words; yet not wholly destitute of rhetorical art. Peter's mind is rapid and impetuous, scarcely bearing the restraints of continued discourse; his language is inelegant, often interrupted, obscured by new words, vehement, yet variable. Of the other writers also the genius is different and the style various. The diction of Matthew is unlike that of Luke. In the former you find a mode of writing somewhat harsh and inelegant, indicating an unpractised writer; in the latter there is more polish, and a certain degree of elegance and ornament. The characteristic of Mark is conciseness in the highest degree. But in each we find certain words and phrases, which are in a manner their own; and which either do not occur in the others, or are found in a different sense. Now since it is impossible to ascertain the sense of any writer without an accurate knowledge of the particular usage and manner which are familiar and appropriate to that writer; it is easy to perceive, and the experience of all ages demonstrates the fact, that those who are ignorant of or neglect these things, have proposed interpretations in the highest degree forced. This is done especially in regard to metaphors and comparisons, which every one employs more or less. And the same thing often takes place, when language which in one writer ought to be interpreted metaphorically, requires in another to be explained literally; or when words which one author uses in their proper sense, are therefore understood in the same manner in another writer.-But to have suggested this point is sufficient; as our object in this discussion is not to speak of particular passages or writers, but of interpretation in general.

2. In order properly to understand and explain any writer, an acquaintance with the times in which he lived and for which he wrote, must evidently be of the highest advantage. In this indeed lies almost the whole sum and essence of the so called historical interpretation, from which however the grammatical can in no way be separated.* Had now very many interpreters

The necessity of the union of both these modes, is demonstrated by Keil in his Commentat. de historica Lib. sacror. interpretatione ejusque necessitate, Leip. 1788. There is in fact no grammatical interpretation, and cannot be, unless joined with the historical. There are indeed some who wish to separate the two; but while they pass an unfavourable judgment on the former, they change the latter into an unbridled license of conjecture in regard to words. Comp. G. L. Bauer in Philol. Glassii his temporibus accommodata, T. II. Sect. II. p. 256 seq.

held to this principle, and paid due regard to the circumstances of time and place, there is no doubt that they would have experienced far less difficulty in judging of very many passages of the New Testament. Since however they neglected to do this, it was not possible but that they should often distort the true sense of the sacred writers into one entirely different, and thus pervert the doctrine of Jesus and the apostles; or at least should introduce into theology and therefore into religion itself, things which were written only for those particular times; (e. g. from the Epistle to the Hebrews ;) or more especially, from the misapprehension of tropical language, should forge new dogmas foreign to the mind and purpose of the sacred writers. Examples of this kind are too common to require to be exhibited here.

3. If also it be of the highest utility in respect to right interpretation, to have regard to the men of those times, to their characters, manners and customs, opinions, vices, etc. then have interpreters been guilty in this respect of a twofold error, and have thus been led to give many a distorted interpretation.

On the one hand, there have been those, (and they are probably the greater number,) who suppose that the apostles spoke and wrote according to the preconceived opinions of that age; and that our Lord himself in like manner accommodated himselfto their feelings and prejudices. This supposition is doubtless in a certain degree true, as has long since been conceded by the most learned interpreters; but it also cannot be denied, that many in applying it have gone quite too far, and done violence to the sense and intention of the sacred writers. Examples of this are almost innumerable; but none is perhaps clearer and more striking, than that of miracles and prophecy. It is evidently not the part of an interpreter, to attempt to shew how far that which is said may be true in itself; but simply to explain the meaning of the writer, and shew what he thought. The former indeed is not to interpret, but to philosophize; as Ernesti has well demonstrated.* Now that the opinion of the apostles and of our Lord himself in regard to miracles and prophecy, has been altogether changed and distorted by disputations of this sort, must be conceded; especially by those who are persuaded, that these things (miracles and prophecy) exerted their highest

Prolus. de Vanitate philosophantium in Religione, in Opp.

Philol. Crit.

influence precisely upon those, among whom they were performed and exercised. If the apostles were eye-witnesses, who could not be deceived, and have narrated all events and circumstances just as they occurred; and if our Lord was such as he is described in the New Testament, and such as adversaries themselves concede him to have been; then those interpreters surely act without consideration, who explain their language in such a way, as to make them subject either to reproach on account of fraud, or to correction on account of error; who make Jesus either a juggler, deceiving the people by his arts, (for no fraud can derive an excuse from the intention with which it is committed,) or else á vain-glorious man who boasts that this and that which the prophets have uttered without meaning (εixñ), has not only been fulfilled in himself, but was also primarily spoken in reference to him alone. Whether such interpretation as this is to be tolerated, does not need to be discussed. But if the apostles were deceived, and have narrated many things which they indeed believed to be true, but which in fact are not true, still the interpreter is not permitted to doubt respecting their real opinion. Nor, on the contrary, when the things which they relate, appear not to be true, is he allowed so to explain or rather distort their words, as to give them a greater appearance of truth. Such license no one would think of employing in regard to profane writers; nor do the laws of just interpretation in any degree tolerate it.

On the other hand, there have been those, especially in former times, who have had no regard whatever to the contemporaries of the sacred writers; nor have observed for what persons, or against what opinions or customs of that age, this or that passage was written; as for instance, in regard to those subjects which Paul discusses in the Epistles to the Romans and Hebrews. Hence they have neither properly understood the sacred books nor rightly explained them; or rather, they have extorted from them doctrines and opinions evidently foreign to the meaning of the writers. In the explanation of single words also, we see many fall into similar errors from the same cause; they have acquired no distinct knowledge of the persons for whom the apostles wrote, and have therefore advanced many things which these writers, addressing those persons, seem never to have thought of. Thus many have formerly supposed that the use of the words φῶς, φωτίζειν, ζωή, πλήρωμα, was to be deduced from the philosophy of the Gnostics; although the use of them No. III.

62

with reference to the Messiah was already familiar to the Jews. So R. Chaia explains gas, i, Gen. 1: 3, allegorically of the Messiah; and R. Bechai also applies the words

לִרְמוֹז עַל יְמוֹת דְּמָשִׁיחַ,to the days of the Messiah אֱלֹהִים יְהִי אוֹר

So in the Pesikta Rabba it is said that when God hid the light, i, Satan came to him and asked to look at it; and having

בְּוַדַּאי הוּא מָשִׁיחַ שַׁעֲתִיד לְהַפִּיל לִי וּלְכֹל שָׂרֵי :seen it he said ,verily this is the Messiah who is to come * אוּמוֹת הָעָלֵם בְּגֵיהִנָּם

and to cast me and all the princes of the nations forever into Gehenna; compare Is. 25: 8. R. Bechai says further (fol. 5. col. 4) that this same light, the Messiah, existed before all ages, and was present N, at the creation; that this is the beginning of all things, the light of wisdom,, di où rà пávτα ¿yéveto, as the apostle says, John 1: 3. Bechai in Leg. fol. 125. In Beresh. Rabba all. R. Samuel Bar Nachman says, that this light was with God; but R. Bechai (fol. 89. 4) teaches, that the same becomes incarnate through the will of God. Hence we should prefer, were it necessary, to illustrate such words as these from the writings of the Jews, rather than from the Gnostic philosophy. In like manner a very recent interpreter of John's Gospel has explained the words лveμa o rós, John 4: 24, in the sense in which the word spirit would be defined by philosophers at the present day: "God is a spirit, i. e. his whole being is intellectual and moral perfection." Is it then credible, that our Lord should have taught these philosophical precepts to the Samaritan woman? Indeed, the word was never employed by the Jews in this philosophical sense; nor does it so occur in any Greek writer.

III. There remains now the third cause of forced interpretations, which we have indicated above, and which we may dispatch in few words. The context, namely, as is in itself evident, is an important auxiliary in ascertaining the true sense of a passage; especially where there is any ambiguity in the words or forms of construction, any obscurity or novelty in the circumstances, or any neglect of the usus loquendi. Still, this principle requires unquestionably very great caution in the application of it; particularly in regard to writers who have not been trained in the rules of the schools, καὶ οὐκ ἐν διδακτοῖς ἀνθρωπίνης σοφίας λόγοις λαλοῦσιν; and more than all, in

* Sein ganzes Wesen ist Geistigkeit und Moralität."

epistolary writing, where often an argument is not carried out in such a way, that all its parts are entirely coherent. This indeed is not usual in epistles of any kind. There is commonly in a letter a great variety of topics, some of which are treated in one way, and some in another. When therefore interpreters have trusted too much, or indeed wholly, to this principle; and have been contented to make out a sense in some degree suitable to the context, and to seek every where a dialectic congruity and a sort of logical arrangement; it could not be otherwise than that they should often advance empty conjectures instead of true interpretations, and torture passages of Scripture until they could elicit from them some similitude with the general series of discourse. This however is of itself obvious; and therefore requires here no further illustration.

We come then to the conclusion, for the sake of which this discussion was instituted.

ART. IV. THE CLAIMS OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE.

IN THREE LECTURES DELIVERED IN COLUMBIA COLLEGE, 1831.

By Samuel H. Turner, D. D. Prof. of Bibl. Learning and Interpr. of Script. in the Episc. Theol. Seminary; and Prof. of the Hebrew Lang, and Lit. in Columbia Col. New-York.

LECTURE I.

IN venturing to appear in this place in the character of Professor of the Hebrew Language and Literature, I feel that an apology, or at least an explanation, is necessary. I am aware, that to perform the duties of the office, with an ability in some degree proportioned to the character of the age, would require the undivided attention of a thorough scholar. Feeling my own insufficiency, and recollecting the various duties that demand my time in another institution, which has and ought to have the strongest claims on my attention, I ought perhaps to have shrunk from any additional responsibility. But since Columbia College has shown her readiness to meet the wishes of the public, by