observations on the New Testament, drawn from these authors, than from whole commentaries written on the books themselves.

Rule II. Compare with the New Testament the Hebrew, assisted by the ancient versions of the Old Testament.

After a tolerable familiarity with the Hebrew, all that is read in the Old Testament should be reperused in the Alexandrine version. By this continual comparison, the Hebraisms used by the Greeks will become familiar ; and in the mean time let the passages in the New Testament, often in the same words, be recalled.

Rule III. In addition to the versions of the Old Testament, let the Apocryphal books of the Old Testament be compared.

For in them, both in words and phrases, is found the same Hebraic and popular style of speaking concerning sacred things, and the historic style of the Apocryphal books is necessarily similar to the style of the New Testament. The writers of the Apocrypha were Jews, and thought and wrote in the Jewish manner; hence there are many things in those books, not found in the Old, though often in the New Testament. Compare Heb. xi. with the Son of Sirach, xiv. xv. It is much to be desired that those books were studied with more order, and brought to bear on the interpretation of the New Testament.

The apocryphal books of the New Testament also ought to be compared. These, John ALB. FABRICIUS has collected in codice Apocrypho Novi T. Hamb. 1719, 8vo. On this subject there are many things in Semleri Apparatus ad Liberalem N. T. interpretationem. Halle, 1767, 8vo. p. 104.

[Catalogue of authors who have written on the Apocrypha, to illustrate the acts, opinions, doctrines, manners, customs, words, and phrases, of the New Testament.

Geo. Joh. HENKIUS, Dissert. de usu librorum Apocryphorum V. T. in N. T. Halle 1711, 4to., and in Theod. Hasaei, et Conrad. Ikenii Thesauro novo theologico philologico. Leyden and Amst., 1732, fol. T. I. p. 15.

Jon. Godof. JEHNICHEN, Dissert. de petenda rerum quas libri N. T. continent, e libris V. T. Apocryphis illustratione. Wittenb. 1787, 4to.

Frisch vergleichung zwischen den Ideen, welche in den Apocryphen des A. T. und d. schriften des N. T. über Unsterblichkeit, Auferstehung, Gericht, und Vergeltung herrschen ; in Eichhorn's Bibliotheca litterat. Bibl. To. IV. p. 653—718; über die Messianischen Zeiten. Ib. To. VI. p. 692.

FLUGGE, Geschichte des Glaubens an Unsterblichkeit, Auferstehung, Gericht, und Vergeltung. Lips. 1795, II. 8vo.

STAEUDLIN, Historia Doctrinæ de Futura Corporum examinatorum instauratione. Götting, 1792, 4to.

J. D. MICHAELIS, Uebersetzung des ersten Buchs der Macaabäer, in his German version of the Old Testament.

J. D. HASSE, Das andere Buch der Maccabäer übersetz mit Anmerkungen und Untersuchungen. Jena, 1786, 8vo.

J. W. LINDE, Sittenlehre Jesu des Sohnes Sirach, neue übersetz. mit erläut. und Krit. Anmerkungen. Lips. 1782, Svo.

ANDR. Joh. ONYMUS, Die Weisheit Jesus, Sirach's Sohn, mit erläut. Anmerkungen. Würzb. 1786, 8vo.

J. G HASSE, Salomos Weisheit, neue übersetz. mit Anmerk. und Untersuchungen. Jena, 1785, 8vo.

Jon. Melch. FABER, Super libro Sapientiæ, Proluss. VI. Onold. 1776-7, 4to. et super lib. Sap. P. II. cont. Hasseum, Onold. 1786-8, 4to.

J. F. KLEUKER, Salomonische Denkwürdigkeiten. Riga, 1786, 8vo.

For understanding the style of writing, we may refer to

Joh. WALDINII Annot. Phil. Criticæ in lib. qui inscribitur Xovia Sadãpovos. Gryphisw. 1786, 4to.

J. Chr. Beilii, Novus Thesaurus Philolog. Lex. in LXX. interpretes et Scriptores V. T. Hag. Com. 1799, 8vo.

J. FR. SCHLEUSNERI, Spicilegia ad Beilii Lex. II. Lips. 1784-6. 8vo.

Those who illustrate the New Testament from the Apocrypha of the Old Testament, are,

THEOPH. KUINOEL, Auctor, Observationum ad N. T. ex lib. Apoc. V. T. Lips. 1794, 8vo.

Joh. GODOFR. EICHHORN, Einleitung in die Apocryphischen Schriften des A. T. Lips. 1795, 8vo.

After these works on the use of the Apocrypha of the Old Testament, the Apocryphal writings of the New began to be elucidated. On this subject Guil. Lud. BRUNNIUS has lately published, Disquisitionem historico-criticam de indole, ætate et usu libri Apoc. vulgo inscripti Evangeli

[ocr errors]

um Nicodemi. Berlin, 1784, 8vo. This regards chiefly the Gospel of Matthew. Compr. Götting. Bibl. der Neusten Theologischen Literatur. Vol. I. p. 762-70. To all these, add an anonymous Commentary von den Apocraphis und Pseudopigraphis der Juden in Beyträgen zur Beförd, d. vern. Denkens in d. Religion. P. IV. p. 19, in Fabricii Bib. Græca, Vol. III. p. 718. Vol. IV. p. 822. ed. Harl. E.]

$ XI. The Hebrew must also be compared with the pure

Greek.

We have seen (S IV.) that sometimes the same word or phrase will be both pure Hebrew and pure Greek, since it is true that all languages have common forms of speech. A proper sense, therefore, may be drawn either from the Hebrew or Greek ; thus the phrase ataovnouelv šv åmagtiais, if taken in the Hebrew sense, will mean not so much to die naturally, as to become miserable on account of sin; but if from the Greek its import will be, to die by violence, as one taken when committing a robbery and slain, fri autopupw. Both explanations will suit the passage in John viii. 1--24. But in such cases the Hebrew ought to be preferred to the Greek ; because a Hebrew would more probably use the phrase in the Hebrew than in the Greek sense, particularly if it was rare and unusual. Καταβολη Oreguaros, (Heb. xi. 11,) if interpreted from the Greek xatabañasiv oregua means to scatter seed in the fields ; but if from the Hebrew yn signifies posterity, and xatasanaer is in the Alexandrine version to lay a foundation, or make a beginning, as in προ καταβολής του κοσμού. In the Hebrew sense, therefore, it will mean, to lay the foundation of a family, that is, to beget a son from which a family may proceed.

« PreviousContinue »