Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2007 with funding from
IVIicrosoft Corporation
http://www.archive.org/details/essaysdissertatiOOnewyrich
ESSAYS AND DISSERTATIONS
IN
BIBLICAL LITERATURE
BY A SOCIETY OF CLERGYMEN,
CONTAINING CUIEFI.Y TRANSLATIONS OF THJC
WORKS OF GERMAN CRITICS.
NEW-YOKK.
G. & C. & H. CARVILL
51
1829.
\
^
*.
Southern District of NeAV-York, ss.
iJE IT REMEMBERED, That oh the 18th day of September, A. D. 182£^,
in the fifty-fourth year of the Independence of the United States of America,
G. & C. & H. Carvill, of the said District, have deposited in this office the title
of a Book, the right whereof they claim as Proprietors, in the words follow-
ing, to wit :
" Essays and Dissertations in Biblical Literatui-e. By a Society of Cler-
gymen. Vol. I. Containing chiefly Translations of the Works of
German Critics." *
In conformity to the Act of Congress of the United States, entitled " An
Act for the encouragement of Learning, by> securing the copies of Maps,
Charts, and Books, to the Authors and Proprietors of such copies, during the
time therein mentioned." And also to an Act, entitled " An Act, supple-
mentary to an Act, entitled, An Act for the encouragement of Learning, by
securing the copies of Maps, Charts, and Books, to the Authors and Proprie-
tors of such copies during the times therein mentioned, and extending the
benefits thereof to the arts of Designing, Engraving, and Etching historical
and other Prints."
FRED. J. BETTS,
CUrk of the Southern District of New-York.
W. K. PEANf PRINTHR.
PREFACE.
In publishing this volume, the authors beg leave to accompany
it with a few introductory remarks.
The object of the work is to advance the cause of Biblical
Literature, principally by placing within the reach of students
some treatises, which are not now readily accessible. At the
present time, this department of theological science is receiving a
thorough investigation. Scholars, celebrated for the accuracy
and the extent of their erudition, are devoting their talents to the
illustration of the Bible, by cultivating a fundamental acquaintance
with its languages, and with the whole circle of knowledge con-
nected with it, and by applying to the subject all the light, afford-
ed by historical research and philosophical investigation. In our
own country, there is an increasing interest in Sacred Literature ;
and the Clergy of all denominations are more and more impressed
with the importance of searching the Scriptures, in order to as-
certain and defend the fundamental truths of revelation. Our
Seminaries of theology are directing the attention of their stu-
dents, to the careful study of the Bible in its Original Languages,
and supplying them with aids, to prosecute this study with suc-
cess. In England, several of our critical works have been re-
printed ; a few productions of continental scholars have been
translated ; and some original publications have been added to
^he sacred treasury.
IV rREPACE.
But of all those who apply their learning to the explanation ot'
the Scriptures, not only the largest number, but we must say, the
clearest in arrangement, and the most satisfactory in collecting
knowledge, are to be found among the German writers. We are
well aware, that there is a prejudice in some minds, against Ger-
man divinity and philology in general, arising from that looseness
of interpretation, which has characterized the modern neological
school. We would by no means vindicate their views ; but it is
unreasonable to condemn the whole, for the errors of a part only,
even if that part should be considerable. And it is possible, that
the works of many, even of that part, may contain much, that is
of great interest and value. Is it wise, then, to forego the ad*
vantage, to be derived from the study of these authors, because
some of their sentiments are loose and untenable ? It is the part
of prudence, to use them with the proper caution ; for we may
guard against their errors, and avail ourselves of the ample fund
of learning, which they are ready to pour out before us.
With these views, we offer the following Essays to the student
of Sacred Literature, and to the intelligent Christian, who is in-
terested in whatever extends a knowledge of the Bible. With
one exception, they are selected from the works of able German
.scholars of the last half century.
The biographical sketch of such a man as Bochart will be
read, we think, with interest, by all who appreciate his vast
literary labors, and regard his productions as a storehouse of
learning almost inexhaustible. Mich ae lis deserves an honorabbe
place, m the estimation of all who have a due regard to criticism :
and his Treatise on the Use of the Syriac Language, to which,
as a favourite subject, he paid more than ordinary attention, may
excite the student to increase his knowledge of Hebrew, by an
acquaintance with this easy cognate dialect. Eichhorn and
Gesenius, the former of whom has not been dead two years, and
the latter is still living, are too celebrated, to require a particular
notice. The Treatise on the Canon of the Old Testament is
jrenerally allowed to be among the best, if not the very best, ever
Written ; and the History of the Interpretation of Isaiah is evi*
dently the work of a writer, well acquainted with interpreta^
tion, and able to form a judjjjment for himself, in all cases of dif-
ficulty. These two learned men, it is well known, exhibit inade-
quate views of revelation, although it is but seldom, hat, in the
treatises contained in this volume, any very objectionable features
are to be traced. Where this is the case, however, the translators
have either added notes, or wholly omitted the objectionable pas-
sages. The reader is informed of such omissions, and of the ex-
tent of them ; but they are, in general, only a few lines. With
the exception of such, the whole of the author's matter is, in every
case, given in the translation.
Storr and Tittmann are both decidedly orthodox. The
former is already favourably known among us, by his Treatise on
the Historic Sense, which was translated and published by Pro-
fessor GiBBs, of the Theological Seminary of Yale College, and
by his Biblical Theology, for which we are indebted to Professor
SoHMTTCKER, of the German Lutheran Theological Seminary at
Gettysburg. The author took a firm stand against the accommo-
dating system, as maintained by Skmler and his followers ; and
as a learned defender of the leading doctrines of the Gospel, he
arrested the progress of naturalism, by the salutary influence of
his able writings. His treatises unite the results of a vigorous
discrimination, and of an enlarged view of scripture truth. He
seems to bring together all that the Scriptures contain, on the
subjects which he is investigating ; so that the parallel or colla-
teral texts are either referred to, or brought to bear upon them.
In this respect, he is superior to any author with whose works
we are acquainted. ' Ttttmann is eminent, in the same honorable
rank with Storr. Orthodox in his views of divine truth, careful
in his investigations, and judicious in his conclusions, by his
Treatise on Gnosticism he has furnished us with valuable infor-
mation and sound criticism.
Great care has been taken, to make the translations accurate,
and we trust, that we have not often failed in this respect^ but.
Vi PREFACE.
that we have presented the meaning of our authors, in clear and
intelhgible En^ish.
We hope that our efforts, to advance the cause of Biblical
Literature, will meet with the approbation of the intelligent ; and
especially, of our brethren of the Clergy, who are aware of the
importance of an enlightened study of the Bible. This must be
regarded the foundation of all Christian Theology. If our expec-
tation should not be disappointed, we intend, by the blessing of
God, to proceed in our undertaking, and to publish a volume from
time to time, as our other studies and avocations may allow us to
prepare appropriate materials.
New-York, September 25th; 1829.
CONTEXTS.
History of Introductions to the Scriptures, by William Gsse- Page.
Nius ; translated from the German, by Samuel H. Turner,
D. D., Prof, of Bibl. Learn, and Interp. of Script, in the
General Theological Sem. of the Prot. Episc. Church in the
UnitedStates 1—15.
Treatise on the Authenticity and Canonical Authority of the
Scriptures of the Old Testament, by John Godfrey Eich-
HORN ; translated from the German, by John Frederick
ScHROEDER, A. M., An Assistant Minister of Trinity Church
in the City of New-York 17—104.
Essay.on the Life and Writings of Samuel Bochart, by William
R. Whittingham, A. M., Chaplain and Superintendent of
the New- York Protestannt Episcopal Public School 105— 16S.
Dissertation on the meaning of " The Kingdom of Heaven " in
the New Testament, by Gottlob Christian Storr ; trans-
lated from the Latin, by Manton Eastburn, M. A., Rector
of the Church of the Ascension, New York 169—212.
Dissertation on the Parables of Christ, by Gottlob Christian
Storr ; translated from the Latin, by William R. Whitting-
ham, A. M., Chaplain and Superintendent of the New-York
Protestant Episcopal Public School 213—273-
No Traces of the Gnostics are to be found in the New Testa-
ment: a Dissertation by C. C. Tittmann; translated from
the Latin, by Manton Eastburn, M. A., Rector of the
Church of the Ascension, New- York. ,,.,...,.,,, 275 — 399.
VIU CONTENTS.
History of the Interpretation ot the Prophet Isaiah, by William Page.
Geseitius ; translated from the German, by Samuel H. Tur-
ner, D. D., Professor of Bib. Learn, andlaterp. of Script, in
the General Theological Sem. of the Prot. Episc. Church in
the United States .^ 401—479.
Treatise on the Use of the Syriac Language, by John David
MicHABus; translated from the German, by John Frede-
rick Schroeder, a. M., An Assistant Minister of Trinity
Church, in the City of New-York 481—62!^.
I?^DEXES.
I. Texts of Scripture illustrated -.... 537.
IL Words and phrases explained 540.
III. Authors and Books quoted 543.
IV. General Index of Matters. . . , „ 550.
HISTORY
OF
IXTRODUCTIOXS TO THE SCRIPTURES.
BY W. GESENIUS.
Translated from the German.
By SAMUEL H. TURNER, D.D.
PROF. OF BIBL. LEARN. AND INTERP. OF SCRIPT. IN THE OENEBAL THEOL.
8BM. OF TUK PROT. EPISC. CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES.
HISTORY
OF
INTRODUCTIOBTS TO THE SCRIPTURES,
Translated from the " Biblische Einleitung, oder Einleitung
in die Bibel" of Gesenius, published in the Allgtmtine
Enclyclopddie der Wissenschaftcn ttnd Kibiste von J. S.
Ersch imd J, G. Gruber.
Under the name of Introduction to the Bible is to be un-
derstood a species of learning, which has been fundamentally
cultivated within a century, and in its present form principally
by the Protestant divines of Germany ; and which is devoted
to a critical examination and discussion of the historical rela-
tions of the individual books, as well as of the whole collec-
tion ; and therefore the epithets of historical and critical are
often applied to it. Consequently it gives on the particular
books discussions respecting their authors and times of com-
position, genuineness and integrity, contents, spirit and plan ;
and £Llso, as the subject requires it, respecting the original
language, its earliest history, and so forth ; and further, in
general respecting the origin of the Bible-collection or Canon,
its original language and versions, the history of the original
text, and other matters of this kind.
It divides itself therefore into two parts, general and parti-
cular. It has been correctly obsei-ved, that this branch of
learning still requires to be more accurately defined and limit-
4 HrSTORY Of IN'THODUCTIONS.
cd ; that in particular it often encroaches on tlie province of
criticism and hermeneutics : and certainly the latest authors
are still too discursive, especially in taking up their materials
for the general introduction ; and in fact, the older writers,
(and the modern among the English,) have even brought
together those branches of learning which are subsidiary to
interpretation, as sacred history, antiquities, geography, and
so forth. It will not therefore be inconsistent with my present
purpose, to attempt at least to mark out this limitation ; and,
in doing so, I shall principally keep in view the general in.
troduction, because the boundaries of the particular are more
accurately settled.
The leading features are the same, both with respect to
the Old and New Testaments, and it may even in many
particular points be of use to treat the general part of both in
connexion. Of this I would suggest the following fourfold
division :
1. History of the cultivation and literature of the Hebrew
people in general, under which section might be digested
the accounts of their language, (comprehending the various
fundamental tongues, Hebrew, Chaldee, Hellenistic, with the
history and character of each,) and also of their writing, (comr
prising the earliest formations of the Hebrew^ and Greek writ-
ing.)
2. History of the canon, or of the collection, arrangement,
and ecclesiastical authority of the books.
3. History of the original text, the various fates and changes
to which it has been subjected, and of the means of improving
it, (Criticism.) Here the authors of introductory works ap-
pear to have been principally in doubt respecting the extent
of the points which they ought to discuss. The following
principle will probably be found to mark a correct and proper
division. The criticism of the Old and New Testaments di-
vides itself into two parts, historical and didactic. The first of
these pursues the history of the text, discovers its changes,
shows the. critical labours which have been expended on it,
and the documents in which the text has been handed down ;
namely, immediate, (as manuscripts.) and mediate, (as ancient
HISTORY OF INTRODUCTIONS. ^^^^^/l?'^^
versions.) The second communicates the i-ules according to
which the critic must avail himself of these helps, in order to
recover the original text with as much probability as possible.
The historical part of this must now necessarily be compre-
hended under the learning which is comprised in an introduc-
tion ; but the didactic, which contains merely an application of
the general rules of criticism to the materials here sketched out,
must, by a strict limitation, be properly excluded, (as in Eich-
hom,) and preserved for criticism, as it is a science of a parti-
cular kind, or at least be handled with great brevity, (as in
De Wette.) This is also the case,
4. In the hermen euiical part of the general introduction, which
is required to exhibit the aids for understanding the Bible, and
directions for the use of them ; and which many authors of in-
troductory works, as Eichhorn and Bertholdt, either entirely or
in part omit. Jalm, however, has given them with considerable
extent, including also the didactic part, at least as far as regards
the investigation of language. To preserve consistency, the
last must be reserved for hermeneutics, in such a way that the
author should hmit himself to the historical part, which belongs
to it no less than the historical part does to criticism. The
helps for understanding it relate to language and to things ; and
of course hermeneutics ckvides itself into an investigation of
these two. For investigating the language, which is here the
principal point, we have as sources of information ; (a) the in-
terpretations of the books of Scripture which have been handed
down from antiquity ; that is, ancient versions, and expositions
of the Old Testament by Rabbins, and of the New by the fa-
thers, which it is necessary to adduce and to judge of ; (/3) our
knowledge, arising from other sources, of the Eastern lan-
guages and of the Greek, as existing in profane authors, which
must be applied to the thorough examination, correction, and
establishment of those transmitted interpretations. The in-
vestigation of things is exhibited in that branch of knowledge
which is called exegetical helps. This divides itself into his-
torical, (which includes biblical geography, together with na-
tural philosophy, biblical history with chronology, mythology,
B HISTORY OP INTRODUCTIONS.
and so forth,) and dogmatic, (that is, biblical doctrine anfi
morals.)
It is impossible in an introduction to treat these subjects
fully; nothing more can be given than a general idea of
them. In this arrangement, however, doubts may arise
with respect to the ancient versions, since they must be intro-
duced as subsidiary to criticism as well as to hermeneutics.
Hence it is probably the most advisable course, to give the
general information respecting them in the critical part, and
their character, as far as regards interpretation, in that which
is appropriated to hermeneutics. Moreover, it must be re-
marked, that the very last consideration is the identical point
which is much neglected in recent works of this kind ; and this
is the more to be regretted, as the hermeneutical value of the
versions is on the whole much greater than the critical, since
their greater or less variations from the text do but very rare-
ly indeed contain improvements of it, but on the contrary are
for the most part founded on errors in the translations. In
the particular introduction to the individual books, only this
difference is to be observed in the plan, that some writers in
this department, as Jahn, give an explanatory view of the con-
tents of the books, which is omitted by most of the others.
But, at least in academical lectures, and especially on the Old
Testament, they are most undoubtedly necessary.
Besides introductions of a historical and critical character,
and vt^hich are properly speaking literary, the idea of a practi-
cal introduction has been suggested and carried into effect ;
that is to say, an introduction, which, setting aside discussions
of a critical kind, or taking for granted the results of them, con-
fines its attention to the books of Scripture in a practical point
of view, and gives directions for the use of them in reference
to the religious instruction of youth, and of people in general.^
Such works are useful, when the authors, resting on the firm
basis of solid learning, make the religious and moral force in
* See Berger's prakt. Einleitung in das A. T., vom 3 Theile an
fortgesetzt von Augusti, 4 Theile, Leipzig, 1799 — 1804.
HiSTORY OP INTRODUCTIONS. >
the particular books, sections, and characters of the Bible
stand out prominent ; * they will then often agree in contents^
with the view of religion and morals given in the Bible, and
only vary from it in the free arrangement in which it is present-
ed.
The kind of learning which 1 have been describing is, as
has been remarked, the growth of the last century, and is in-
debted principally for its origin to the discussions of German
Protestants on the various subjects connected with the Bible ;
and the name, as now usually applied, was first employed by
J. G. Carpzov. a work in some respects similar to an in-
troduction to the Bible was first given to the world by
Aug us TIN in his Doctrina Christiana^ t which, however, is
rather hermeneutical advice in reading the Scriptures. This
was followed in the sixth century by a production of Cassio-
DORUS, t who begins his directions for the study of theological
literature with an account of the books of Scripture and then-
interpreters. In modern times Sixtus Sinensis first collect-
ed together the materials belonging to this subject in his
Bibliotheca Sandal § which remained an universally esteem-
ed manual, until it was supplanted, at least among Protestants,
by W ALT her' s Officina Biblica^ a pretty meagre production.||
Yet even this work found its imitators and plagiarists, and
* See Nibmeyer's Characteristik der Bibel, 5 Theile, Halle,. 1775—
1782.
t AuGusTiNus de Doctrina Christiana, libri iv, ed. J. G. Chb. Tee-
«ui5, Lipz. 1769, 8vo.
i Marci Aurelu Cassiodori, Senatoris, de institutione divinanim
scrlpturarum liber, ed. Damelius, Antwerp, 1566, and in Cassiodori
0pp. ed. Caret 1679, Svol. fol.
$ Bibliotheca Sancta a F. (fratre) Sixto Senensi et prsecipuis catho-
licae ecclesiae auctoribus collecta et in octo libros digesta, Venetiis, 1666,
fol. The best edition is that of John Hav, 1591, 4to.
II D. MiCHAKLis Waltkri Officina Biblica, noviter adaperla, in qua
perspicue videre licet, quae scitu cogniluque maxime sunt necessaria de
S. Scriptura in genere et in specie, de libris ejus canonicis, apocryphis,
deperditis etspuriis, cet. Lips. 1630, 4to. 3nd ed. after the author's death,
1668, last 1703; fol., but full of errors.
b HISTORY OF INTRODUCTIONS.
particularly in Heidegger. * All these books were, at mosty
zealous collections of what Josephus, the Rabbins, the fathers,
and later Christian doctrinal writers, had related one after
another, or had also conjectured and imagined respecting the
origin, authority, and history of the books of Scripture.
The first important steps for a thorough, learned, and critical
treatment, particularly of what is called the general introduc-
tion, were made, in the path opened by J. H. Hottinger, t a
man well versed in Oriental learning, and Leusden, | a pupil
and true follower of Buxtorf, during the latter half of the 17th
century, in England by Brian Walton, and in France by
Richard Simon. The former pubhshed in his Prolegomena to
the London Polyglot very learned disquisitions on the language
and ^\Titing of the Bible, the history of the text, and of the
versions of the Old and New Testaments. This was first
printed in the Polyglot, 1657, then as a separate work under
the title, Briani Waltoni Angli apparatus biblicus, ed. Hei-J
J0E6GER, Tiguri, 1723, fol., and again under this, Br. Wal-
toni in Biblia Polyglotta Prolegomena, ed. J. A. Dathe,
Lips. 1777, 8vo. The latter of these celebrated scholars
handled the same subjects at the same time with a spirit of
inquiry, a keenness of criticism and of judgment, and also a
freedom of thought far beyond his age ; so that the results of
liis investigations became first adequately valued in the latter
half of the 18th century, and particularly by means of Semler
were brought into notice and consideration in Germany. §
•^ Jo. HiNR. Heideggkri Enchiridion Biblicum U^efAtufidyiKov. Tiguri,
1681, 8vo., the last Jena, 1723.
t Thesaurus philologicus seu clavis Scripturae Sacrse. Tig. 1649, ed.
iii, 1696, 4to.
X Philologus Hebrajus, Ultraj. 1656, ed. v. 1696. Ejusd. Philol. He*
braeo-mixtus, Ultraj. 1663. ed. iv. Basle, 1739, 4to.
^ Histoire critique du Vieux Testament, par le P^re Richard Simow,
pretre de la congregation de I'Oratoire, a Paris 1678, 4to. The Elzevir
edition, Amst. 1679,'is very erroneous, yet from it was the Latin transla-
tion of N. Anbert de Versi composed, Paris, 1681, 4to. The most cor.
rect and complete edition is that of Rotterdam, 1685, Histoire Critique
HISTORY OF INTRODUCTiaNSi 'h
in the verbal criticism of the Old Testament, he pointed out
the weaknesses of the superstitious views of Buxtorf, and of
those of the opposite kind which were maintained by Cappel.
In interpretation he criticised, with distinguished ability, the
existing translations and commentaries ; and in the depai't-
ment of higher criticism on particular books, he was the first
who in modern times maintained, that the Pentateuch in its
present form could not have arisen from Moses. * As was
naturally to be expected, he met with many opponents, and
the critical history of the Old Testament, (which, however,
has been incorrectly considered as a complete introduction
in the modern sense of the word, since it merely contains
the general and some parts of the particular,) was even
seized and suppressed at the command of Bishop Bossuet.
With many of these opponents Simon was engaged in a coui'se
of bitter controversy, as for instance with Isaac Vossius, on
the authority of the Septuagint, and with Le Clerc, (Cleri-
cus,) who, however, far from finding fault with his boldness,
in many points goes still further ;t he upbraids him also, and
du teste du Nouveau Testament, par R. Simon, Rotterdam, 1689, 4to.
The same author's Histoh-e Critique des Versions du Nouveau Testament,
Rotterdam, 1690, 4to. Nouvelles observations sur le texte et les ver-
sions du Nouveau Testament, Paris, 1695, 4to. Hlstoire Critique des
principaux commentateurs du Nouveau Testament, Rotterdam, 1693,
4to. R. Simon's Krit. Historie desTextes des N. T. Aus der Franz, voa
H. M. A, Cramer, mit Vorrede und Aamevkungen von J. S. SsMLitR,
Halle, 1776, 8. R. Simon's Krit. Historie der Uebersetzungea des
N. T. u. s. w. Halle, 1777, 1780, 2 Bde. 8. Both works under the title,
R. Simon's Kritische Scbriften ttber dasN.T. 3 Bde.
* Hi^t. Crit. du Vieux Test. chap. 5—7. [The loose views of Father
Simon on this and some other points accord so well with those which the
author is known to entertain, that the reader will neither be surprised at
the high degreeof commendation here bestowed on the French critic,
nor at a loss how to appreciate it. For a valuable discussion of the
authenticity and genuineness of the Pentateuch, see Jahn's Introduction,
Partii. $ 3— 14, pp. 176— 202. Tr.]
t (Le Clerc) Sentimens de quelques Tbeologiens de Hollandc sur
I'histoiro critique du Vieux Test, coraposee par le P. Richard Simon,
Amsterdam, 1685, 12, ed. 2, 1711, 12. Briefe einiger HolJandischen
Gottesgelebrten ttber P, Simon's Kritische Geschichte des \. T. aui
2
"^O WlSTORY OF INTRODUCTmSS.
Xvith justice, on account of his dogmatical manner in disput-
ing, and the unwarranted severity of his strictures on the
works of Protestants.
After these predecessors, J. G. Carpzov prepared in Ger-
many his work on the Old Testament, an introduction in the
present sense of the word, and gave to what may be consi-
dered as the outward part of this kind of literature, both its
form, and also the nam^ which it has since retained. Still,
however, the author limited its application to the particular
introduction,* and treated of the general in a separate work, t
He is, moreover, heartily opposed to the free views of Simon,
and to the yet bolder hints which, in the meantime, Spinoza
had thrown out, | considers it as his duty to reject and oppose
them, and fetters himself entirely by the doctrines of the
Lutheran church.
The first writer who trod again in the footsteps of R. Si-
mon was J. S. Semler ; § and, (to speak of the Old Testa-
ment first,) after, in our own time, by the eflforts of J. D.
MiCHAELis, a learned manner of treating the Old Testament
began to prevail in Germany, and, by means of the works of
X.OWTH and Herder, || these subjects were handled with more
taste, EicHHORN composed his introduction to the Old Testa-
ment, which is for the time so free and elegant, and which
dem Franz, (by Corrodi.) The place is not designated, but it was print-
ed at Zurich, 1779.
* Introductio ad libros canonicos V. T. Lipsiae, 1721, 4to. 3 edit.
1741, 4to.
t Critica Sacra V. T. Lips. 1728, 4t&.
t In his Tf actatus theologico-politicus, Hamburgi, 1672. .
§ Apparatus ad liberalem Vet. Test, interpretationem, Halse, 1773,
8vo. Apparatus ad liberalem Nov. Test, interpretationem. Ibid, 1767,
8vo.
11 Rob." Lowth, de sacra poesi Hebrajorum praelectiones, ed. Mi-
CHAEUS, Gottingae, 1758. [An English translation of this work, with
'.' the principal notes of Michaelis, and notes by the translator and
others," by G. Gregory, F. A. S., was published in England, and re-
published in Boston, 1815, Tr.] Herder's Briefe, das Studium der
Theologie betreffend, 1780, Also his Geist der Hebr. Foesie, 1782, S
Theile.
HISTORY OP INTRODUCTIONS, JT
avails itself with so much abiHty of the works which had pre-
ceded it, (of Walton and Carpzov's Critica Sacra in the
general divisons of the subject,) that with him a new epoch in
this department of literature was introduced. * A similar
work t begun by J. D. Michaelis did not advance beyond
the first volume, and some small compends by Gute and
Eabor are mere extracts of Eichhorn ; but soon other men of
investigating minds made their appearance, as Nachtigall
(Ottmar,) Hasse, E. F. C. Rosenmuller, Bertholdt, Va-
TER, De Wette, and others, tlirough whose investigations of
particular subjects, the views presented by Eichhorn were, in
many points, partly advanced and partly corrected and done
away. | The questions of higher criticism here brought to
the test of language were as follows : — whether the Penta-
teuch is of Mosaic origin or subsequent to the time of Moses ;
— ^whether the book of Job w^ere written before the age of
Moses or later ; — on the authority of the books of Chronicles
^d their connexion with the books of Samuel and Kings ; —
the later composition of the book of Daniel ; and others of
this kind. But a learned Roman Catholic, and for many
members of his own church, much too free in his inquiries, §
appeared in the person of John Jahn, || who opposed the
* J. G. Eichhorn's Einleit. in das A. T. 3 Theile, Leipzig, 1780—
1783. [x\lso, considerably enlarged, in 5 volumes, at Gottingen, 1823,
1824.]
f Einleitung in die Gottlichen Schriften des A. B. 1 Tbl. Hamburg,
1787, 4.
t See Hasse Aussichten zu kunftigen Aufklarungen tiber das A. T.
Jena, 1785. Rosenmuller Scholia V. T., and the introductions therein
contained to the particular books, for example, to the book of Job, and
to the Pentateuch, in the 3rd edition. Vater's Comment, tiber den
Pentateuch, Part. Theil. 3, 1805. Bertholdt's Daniel, 1806—1808.
De Wette's Beitrage zur Einleit. in das A. T. 2 Bandchen, 1806, 1807.
tCompare also the author's Geschichte der Hebraischen Sprache und
Schrift. Leipz. 1815, Comment, de Pent. Sam., Halae, 1815, and Com-
ment, uber den lesaia. Leipz. 1820, Tr.]
$ SeeDe necessitate incautos praeveniendi adversus artes nonnullorum
professorum Hermeneutrces cet. Romae, 1818. On the other side, Vindi-
ciae Johan Jahn, Lipsiee, 1822.
H Einleitung in die GSttlichen BOrber des Alten Bundes. Wieii,1793,
12 HISTORY OF INTRODUCTIONS.
bold views of these Protestant writers, or, at most, only im*
parted them where they did not come into collision with those
of his church : * whereupon Bertholdt, in his work which
comprehends both the Old and New Testaments, has at-
tempted principally to collect the various views and to effect
an accommodation between the ancient and modern.! Abridg-
ments, to be used at lectures, adopting the improvements which
have been made since Eichhorn wrote, were published by
Bauer t and Augusti ; § but by far the richest and most
original by De Wette. ||
The plan of many of these Jast writers embraces also the
Apocryphal books of the Old Testament, to the higher criticism
of which the road had been opened by Eichhorn. H
After the very learned preparatory works of Richard Si-
mon, the first who published an introduction to the New Testa-
ment was J. D. MiCHAELis. His work was a very imperfect
manual, whidh in later editions was greatly improved and en-
larged, and by Herbert Marsh was enriched with learned
8, 2 Ausg. 1802 — 3, in 3 Banden. The same author's Introductio in li-
bros Sacros Vet. Fcederis in compendium redacta. Viennae, 1805, 8vo.
* [Although it must be allowed that Dr. Jahn does in some degree
permit himself to be fettered by the principles of his own communion,
yet no one who has read his introductions can have failed to observe, that
he frequently endeavours to explain those principles in accommodation
with the spirit of free Protestantism. Indeed, in some cases, he has ex.
ceeded the bounds of sober criticism. That the remark of Gesenius re-
quires to be greatly qualified is evident from the fact, that some of Jahn's
works were prohibited by a decree of Pope Pius VII. See Horne's
Introduction, vol. ii. Part ii. Appendix, p. 134, 6th edition, 1828, Tr.]}
t D. L. Bertholdt historisch-kritische Einleitung in samtlichekano-
nische und apokryphische Schriften des Alten und Neuen Testaments,
6 Theile, Erlangen, 1812—19. The aprocryphal books of the N. T. are
not included.
t Entvvurf eincr hist. krit. Einleit. in die Schriften des A. T. 1794,
Dritte Aufl. 1806.
§ Chr. W. Augusti Grundriss einer hist. krit. Einleit. in das A. T.
Leipzig, 1806, 8.
{I Lehrbuch der hist. krit. Einleit. in das A. T. Berlin, 1817, 2, Auflo
1823.
11 Einleit. in die Apokryphischen Bttcher des A. T. Leipzig, 1795, 8.
HISTORY or INTRODUCTIONS, 13
additions and corrections. * But the markod progress which
bihlical criticism and exeges'is had made towards the end of
the last and in the beginning of the present century, was con-
spicuous in the manuals respectively, of Hanlein, whose work
is particularly distinguished by its agreeable composition, of
J. C. Chr, Schmidt, who abounds with clear and unbiassed
views, and of J. L. Hug, who excels all his predecessors in deep
and fundamental investigations, t Eichhorn has also extended
his inquiries to the subjects comprehended in the introduction
to the New Testament, but has published no more at present
than the particular introduction, t The subjects,' in this de-
partment, which have engaged the attention of the inquirers,
as of principal importance, and have occasioned many hy-
potheses and learned controversies, are the following: the
arrangement of the manuscripts according to recensions and
classes, (Griesbach's system of recensions ;) — the manner of
illustrating the agreement of the first three gospels ; — the
chronology of FauFs epistles, and, since the publication of
ScHLEiERMACHER and Bretschneider's works on this sub-
ject, also the authenticity of the gospel of John, § and of the
epistles to Timothy. 1|
* J. D, MicHAELis Einleit. in die Gottlichen Schriften des Neuen Bun-
des, Gbttingen, 1760, Vierte Ausgabe, 1788. Introduction to the New
Testament by John Dav. Michaelis, translated and considerably aug-
inentediwith notes, explanatory and supplemental, by Herbert Marsh,
Cambridge, 1793, 6 vol. 8vo. A German translation of these additions
was published by C. Fr. C.Rosenmoller, at Goltingen in 1795, 1803, 3
Bande, 4.
t H. K. A. Hanlein Handbuch der Einleitung in die Schriften des
N. T. 2te Auflage, 1802—1809, 3 Thl. 8.— J. C. Chr. Schmidt's hist,
krit. Einleitung in das N. T. Giessen, 1804, 1805, 2 Theile, 8.— J. L.
Hug's Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testam. Tubingen, 1808,
2te Aufl. 1821, 2 Bde. 8. [An English translation of this work was pub-
lished by the Rev. Daniel Guildford Wait, LL. D., London, 1827, 2
vols. 8vo. Tr.]
t Einleitung ins N. T. Th. 1—3, 1804—14. Also under the title,
Kriti€che Schriften, Th. 5—7.
$ [A view of the principal objections which have been reeently urged
against the authenticity of St. John's gospel, and a very able defence of
it, may be found in Kuinol's Prolegomena, $ 2, pp. 1 1—34, Lips. 1817, Tr.J
!! [The authenticity of the epistles to Timothy has been defended by
14 HISTORT OP INTRODUCTIONS.
With respect to the subjects under review, other nations are
far behind the advances w^hich have been made by the Ger-
mans ; and Holland and England have contented themselves;
with acquiring some of the principal works of Michaehs and
Eichhorn by means of translations. The general causes of
this are to be found partly in this fact, that in those countries
the Bible is not studied with so much ardour as with us ; and
partly also in this, that the doctrinal views of foreign divines
are opposed to the results to which many of the disquisitions
tend. * Only the works of Lanigan, a Roman Catholic of
Italy, t and Horne, J deserve to be mentioned. Both these
writers compriehend the Old and New Testaments, and the
latter the exegetical helps also, as biblical antiquities, geo-
graphy, and other subjects of this kind. The author has made
use also of German writers, but not since the time of Michae-
lis and Eichhorn. §
J. F. Beckhaus, in a work entitled : Specimen Observationum critico-
esegeticorum de vocabulis *9r«| xtydfjuttus et variis dicendi formulis in
I ad Timotheum Epistolam authentiae ejus, nihil detrahentibus, Lingen,
1810, 8vo. Tr.]
* [The unrestrained licentiousness of assertion, founded in many
cases solely upon hypothesis, and in direct opposition to general tradi-
tion and whatever evidence is afforded by history, in which some of the
late German critics have indulged, has with reason given offence to
grave and sober men, both in their own country and elsewhere. Disquisi-
tions of the kind referred to, do by no means tend to the results with
which the German neologists have satisfied themselves. They tend to
a fundamental acquaintance with Scripture, to a confirmation of its
claims as the inspired Word of God, and to a sound and incontrovertible
system of religious faith, founded in all its parts, not on metaphysical
philosophy or traditional authority, but on the Bible, and nothing but
the Bible. Tr.]
t Institutiones biblicae, T. I, Ticini, 1793, 8vo.
t An Introduction to the critical study of the Holy Scriptures. Lon-
don, 1816, 3 vols. 8vo. [The sixth and last edition, in five vols. 8vo,
London, 1828, is much^enlarged and -improved. Tr.]
§ [This is a mistake, as Mr. Horne has availed himself of some of the
latest German writers, especially in his last and improved edition. — rThe
author has omitted to mention the Introduction to the Old Testament
and Apocrypha, by Robert Gray, D. D. (now bishop of Bristol,) pub
lished at London, 1790, 8vo ; and the Key to the New Testament, bv
ttlSTdRY OP INTRODUCTIONS, 15
To complete the account of German literatm'C in this de-
partment, it is necessary to give a place to the various periodi-
cal papers and magazines, which contain in part critical re-
views of writings on these subjects, and in part discussions
on particular points ; as, for instance : J. D. Michaelis exe-
getische und orientalische Bibliothek, 24 Bde. Gottingen, 1771
—83, 8 ; — the same author and Chr. Th. Tychsen's Neue
exeget. und oriental. Bibliothek, 8 Bde. 1784—1789 ;— Eich-
horn's allgem. Bibliothek der biblischen Literatur, 10 Bde.
Leipzig, 1787 — 1801 ; — the same author's Repertorium fiir
biblische und morgenlandische Literatur, 18 Thieile, Leipzig,
1777 — 1786, 8 ;— (Corrodi's) Beitrage zum vemiinftigen
Denken in der Religion, 18 Hefte. Winterthur, 1781—1794,
continued (by Keller,) Heft. 19, 20, 1801— 2 ;— Paulus N.
Repertorium fiir bibl. und morgenl. Lit. 3 Theile, Jena, 1*390
— 1 ; — the same author^s Memorabilien, B. 1—^8, Leipzig,
1787 — 96; — Henke's Magazin fiir Religions - philosophic,
Exegese und Kirchengeschichte, 12 Bde. (the last six also
under the title : Neues Magazin, Th. 1 — 6 ;) — the same au-
thor's Museum fur Religions wissenchaft in ihrem ganzen
Umfange, 3 Bde. Magdeburg, 1804 — 9 ; — J. C. Chr. Schmidt
Bibliothek fur Kritik und Exegese des N. T. Th. 1—3.
Herborn, 1796 — 1802 ; — Gabler's theol. Journal, u. a. m. ;
— E. F. C. Rosenmuller und G. H. Rosenmuller bibhsch-
exegetisches Repertorium, Heft 1. Leipzig, 1822 ; — Paulus
theologisch-exegetisches Conservatorium, Heft 1, 2, Heidel-
berg, 1821—22.
Thomas Percy, D. D., bishop of Dromore, 3rd edition, London, 1779,
12rao. These works are too well known to English readers to require
any notice. — He has also passed over the works of Harwood, Pritius,
and others ; accounts of which may be found in Home, ubi sup. and in
Marsh's Lectures, Lect. iii. Tr.]
TREATISE
ON THE
AUTHENTICITY AND CANONICAL AUTHORITY
OF THE
BY
JOHN GODFREY EICHHORN.
Translated from the German,
Bt JOHN FREDERICK SCHROEDER, A.^.
AN ASSI^ANT MINISTER OF TRINITY CHURCH IN THE CITY OF NEW-YORK.
PREFATORY NOTE,
This Treatise appeared at Leipzig, as early as the year 1771),
in Eichhoen's " Repertory for Biblical and Oriental Litera-
ture." * It afterward formed a part of the first volume of the
author's " Introduction to the Old Testament :" t and from the
fourth edition of this work it is here translated into English. The
subject has occupied the particular attention of a number of the
most eminent German criticks, and has been discussed with great
ability, in special publications, by Semler, Schmid, Coreodi,
Camerer, Spittler, Deuk, Frick, Hornemann, Sauer, Gul-
DENAPFEL, and others. The following Investigation | is regard-
ed among the best, and most concentrated of them all. It is giv-
en erdire, with the omission § only of a few lines in the third section.
The peculiar opinions which they advance are not essential to the
* Repertorium fiir Biblische und Morgenldndische Liileratur. Th. V.
S. 217—282.
t Einleiiung in das Alie Testament. The Jirst edition is in 3 vols. Oct.,
Leipzig, 1780 — 1783; and the fourth edition is in 5 vols, oct., Gottingen,
1823—1824.
X It was originally entitled: " HisloTlsclie. Untersuchung liber den
Kanon des Alien Testaments;" Historical Investigation of the Canon
ofthe Old Testament.
^ The omissions are noted bv asterisks : * * *,.
20 PREFATORY NOTE.
argument ; and it is thought they should not be presented, witli-
out the addition of large notes, incompatible with the nature of
the present work. At some future period, the Treatise may be
submitted to the publick in a different form. It bears the impress
of Eichhorn's distinguishing excellences ; and while it is a brief,
but satisfactory confirmation of the Canon of the Old Testament,
it establishes our faith in these venerable records of the Word of
God.
The Translator.
New-Y<yrky April 8, 1829.
AUTHENTICITY
OF THE
SCRIPTURES OF THE OJLD TESTAMENT.
§.1.
1. They did not proceed from one impostor.
Whoever, with knowledge and impartiality, examines the
question, whether the writings of the Old Testament are au-
thentick, will undoubtedly be compelled to reply in the affirma-
tive.
1. No ONE impostor can have forged them all :— this is
proclaimed by every page of the Old Testament.
What diversity in language and expression ! Isaiah does
not write like Moses, nor Jeremiah like Ezekiel ; and between
these and each of the Minor Prophets, as relates to style,
there is a great gulf fixed. The grammatical structure of lan-
guage, in the books of Moses, contains much that is peculiar ;
in the book of Judges occur provincialisms and barbarisms ;
Isaiah moulds common words into new forms ; Jeremiah and
Ezekiel abound in Chaldaisms. In short, as w^e proceed from
the writers who assume an early date, to those who are more
recent, we observe the language in a gradual decline, until it
sinks at last into phrases of mere Chaldee.
22 AUTHENTICITY OP THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 1.
Then what diversity in the march of thought and range of
imagery ! The stringed instrument resounds when struck
by Moses and Isaiah ; and is soft in intonation at the touch
of David. The muse of Solomon swells in the splendour of
the most voluptuous court ; but her sister, artlessly apparelled,
strays with David along rivulets and banks, over plains, and
among flocks and herds. One poet is original, as Isaiah, Joel,
and Habakkuk ; another imitative, as Ezekiel. One wanders
the untrodden path of a genius ; while at his side, another
loiters along the beaten footway. From one proceed flashes
of surprising knowledge ; and about his neighbour, not a spark
of learning has ever kindled. Through the most ancient wri-
ter glow strong Egyptian tints ; in his successors they become
more and more languid, and in the latest they are entirely ex-
tinct.*
Finally, even in manners, — there is the most beautiful grada^
tion ! At first, all is plain and simple ; as in Homer, and at
the present day, among the Bedoween Arabs. This ingenuous
simplicity is gradually lost in luxury and effeminacy, and at
last wholly disappears in the voluptuous court of Solomon.
There is nowhere a sudden transition ; but throughout, an
advance gradually progressive ! None but ignorant or thought-
less skepticks can admit, that the Old Testament has been
forged by one impostor.
* I' The characteristicks of language, style and manner, exhibited by
the sacred writers, are copiously illustrated by the author, in his parti-
cular introductions to the several books. See his Introduction to the O.
T., (in German'), vols. iir. iv. v., the sections on these subjects ; Jahn's
Introduction to the O. T., (translated by Prof. Turner and the Rev. Mr.
iVhittingham), . P. i. §. 9. &. P. ii., on the styfe of the respective books ;
Horne's Introduction, Vol. i. Ch. ii. S. i. subsect. iii. i. & iv. i. & Vol.
IV. P. I. Ch. I — VII, on the same. Gesenius, in his History of the Hebrew
Language, (in German), § $. 10. 11. supplies examples; andDiWEXTE,
an his Introduction to the Bible, (in Germa?i), $• 34. directs the student
to sources of information on the subject. See also Lowth's Lectures,
{Gregory's translation), particularly Lect. xxi. & xxxiv., with the Notes
of the Translator and others, Boston, 1815; and Rosenmllller's edition of
the original, with the Notes of J. D. Michaelis and the editor, Leipzig,
1815. TV. 1
AUTHENTICITy OP THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. Si. Sj$
§.2.
'2, And the Writings of the Old Testament did not proceed
from SEVERAL impostors.
'2. " But, perhaps, several impostors have made common
cause, and in a late century, have at the same time forged our
Scriptures of the Old Testament." — Yet how could they forge,
in a manner so conformable to the progress of the human
mind ? How was it possible, in modern times, to form the lan-
guage* of Moses? This evidently transcends all human
powers ! In fine, one writer always supposes the existence
of another ; t they could not therefore have arisen, all at the
same time ; it must have been in succession.
' " Perhaps, then, at different periods there have been such
impostors, who proceed in the introduction of spurious writ-
ings, just where their forging predecessors had left off. Hence
may be explained the allusions of the writers to each other ;
hence that striking rise in all the parts ! " But (1.) How was
it possible, that no one discovered and exposed the imposition,
and so branded the impostor, that after ages might be secure ?
How could a nation, repeatedly, at different times, permit it-
self to be deceived? And (2.) What purpose could such an
impostor have ? To exalt the Hebrew nation ? — Then from
his praises result most grievous defamations ; for the Hebrew
people, according to the Old Testament, act at all times a most
unworthy part ! — Or to degrade the Hebrews ? — Yet, in this
case, hov/ could the nation permit books to be obtruded on
tliem, that defamed their character, and told in plain words,
■^- [See Eichhorn's Introduction to the O. T., Vol. i. $ §. 10, 11;
.Tahn's Introd. to the O. T., P. ii. ^. 3 ; Horne's Introd., Vol. i. Ch. u;
.T. D. MicHAELis Introduction to theO.T., {in German), $. 31 ; Gesenius'
History of the Hebr. Lang., §. 11. subsect. 1. Tr, ]
t [ The author particuUuly illustrates this, in his Introd. to the 0. T.,
vol, I. ^ 4. Tr. "'
24 AUTHENTICITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 2. 3.
how often foreign conquerors may have trodden them under
foot?*
§.3.
Evidences of their Authenticity.
In addition to this, the Old Testament bears all the marks
of authenticity.
1. The very reasonings that argue for a Homer, maintain
even the authenticity of all the particular books of the Old
Testament. .Why are we disposed to deny merely the latter
that justice which we allow the former. If a profane writer
assumes a certain period, and all internal and external circum-
stances of his book accord with it ; then, no impartial inquirer
after truth permits himself to indulge a doubt to the contrary.
Nay, we do not hestitate a moment, in reference to a writer of
an unknown period, to decide his age by internal considera-
tions derived from his works. Why should the critical in-
quirer not pursue this course, in reference to the Bible ?
2. As yet, no one has been able to oppose with arguments,
the integrity and credibility of any writer of the Old Testa-
ment ; but every discovery in ancient literature has hitherto
been some new confirmation of the sacred books. As yet,
no one has demonstrated that any writer of the Old Testa-
ment may have composed in a style, with knowledge, and
under circumstances, that might not have been conformable
to the age in which he professed to live.
In short, all the Books of the Old Testament, the writers
of which we know by name, have been impressed with the
seal of the integrity of their authors. And in those books, the
authors of which have been unknown, internal considerations
always show, that we are compelled to recognise them as au-
thentick. The Book of Joshua, for instance, the author of
» [ On this subject, consult Jahn's Introduction to the 0. T., P. i. §. 9. Tr. 1
AUTBENTICITY OP THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 3. 25
which is unknown, enters so deeply into the particulars of the
most ancient Geography, that miracle upon miracle must have
been wrought on an impostor, if he could have been in a situa-
tion to compose it thm.
Let any one examine, with due intelligence, and without
prejudice ; and I am certain, that he will convince himself of
the Authenticity of the Books of the Old Testament.
I here premise however, what any one will readily suppose
in works so ancient, that most writings of the Hebrews had
passed through several hands, before they acquired their pre-
sent form ; and that ancient and modern may sometimes be
mingled in them, without leading an impartial judge, on this
account to doubt of their authenticity.
1. No ancient author of any nation has survived the age
in which he wrote, but various particulars may have been
altered in his text, or additions have been inserted in it.
Sometimes, he was glossed designedly, and obsolete words
and expressions, and geographical names were changed for
others that were modern, to explain his meaning for the later
reader, Sometimes, a person made observations in the mar-
gin, for his own use or that of others, without intending that
they should be inserted in the writer ; but officious posterity
has transferred the marginal observations into the text. Thus,
before we can render the authenticity of a writing doubtful
on account of such passages, w^e must with critical minuteness
examine, whether they have from the first existed in it, and
have actually proceeded from the author's hand.
% The very nature of the origin of many Scriptures of the
Old Testament renders it necessary, that ancient and modern
passages and sections must interchange in them. Veiy few
proceeded from the hand of their authors, in the form in
which we now have them. The separate constituent parts
of many had long been extant as special works, before they
became united with certain parts now added to them. Should
even the Mosaick writings, in their present order, not be those
of Moses ; yet they have been collected from Mosaick docu-
ments, and have merely been dispose^d by a more recent
W AU-T^HENTICITY OP T.H.E QLD TESTAMENT, §. 3.
hand. IF * * * Our Psalms, according to their existing ar-
rangement, first attained their present extent after the cap-
tivity, by the combination of several larger and smaller books
of Psalms, t The materials of our Daniel w^ere originally se-
parate, I in treatises that had been composed in difierent dia-
lects. * * * The golden proverbs of Solomon have been in-
creased by accessions : even in Hezekiah's time, there were
additions made to them. § * * *
If we should at once proscribe, as the works of impos-
ture, books in which all parts and sections do not evince the
same age, few authentick writings of the Hebrews would
remain ; but, at the same time, a great number of the classicks
of Grecian and Roman antiquity might be condemned. Higher
criticism || must fulfil its office for the former as well as for
the latter, before we venture a decision on their authenticity ;
and by internal considerations, it must separate what has been
brought together by various times and authors. Whoever re-
proaches the biblical critick, or merely with pious concern
heaves a sigh, while the latter is thus examining a book of
the Old Testament ; he must either be wholly unacquaint-
ed with antiquity, and profane literature, and the state of
things at the time ; or be so extremely weak in intellectual en-
dowments, that he does not perceive the important conse-
quences of an omitted test of this kind, and the invincible host
of doubts, which, by the proposed manner of proceeding, it is
practicable to drive from their strong holds. And indeed,
whoever may regard such a test as useful, important, and
l! [ That the Pentateuch is not a compilation of recent date, see
Jahn's Introd. to the O. T., P. n. $. 11 ; that it is the work of Moses,
-§. 12 ; that it has not been re-written, §. 13. Tr. J
t [ Eichhorn's Introd. to the O. T., Vol. v. § $. 624—626 ; Jahn's In-
trod. to the O. T., P. II. ^. 177. Tr. ]
t [ .Iahh 's Introd. to the O. T., P. ii. ^. 154. Tr. ]
^ [ The design of the asterisks here used is staled iji the Prefatory
Note to this Treatise. Tr. j
ij [Some judicious observations, on the use of Higher Criticism, are
t<3 lie found in Ja«n's Ihtrod. to fhe O. T., P. i. 6. 147- Tr. 1
AUXHENTICITV OF THE OLD TESTAMEN-l', §. 3. 'Si'
necessary, l)ut from over-pious timidity would prescribe
the rule to the critical inquirer, to separate there only, where
external evidences afford cause for a separation or require it ;
he might still belong to the weak in the republick of criticism ;
and still endanger the authenticity of most of the Hebrew
Scriptures.
The ancients indeed were accustomed sometimes to denote
the end of a writing by a subscription, as was the case, for in-
stance, with Moses and Jeremiah ; and thus too the author of
an ancient Psalter uses the words : " The Prayers of David
are ended." * Sometimes, continuators pointed out, by a
written note of the fact, the place where their continuation
commenced, as in the Proverbs of Solomon, by the words :
"** These are also Proverbs of Solomon, which the men of
Hezekiah copied out." t But such instances ai-e rare ; and for
the most part, we must endeavour to disclose by means quite
different, and by the most subtle operations of higher criticism,
what in the lapse of time may have been prefatory, what in-
serted, and what appended, in an ancient work.
Ps. Lxxii. 30. t Prov. XXV. I.
S^ OF THE
'tjniversity;
CANONICAL AUTHORITY
OF THE
SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
§.4.
Canonical and Apocryphal Books,
Soon after the return of the Jews from the Babylonian
tiaptivity, a collection * was prepared, of all writings of the
Hebrews then extant, which, on account of their antiquity,
contents, and authors, became revered and holy, in the view
of all the members of the new government. In the temple
was reposited a sacred library t of these writings, which, for
* [ The author has treated of this subject at large, in his Introd. to the
O. T., Vol. I. $. 5. See also Prideaux, in his Connexion. Vol. ii. p. i.
B. V. Ann. 446 & 292. On the fables concerning nSn^n ripW, the Great
Synagogue, see Buxtorf's Tiberias, C. 10. 11; and Bartolocoi Bibl.
Rabbinlca, under the article Chenescih Hagghedola, Part iv. pp. 2. 3. 4.
Tr. ]
t [ The existence of a Temple Library is recognised by the most able
criticks.
(1.) Very early traces of it are to be found, befere the captivity:
see Deut. xxxi. 26. Josh. xxiv. 26. 1 Sam. x. 25.
(2.) Afttr the captivity, mentioa is made of it: Josephus, Anliqq.
B. in. C. I. $. 7 ; B. v. C. i. f 17. Wars eftfie Jaws, B. vii. C.
T. $.5; £1/6,$. 75.
Sec EicHH. Introd. to theO. T,, Vol. i- f.S? &DeWette IntroA to
the Bible, Vol, i. $. 14. Tr. ]
^0 UANOX OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 4.
a considerable time before Christ, (the particular year is un-
known), (a) ceased to be further enlarged. (6)
After the period when this collection had been made, there
arose among the Jews authors of a different kind, historians,
philosophers, poets, and theological romancers. Now there-
fore they had books, ver}^ unlike in value, and of various ages*
The earlier were held, as productions of Prophets,* to be holy ;
(a) If JosEPHCs closes the Canon with the reign of Artaxerxes Lon-
jgimanus, this is his private opinion, founded on his view of the Book of
Esther. See $.30.
(6) I know not with what probability it can be asserted, in the Zurich
IjIBkaky of the latest theological, philosophical, and polite literature, (Zt^r-
cher Bibliothek der neuesten theologischen, philosophischen, und
schonen Litteratur), B. i. S. 180., that the Jews might have first agreed
as to the number of their sacred books, after the period when the Talmud
was compiled. If there might not have been, at a much earlier date,
a collection settled as to all its parts, how could Josephus, Philo, and
the New Testament have spoken of them, in terms so explicit, or
Josephus have made a distinction of two kinds Of ancient writings of
his nation ? He spoke of such as had been written, to the time of
Artaxerxes Longimanus, and might justly be regarded as credible, (or
divine) ; and of others, composed after Artaxerxes Longimanus, which
were not esteemed so credible. Must it not, therefore, have been ac-
curately determined how many belonged to each class?
'• But it is proved, that from time to lime there may have been as vari-
ous a decision on the sacred books> by the orthodox Jews, as by Chris-
tians. Has not Daniel, highly esteemed by Josephus, been little prized
"by other Jews : Ezekid almost rejected from the Canon ; Esther unduly
censure d ?" Certainly. But what can rereni private opinions determine
in a question, where the subject is ancient national opinion ? And we know
indeed, what considerations have prompted them to their unfavourable
opinions of the writings mentioned. The contents were repugnant to
them; from history they knew nothing to be advanced against them.
Would they not, with a view to be easily rid of these repugnant books,
have appealed to the times, when they might not have been found among
the number of sacred national writings ; could they, merely by a faint
tradition, have been authorized in doing so.-*
* [ On the meaning of the word Prophet, consult Gesenius' Hebrew
Lexicon, (translated by Prof. Gibbs, & also by Christopher Leo), & Si-
MONis' Hebrew Lexicon, {Eichhorn^s edition), on theivord N''J3 ; Eichh.
Introd. to theO. T., Vol. i. $. 9; Jahn's Introd. to the O. T., P. n. $. 83.
note\ Eichhorn's Library of Biblical Literature, (in German), Vol. i
Pt. 1. p. 91 ; & Koppe's Excursus in, appended to his Commentary
on the Epistle to the Ephesisins? ii) his ZVbv, Je^iam, Vol. vi, Tr. ]
CANON OP THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 4. 31
the later were not, because they had been composed in times,
when there was no longer an uninterrupted prophetical suc-
cession, (c) The ancient were preserved in the temple (§. 28) ;
the modern were not. The ancient were introduced into a
publick collection ; the modern, as I think, into none what-^
ever ; at least, certainly into none of a publick nature. And
if the Alexandrian Christians had not been such great ad-
mirers of them ; if they had not added them to the manu-
scripts of the Septuagint, (in the original ^ if composed in
the Greek language ; and in a Greek translatioriy if the
autograph was Hebrew :) — who knows, whether we might
have a single page remaining, of all the modern Jewish
writers ? {d)
(c) JosEPHus, contra Ap. lib. i. $. 8., thus expresses himself in reference
to these later Scriptures : Ttis'toes S't ov^ ofAoiac ^^iarctt rtii irgo ctvraf,
S'ta. TO fxii yma^At t«» rdv !r^o<p»Tay et)i^i0» S'lAifo^iif. [ See the en-
tire passage quoted below, §. 29. Tr. ]
(d) The Zurich Library makes some objections to this also. " There
are proofs," it says, Th. i. S. 178., "that the Grecian Jews, from
time to time, have conferred on more writings than the Hebrew Jews
possessed, the distinction of being receivedas ancient, sacred, and revered
monuments of the ag-es of antiquity ; nay, of being regarded even as re-
cords dictated by the Holy Spirit. The Apostles, Apostolick Fathers,
and Ecclesiastical Writers, in their citations, make no distinction
bestween v avIous pseudepigrnphs, and the canonical writings of the O. T.
Jude quotes the Assumption of Moses and the Books of Enoch ; Paul, the
Apocalypse of Elijah, and probably other apocryphal writings ; Matthew,
an apocryphal work of Jeremiah, which the Hebrew Christians in the
time of Jerome still possessed; Clement, the spurious Ezekiel ; Hernias,
the Eldad h Medad. It is clear, that the converts from among the
Grecian Jews knew and revered these writings. No Apostles first de-
livered or commended these to them. Besides, even those Fathers who
quote the Apocrypha without distinction, Clement &, Origen, did not
first introdyce this relish for such writings, but must have found it al~
ready existing, and have accommodated themselves to it. Other Fa-
thers, Irenaeus, Tertollian, Ambrose of Milan, fcc, might never
have held the Wisdom of Solomon, the Books of Enoch, Baruch, Tohit,
Fseudo-Esdras, Additions to Daniel, &c., to be sacred and inspired, if
these books had not been commended to them by Jews."
There would be very little prospect of determining our Canon of the
O. T-, if this were so. But
3^ CANON OP THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 4.
At a late period, a long time since the birth of Christ, these
two kinds of writings have been distinguished by appropriate
1. It is not true, that the Jews maybe supposed to have made no
distinction, between the ancient sacred books of their nation, and what
were called apocryphal, Josephus, who was acquainted however even
with the Grecian Jews, whose Version he every where adopts in his
writings, says in very general terms of all the Jews at large : " We
have but 22 books, which were composed up to the time of Artaxerxes
Longimanus. Since Artaxerxes, up to our times, much indeed has been
•written ; but, among us, all these modern writings have not by any
means the authority of the ancient." And if these recent works were
viewed by the Grecian Jews, as sacred records, as venerable, as die*
tated by the Holy Spirit, how then does it happen, that the Grecian
Jew Philo does not allegorize them, as he does those Scriptures to which
he attributes a divine origin ?
2. It is not true, that the Apostles may be supposed to have made
710 distinction between Canonical and Apocryphal writings. For how
could it happen, that among so many citations of the O, T. in the New%
so few passages are evidently taken from the Apocrypha ? If held in the
same estimation, they would have been as much used.
3. It is NOT true, that from the value which Jewish Christians at-
tributed to Apocrypha, it may be inferred, that the Jews rankedthem with
their sacred Scriptures. We know indeed that the Jewish Christians
held them in the highest esteem, because they yielded so much support
to their visionary ideas, hopes and expectations. And if we compare
their estimate with the description that Josephus gives, of the estimate
which his nation may be presumed to have set upon them, it is evident,
how many steps the Christians advanced further than the 'Jews ! And
from the opinions of the Fathers concerning them, what can be in-
ferred, in respect to the opinions of the Jews ? Must those of the latter
have also been those of iha former ?
But II. "In the Greek collection of the Scriptures are found many
apocryphal writings, as the W^isdom of Solomon, the third book of Es-
dras, Tobit, Baruch, Additions to Daniel and Esther. This is proved,
by the use which Josephus himself, (no doubt to please the Grecian Jews),
made of these writings, and even by the translations of them which were
made at a very early period, for the use of the Western Churches; and
also by the Canonical authority, which various councils attribute to
them."
1. In this objection, it is alleged without proof, that even before the
birth of Christ, the Apocrypha xvere appended to the Greek Bible : but
from what shall this be inferred? From the fact, perhaps, that
Josephus makes use of them ? Does his use of them prove any more,
than merely that they were then extant in that Greek Vei-sion which we
now possess? Cojuld they not have been in his hands in Greek, sepa-
CANON OP THE OLD TESTAMENT, §.-4. 33
names, derived chiefly from the use which was made pf the
writings : the earUer were called Canonical ; the more re-
cent, Apocryphal Books. And the whole collection of the
former was comprehended under the appellation: Canon
OP THE Old Testament.
orately ? And as Philo and the New Testament make so little use of
the Apocrypha, is it at all probable, that they were then a part of the
Greek Bible ? Would they not, in this case, have been much better
known to Philo, and the authors of the New Testament, than we ac-
tually discover? Ought not Christians, those great admirers of them,
to have first assigned to them this place ? Yet admitting, that even the
ancient Grecian Jews before Christ may perhaps have done this, still
nothing results in opposition to the previously alleged extent of the He-
brew Canon, as we have adopted only the Palestine, and not the Egyp-
tian.
2. And what is proved by early Latin Versions of these Apocrypha,
made for the use of the Western Church 1 What but this, which no one
will doubt, that even at an early period, it held these Versions in great
esteem ? What is proved by the authority of Councils, which have at-
tributed Canonical Authority to these Apocrypha ? What but this, that
in their estimate of these Scriptures, they went still further than the
early Christians, and even attributed to them what the latter, (as far as
we know,) never did attribute ?
III. " The Egyptian Jews have invented fables, to gain authority for
the spurious writings which they had forged, from a propensity to fana-
ticism and sectarism. The Jew who wrote the fourth book of Esdras,
intending to excite among his nation, by a fictitious narrative, the
hopes of the Messiah's kingdom, sets forth an account of seventy con-
cealed books, which pui-ported to have been dictated to Ezra by the
Spirit of God. And this tradition of 70 Apocrypha is to be found also
in the Gospel of Nicodemus. That no Christian wrote the fourth book
of Esdras, in its most ancient form, is clear fi-om many evidences, al-
though Christians have interpolated it, and enlarged it by additions."
Even this representation of the origin of the fourth book of Esdras, (to
which, however, much might be objected,) being assumed, because the
examination of it might not here be in place, what follows from all this,
but merely that particular Jews may have put every thing in operation,
to acquire for their written productions great authority ? Does it even
prove, that all other Jews may have assented ? — that all, to approve of
these fables, may have even ascribed to the works themselves a divine
origin ? But I forbear — not to contend too long against objections^
which have so little to do with the positions maintained !
34 CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, §.,!>.
JVhat i& the meaning of the word Canonical '.
The word Kavwv had long been in use among the early
Ecclesiastical writers, and in very general acceptations, before
it was transferred to a collection of Holy Scriptures.
1. it often meant no more than " a book," and a "cata-
logue" generally; (e) but then, in particular —
2. A " Catalogue of things which belonged to the Church,''
or a "Book, that served in general for the use of the
Church." (/) Hence a Collection of Hymns, which were
to be sung on festivals, {g) as also a List, in which were in-
troduced the names of persons belonging to the Church, ac-
quired the name Kavwv. (h) The word was used in a sense
yet more limited, of
3. A " Publickly approved Catalogue of all the Books,
that might be read in publick assemblies of Christians, for
instruction and edifioation." (i) Finally, but not until very
recent times, it has comprised immediately
4. A " Collection of divine and inspired writings." (k)
The last signification most modern scholars have adopted.
They use, therefore, Canonical and Inspired, (xavovixo^ and
(e) Hence the diminutive Kotvsytcy means simply libdlus. See Suidas
on the word Knvovtov. M. Frii>. Fkuiun. Druk, diss, deratione historic^
canonis scribendae. Tub. 1778, 4.
(J) Synodus Laodic. Canon 42.
(g) Stjicer, in his Thes. Eccles., T. ii. p. 40., has this meaning, with
many examples from the Fathers. Thus, for example, Zonaras says,
ad Canon. Alhanasii Damasceni: K«tvay hiytTAi, ot* ci^ia-f^ivov
i^ei TO iUfXiTgOV £ V V i at. 0) S" A 7 c auVTi^oufJievoy .
(A) Socrates Hist. EccL, lib. i. c. 17. reU rra^Bhovc Tils dyayty^*f/.fJLi-
»<€ b Tfp T&y kmKtKxitti Kav 6v I . See DvFRE5NE,glossar. mediae etin-
finiae Graecitaiis. p. 579.
(i) See SuiCER Thes. Eccles. on the word Kdvciv ; or Cotta ad Gerhardi
hcos theol, T. u. p. 244.
(k) SuicER on the word Kjcvwv. Fricb de cura vet. eccl. drca Cano-
nem. p. 34 ss. [ See also, Lardner's Supplement to the Second Part
of thft Gosp. Hist.. Ch, r. Sect. iii. Tr. J
CAN'ON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 5. G. 35
ho'nMBv^oc,) as perfect synonymes. Only a few understand by
the Canon of the Old Testament, the " Collection of sacred
and inspired writings, which Christ and his Apostles may have
recognised as sacred and inspired,"
§. 6.
IVhat is the meaning of the word Apocryphal '(
The Apocryphal are so called, in opposition to the Ca-
nonical Scriptures.
1. At first, " Obscurely written Books " were called apo-
ciyphal. (/) As such writings were then above the capacity
of men in general, the heads of the Church accordingly pro-
hibited their being read in publick assemblies of Christians ;
yet not only were the teachers not forbidden to read them,
but, on thai account, to study them with diligence had been
made their express duty. Hence, among apocryphal writ-
ings, in opposition to canonical, were comprised
2. Such books as were " Set aside, and from which no-
thing might be publickly read." (m)
{I) SuiDAs on the word *«gt«t/«r«c. Epiphanius, Aacrms LI; Druk,
i, c. p. 8, Compare with this the remark of Semler, in his Treatise on
afree examination of the Canon, (Abhandlung von freyer Untersuchung
desKanons,) Th. i. S. 10,, that ctVo'jtgy^xss may sometimes be applied to a
writing, which only experienced Christians were permitted to read for
their instruction, but which was concealed from others.
(m) RuFFiN, Expositio Symholi inter 0pp. Cypriuni, p. 26; Cyril,
Catech. iv. p. 68, ed. Toutt. In this case indeed, aV({jcgo<p5? accords
with the Rabbinical V^^ , which denotes writings set aside, that
might notbe read in the synagogues ; at onetime, because they had been
inaccurately written ; and at another, because their contents were some-
what difficult to be understood. Thus the later Jews placed among the
yy^A, which ought not to be read, the beginning of Genesis, (in which a
creation in six days, so adapted to human views, was repugnant to
them) ; the Song of Solomon, (the contents of which they thought hazard-
ous for young persons ;) Ezekicl i. and xl. — xlviii. (because the contents
of these chapters were obscure to them, and the temple ofEzekid did not
correspond with their second temple.) See Hottinger, Thet, Phil., p.
521 ; and Castell's & Buxtorf's Lexicons, at these words. But we are
3tJ CAXOA' OF ThK old TEStAMENT* §. 6. *.
3. Even "Supposititious Writings," (Pseudepigrapha,) \\ei*e
sometimes called apocryphal, from similar considerations, as
no publick use would be admitted, of such miserable produc-
tions as the Books of Adam, Methuselah, Enoch, and the like, (n)
Finally, canonical and inspired having been used as syno-
nymes, by an apocryphal book was understood
4. " A writing not inspired." The word acquired this
sense at a very late period, and perhaps not before Jerome.
He writes, however, in his preface to Tobit : Libruni
Tobiae, quern Hebraei de catalogo divinarum scripturarum
secantes, his, qua3 apocrypha memorant, manciparunt.
[ The Book of Tobit, which the Hebrews, removing it from
the Catalogue of Sacred Scriptures, have transferred to these,
which they call apocrypha. TV. ]
§. 7. ■
Reviezi^ of this division of the Books of the Old Testament into
Canonical arid Apocryphal.
Thus varied in signification are the words canonical and
apocryphal. On this account, the learned of modern times,
who have entered into investigations of the Canon of the Old
Testament, might have been expected only with accuracy to
determine what signification they adopted. Unfortunately,
this has not always been the case, and hence their investiga-
tions have often been devoid of the precision required.
It might have been desirable, that the expression Canon,
on this account, had never been used in reference to the Old
Testament. A word so various in signification must give
rise to misapprehensions ; and unhappily, the most that it has
not to believe for this reason, that the ancient Jews understood by VU
a book not canonical.
(n) Athanasius, in the Synopsis S. S., T. ii. p. 154. A number of
passages, that are here appropriate as illustrations, Fabricius has col-
lected in his Cod. Pseudep. V. T. ; T. ii. p. 30a
CANOX OP THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 7. 37
received, in the lapse of time, have been inappropriate to the
Old Testament.
1. If by the Canon of the Old Testament was understood
the " Collection of sacred and inspired writings of the Jews
in the period before the birth of Christ," then this was a sigi-
nification which most Christian Writers did not understand
by it ; and difficulties upon difficulties arrested the inquirer,
who examined the Fathers on the Canon of the Old Testa-
ment. He found, for instance, that Judith, Tobit, 2 Books of
Maccabees, 5 Books of Solomon, and others, were enumerated
among the CanoniccB Scriptures, (o) Alarmed at this ap-
pearance, he either gave up the whole investigation; or
he was even willing to carry it on, did he but derive
from it the conclusion : our present Canon may have been
of recent origin, and not determined in ancient times, as re-
gards all its portions, large and small, (p)
2. Or, if by the Canon 'of the Old Testament was under-
stood the " Books of the Jews before the time of Christ, that
were permitted to be read in publick ;" this signification again,
in reference to the Old Testament, is neither appHcable nor
adequate. Among whom could the reading of these Scrip-
tures have been allowed ? Among Jews or Christians ?
Among Jews ? In this case, there might have been nothing
more uncertain, than the number of the books deemed ca-
nonical ; for they did not use as synonymes, canonical
books, and books to he puhlickly read. The Song of
Solomon, for instance, they regarded as a sacred national
writing, and yet it had been forbidden to make a pub-
lick use of it in the synagogues ! {q) There ought to have
(o) CoNciL. Cakthag. 3. Can. 47. of the year 397. ''Placuit, ut
praeter canonicas scriptiiras nihil in ecclesia legatur sub nomine scriptu-
rarum divinarum ; sunt autem canonic^ scriptures : Genesis, Exodus/
Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium, Jesus Nave, Judicum, Ruth, Regno ^
rum libri3., Job, Psalmorum unus, Salomonis libri quinque, libri 12 pro-
phetarum minorum, item lesaias, Jeremias, Ezech., Daniel, Tobias,
Judith, Esdrae libri 2., Maecabaeorum libri 2.
(p) Semler's Treatise on a free esamination of the Canon, [ quoted
before in note (l). ] Th. i. S. 14. s.
{q) Origex, in his ^raf. ad Canlic. Canlicontm.
38 CA^'ON OP THE OLD TESTAA^ENT, §. 7. 8.
been admitted into the Canon, in this case, only the Five
Books of Moses, the Prophets, and the Book of Esther, which
was read with pecuhar solemnities on the feast of Purim ; but
not the Psalms, not the Proverbs, not Job, and the Historical
Books,
Was it among Christians then ? In this case, the Canon
of the Old Testament might have been yet more uncertain.
It might have been settled — at a time, when it could no
longer be known, which books were to be esteemed canoni-
cal ; for it might have been reduced to order after the lapse
of the first ages that followed the birth of Christ : — among a
class of men, from which could be expected no sure deter-
mination of the Canon of the Old Testament ; for it must
be determined, not by Christians, but by Jews : — without
settled principles, by which the authority of a book could be
examined ; for the New Testament does not pronounce upon
the subject. The selection depended, therefore, upon mere
caprice, and was directed, it may be, by pious considerations
which are often very doubtful, or else by uncertain authorities.
In fine, if we examine the existing Catalogues of the Writings
of the Old Testament, permitted to be publickly read among
Christians, we find even Judith, and Tobit, and other writings
inserted, which, for various reasons, can be allowed no ca-
nonical authority. — So unstable is the foundation, on which is
commonly reared the important investigation of the Canon of
the Old Testament !
§.8.
In what sense Canoij op the Old Testament is understood,
in this investigation.
We proceed, therefore, in our examination of the subject,
merely from that time, when Christ and his Apostles, in their
teaching, pointed back to the instruction which had been re-
corded in the Old Testament. At that period, there was in
Palestine a Collection, which made up a complete whole, and,
CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 8. 9. 39
in the New Testament, was sometimes comprised under the
appellation Scripture, or Holy Scriptures ; sometimes para-
phrased by Law and Prophets, or by Law, Prophets, and
Psalms. * We shall consider this Collection the Canon .f the
Old Testament. In this view, we set aside all theological ajid
doctrinal considerations, and our investigation becomes, as it
should be — merely historical, (r)
Of the Egyptian and Palestine Canon m general.
After the Babylonian captivity, the Jews were divided, m
reference to the principal countries of their settlement, into
Egyptian and Palestine. In both, they had a Collection of
sacred national writings. And it is worth while to inquire,
whether this Collection was of the same or of a different ex-
tent in the two countries, and what books and how many it
may have contained, both in Egypt, and also in Palestine.
According to our purpose, (§. 8.) we must indeed recur
principally to Palestine, and endeavour to ascertain the con-
stituent parts of the Palestine Canon, at the time of Christ
and the Apostles. An examination of the Egyptian Canon,
therefore, might seem needless ; particularly as the question
* [ The Scriptures of the 0. T. are called ^ >§«?«, " the Scripture,"
John, X. 35. compare 34; .i Tim. iii. 16; U^d y^sL/ufjiaTet, "Holy
Scriptures," ii Tim. in. 15 ; o vd/uos Knit cj v^ixpiirctt " the Law
and the Prophets," Acts. xiii. 15; o v6/uo5 Maxrias, Kat tt^of^rsti, ndi
■^aXfAot, the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms. Luke, xxiv. 44. Storr,
in his Doctrinal Theology {translated by Prof. Schmitcker) Vol. i. B. i.
§. 14, has a concise and admirable view of the argument from the New
Testament, that the Jewish Canon, in the time of Christ and the
Apnstles, contained the same books which now constitute our O. T.
Scriptures. Tr. ]
(r) The Canon oj the O. T. ; a Treatise in Camerer's Theological &
Critical Essays, (Theologischea und kritischen Versuchen.) Stutt^ard,
1794. 8.
40 CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 9.
in regard to that of Palestine would not yet have been settled ;
granting that we might be able to present a complete account
of the former. Yet without tliis, the history of the Canon
would remain defective : without this, we should be neces-
sarily deprived of many illustrations, in investigating the
Canon of Palestine. In fine, if a complete account of the
Egyptian Canon were to be found any where, and were it to
agree in all its parts with that of Palestine ; then, to the satis-
faction of every inquirer after truth, we should have a decisive
answer to the important question : Had the Jews, before the
time of Christ, a Collection settled as to all its parts great and
small, or a complete Canon ?
But should there be discovered, neither now nor henceforth,
such fragments of the Alexandrian Canon, that a complete
whole may be collected from them, it were truly ever to be
lamented, that rapacious time even here manifested its destruc-
tive influence. But the contents of the Canon will not, on
this account, be more uncertain. Should even traces be per-
ceived, that the Egyptian Jews might evidently have had
Apocryphal writings in their Canon, these would be just as
little raised to the authority of canonical books on this ac-
count, as the Apocrypha, which the authority of the Fathers
placed among the Canoniccs ScripiurcB. (§. 7.) The ques-
tion does not relate to Ecclesiastical Fathers, but Jews, and
especially Jews of Palestine. (§. 8.) Just as the Samari-
tans, by certain incidents, acquired a false Joshua, which
they ranked with the Five Books of Moses ; so indeed
might similar incidents in Eygpt have elevated to a place
among the Canonical Books, one or several that were apo-
crypha.
'CANON P*' THE OLD I'ES-V AMEUt, §. 10. \X
L The Egyptian' and Palestine Jews had the
SAME CaNON',
. 10.
•First ground of Conjeciurt.
Still it is very probable from many considerations, that the
Canon of the Old Testament in Egypt and that in Palestine
were similar.
I. The relation, in wliich the Jews in the two countries
stood to each other, readily admits of this presumption. Both,
although at no period in an intimate, were yet always in some
connexion, and thus at times in a rehgious fellowship, {s) Both
were emulous to be entirely alike. The Egyptians built a
temple, after the model of the temple at Jerusalem, and with
the same solemnities practised their religion there. In their
synagogues, the Egyptians read the Five Books of Moses as
in Palestine. But when an intolerant edict of Antiochus
Epiphanes banished the use of the books of Moses from the
synagogues in Palestine, and they began there, from necessity,
to read out of the Prophets ; and afterward, when the in-
(s) Notwithstanding the jealousy that prevailed between the Jews in
the two countries, the religious fellowship proceeded sometimes to a re-
markable extent. Thus Philo himself, the celebrated writer, was once
sent to Jerusalem, to present offerings in the temple there, in the name
of his brethren. Philo, T. 2. 0pp. p. 646. ed. Mang.; or in Euse-
Bios praep. ecang. lib. viii. c. 14. p, o'JS. ed. Paris. T»f lu^lus iiti BxKaLvrti
TTohli Wiv, 'AT*«X£rV oyojux- jSi'd^KgiOf b ^^vryi kx6' o» ^^6vot il; to Trxr^aov
/i^ov 8r«?X5/X)»v 6v^6v.itci T.6 Ksti (ivcraav. tlixiyjtv^i Tt Tri>.UxSav v\tiQc(
iSa*o-iu«y ^Yet this was something extraordinary, as the Egyptian
Jews had their own temple ; and after its erection, offerings were made
there, as in the temple at Jerusalem. And I know not how to believe,
that the Egyptian Jews should have ordinarily sent offerings to Jeru-
salem, as HoRNEMA>-N assumcs, dt canone Philonis, p. 10. The Jews of
Home, and Italy in general might do so, because they had no temple in
^b.o?e parts; but this reason does not apply to lb'? Jeus in Egvpf-.
42 CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 10. IL
terdiction ceased, read on every Sabbath both Moses and
the Prophets ; the emulation of the Egyptian Jews did not
admit of their being behindhand in these particulars. In fine,
Jerusalem was constantly the city, to which the Jews traced
every thing ; the manners and customs of that place were the
originals which they always copied ; it was the rallying point
of all Jews who were dispersed in Europe, Asia, and Africa —
and thus too of the Egyptian. (/) In such circumstances,
should we not conjecture, {u) that the Jews in the two countries
might have agreed, in regard to the Collection of their ancient
sacred national books ?
§. 11.
Second ground of Conjecture,
II. Jesus the Son of Sirach and PniLO.the New Testa-
ment and Josephus, writers of Palestine and Egypt therefore^
(/) The fact is well known. However, I refer to Hornemann, de
canone Phil. p. 8., who has shown this by some passages from Philo.
0pp. T. II. p. 524. Mang. p. 971. ed. Frank/. [ This reference is very-
apposite. " A single region cannot contain the Jews, on account of
their multitude. Wherefore, they inhabit the most numerous and
flourishing of those in Europe and Asia, both islands and continentsF;
considering the Holy City, {ti^ciroxiv), (in which stands the sacred
temple of the Most High God,) as their metropolis." TV. ]
(m) Thus it stands word for word in the former editions. It is not in-
tended, by the above reasoning, to prove any thing;; not to decide as a
judge ; it is only intended to derive from it the conjecture, that the Egyp-
tian and the Palestine Canon may have been of like extent. If then the
Zurich Library, Th. i. S. 178. objects: "Notwithstanding the uni(y
of the Palestine and Egyptian Jews, yet the Alexandrian synagogues
might boast of a more extensive collection of the sacred writings,
among which were even writings of Enoch, Moses, &c. ;" what shall be
said in reply? A might is objected, the denial of which could not enter
the mind of any one. The Egyptian synagogues, it is alleged, might in»
deed have boasted of a more extensive collection of the sacred writing?,
although no trace of it is found. The spurious writings of Enoch and
Moses are named, as if these may have been received into their
synagogues, although there is not the remotest cause, even for conjec-
turing this ? What, in such circumstances, may lie eaid in reply ^
■♦
CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 11. i^V
agree in calling their ancient sacred books by a periphrasis,
if not in the same words ^ yet in accordance with the main sub-
ject and contents, by the name " Law, prophets, and other
writings."
1. Jesus, the Grandson of Sirach, after his arrival in Egypt,
about the year 140 before the birth of Christ, translated the
precepts of his Grandfather from Hebrew into Greek. And
in the Former Prologue, (of which, if we may decide from in-
ternal evidences, he is the author), he speaks of the sacred
books of his nation, which had been translated into Greek
even before his time, and he calls them : " Laiv, Prophets, and
the rest of the Books ^ " Let me entreat you," he says, (r)
" to read it, (2. e. his translation) with favour and attention,
and to pardon us, wherein we may seem to come short of
some words which we have laboured to interpret. For
the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another
tongue, have not the same force in them : and not only these
things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the
books have no small difference, when they are spoken in their
own language." (w) The Collection of the Hebrew Books is
(t;) In the Former Prologue tojutf, k^i al ?rgo<^»Ts7at/, Kxt tx
i^itTTA Tar ^ifihimi ab (xu^iv t^^ii tyii J*i«?«gair sr jotj/TcTc Xiyo^uiv*. That
this Prologue must be very ancient, appears from this, among other rea-
sons, that we find in it the Hagiographa, (CD'3=inD,) called by a peri-
phrasis ra A6i:rx Tuv 0i0\iaiv, [the rest of the books. ] Before the birth
of Christ, there was no general name, w'hich comprehended all those
writings, that are now called Hagiographa. They must, therefore, have
always been named by a periphrasis. [ In H.E. G. Paulus' Repertory
for Biblical and Oriental Literature, (Repertoriuai fiir bibl. und orient.
Litteratur^, Vol. ii. Article v., pp. 225 — 247, is a comprehensive and
able Dissertation (in German) by Dr. Storr, on the earliest division of
the books of the O. T. See also our author's Introd. to the 0. T., Vol.
1. §. 8 ; Jahn's Introd. to the O. T., P. i. $ §. 1. 103. Bertholdt's
Introd. to the O. & N. T. (in German) Vol. i. § §. 18. 19; and De
Wette's Introd. to the Bible, Vol. i. $ §. 7. 10. Tr. ]
(w) Thus, Jesus the Son of Sirach clearly distinguishes the moral
sentences of his grandfather, (this apocryphal book as it is called), fronj
the Law, the Prophets, and the rest of the Books. Can he therefore have
reckoned the Hehreio original of the precepts among the rest of tfp&
Bookg, (a§ be emitles the H^giograpKa.) or have only conjectured, that
44 CANON OF TIJE OLl> T/KSTAMENT, §. 11.
set forth in this representation, just as it existed at that time in
a Greek Version made in Egypt ; nothing is more probable,
therefore, than that in this passage we have to look for a peri-
phrasis of the Canon of the Egyptian Jews.
In another passage of this Prologue, the translator com-
mends Iiis grandfather, for the study of the " Law, the Prophets,
and the rest of the Books " of his nation, (x) Now his grand-
father lived in Palestine, and studied the Palestine Canon.
As he here speaks, therefore, of the Palestine Canon, as well
as of the Egyptian, in the very same words, does it not follow,
that the Jews in both countries may have had the same Canon T
If that of Palestine was different from that of Egypt, then Jesus
the Son of Sirach must have been led to take hotice of this,
by adding a word or two, or by changing the expression, that
he might speak the more distinctly for his immediate readers
the Egyptians.
2. According to Philo of Alexandria, the Therapeutae, a
fanatical sect of Jews in Egypt, read in their religious as-
semblies, not the fanatical writings of the founders of their
sect, but — " Holy Scriptures," as the " Law, Oracles of the
Prophets, Psalms of Praise to God, and other Books, by which,
knowledge and the fear of God are promoted and perfect-
ed." iy) Here Philo speaks, not indeed of the sacred books
his translation would in future be enumerated among them ? This an-
cient passage is refutation enough of the might of the Zurich Library,
Th. I. S. 177: "Which is proved by the appellation Moses, the Prophets,
and Writings, since under this title ( i. e. urilings), might be compre-
hended all pscudepigrapha and apocryphal writings of recent times."
What a nothing is a mere possibility, when there are in opposition to it
very probable considerations!
(jx) 'the Former Pre Icgiie : b irsLTint f/.cu 'Ixtf-ouc h) ttXuov tdvrov J'cvi
itc T* nh TeS fOfAcu K'it toay Tr^opHra^v xdi tuv etAAav TroLt^iuy fii^Kiuv
dtayyoffiv. [ My grandfather Jesus, being much devoted to the study of
the Law, and the Prophets, and the other books of our fathers. Tr.]
(i;) Philo dc Vita CorAcmpl. 0pp., T. ii, p. 476. ed Mang. p. 893. ed.
Frankf. '£» eKar» <ri oiKict (according to the Frankf. ed. i^as-do ii
Irrii einnfjict) ligoy, o K*\urai aifxxiiii jta?/ f/ovarinptov, h a' fAovSufAtvet Tci
row ffi^vou /3/ou fxv^rigiA rtxouvrat, fA«itv ilfKofJ-i^o^Tt;, fAti trotof, fci»
*SflcANON or Tlifi OLD TESTAMENT, §. ij:. 45
of the Egyptian Jews in general j but only of those, which the
fanatical Therapeutae held sacred, and introduced into their
religious assemblies. But that the Therapeutae did not differ
from the other Egyptian Jews, in regard to their sacred books,
is evinced by the strict accordance of this periphrasis of the
Canon, with that given by Jesus the Son of Sirach, and by the
Palestine writers.
3. In the same manner that Jesus the Son of Sirach divides
the Egyptian Canon into three parts, and thence entitles it ;
so does the New Testament divide the Palestine Canon into
the " Law, Prophets and Psalms." Luke, xxiv. 44.
4. And with the Therapeutae in Egypt, Josephus also very
minutely accords, in his description of the Palestine Canon.
According to him, it contained " the Books of Moses, the
Prophets, Psalms of praise to God, and writings on moral
subjects." (z)
Although it does not admit of being absolutely demonstrated
from these considerations, that the Canon was the same in the
two countries ; yet it may hence be very probably conjectured.
To attain greater certainty on the subject, we will endeavour
to describe the Canon of the Egyptian and that of the Pales*
tine Jews, separately, from their own writers.
axxflt 1 6 fit V s KAi xlyiA Qiayria-Bhrci S'ldi it ^o ^ n t St v Kit v /ut v o v e
Kit T i £ \KA, oic hiTinH KXt ti/TiJiiia vvvaiu^ovrxi nit Ttxttov*ra.t
, . . . . 'Evruyj(^itofrts yi^ rait ti^oic y^x/u/xta-t, 9iASffO(^oy«-/ riiv ir«Tgiof
flXoaopiAV, ct'A.A«)/Ogou»Ttc. eTTuS'p vvfx&oKa rai Twr ^»tmc igjuijt/ac ro/Ut-
^Qvri ^unaii u.ziiiU.^u(A(JLm^, h virovoixtt J'uKov/uiiviK. 'En tTi abrolc
itxt auyy^iufA.oiTA na\*tce* dv^^uf, oT TWf «ijg«a-iac dk^^)iyi'rai ytvdfjctyet
rrawi fAiH(xUa T»c h TO<c <tKKnyo^QUfA.aoti li'i*t eiTriMntt. [ Each com-
munity has a sacred house, called a sanctuary or monastery, in
which recluses devote themselves to the mysteries of the holy life.
They take nothing into it, neither food, nor drink, nor such other tilings
as are required for the use of the body ; but laws, and oracles divinely
communicated by the prophets, and hymns, and the other (books),
by which knowledge and piety are promoted and perfected They
study the Sacred Scriptdres. They have also
compositions of ancient worthies, who, being founders of their sect, left
many records Tr.]
(«) JosEPHus contra Ap., lib. i. $ 8. [ See the passage cited below,
46 CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 12. 13.
II. Canon of the Jews in Egypt.
§. 12.
Sources.
We collect, first of all, the testimonies of the Canon of the
Egyptians from Egyptian Jews. Especial care, not to wan-
der in inextricable labyrinths, requires that we here altogether
omit the opinions of the Egyptian Christians on the Canon
of the Old Testament. These are too recent to bear formal
testimony ; without settled principles, and from capricious
views, they merely pronounce opinions on the value of parti-
cular books of the Old Testament, and the use which may be
made of them ; and such opinions can be of no decisive
weight. (§. 7.) Hence too, as we learn from Origen, Jerome,
Ruffin, and Augustine, they admired apocryphal books, which,
among the Egyptian Jews, as we shall see below, were held
in no repute whatever.
We cannot therefore use as sources, from which to derive
our account of the Egyptian Canon, even the fathers that have
been named; but merely the Alexandrian Version of the
Old Testament, and Philo.
§. 13.
I. Alexandrian Version.
The Alexandrian Version is here mentioned, because it
has been used in modern times, as a source ; in my view, it is
inadmissable. (a)
(«) Chr. FriDv Schmidh historia antiqua et vindic. Canonis V. e\
N. r. p. 12r,
CANON OP THE OLD TESTAMENT, ^. 13. 4!tI
L It is asserted, that the Alexandrian Version, in the most
ancient times, may have contained only as many books as we
now commonly enumerate in the Canon of the Old Testa-
ment. — This, however, has not hitherto been proved, but
only decided by authorities. And whence was it to be
proved ? " From the accounts of the origin of the Alex-
andrian Version ? " — because Eleazar may have sent to Egypt
a Hebrew MS. (for the forming of this Version,) of which,
however, we shall be left to conjecture, that it was transcrib-
ed from a genuine copy in Jerusalem, which contained all
our present canonical books ? — But is it even certain, that
Eleazar was under the necessity of sending to Egypt a Hebrew
MS., for the use of the Alexandrian translators, as the roman-
cer Aristeas pretends ? [h) Yet granting, that his account of
a copy directed from Jerusalem to Egypt might be correct —
is it not again asserted, what should first be proved, that the
Palestine Canon may have then contained just as many books
as we now enumerate in it ? What reasoning in a circle ! —
Nay, if we meant to conclude any thing from the account
given by Aristeas and his Epitomist Josephus : it would fol-
low, that only the five books of Moses belonged to the Ca-
non of the Alexandrians. For according to Aristeas and
Josephus, Eleazar is alleged to have sent to Egypt a manu-
script of the V fA g only, the pentateuch ; even Philo allows,
that at first, only the five books of Moses were translated.
2. The Alexandrian Version was gradually formed, at
diflferent times, from different inducements, and by differ-
ent learned men. If it had already been decided by other
testimonies, that all the books, which our editions of the Bible
contain, might have possessed canonical authority from the
most ancient times, and that they might have actually been
translated, all, at one time, by an individual, or by an associa-
tion of learned Jews in Egypt : then would the conclusion be
(6) HoDY, dt bibliorum text. 4>ng. ; wad J. G. Eichhoris's Repert,
Th. I. S. 266. ss.— [ See also Prideaux, Connex. P. ii. B. i. An. 277 :
and WaiSToy, AutheniicI: Renords, P. ii. p. 493 , Lond., 1727. Tr. "]
48 CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. VS,
in a measure probable, that, on that account, they may have
been presented to the Egyptian Jews, at one time, in a Ver-
sion ; as hke value and like authority may have been attribut-
ed to them. But this has not been the case ; and the book of
Isaiah, for example, w^hich however must necessarily have been
a part of our Canon from the very first, was extant in Greek
at a much more recent date than the books of Moses.
3. And if even all might have been translated at once, yet
then, an inference of their complete canonical authority, found-
ed on this, would rest upon an unstable foundation and basis.
For the original occasion of this work is unknown. If the
desire of the Jews, to be able, in tlieir own synagogues, to
read the books of their religion in the Greek language, might
have led to this Version ; then only could it have been pre-
sumed, not without some foundation, that merely the canonical
would have been selected, and that the uncanonical, at least
those at hand, would have been deemed worthy of no transla-
tion. But all antiquity pronounces it an undertaking, merely
literary. Ptolemy Philadelphus wished to have reposited in
his library, the — books of the Mosaick Law, or the Jewish
Scriptures in general ? — translated indeed into Greek, be-
cause the original was not understood by the Greeks in Egypt ;
and with such a purpose, many apocryphal writings must have
been just as important to him as any inspired book, which, in
the library of a heathen, had no preference to one merely
human.
4. In fine, some of our apocryphal writings, in a transla-
tion, vfere actually put into the hands of the Egyptian Jews,
at a very early date : for example, the sentences of Jesus
Sirach, the Epistle of Mordecai, concerning the Feast .of
Purim, &c. (c)
(c) See the Former Prologue to Jesus Sirach; and then the Greek
Version of the book of Esther, at the end. [ On the subjects in this
section, Eichhorn is very able, in his Introduction to the 0. T., Vol. i.
^. 161 — 183., and in his Repertory, (as quoted in the preceding note,)
Vol. I,, the concluding article, (in German), On the Sources, from which
the different accounts of the rise of the Alexandrian Version have been de-
CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 13. 14. 49
Let it not be objected, that if this version had not com-
prised strictly all canonical Scriptures, with a rejection of
all apocryphal, it could have acquired no such general
authority. For it is known, that the Alexandrian Version
was half deified, on account of a prevailing story, that the
fipirit of inspiration rested upon the translators !
i 14.
II. Pm LO. Flourished ^. i>. 4 1 .
Philo of Alexandria * is the only source remaining, from
which we can draw, for our investigation of the contents of
the Alexandrian Canon. He lived just at the time, from
which our investigation commences ; at the time of Christ
and the Apostles, (§. 8.) Now he gives us indeed, no where
in his writings, a full account of the Canon of the Old Testa-
ment ; but here and there, in passing, he throws out, as if by
the way, separate declarations, which evince to us his opinion,
and probably even the opinion of his brethren, on the value
and the authority of particular books of the Old Testament.
rived. See also Jahn's Introduction to the O. T., P. i. $. 34 — 37;
Horne's Introd., Vol. ii. P. i. Ch. v. S. i; and Bertholdt's Introduc-
tion, Vol. II. $. 155 — 159. For an ample account of the best works, on
the principal topicks suggested by the Alexandrian Version, particularly
on the Letter of Aristeas, its editions, translations, authenticity, and the
publications which illustrate it ; and on the Criticism and Exegesis of
the Septuagint in general, see E. F. C. Rosenmuller's Manual for the
Literature of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis, (in German)^ Vol. ir., on
the Alexandrian Version, Part in. Ch. i — v. pp. 344—458., GUtlingen^
1798. Tr. ]
* [ De Wette, in the Introduction to his Archaiology, (in German),
§. 8., supplies a series of the best references, on the credibility and the
Hebrew learning of Philo. See also Eichhorn's Introd. to the O. T.,
Vol. II. $. 339. a; and Horne's Introd., Vol. n. P. i. Ch. vii, S, m.
— 7V.1
50 CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 14. 15.
Yet they are nothing but scattered fragments ; and no whole
can be recovered from them: yet these fragments must
be extremely useful to us, in the want of other more com-
plete accounts.
§. 15.
1. Philo on the Apocrypha.
Philo was acquainted with the apocryphal writings of the
Old Testament ; for he borrows phrases from them. But
he does not even once cite a single one, much less allegorize
them, or establish by them his views, (d) Thus, the fact that
he takes no notice of them, did not proceed from unacquaint-
ance with them, which might scarce have been supposed in
regard to a man of such extensive reading ; but probably be-
cause he esteemed them lightly, and — is it too hasty a con-
clusion, if I add ? — because he did not place them among the
Scriptures, which his age regarded as holy and divine. For
his neglect of them goes very far. He does not once pay
them that deference which he shows to a Plato, Philolaus,
Solon, Hippocrates, Heraclitus, and others, from whose writ-
ings he often inserts whole passages. («)
(d) Thus positive are the words of Hornemann, (observationes ad
illustrationem doctrinae de canone V. T. ex Philone, p. 28. 29.) ; and as
he asserts, that he read Philo's writings throughout, with a view to as-
certain his opinion of the Canon, he has a right to expect, that no doubt
may be raised upon his positive declaration. I shall therefore chiefly
follow him in this section, with the exception of some of his views, in
regard to which I am of a different opinion : — as to the others, his obser-
vations shall be enlarged by additions.
(e) The Zurich Library, (Th. i. S. 178.) objects : " Philo does not
" cite the Apocrypha. But as little as his silence on some canonical
" Scriptures proves, that they were not in the Canon of the Egyptian
" Jews ; so little does his silence on the Apocrypha prove this of them."
Entirely correct: an argument derived from silence no one will call
strong; but it does not deserve, however, to be passed over. Still it is
CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 15. 51
Whoever examines the Indexes to the editions of Philo,
particularly the edition of Mange y, will find in them, it is
true, so many passages quoted from the Apocryphal writings
of the Old Testament, that Philo might seem to have made
great use of them. Yet the passages cited in the Indexes,
here as well as elsewhere, are very deceptive. Some refer
certainly a remarkable fact, that Philo quotes no one of our apocryphal
hooks, although they were so near to him, and the contents, at least of
of one, was so well suited to his purpose. Had there been none adapt-
ed to his spirit of allegorizing : what could be founded upom their not
being used ? But now, his silence concerning thera must at least attract
attention to such.
" The circumstance proves, that Philo never quotes these books, but
" not that he rejects them. Some, perhaps, that were most congenial
" with his meditations, had not yet been published ; as the Wisdom of
" Solomon, (which some are so ready to ascribe to him.)" And yet the
Author asserts in the very next page, that even Josephus may have met
with the Wisdom of Solomon, the third book of Esdras, Tobit, Baruch,
Additions to Daniel and Esther, appended to the Greek Bible. And the
Grecian Jew, Philo, was not acquainted with the books : the so well-
read Philo was so unread in the writings of his own nation ! ! !
" Others," the Author proceeds, " he never had occasion to quote ;"
— which certainly is very probable, of many apocryphal, as it is of some
canonical books. " Furthermore, he might reject the Apocrypha, with-
" out therefore deciding on the opinion of the Grecian Synagogue con-
" cerning them. Even the historical contents of the Sacred Scrip-
" tures he did not highly esteem, and his way of thinking, as he
" had formed it by the Platonick Philosophy, was perhaps as diflFer-
" ent from the way of thinking among other Jews, as that of Maimo-
•' nides, Orobius, and Moses Mendelssohn, from the views and opinions
** of their Jewish cotemporaries." But did he dare in this case to pro-
raulge it in writings ? Did he dare to depart from the faith of his whole
nation, without incurring the severe consequences of a grievous heresy ?
Have the Jews of superior intelligence who are named, and any not
named, publickly promulged in writings their departure from their na-
tion's faith ; or have they done so without great opposition ? Besides,
it is indeed assumed only as probable, that his opinion of the Canon may
have been the national opinion; his scattered expressions, indeed, are
collected, only with a view to ascertain what the most learned and
famous man among the Alexandrain Jews thought of the Hebrew Scrip-
tures ; and as there are no traces of his having departed, in writings,
from the faith and opinions of his Ration, it is accordingly presum-
ed, that in hira maybe found even the opinions of his EevPTiAy cos-
TEMPORARIES T>n the Carron
b*Z CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, §i 1*^>. 16, 17.
merely to notes of the editor, in which sometimes a word,
sometimes a various reading is illustrated by a passage of an
apocryphal book ; (/ ) but sometimes such passages are re-
ferred to, because Philo has asserted something, either swii-
lar (g) or directly the reverse, (h)
§. 16.
2. Philo on the Canonical zuritings of the Old Testament.
HoRNEMANN arranges the books of the Old Testament, ac-
cording to the expressions used by Philo, in three classes :
1. Books, which arc cited wilh the express addition, that they wire of divine
origin.
2. BookSf which are but casually cited.
3. Books, which he never mentions.
We shall indeed here also collect Philo's opinions on the writ-
ings of the Old Testament, severally, in the order stated ; but
distinguish with precision those books that Philo does not
speak of decidedly, which Hornemann has not always done.
First Class. Writings, to which Philo attributes a
divine origin.
All the books, which are of divine origin according to
thilo, are in his phraseology works of Prophets. Yet he
does not always apply to the authors of such the appellation
(/) Hornemann, de eanone Philonis, has culled, from the Indexes,
(p. 31. note n.) the passages of this class, which, however, to save room,
I shall not transcribe.
(g) See the Collection of these passages at the place cited, p. 20.
note m.
(h) The sStne, p. 31. note mm.
CANON OP THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 17. 5ii
■TT^ocpiirvii [Prophet], but varies it for *^o(p>}T>)s dvi^^, is^ocpavrrjg,
^S(fiei(fios oAJ'n^t Mwutfg'wg ^lafl'wTyjff, rig <rwv (poiriiTWV Mwrfscof,
Muv(feug kaT^og, tou flf^otpriTixoiJ ^jacTwriis x°^°^j [ prophetick man,
hierophant, holy man, associate of Moses, one of the attend-
ants of Moses, companion of Moses, member of the prophetick
choir], all of which, with him, are perfect synonymes of
'r^^o(pyirrig [ Prophet ].
The books themselves he calls, sometimes U^ai y^acpai [ Sa-
cred Scriptures ], sometimes *£^a» /3i^Xo< [Sacred Books],
sometimes is^o^ Xoyo? [ Sacred Word ], sometimes le^wraTov
y^a/x.aa [ Most Sacred Writing ], sometimes ra k^o(pavrri^ivra.
[ the hierophant words ], sometimes <r^o(pr)Tixos "Koyog [ Prophe-
tick Word ] or ir^ospyiTixa ^rjiiara [ Prophetick Sayings ], some-
times Xoyjov [ Oracle ] alone, or Xoyjov rod 06ou [ Oracle of God ],
sometimes x^^<^f*°5 [ Response], or to x^tic^sv [ the Response ].
With him all these are synonymes, as appears partly from
the expressions themselves, and partly from a comparison of
the passages where they occur.
To apprehend these expressions in the spirit of Philo, and
to be able thoroughly to investigate the opinions which they
convey, in regard to the sacred books of his nation, we must
here premise his exalted views of a prophet With him,
Prophets are interpreters of God {l^iiyimg tov 0eou), instruments
of God, which he employs to make known that which he
wishes to have made known. They deliver nothing that is
their own, but mere extraneous things, communicated to them
by God, through inward operations. As long as a prophet is
rapt, of himself he knows nothing ; if the divine spirit has only
first taken possession of him ; it then acts upon his soul, as
well as upon his organs of speech — upon the former to reveal
to it things unknown ; upon the latter, so that they give utter-
ance to those words which it imparts, (i)
(i) Philo de monarchia, lib. i. 0pp. Tom. i. p. 222. M. p. 820. Fr.
After having spoken of Moses, he proceeds: l^fjutvuc >*'g «io-/» ol sr^o-
De legibus special., 0pp. T. ii. p. 343. 7rge<j»)T»; ^i /uh -yd^
54 CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 17. 18.
In fine, according to his opinion, Moses was the greatest
prophet. If then Philo intends to speak of the inspiration of
any writer in very strong terms, he makes the prophetick
spirit of Moses the standard, by which he estimates the
prophetick spirit of that writer. Hence the expressions :
MwOrf5W5 ^raT^os, Mwurfs'wj ^la^wrrj?, rig rwv (poiT>jTwv Mwtfgw^,
[ companion of Moses, associate of Moses, one of the attend-
ants of Moses. ]
§. 18.
Tlie FIVE BOOKS OP MosES, Joshua, first book of Samuel,
Ezra.
Of MosES and his five books, Philo expresses himself in
very strong terms. He calls Moses, sometimes 'n'^o(pV'»is
[ Prophet ], sometimes Is^ocpavr^jg [ Hierophant ] (A:), and the
like ; his inspiration is the standard by which he estimates
the inspiration of other writers. (§. 17.) His writings he
calls *f o(pr)Tixoff Xoyd^ [ Prophetick Word ], or 'S^ai /3/,/3Xoi
oi/eTiv 'iS'toV airoepaiiiTiti {airoif ^tyyir a l) tc TntgctTfaV, aK\^ tV/v sg/u»v«yf
yryomt h dyioU, jutrttvtTAfAinu fjist tov xoyia-fxav kai ttoi gxKiXO'gx-
XOTOC T»y T»f 4''/t*'f AK^SltiKlV tTT tTT i^ IT HKdrOg /« KXl eVO/X«K!TeC TOV
3"i/oy TTViv/uAros, kxi nsirav T»y <pccv^; ogyaVoTroiity K^ovovrcg tT* K^t
tv»')(^oZyro( tl( iva^yti SHXeenv dv ir^oS-gcTT/^i/. Quis rerum dwin. haeres
sit, 0pp. T. 1. p. 510. M. p. 517. Fr. : ^rgo^wTwc >«*§ iS'tcv /^h ovSh
dTto<^b'iyytt(ti, aChhoT^tx cTe irxvr*, VTriix^ovvrot ersgoy. De praemiis
et poenis, 0pp. T. ii. p. 417. M. p. 918. Fr. f^iu>ivtvs yai^ Wiv h
(k) PfliLo Alleg., 1. II. 0pp. T. n. p. 66. M. p. 1087. Fr. o Tt^o<p»'ni:.
Alhg., 1. ni. 0pp. T. I. p. 117. M. p. 89. Fr. 6 »«go<;>*yT»f . ihid, 0pp. T. i.
p. 121. M. p. 92. Fr. b li^o<pdyTng kai jrgo(^>iT»?. 7^e gigant., 0pp. T. i.
p. 270. M. p. 291. Fr. o li^o<pdvT>i( o^ytaev KdLi MdcKeLXog B-tim,
Uc. HoRNEMANN, pp. 34. 35., has collected several passages, in which
the quoted expressions are varied for others of the same meaning, and
^^hich, for the sake of brevity, I omit
CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 18. 56'
[ Sacred Books ], &c. (/) He also allegorizes particular
passages of all the five books, and all citations from them are
made in the same exalted terms. Genesis he calls le^ai y^DLcpat
(Sacred Writings] (m); the second book of Moses Jff^d
^i(3\os [ Sacred Book ] (n) ; the third Is^og Xoyog [ Sacred
Word ] (o) ; and the fourth le^wTarev y^afAj^a [ Most Sa-
cred Writing ] (p) ; and lastly, the fifth book, xf^<^f*°^
[ Oracle ] (q) ; and is^os Xoyog [ Sacred Word ]. (r)
The book of Joshua is denominated Xo'yiov tou i'Xsw esou
[ Oracle of the Gracious God ], on the occasion when Ch. i.
5. ia, cited, {s)
From the first book of Samuel, which Philo, after the
manner of all writers who use the Septuagint, calls the first
book of Kings, Ch. ii. 2. is cited with the formula: ws o is^og
Xoyo5 (pr\(fh [ as the Sacred Word saith ]. (j)
From the book of Ezra Ch. viii. 2. is quoted, and the con-
tents of the cited passage are called : '^a. sv ^aifiKixaTs /?»/?-
Xoij ȣ^o(pavTti^c'vra [the hierophant words in the royal
books], (tt)
(Z) Allegor., lib. in. p. 92. M. p. 68. Fr. de Plant, Noe, 0pp. T. u
p. 347. M. p. 230. Fr. de congressu quaer. erudit. gratia, 0pp. T. i. p.
543. M. p. 448. Fr. 6 7r^o<pn'riKoc x6yo(. de vita Mods, lib. in. Opp,
T. II. p. 163. M. p. 681. Fr. Jig** fiijiKot. On this also, Hornemann
has several passages, p. 36., in which these expressions are varied for
others of like signification.
(m) De mundi Opif., 0pp. T. i. p. 18. M. p. 16. Fr. For similar ex-
pressions, see de Mrah., p. 1. T. n. M. p. 349. Fr. Resipuit Noe, T- h
p. 400. M. p. 28l.Fr., &c.
(n) De migrat. Abrah., 0pp. T. i, p. 438. M. p. 390. Fr., &c.
(o) Lib. III. Alleg.y T. i. 0pp. p. 85. M. p. 1007. Fr. Desomniis,
Opp. T. I. p. 63S. M. p. 377. Fr.
(p) De eo quod Deus sit immutab., Opp. T. i. p. 273. M. p. 249. Fr,
De migrat. Abrah., Opp. T. i. p. 457. M. p. 409. Fr.
(q) De migrat. Abr., Opp. T. i. p. 454. M. p. 405. Fr.
(r) De somniis, Opp. T. i. p. 657. M. p. 601. Fr.
is) De confus. ling., Opp. T. i. p. 430. M. p. 344. Fr.
(0 De temulent., Opp. T. i. p. 379. M. p. 261. Fr.
(a) De confus. Unguarum, Opp. T. i. p. 427. M, p. 341. Fr.
56 CANON OP THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 19.
§. 19.
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Zechariah, Psalms,
Proverbs.
The prophet Isaiah Philo calls o raXaj •3r'^o(p>jT»i5 [the
ancient Prophet], {v) and his prophecies cr^wpiiTJxa ^%aTa
[ Prophetick Sayings], (w)
Jeremiah he denominates ^^otp^jTrjj, iivgrisy Ie^o(pavTrjj, [Pro-
phet, Initiated, Hierophant ], and the passage Ch. in. 4. which
he adduces, he calls x^'^^M'O^ [ Oracle ]. {x) In another
place, Jeremiah is described as " a member of the prophetick
choir, who spake in ecstasy:" 'rou ir^oqivirmu Sja^wng^ X°^°^>
og xarairvsuo'&s/s ^vSouCjwv avscr^'hiy^aro. (y) And elsewhere he
says, that God, " the Father of all things, hath spoken by the
prophetick mouth of Jeremiah :" 6 irarr,^ twv oXwv ^^eWjo's
(^/d <3r'^o(p>)TJXou ^ojxarog Is^SfAiou). (2)
Of the Minor Prophets, two only are cited in the works
of Philo : Hose A and Zechariah.
HosEA XIV. 8. Philo calls xf^<^^=^ "^^i^- '^'vi twv <3r^o9*j<rwv
[an Oracle of a certain Prophet], (a) and Hos. xiv. 24. ^o^arj
'jr'^o^rjTix^ >f«3ritfSsvTa ^ja^u^ov -x^^rid^ov [the glowing oracle, ut-
tered by the prophetick mouth]. (6) Zechariah he deno-
minates, on citing Ch. VI. 13., MwuCtw^ kaT^og^ [companion
of Moses], (c)
The Psalms are largely quoted by Philo ; but, for the most
part, without the addition of their high origin. David is ho-
noured with the same epithets as Moses ; he is called, some-
(») De Somniis, Opp. T. i. p. 681. M. p. 1132. Fr.
(w) De mutat. nom., Opp. T. i. p. 604. M. p. 1071. Fr.
(x) De Cherubim, Opp. T. i. p. 147. 148. M. p. 116. Fr.
(3/) Dc confus. lingu.j Opp. T. i. p. 411. M. p. 326. Fr
(s) De profugis, Opp. T. i. p. 575. M. p. 479. Fr.
(a) Deplantat. Noe, Opp. T. i- p. 350. M. p. 233. Fr
(6) De mutat. nom., Opp. T. i. p 599. M. p. 1066. Fr
(cj De confus, lingu., Opp. T. i, p. 414. M. p. 329. Fr.
CANON OV THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 19. 20. 57
times 'n:^o(p'i}rrig [ Prophet ], (d) sometimes -jf^oqj^jTirij dv7?V [ pro-
phetick man ], (e) sometimes ^scfie'Kftog dv?!^ [ holy man ], (/)
sometimes " associate of Moses, who was not an inferior :''
Mcdufl'swg ^laifCirifis og oup^i rwv ^fjusXyifisvcov ^v ; (g-) sometimes iraroos
•MwUtfiwg. (h)
Of Solomon, as author of the Proverbs, he expresses him-
self just as highly. He calls him a member ^x rou &s»ou x^^S^^
£ of the divine choir ], (i) and in another place tIs twv 9ojt>]twv
Mwtfiwff [ one of the attendants of Moses ]. (A)
§. 20.
Second Class. Writings of which Philo makes only casual
mention, without the addition of a divine origin.
From the book op Judges — ( *j twv p^yj^arwv dvay^acpofxsV/j
^i^Xog [ the Record-book of the Judges ], Philo calls it — )
Ch. VIII. 9. is quoted, according to the Septuagint. (/)
Job XIV. 4. he merely interweaves with his own text, with-
out further addition, (m)
The FIRST BOOK OF Kings, ( the third, according to Philo
and the Septuagint ) is repeatedly quoted, {n)
{d) De agricult., 0pp. T. i. p. 308, M. p. 195. Fr.
(e) Qmm rerum divin. hcEres dt, Opp. T. i. p. 515. M. p. 522. Fr.
(/) De plant. Noe, Opp. T. i. p. 344. M. p. 218. Fr. compare de mun-
do, Opp. T. u. p. 608. M. p. 1157. Fr.
(g) De plantat. Noe, ed. Fr. p. 219.
(h) ^uod a Deo mittantur somnia, Opp. T. i. p. 691. M. p. 1141. Fr.
(i) De cbrUtate, Opp. T. i. p. 362. M. p. 244. Fr.
(k) De congressu quaer, erud. gratia, Opp. T. i. p. 544. M. 449. Fr.
(l) De confus. lingu., Opp. T. i. p. 424. M. p. 339. Fr. [ The peri-
phrasis here mentioned occurs a few lines before the quotation, near
the bottom of p. 338. in the Frankfort edition. Tr. ]
(m) De mulat. nam., Opp. T. i. p. 584. M. p 1051. Fr.
(») De Gi^ant., Opp. T. i. p. 274. M. p. 295. Fr. Compare 1 Sam.
II. 5. De ebriet., Opp. T. i. p. 380. M, p. 261. 262. F. comp. 1 Sam.
1. 14. 15. De migrat. Abr., Opp. T. i. p. 467. M. p. 418. Fr. ; comp.
1 Sam. X. 23. De mulat. nam., Opp. T. i. p. 600. M. 1067. Fr. ; comp,
S
58 CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. '20. 21. 2*2.
Even many particular Psalms are merely cited, without
mention being made of a high origin, (o)
§. 21.
Third Class. Writings^ of which Philo makes no men-
tion 7ohatsoever,
Philo never speaks of:; — 1. Nehemiah ; 2. Ruth; 3. Es-
ther ; 4. Chronicles ; 5. Daniel ; 6. Lamentatio?js ; 7,
Ecclesiastes ; 8. The Song op Solomon.
§. 22.
Some notes and results of the preceding investigation.
I. Among the Jewish Scriptures, the divine origin of which
Philo expressly recognises, we may however, very probably
even in Philo's sense, enumerate the following: —
1. The second book op Samuel, and the two books op
Kings ; for he calls the first book of Samuel Is^ov Xo/ov [ the
X Sam. 11. 5. QwotZ Beus sit imm,, 0pp. T. i. p. 293. M. p. 313. Fr.
comp. 1 Kings xvii; 10.18; ix. 9. De migrat. Abr., 0pp. T. i. p. 441.
M. p. 394. Fr. Q_uis rerum divin. haeres sit, Opp. T. i. p. 483. M. p.
491. Fr. comp. 1 Kings, iX. 9.
(9) Quod Deus sit immut., Opp. T. i. p. 284, M. p. 304. Fr. comp.
Ps. 01. 1 ; T.sxv. 8 ;— and there, the following pages, comp. Ps. lxiii. 11.
De migrat. Mrah.,0])T[). T, i. p. 460. M. p. 412. F. comp. Ps. lxxx. 5 ;
xLii. 3.; De mutat. mm., Opp. T. i. p. 59G. M. p. 1062. F. ; comp. Ps.
xxn. 1. Quod a Deo mitt, somnia, Opp. T. i. p. 632. M. p. 576. F. comp.
Ps. xxvi.T. De confus. ling., Opp. T. i. p. 411. M. p. 327. F. comp.
Ps. xLiV. 13. De profugis, Opp. T. i. p. 595. M. p. 459. F. comp. Ps.
cxm.25. De som7dis, Opp. T. i. p. 691. M. 1141. F. comp. Ps. xlvi.
5. From these passages it is clear, that all books of Psalms, which were
collected at different times, arc cited by Philo.
CANON Oi' TUtl OLD TE5TA:^ENT^ §. 2'2. 59
feJacred Word ], (§. 18.) Now he considers, with all writers
who follow the 8eptuagiiit, the two books of Samuel, and the
two books of Kings, as a zvhole or as one book, wliich they
divide into four parts or four books. Thus, whoever de-
clares the first of these four boolts to be Is^os K6yos [ the Sa-
cred Word ], declares also the other three to be so.
2. All twelve Minor Prophets. As far back as we
can trace the literary history of the Bible, the twelve mi-
nor prophets have ever been regarded as one book ; Ecclus.
XLix. 10. Whoever, therefore, quotes only one of the Minor
Prophets — (and Philo cites two of them, with the express re-
cognition of a divine origin,) §. 19.) ) — virtually cites all.
IL As Philo was certainly acquainted with the apocry-
phal books, but has never quoted any one of them ; (§. 15.)
it can be safely assumed, that all writings of his nation,
which he thinks proper only to quote, he considers authentick,
ancient, and sacred Scriptures. Thus, even a mere citation
of a book is evidence to us, that Philo had it in his Canon ;
and the books which, with a view to be impartial, we have
hitherto classed according to the manner of their being cited,
we may without doubt throw into one class.
III. As a consequence of this, the following books it is
certain belonged to . the Canon of Philo, or of the Egyptian
Jews :—
1. The FIVE BOOKS of
Moses.
7. Isaiah.
2. Joshua.
8. Jeeemiah.
3. Judges.
9. 12 MinortProphets.
4. 2 BOOKS OF Samuel.
10. Psalms.
5. 2 BOOKS OF Kings.
11. Proverbs.
6. EZKA.
12. Job.
IV. Even the others may have stood in the Egyptian Ca-
non. Probably Ruth was an appendix to the book of
Judges ; Nehemiah the second part of Ezra ; and the La-
mentations OF Jeremiah, it is probable, were appended to
to his prophecies, as in Palestine (§. 10. 11. and 42), &c.
GO CANON or THE OLD TEST AMEKT, §. 22. ^3- 24.
Philo is only silent on this point, as he is on the existence of
the books. Our knowledge of the Egyptian Canon is thus
not complete. But neither this want of completeness, nor
the silence of Philo, can w^eaken the canonical authority of
any book, as long as it is warranted by no other considera-
tions. (^. 14.>
§. 23.
Canon of the Therapcutae.
In conclusion, it is scarcely worth while to examine, what
books particular Jewish sects in Egypt may have comprised
in their Canon; it belongs rather to the history of their
opinions, than to the history of the Canon. In our investiga-
tion, moreover, merely the opinion of the greater part of the
Jews, but not of the several sects among them, can be of
weight. It is, how ever, very probable, that on the subject of
the Canon, at least the fanatical Therapeutae did not differ
from the rest of the Egyptian Jews. (§. 11.) (p)
III. Canon of the Jews in PALESTiNE.
§.24.
Sources. Canon of the Sadducees and Samaritans.
At the time of Christ and the Apostles, among the differ-
ent sects and parties into which the Jews in Palestine were
divided, there appears to have been no dispute as to the num-
ber of their sacred books. The Fathers indeed suggest, that
(/>) Sec the passage cited from Philo, in $. 11. — But Josephus d&
hello Jud.^ 1. 11. c. 8. $. 6. at the end, and §. 12. cannot be used in proof-
It says nothine; further, than that the Efskves had sacred books.
^ OF TBI
HANOtt OP THE OLD TESTAMENT, §* 24. ^i^jgi'POIl
the Sadducees may be supposed to have rejected all writings
of the Old Testament, except the Five Books of Moses ; (9)
and some modern criticks recognise this conjecture as pro-
bable, because Jesus, on a certain occasion, sought to prove
to the Sadducees the resurrection of the dead (which they
called in question), not from the Prophets and Hagiographa,
but merely from the books of Moses, just as if they attributed
to the former no authority, and no weight in the decision of a
doubtful question, (r)
If the Sadducean sect arose in those ancient times, when at ^
first a part only of our writings of the Old Testament was /
extant, then a difference of opinion on their part, in regard to
the number of the books which belonged to it, admits of being
readily explained : they received only those Scriptures, which
were recognised as sacred before their separation, but reject-
ed all others, because the authors of them may have been
Jevv's not belonging to their sect. But as they first separated
from the great mass at a time, when the Collection of Sacred
Books among the Jews had already been long detennined as |
to its extent, and their Canon had been completed ; as it must 1
not have been difficult for them to reconcile their tenets with '
ALL Writings of the Old Testament, when they accorded
with the contents of the books of Moses : a departure from
the opinion of other Jews, on this point, was not to be ex-
pected, and is hard to explain.
Josephus, who was so minutely informed of the doctrines
of the Pharisees, knew of no opinion peculiar to the Saddu-
cees on this point. He relates merely, that rejecting all tra-
dition, they adhered only to the written law, (s) not stating
how many books they reckoned in their sacred national writ-
Xq) J£RoME inMatlh.; Origen contra Celsum, lib. i.
(r) Matth. xxii. 23; Rich. Simoiv, Hist. Crit. du V. T., liv. i. c. 16.
(s) Josephus, in Antiqq., lib. xni. c. 18 ; according to Havercamp,
[ and Hudson], lib. xin. c. 10. §. 6. [ They allege, that " what is written
ought to be considered the law, but that what is derived from the tra-
dition of the fathers is not to be observed." Tr. 1
Oj^ CANON OP THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 24.
ings. And if he mentions the doctrines, by which the Saddii*'
cees were distinguished from the Pharisees, he does not how-
ever let even one word escape, from which it might be in^
ferred, that these two sects may have thought differently, in
regard to the number of their sacred books. How could
Sadducees have occupied the station of High Priest, if they
had deviated, on so important a point, from the faith of the
whole nation ? And after a Sadducean family, before and at
the time of Christ, had for a long while appropriated to itself
this preferment, how could they have sanctioned the reading
of the Haphtaroth after the Pareshioth, if they had not attri-
buted to the Prophets the same authority which they ascribed
to Moses ? And if we may found any thing on the subjects
agitated by the Pharisees and Sadducees in the Talmud, then
indeed Rabbi Gamaliel * argued the resurrection of the dead,
not only from the books of Moses, but even from the Prophets
and the Hagiographa, without his opponents, the Sadducees,
having objected to the authority and the weight of the latter
in theological controversies. Nay, more than this, they
endeavoured, on the admission of the authority of these
books, to weaken the force of the cited passages from other
considerations. In such circumstances, a conjecture of the
Fathers cannot at all invalidate the opinion, that the views of
the Sadducees and Pharisees were similar, as to the number
of the sacred national books. And if Christ, in disputing with
the Sadducees, proved the resurrection of the dead, by the
five books of Moses only, this may have been merely acci*
dental, (t)
* [ The passage here referred to is Sanhedfin, f. 90. 2 ; and is given
byMEUscHEN, in his JVovum Testamentum ex Talmude el antiquitatibus
Hebraeorum Ulusiratum. See his illustration of Matth. xxii. 29. See
also Jahn's Biblical Archaiology {translated by Upham), P. m. c. i.
^.322. Tr. ]
(t) Basnage, Hisloire des Juifs, T. ii. P. i. p. 325 ff., and from him
Brucker, hist. crit. Phil. T. n. p. 721., have decided this question in the
same manner. Basnage, with a view not to let the good Fathers
be silenced, would only assume, that the Sadducees ascribed a much
CANON OP THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 24. 25. 63
It was therefore the Samaritans alone, who received the
Pentateuch only, and rejected all other writings of our pre-
sent Canon. Even if the cause of their rejection were un-
known,* yet nothing would result from this, against the pre-
sent extent of the Hebrew Canon. They can inform us only
of the private opinion of their body, and not of that of the
Jews. This can be ascertained, only from the New Testa-
ment, JosEPHus, and the Christian Writers of the first century
after the birth of Christ, from a Melito, an Origen, a Jerome,
and from the Talmud. Even the later Fathers are too re-
cent for our investigation.
The Neio Testament.
The New Testament, in numberless passages refers to the
Old, but nowhere enumerates its several constituent parts.
In truth, this was not to be expected. If Christ and the
Apostles refer to the whole, every one at that time knew,
and if he did not know, yet it was in his power to ascertain
with requisite certainty, what books and how many were
comprehended in it. We must therefore avail ourselves
merely of casual citations of particular parts of it ; and for
the very reason that they are merely casual, no full t view of
the Old Testament Canon, as to its whole extent and as to
all its larger and smaller parts, can be expected from the New
Testament. If not the slightest trace of many particular books
greater authority to the Writings of Moses, than to the rest ; but
Brucker has already given the proper answer : that there is to be found
no proof of this, and there is no necessity, on account of any Fathers, to
make use of this desperate resort. It is possible, they were mistaken.
* [ Our author has treated of this, in his Introduction to the 0. T.,
Vd, II. §. 383., On the age of tfie Samaritan Pentateuch. Tr.]
t [ See the Appendix to this Treatise, Note [ A ]. Tr. ]
64 CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. "25. 26. 27.
of our present Canon of the Old Testament is discovered in
the New ; this does not accordingly pronounce their sentence
of condemnation. For the argument, derived from silence,
could then only be demonstrated, if it were practicable to show,
that Christ and the Apostles must have spoken of each book
in particular.
§. 26.
Quotations iji the New Testament.
The Quotations of the Old Testament in the New are of
two kinds. * Some books are quoted for the establishment of
religious truths ; thus^ by the use which is made of them, they
are declared to be divine : these, therefore, without contro-
versy, are held to be Canonical. Others are only cited by
the way, sometimes for illustration, sometimes for parallels.
To the first class, without dispute, belong the books of Moses,
Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Psalms ; to the second, all our
other canonical books of the Old Testament, except the book
of Judges, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, Esther,
Ezra, and Nehemiah, which are not once cited.
§. 27.
2. Josephus. Born A. D. 37.
Josephus, next to the New Testament, is the principal wri-
ter whom it is necessary to consult, in examining the Canon
of Palestine. He was t a cotemporary of the Apostles, and
* r See the Appendix, Note [ B ]. Tr. ]
t [ On the life^ writings^ and credibilily of Josephus, and also on his
Hebrew learning, the best references are given by De Wette in his
Archaiology (in German), the introductory part, ?. 7. Tr. ]
CAT^Oti OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 27. 28. f)5
US a priest, must have had the best knowledge of the Canon
of his nation, since in the temple, as it appears, there was re-
posited a genuine collection of the canonical books. (§. 28.)
He was, moreover, a sagacious investigator of truth, who cer-
tainly has avoided reckoning among the sacred Scriptures of
his nation, any book that was not generally acknowledged to
be so, lest he might increase the number of objections to the
Jewish History, (u) It is therefore much to be regretted,
that he nowhere fully exhibits all the books of his Canon, and
except a general comprehensive enumeration, only permits
himself, here and there to let fall, toward a precise determina-
tion of it, a few passing words.
§. 28.
Whether he presents the general opinion of his brethren^ as to
the Canon of the Old Testament.
He has never applied the word Kavwv to the collection of
the sacred books of his nation ; it was not extant in this sense
at his day. But he speaks of " sacred books, composed by
*• prophets, before the death of Artaxerxes Longimanus, and
" reposited in the temple." (v) This might indeed have been
Josephus' actual view of what we call Kavwv.
And as he exhibits this view, it is manifest, that as a Pharisee,
he entertained no opinion of the Canon of the Old Testament,
which deviated from the opinion of his other brethren ; or, if
he were inclined to a peculiar opinion, that he does not ad-
vance it, at least in the passage mentioned. The very con-
text, in which his notice of the Canonical collection of the
Writings of his nation stands, and the general comprehensive
(u) Read his celebrated passage contra Ap., lib. i. §. 8. at the com-
mencement. - .
<») See below, §. 36. note (a), contra Ap,i lib. i. $. 8. 'Ato M»iia^(»i
bii CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. "JS,.ii\).
expression does not admit of our doubting on the subject.
Thus he says, for instance : " Since Artaxerxes up to our
" times, ali has indeed been committed to writing ; but these
" Scriptures are not held to be as worthy of credit as those
" WTitten at an earher period." IJad Josephus wished to present
his own opinion of the Canon, differing from that which pre-
vailed, he would undoubtedly have expressed himself in terms
more restricted : " I do not consider them to be as worthy of
credit as the former," or " the Pharisees do not consider them
to be as worthy of credit as the former " — especially, as he
elsewhere accurately distinguishes general aiid particular
opinions.
In fine, from many passages, at least of his Antiquitie s, it
is probable, that although he had attached himself to the
sect of the Pharisees in his youth, he left it in his maturer
years. Now as he wrote his books against Apion at a later
period than his Antiquities, he cannot possibly there follow^
the principles of the Pharisees, (zv)
§. 29.
Principal Passage,
Josephus, in the celebrated passage against Apion, designs
to prove the credibility of the Hebrew historians, and of the
history itself at the same time. He refers therefore, partly to
the accordance of profane history with that of the Jews,
partly to the great care with which the historical books of his
nation had been composed. None of the Hebrew historical
books stands in contradiction to the others, because not every
person was permitted at pleasure to record the Hebrew history,
but Prophets were the only historians of the nation. Then
(w) SpiTTLER de usu Versioiiis Alexandrine apud Joseph.uro- Got
tingen^ 1779. pp. 4, 5. ,
t;ANON OF TflE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 29. 6'/
commences the important passage, which is given also by
EusEBius with some trifling variations, (a)
fA^wv $vo ds fAova •n'^og Tor^ «'/xoO'» /3»/3X»(X, tou iravro^ e^ovra Xfovou
<ri9v dvay^acpigv, to, ^ixalod^ dsra (y) •are'ffissufxeva, Kai roili-wv crgWs
(X6V ^^» TO. Mwutfs'w?, a roCs rs vo'ffcoug 'T'e^is'^g* xa/ ri^v t»jj dv^^wcro-
•yoviag flra^a^otfiv, fA£'x§» T/^g aCrou tsXsut'^s. Ourog 6 X^o'vo^ d<jro-
XsjVsi r^i(f-)(i'kiuv oXj'yov srwv. 'Affo 5^ roj^ Mcoutfswj TsXeur^g
f*-X^' '"^^ A^TO^g'^lou, 70U ftSTd Hs^|>iv ns^rfwv ^atfjXs'w^, d^x^^i {^)
q] ^stoL Muiio^v cf^o(p>JToc» Td xar' auroug 'X^a'/PivTOL tfuvsy^a-j^av ^v
r^itfi xa/ 5e'xa (BifSXiotg, A] ^s Xoi-jra/ Ts(f<fa^s v^vovs Big rov
®sov xai Tor^ dv^^w'B'oj^ vTro6r}xas tov ^jou Trs^iiyov(ftv, 'Aato 5s
A^rofg^lou (J-sx?' "^^^^ '^"^' ^JM-^ x^ovou 'yiy^aifrai fAsv sxa^a* 'n'feswg
iJs oux oixoiag rj^ioirai Trig "j* *^o aurwv, 5<d to jm,-)^ ysvsV^aj s-i^v qrojv
^^0(priTWv dx^i/353 &a5oxV« A^Xov 5' ^^<v s^yw, cfw^ ^j/xsr^ rofg i^i'oig
y^dfi/fAaffi ifsiriisuxaij.sv, j TotfouTou yd^ a<wvoj ijdri ^a^wx^ixoroj,
©yra 9r|o(J'd£rvai rig ou5sv, (a) oi;ts d^peXsrv (6) auTwv, oUts fxeradsrvat
^sroXfiwiXff. ndtfi 5s' ^^^/^(puTov e^iv su^ug ^x r^jg 'if^CiTrig ygvstfswg
Iou5a»o»ff, TO vo|xi^£<v (c) aurd 0eou 56yfjia<ra, xai rovTotg ii^iivsiVy [d)
xai u^rs^ auTWV, si dioiy 6vr,(fxsiv tj^s'w^.
" For we have not innumerable books, which contradict
each other ; but only twenty-two, which comprise the history
of all times past, and are justly held to be credible, {according
(x) JosEPHUs contra Ap., lib. i. §. 8; compare Eusebius in his Hisi.
Ecd'Wb. 10. p. m. 103. 104. [ The passage in Eusebius is to be found
in Book iii. c. 10., at the beginning, Tr. ]
* [ Qy /uugiauTif oh url fiiBhietv tta^ fjfjiir, according to Euse-
bius. Tr. ]
Cy) The word fiiT* is wanting in the ancient editions of Josephus; it
has been introduced from Eusebius in modern times.
(a) MostCod. M^. of Josephus and Eusebius omit this a§;t»f' [ '*
is omitted in the Mayence edition of Eusebius, an. 1672. Tr. ] See be-
low, §. 30.
t L '■o'^f ^"^ Eusebius, and in Hudson's edition of Josephus. Tr. J
% [ ir»c »At«ic TTgoa-t^sy toic i^/otc y^aifAfxAo-i, in Eusebius. Tr, ]
(a) OwcTiv is wanting in Eusebius. The sense is the same.
(6) Eusebius has: a<j>«x«iy atf' ahtm.
(c) The false reading ofOfAoi^ui «yr*' has been thus corrected from
Eusebius.
(d) In Evismvs, tpfAhm,
68 CATIOX OF THE OLD TESTjVMENT, §. 29. 30.
to EusEBius : and are justly held to be divine). Five of these
books proceed from Moses ; they contain laws, and accounts
of the origin of men, and extend to his death. Accordingly,
they include not much less than a period of three thousand
years. From the death of Moses onward to the reign of Ar-
taxerxes, {according to Eusebius : from the death of Moses
to the death of Artaxerxes), who, after Xerxes, reigned
over the Persians, the prophets who lived after Moses
have recorded, in thirteen books, what happened in their
time. The other four books contain Songs of praise to
God, and Rules of life for man. Since Artaxerxes up
to our time, every thing has been recorded ; but these writ-
ings are not held to be so worthy of credit, as those written
earlier, because after that time there was no regular succes-
sion of prophets. What faith we attribute to our Scriptures
is manifest in our conduct. For although so great a period
has already elapsed, no one has yet undertaken, either to add
any thing, or to take away, or to alter any thing. For it is,
so to speak, innate with all Jews, [ from their veiy birth ], to
hold these books to be God's instructions, and firmly to stand
by them, nav, if necessity required, gladly to die in their be-
half."
§. 30.
Why Josephus closes the Canon of the Old Testament with
Artaxerxes Longimanus.
As a consequence of this passage, Josephus reckons all
those Writings among the canonical, which were written from
the timeof Moses until the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus.
With the reign ( d^x'^ ) of Artaxerxes Longimanus the collec-
tion was closed — a very general determination, by which, even
Writings that were composed during Artaxerxes' reign belong
to the canon. It is worth while to examine, why Josephus ex-
pressed himself in terms so general ?
Had he known a year, in which the Canon had been com-
pleted in a solemn manner, or a person who had established
it, he would certainly have specified this more precise deter^
mination of time. Most probably, both were unknown to
CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, <S, 30. 69
him. Notwithstanding this, he was obliged and he also wished
to state the time, since which no books had been written, in
as great a degree worthy of credit — there was therefore no
means remaining, but to take the collection itself, to ascertain
the latest book in it, and to determine the time to which
this belonged. Now the book o/* Esther was either actually,
or at least in the opinion of Josephus, the latest among them
all ; it belonged, either actually, or at least in the opinion of
Josephus, to the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus ; (e) accord-
ingly, he closes the canon with his reign. (/)
(e) Of this we have Josephus' own acknowledgment; Antiq., xi.
c. 6. $. 1. fF. "Ey^a.'^i /« M3t.^^oj(^*ios roig h tm ^A^rit^i^^ou ^na^i-
jisajf ^aa-tv 'loytTa/oic, nrcturite 7rct^x<puXaia-a-iiv rite ;)/ueg*c, »«« togTwr
ayuf AuTciff k. t. X. [ These words occur near the close of §, 13:
And Mordecai wrote to the Jews who lived under the reign of Artax-
erxes, to observe these days, and to commemorate them by a festival.
(/) The Zurich Library objects : "The book of Esther Josephus
" professes to enumerate in the Canon, together with all books written
'* under Artaxerxes, and with this he would close the Canon ; as if he
■" could not close it with Nehemiah, whose history necessarily goes
*' back to the beginning of Artaxerxes' reign, or with Malachi, whose
"" real time is not known ! Both might have been written under the Ar-
■" taxerxes of Josephus. The book of Esther was probably first written
•" after Artaxerxes, under whom the historical facts purport to have
•' taken place. Already indeed, as is mentioned in the tenth Chapter,
" there was on record, in the Chronicles of the Persian Kings, all that
'* had taken place, after the elevation of Mordecai, as long as Mordecai
•" sat at the helm. At least, that is alleged. And if we even refer to
•' the Greek subscription in the Supplement, the book was first publish-
" ed by an unknown person, in a translation, at the time of the Ptole-
" mies in Egypt." So far the long objection, — to the force of which
nothing more is wanting, than that our opinion of the time, to which the
book of Esther, or the history of it belongs, or that the opinion oithc
Author of the Greek translation on this point should influence the ques-
tion agitated. AH results in Josephus' views of it } he must still be his
own interpreter ; and according to his express declaration, the book of
Esther belongs to the time of Artaxerxes. He could not close the Ca-
non of the Old Testament with Nehemiah, because he placed him and
his historical book in the time of Xerxes. Nor could Josephus make
Malachi the most recent book, ('even were it the most recent ), be-
cause it was unknown to him? under Avhich Persian reign he way have
proraulged his account?.
70 CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, §.30. 31.
" But why does he not rather say : Esther is the latest
book ?" Perhaps, because this determination of the time,
when the Canon became complete, was not generally under-
stood, and it was requisite previously to examine anew, what
was the date of the book of Esther ; perhaps, with a view to
elude the objection : that Esther was not found at the end ! In
truth, Esther might have always been the latest book, and yet
not occupy the last place in the Canon, because, according to
the plan of the collector of the Canon, the Supplementary
Records of the whole scripture history, the books of Chro-
nicles, must have closed the collection, and moreover, ac-
cording to the New * Testament, it did then actually close it,
as in our present editions.
How many difficulties are removed by this remark founded
on the writings of Josephus, and how many questions are at
once answered by it, may be perceived on its application to
the modern controversies relative to the Canon. .
According to Eusebius and most nianuscripts of Josephus,
the Canon of the Old Testament was first closed with the
DEATH of Artaxerxes — a determination, which does not
much differ, at least in sense, from the preceding.
§. 3L
Whi/ Josephus recognises XKii Canonical Books.
According to Josephus, the Hebrews had xxii sacred
BOOKS. He thus reckons with his nation, according to the
Hebrew Alphabet. For Origen, and other Fathers say
* [ Our author observes, in his Introd, to the O. T., Vol. i. §. 7: —
Christ entitles the Hagiograplia by the Psalms, as the first book, (Luke
XXIV. 44,) ; and designing to adduce, from the history of the O. T., ihe
first and the last instance of the shedding of innocent blood, he cites the
case of Abel from Genesis, as the Jirst book of the O. T. ; and from the
books of Chronicles, as the last of all, he cites the case of Zacharia?.
Matt, xxiii. 35. Tr.]
CANON OP THE OLD TESTAftfENT, §. 31. 3^2. 7i
expressly, (§ §. 43, 44.) that in the Canon, a reference was
had to the number of consonants in the Hebrew Alphabet ;
even analogy* confirms this. Therefore, if properly
reckoned the Jews had strictly but twenty- two books, we
may perhaps so arrange merely those extant, that they will
admit of being restored to twenty-two.
§. 32.
1. General Computation.
Five books belonged to Moses ; thirteen were composed
by Prophets between Moses and Artaxerxes Longimanus ;
beside these, there were also extant four books on moral
subjects.
If we may follow a later writer, Origen, who with Josephus
states the number of the sacred books of the Old Testament
to be twenty-two, and enumerates them all severally, we
might arrange the thirteen of the Second Class in this man-
ner :
1. Joshua. 7. Esther.
2. Judges and Ruth. 8. Isaiah.
3. TWO BOOKS OF Samuel. 9. Jeremiah's prophecies
AND LAMENTATIONS.
4. TWO BOOKS OF KiNGS. 10. EzEKIEL.
5. TWO BOOKS OF Chronicles. 11. Daniel.
6. FIRST AND SECOND BOOK OF 12. TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS.
Ezra, Ezra AND Nehemiah. 13. Job.
The four books on moral subjects would be :
1. Psalms. 3. Ecclesiastes.
2. Proverbs. 4. the Song of Solomon.
* [The Greeks made the books of Homftr, and those of Theophras-
lus to consist of twenty-four, according to the nmnber of the Greek let»-
ters. See the author's Introduction to the O. T., Vol. i. $, 6, Tr ]
72 CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 32, 33.
But was it a pure fountain from which Origen drew ? Had
not the great revolutions, which affected the Hebrew nation
between the times of Josephus and Origen, a prejudicial in-
fluence even on the collection of their canonical books ?
During this time, either from ignorance, accident, or fraud,
had there not been introduced into the canonical collection,
writings which did not previously belong to it ? Thus may
we propose inquiries ; and although much may be said in reply,
yet it is more advisable, and more worthy of the investigator
of truth, to avoid pursuing this course ; so that no one may
have it in his power, at any time to reproach him with the least
appearance of probability, and say that he is disposed to catch
at something, or to build all upon hypotheses.
Josephus may be his own Commentator : we design to ask
for his views, in regard to particular writings of the Old Testa-
ment, and on his answers below to ground a new computation.
§.33.
2. Vakticvlak Computation, Prefatory remarks.
I premise some observations, which may perhaps shed light
upon the passages, that I shall extract from Josephus, and
may direct our decision on them.
1. All the Writings, which Josephus attributes to Prophets,
belonged to his Canon. For he founds the chief credibility
and integrity of the writings of his nation upon this, that they
were the works of Prophets. (§. 28. 29.)
2. He undoubtedly declares those writings to be canonical,
which he calls 'iSPai (Si^Xoty al <rwv js^wv y^a(pwv /3i/3Xo», Is^cc
v^ajx^aaTa, to, ^v <r^ i£^w dvaksifisva y^ajXfxaTa, and /3jjSXoi 'S'^ocpt;-
csias, [ Sacred Books, the Books of the Sacred Scriptures,
the Writings reposited in the Temple, and Books of Pro-
phecy ]. This is apparent from the words selected, and the
passages to be adduced below leave no doubt of it what-
everc
CANON OF THK OLD TESTAMENT, §. 33. 73
3. With the expressions above mentioned the following are
synonymous : oi^aTa /3»/SXja, /3i/3Xoi 'E/3^aiwv, ^j'^Xoj 'E^ai^
xai [ Ancient Books, Booksof the Hebrews, Hebrew Books ].
This is undoubtedly certain from several passages. — He regard-
ed Daniel as a very important Prophet, the accurate accom-
plishment of whose predictions he often commends in very
strong language (§. 35.). And yet he reckons his book merely
among the /3/^Xoj 'E(3^aixM, and d^x'^Toc ^ifSXia [ Books of the
Hebrews, and Ancient Books ], from which he derives his
history. After he has extracted much from Daniel, he
adds (g) : " Let no one find fault with me, for introducing all
" into my writings, just as I find it m the ancient Books {iv
*« roTs d^uiois /Jj/SXjoj^). For in the very beginning of my
" history, I have already secured myself, in regard to those
" who might require or find fault with any thing, by mention-
" ing, that I should merely translate into Greek the Hebrew
" BOOKS ( 'E/3^a/wv ^j/3Xoj5 ), without adding any thing of my
" own, or taking away any thing."
According to this passage, Daniel, a book replete with
prophecies, written by a prophet, belongs to the ^J^Xot *E.^-
^ai'wv [ Books of the Hebrews ], and to the d^x°'-"^ /5</3Xja
[ Ancient Books ]. — In another place, he cites the incidents
which befel Jonah, just as they stand recorded in the prophet
Jonah, with the introduction only of his own, sometimes
erroneous, explanations ; but at the same time he observes {h) :
that he relates of the prophet, " what he found concerning
him in the Hebrew books ( 'El3^a'ixa7g f3i(3Xmg ) :" — clearly
proving, that by the jSiSXoi E[3^dixai [ Hebrew books ], he
understood the canonical writings of his brethren.
4. All the Writings, which he transferred into the history
of his nation until the time of Artaxerxes, must have been
comprehended in Josephus' Canon. For
I. Josephus grounds the very credibility of the Hebrew
history from Moses to Artaxerxes upon this, that it was writ-
(s;) Antiqq., x. c. 10. §. 6. ed. Havercamp, p. 536. [Hudson, p. 458- ]'
(h) Antiqq., ix. c. 10. «. 3. Hav. p. 497. [ Hud, p. 41P. 1
10
74 CANON OP THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 33.
ten ONLY AND ALONE BY Prophets, and that there were
extant no other historical books, than those composed by
them, (i) Therefore in the history of the Hebrews until Ar-
taxerxes Longimanus, he can have assumed none whatsoever,
except these. So also
II. The most satisfactory evidence proves it. We find
those historical books which he expressly places in his Canon,
for instance, the five books of Moses, the book of Joshua, the
books of Kings (§. 35.), in substance wholly incorporated with
his Antiquities. Of the very same repute, therefore, were the
other sources of his national history until Artaxerxes. In
the mean time it is not to be denied, that he presents ac-
counts, even in the ancient Hebrew history, of which no trace
is to be found in the historical books of the Old Testament.
Probably, he derived these from national traditions, which in
his time were numerous, yet not put on record, but only trans-
mitted from mouth to mouth. Thus, for instance, Paul refers
to a mere tradition, when he makes Jannes and Jambres with-
stand Moses in the miracles wrought before Pharaoh (2 Tim.
iii. 8.) : a tradition, which even Pseudo- Jonathan has intro-
duced into his targum, Exod. i. 15 ; vii. 11.
5. All Hebrew books of every kind, which were extant in
the time of Josephus, from the times before the death of Ai*-
taxerxes, he deems without exception canonical. For he con-
cludes his account of the Canon of his nation with the remark :
that all books, the authors of which may have lived after Ar-
taxerxes Longimanus, were of much less value. Had he not
attributed the same value and the same authority to all books,
written before the time mentioned ; he would not have thrown
all into ONE class, and not have derived all from Prophets,
but have carefully distinguished those which were of inferior
authority. If then it can only be proved of any book, 1. that
Joseph us was acquainted with it, and 2. that it was not writ-
ten after Artaxerxes : that book is to be placed in the Canon
of Josephus.
(i) Contra ^p., lib. i. ^.8; quoted above, ^. ^,
CANON OP THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 33. 34. 75
6. All the books which were composed after Artaxerxes,
in Ihe opinion of Josephus must have been apocrvphal, even
granting that their contents carry us back into that king's
reign, {k)
§.34.
Division of the opinions of Josephus on particular books of the
Old Testament.
These observations may now be appropriately followed by
Josephus' opinions on particular books of the Old Testa-
ment. (/) For the purpose of facilitating the examination, I
arrange them in three classes : —
1. Books, which he places expressly among the Sacred Writings of his
nation.
2. Books, of tvhich, toithiut this express testimony, he makes a mere
literary use.
3. Books, which he entirely passes over in silence.
(Jc) The doubts, which Spittler suggests, (in his Program de usu
versionis Alexandrinae apud Josephum, pp. 18 — 22,) as to the validity of
Josephus' account of the Canon, are in my view resolved, as soon as a
reference is made to all the passages, in which Josephus directly or in-
directly expresses an opinion on the books of the O. T. To the ac-
complishment of this, I hope to contribute in the following paragraphs.
(/) A good collection of these has already been made by Chr. Fred,
ScHMiD in two Programs, entitled: Enarratio sententise Flavii Joseph
de libris V. T. mttcnh,, 1777,
"76 CAXO.V OF 'i'HK OLl> TE-SXAMENTy 0. 35.
First Class. Books which Josephus places expressly
among the Sacred Writings of his nation.
§.35,
Five books of Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel^
Jonah, Nahitm, Ha&gai, Zeghariah, Joshua, Books oif
Kings, Psalms.
The five books of Moses Jasephus mentions in the pas-
sage above cited, expressly ; and moreover, where he alludes
to them, lie speaks of them with great veneration and rever-
ence. He calls them is^ai ^j/3Xoj [ Sacred Books ] (m), and
a\ Twv Is^wv y^a^wv /3j,^Xo» [ the Books of the Sacred Scrip-
tures ]. in)
Isaiah. His prophecies he calls, in the account that Cyrus
read the very oracle respecting him : to ^i^Xlov, o rris auroj
'T^acpYiTsiag 'Hifaias xoltsXivs, 'rt^h irCJv 6iaxo(fiuv xai Sixa [the
book of prophecy, which Isaiah left, two hundred and ten
years before ]. (o) Elsewhere he calls him simply -tt^o^V'J^
[ Prophet] (p)f and in the biography of Hezekiah: 6 -rr^ocpvJTyj?,
(m) Anliq., lib. i. Hav. p. 5. [ Hud. p. 4. ], at the end of the preface ;
lib. in. c. 5. $. 2. Hav. p. 128. [ Hud. p. 103. 1, lib. iv. c 8. §. 48. Hav.
p. 255. [ Hud. p. 176. ], lib. ix. c. 2. ^V 2. Hav. p. 476. [ Hud. p. 396, ],
lib. X. ft. 4.^. 2. p. 517. ed. Havercamp, which I always quote. [In
Hudson's edition, p. 439. Wherever, in this treatise, the author quotes
the page of Joscphus according to the edition of Havercamp, the cor-
responding page is given according to the edition of Hudson, Oxoniij
1720. Tr. ]
(n) Conlra Ap., lib. ii. $. 4. Hav. p. 1472. [ Hud. p. 1365. ] Many-
other passages are expressive of the reverence, Avith which Josephus
and his brethren spoke of the Mosaick Writings. Ant., i. Hav. p. 4.
[ Hud. pp. 3. 4, ] ; xx. c. 5. Hav. p. 966. [Hud. p. 888. ] ; in. c. 6. Hav.
p. 135. [ Hud. p. 110. ]; iv. c. 8. Hav. p. 251. [ Hud. p. 173. ] ; x. c. 4.
Hav. p. 517. C Hud. p. 439. ] ; xvi. c. 6. Hav. p. 800. [ Hud. p. 722.]
(o) ^ntiq., XI. c. 1. §. 2. Hav. p. 547. [ Hud. p. 468. ]
(/J) Antiq., X. c. 2. §, 2. Hav. p. 514. f Hud. p. 436. ]
CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 35. 77
9ra^' ou ( 'Efjsxiag ) flravr' dx^i/3wj <ra, (jLsXXovra s-ruv^avsTo, [ the
prophet, from whom he (Hezekiah) minutely ascertained all
that would come to pass]. (7)
jEREiuriAH is called -f^ocpV*)?* 0^ ^«' fAs'XXovra tt) croXsi ^sfva
'jf^osxvj^u^Sy [ the prophet, who predicted the evils that would
befal the city] (r)» by which the contents of his prophecies
are well characterized.
EzEKiEL is cited under the appellation '^^ocprirvig [ Prophet ],
and his prophecies are compared to the prophecies of Jere-
miah. (5)
Our Daniel Josephus places among the «fi^a y^a^nkroL [ Sa-
cred Writings ] (f), he entitles his prophecies ^^ocprirsja -tt^o
TST^axotfjwv xa« 6x<rw ysvo/xsvrj Jtwv, [a prediction, made four
hundred and eight years previous ] (w), and he expresses him-
self elsewhere in very strong terras, as to the truth of
them, iv)
(g) Antiq., ix. c. 13. §. 3. Hav. p. 506. [ Hud. p. 427. ]
(r) Antiq., x. c. 5. ^. 1. Hav. p. 520. [ Hud. p. 441. ] See the follow-
ing note.
(s) The same. Outoc rgo^wrxc ("l«gi^/*f ) kaI ti, /uIaxovt* tm
5r9AM S'iivA 7rgcgKi7gy|«, h yg9fxiA,avi KATAXtTreey, kai tjjv »Sr «<}>'
i^j^tfr ^fvojub»y xhacrtv t»v Ti ^n^uXeeviAV ai^s^tv. Ov /uSvoy i"*
Kinxoi. [This Prophet (Jeremiah) also predicted the evils that would
befal the city, leaving behind him, in writing, both the destruction which
has now come pass in our day, and the Babylonian captivity. And not
only did he predict these things to the people, but the prophet Ezekiel
did the same. Tr. ]
(0 ^ntiq., lib. X. c. 10. $. 4. Hav. p. 535. [ Hud. p. 447. ] After
having adduced something from Daniel, he concludes with the words :
" Whosoever wishes to examine this," tnzcvS'aira'To to ^i^xiov ayuy-
yuvAl Tov Azviiixov ivgyivn Ss tcuto iv roh hgoli ygv.fxfxAa-r [let
him carefully read the book of Daniel. He will find it among the Sa-
cred Writings ]. Comp. above, §. 33, note (/.)
(m) Antiq., lib. xii. c. 7. §. 6. Hav. p. 617. [ Hud. p. 540. ]
(r) Aniiq., lib. x. c. 11. $. 7. Hav. p. 544. [ Hud. p. 466. ] T-ttCT*
rrayrat «<cfc7ifOf, 0€cu Sn^AVToi aVTcf, avyytd-^Ac JtATtKei^iv, as"* tovs
avat^eVtoV/eovTatc, kolI fu. au/x^xivovrtt o-kovovvta?, d-etujuid^uv ini t«
TTA^d TOO ^6ov T/WM Toif Aotv/»xoj'. [ All thcse things, God having
communicated them to him, he left in writing, so that those who read,
78 CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, §.35.
The XII MINOR Prophets Josephus regards as one hook,
calls them ^a>Sr/.a tov d^j^fAov [twelve in number], and ranks
them, on account of their accurately fulfilled prophecies, with
the prophet Isaiah, (w) Some of them moreover, he cites
especially.
Jonah he declares to be a true Prophet ; hence he de-
scribes the remarkable incidents of his life in such a manner,
that it may be perceived, he drew from the account set forth
by Jonas himself, but with the introduction of his own, some-
times very erroneous, explanations, although he cites only in
very general terms, and refers to the /3i^Xoi 'E^^aixai [ the
Hebrew Books ]. (a?)
Even Nahum is entitled •jr^otpV'JS [Prophet], and com-
mended on account of the minute accomplishment of his pre-
dictions, (y)
Haggai and Zechariah are called Svo <r^o{p^c^at [ two Pro-
phets ]. (z)
The BOOK OF Joshua Josephus denotes one of the books
reposited in the temple, (a)
and see the events, are led to behold Daniel with wonder, on account
of the honour which God conferred upon him. Tr. ]. Josephus cites
moreover the first eight chapters of Daniel ; Antiq., lib. x. c. 10. & 11.
(u>) Antiq., x. c. 2. $. 2. Hav. p. .515. [ Hud. p. 436. ]. KatX obx,
ewToc fjiovos b 5rog9»T«f ('Ho-a/itf), aXA.a »«ic ^AXoc S'aJ'tKa Toy
agid'Moy ro avro iTro'iMCAV. Kstt Traty, i<t« ay*^ov %iri *«wxov yi-
ysTAi TTn^' ifAiv, KtLtti. <Ti>v iKsivuv aTTO^Aivn ■^gofnTUAV. [ And not
this prophet (Isaiah) alone, but others also, twelve in number, did the
same. And whether good or evil happens to us, all comes to pass ac-
cording to their prediction. Tr. ]
(x) Antiq., ix. c. 10. $. 1. 2. Hav. pp. 497. 498. [ Hud. pp. 418. 419.].
tojJt» (it is said §. 1.) T:^ci(^>iTivc!i tU ^imetc. $. 2. he refers in the
biography of Jonas to the 0i0kovi 'E/^gatixatc (see above, §. 33.) and
concludes the second section with the words : «r/g|»AS-cv «r« t»v yrt^i
aUTOU hiynffii^ ui tV^ov aVAyiygctfJtfxivuv.
(y) Antiq., 1. ix. c. II. §. 3. Hav. pp. 501. 502. [Hud. pp. 422. 423. ]
(s) Antiq., I XI. c. 4. $. 5. Hav. p. 557. [ Hud. p. 479. ]
(a) Antiq., lib. v. c. 1. $. 17. Hav. p. 273. [ Hud. p. 185. ]. "O-ri ^t
y.ovTAi S'lx. Tav di'veiKti/uivwv h tw" Ue^a y^tt-fAfxitm. \ That the
CANON Oi' THE OLD TEJiTAMENT, §. 35. 36. "39
The BOOKS OP Kings. The book, in which the history of
the Prophet Ehjah is recorded, i, e. the books of Kings, he
ranks with that which gives the account of Enoch, i. e. the
first book of Moses; he calls both is^ai ^I'^Xoj [Sacred
Books ]. (6)
Psalms. They are expressly named in the cited passage
(§. 29.) under the title: uM-voi sis tov 0£ov [Psalms to God];
and Josephus makes mention of them elsewhere by the names,
Psalms of David, because David was the principal author of
them, (f)
.Second Class. Books, which Josephus merely cites, without
addition, or of which he makes a mere literary rise.
§.36.
Lamentations, Judges, Ruth, the books of Samuel,
Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther.
The Lamentations of Jeremiah, which in his opinion
were composed on the death of king Josiah, Josephus refers
to, as a compostion still extant {d). comp. §. 33. Obs. 5.
length of the day increased at that time, aud surpassed what was usual,
is evident from the writings rcposited in the temple. Tr. ]
(6) Antiq., lib. IX. c. 2. §. 2. Hav. p. 475. |; Hud. p. 396. ]. Hsgi
fxhrocyi *H\f« k%\ ^Evd^ov tcu ytvo/xivou rgo «r»c ivofji.0gi*.( «v rxls
itgais ayAyiygATTTAt 0i$\oti} Sti ytyiycta-iv df*v«<? d-oLfarov (T'ctWav
oucTf/c otJ'tv.
(c) Antiq.y lib. vii. c. 12. §.3. [ o iixvUnc weTxc tl: tov Qtov
Kxi vfjtvov; c'JViTai^Aro. David composed odes to God and psalms.
Tr.-]
(d) ArUiq., lib. x. c. 5. $. l.Hav. p. 520. [Hud. p. 441. ]. Iig^wc
J' h 7:go^;iT«j iTTiK'iS'iiov dvrou auvhA^s fxiMi 9-gj»vjfT/>cor, o kaI
(jAxi^i vyy itafAini- [Jeremiah the Prophet composed his elegy, a
mournful poem, which is extant even at the present time. Tr."]
80 CANON or THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 36.
Judges and Ruth. Both contain very ancient events, and
must have been vi^ritten long before the time of Artaxerxes ;
both were not only known to Josephus, but much used in the
fifth book of his Antiqq. comp. §. 33. Obs. 5. 6.
The TWO BOOKS op Samuel were extant in their present
form, long before Artaxerxes ; we even find them extracted
by Josephus, often word for word, from the fifth to the seventh
book of his Antiqq. (e) comp. §. 33. Obs. 5. 6.
The TWO BOOKS of Chronicles were used by Josephus
in his Antiqq., from the seventh to the tenth books ; but the
second is more freely used than the Jirst, because it contri-
butes more to the Hebrew History. (/)
Ezra and Nehemiah. According to Josephus, the con-
tents of these books belong to the times of King Xerxes {g) :
and as the Canon was first closed under his successor Artax-
erxes ; both may safely be placed in his Canon. He makes
free use of both, {h)
Finally Esther was undoubtedly a part of his Canon. For
he places the contents of the book in the reign of Artaxerxes
Longimanus, and closes the Canon with his reign, because
this book was the latest that he found in the collection of the
sacred books of his nation. (§. 30.) He designates the very
contents of the book, (i)
These are the writings of the Second Class. Should one
(fi) Thus the lamentation on the death of Saul andjonathan, 2 Sara-
I. Antiqq., vii. c. 1. $. 1. 4
(/) Antiqq., lib. viii. c. 12. ^. 4. Hav. p. 453. [ Hud. p. 375. ] comp.
2 Chr. xiv. 8. Antiqq., 1. viii. c. 15. §. 1. 2. Hav. p. 466. [ Hud. 387. J
comp. 2 Chr. xvii. 7, Lc.
(g) Antiqq., lib. xi. c. 5. $. 8. Hav. p. 566. [ Hud. p. 488. ] Josephus
makes mention of Nehemiah, and concludes with the words: TaSnt
/u.» euv ini Si^^ov ^cta-iKim lyhiro. — lib. xi- c. 5. §. 1. 2. Hav. p. 560.
[Hud. p. 481. ] "EcrtTgctf . . . ^tv6Ta« <^ihoi t» ^olciku Seg^ji. And
upon this follows a writing of Xerxes to Ezra.
{h) Particularly Aniiq., lib. xi— Yet he introduces also something
from the third book of Ezra. See Ant,, 1. xi. c. 3.
(i) Antiqq., lib. xi, c. 6
CAiVON OP T HJi OLD TESTAMENT, ^. 36. 37. 38. §1
<j{ them be rejected from the Canon of Josephus, then, as the
same reasonings argue for all, all the rest must forfeit their
places in it — and what will then be the condition of the thir-
teen prophetical books ?
Third Class, Books, which Josephus passes over
in silence.
§. 37.
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, Job.
Josephus speaks of Solomon, the writer, but merely iu
general expressions (k) ; he cites neither the Proverbs, nor
Ecclesiastes, nor the Song of Solomon, by name.
Even of the book of Job he takes as little notice, as he does
of the hero of it.
§. 38.
Some Remarks.
~^' According to these observations, therefore, Joshua, Judges,
KuTH, the two books of Samuel, the two of Kings, and the two
of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Isaiah, Jeremiah,
with his prophecies and his lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel,
and the xii minor prophets, it is certain, belonged to the Canon
of Josephus ; all these books must be placed in the Second
Class, among the thirteen prophetical. For they are partly
prophecies, partly historical books ; and the latter, like the
former, are considered by Josephus and by other writers of
his time and after him, works of the Prophets (/), in part,
(k) Antiq., lib. vm. c.2. §. 5. Hav. p. 419. [ Hud. p. 339.]
(0 Philo, as quoted abt)ve, $. 17 ; Theodoret in Praef. a4 litres
11
83 CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 38.
because some prophets did actually record the history of their
time, and in part because 5«'33 was then* sometimes the
titleof a wnfer. in general. Let us reckon then as we may,
there is still no doubt, that Josephus placed even Job in the
Class of Prophetical Books, in case Job was a part of his
Canon.
No one has yet indulged a doubt, that at the time of Christ
and the Apostles, Job may have had a place in the collection
of the sacred books of the Jews : Philo and the authors of
the New Testament knew the book ; it was certainly extant
long, long before the establishment of the Canon ; and al-
though Josephus makes mention, neither of it nor of its hero,
it by no means follows, that he may not have found it in his
collection of the national books. Would he necessarily speak
of it, when probably, according to the common opinion in
ancient times, he regarded the hero of the book as a foreigner,
an Arabian ; and could he not write a complete Hebrew his-
tory, without uttering even a syllable in regard to it ? And
if Josephus knew it, and found it among the sacred books
of his nation ; he most probably placed it in his Second
Class, among the thirteen prophetical books. For in the
Second Class he placed all historical books ; and to these
belonged Job, because all antiquity held the contents of it ta
be a true narrative set forth in poetry.
JRegum ; Eusebius in his praeparatio evaiig. ; aud Abarbanel pratf. in
Josuam.
* [ When the Treatise originally appeared, the author's words were :
^X''DJ ''offt der Titel eines Schrifftsleller Uberhaupt ist," is often
the title of a writer in general. He here says: — it was "damals zu-
weilen," then sometimes. But it is not easy to discover proofs even ol
this. See the references above, p. 30. note *. Tr. ]
i:anon op the old testament, §. 39. 40.
83
§. 39.
Result of the preceding Investigations,
Without any risk of error, we may then, with Origen, ar-
range the thirteen prophetical books of the Second Class in
the following manner.
1. Joshua.
2. Judges and Ruth.
3. TWO BOOKS OP Samuel.
4. two books of Kings.
5. two books of Chronicles.
6. Ezra and Nehemiah.
7. Esther.
8. Isaiah.
9. Jeremiah's prophecies
and lamentations.
10. Ezekiel.
11. Daniel.
12. XII MINOR prophets.
13. Job.
The four books of the last Class, which are on moral sub-
jects, cannot now be at all mistaken, although Josephus ex-
pressly mentions merely the Psalms ; for there are only four
b©oks left to be arranged.
1. Psalms-
2. Proverbs.
3. Ecclesiastes.
4. the Song of Solomon.
^. 40.
3. Me LI to. Flourished Cent. ii.
The next writer after Josephus, who affords us accounts of
the Canon of the Jews in Palestine, is Melito, Bishop of
Sardis, in the second century after the birth of Christ. He
travelled into the East, with a view to ascertain, from the ac-
counts of the Jews there, the contents and the number of their
sacred books ; and he communicated to his brother, Onesi-
^ CAKON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, §.40.
mus, the result of his investigations, in a letter which Euse
Bius has preserved in his Ecclesiastical History. Euseb.
B. IV. c. 26.
<i<X0Mbv\ TY\ cr^oj Tov XoYov p^Wfjt-evog y2\ic^a.i doi gxXoyaj, ex <rs tou
vofwu xai <rwv ^^oqjvjTwv cr?^< «roi> tfwTi^^off xa« tfaCiig ^^jg flrfeswg
•Jjixwv. STI ^^ xa» iuahsTv t'/jv twv craXaiwv /3»^Xiwv £/3ouX»j^7)5 ^'*^'''
(Bsiav, flfoo'a <rciv d^j^/xov xaj o-rora Tr^v ca^iv s<ev, ^tf-ffou^otfa to
toioUto cf^o^aj, sflri^afi/gvog tfou to tftfou^arov irs^/ tt^v •n'fejv, xai (p»Xo-
/xa&sj 'n'sfi TOV Xoyov.. ot» t£ /xaXjra "jravTwv ^o^oj tw cr^og 0eov
TttCTa <r^ox^:v£iff, «b'S^/ T^if aiwv/ou CwTi^^jag dywv<<^o'(xsvo5' dvsX^wv
ouv stg T^v dvaroXi^v, xai sw^ tou tcVou ysvo/xsvo^ Iv^a sxtj^^i^j^^tj
xal ^cr^ap^^v], xa/ dx^i^ug (xaSrwv to. tS^j ^oikaiois 5iaSr^x»]^ /3ij8X»a,
i'?r'0Ta|af bVs/x-vj/a tfor (Sv £?< Ttt ovo/J^aTa* MwiJC^wj cTc'vtS' Tsvs(fig,
"E|o5og, AsuiTjxov, 'A^jS^/xo/, AeuTS^ovo'fAjov 'ItjCoC? Nau^, K^iTa/,
*PouS:* BaCjXsjwv TsVCa^a, na^aXst-Tro/Ji-c'vwv 5i;o. YaXjxwv Aa/3j^,
SoXofAwvoj na^oifJM'aj, ^ xaj 2o(pia, 'ExxX-Kitfja^i^^, aCfta 'ACjxaTwv,
'IwjS. n^o(piiTWv, 'HCatou, 'Is^gjxj'ou* twv. ^w^sxa sv fxovo/3»/3Xw.
Aavii^X, 'l£^£x<7^X, '^Eff^^ag- l| wv xc.< gxXoydj I'ffojyjo'ajxyjv, £i^ g^
/?ij8Xia ^isXwv.
" Melito to his brother Onesimus greeting. Whereas>
from your great earnestness for the Word, you have often
wished to have selections from the liaw and the Prophets,
which relate to our Saviour and our w^hole faith ; and would
be glad to have a minute account of the ancient books, how
many of them there are in number, and in what order they
stand : I have endeavoured to effect this, because I was
aware of your earnestness in the faith, and your desire for in-
struction in respect to the Word, and knew that in your long-
ing after eternal happiness, from love to God, you prefer it to
all other things. As I was journeying in the East, therefore,
and came to the place where this was preached and exhibited,
I accurately ascertained the books of the Old Testament, and
subjoin a catalogue of them, and send it to you. They are
called as follows : Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deu-
teronomy, Joshua. Judges, Ruth, four Books of Kings, two
CANON aP THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 40. 41. 8'5
Books of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of
Solomon, w^hich is entitled also the Wisdom (m), Ecclesiastes,
the Song of Songs, Job. The Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the
twelve in one book ; Daniel, Ezekiel, and Ezra. From these
I have made the Selections, and divided them into six books.'"
§. 41.
Illustration of this Passage.
It is true that in this Catalogue Nehemiaii and Esther are
not mentioned ; but, whoever reads the passage and under-
stands it, will here discover both of them. Melito here ar-
ranges the books of the Old Testament, manifestly according
to the time in which they were written, or in which the facts
which they record occurred. Hence he places Ruth after the
book pf Judges, Daniel and Ezekiel toward the end of his
Catalogue, and Ezra last of all, because he wrote after the
Babylonian captivity. And accordingly, as he comprehended
the books of Samuel and Kings under the general appellation
Books of Kings, because they related the history of the He-
brew kingdom from Saul to Zedekiah, or until the Babylonian
captivity : in the same manner, he appears to comprise under
the name of Ezra all historical books, the subjects of which
occur in the times subsequent to the Babylonian captivity. As
it is very common to include Ezra and Nehemiah in one book^
(m) According to Stroth's translation of this passage; it is only
here departed froin, because probably neither »» Kai a-o<j>ia, nor >) o-d^ia
is the true reading, but, according to Stroth's conjecture, » koi iro<piot.
Melito, and from him Eusebius, wrote without any accents or spiritus
» KAt copm. For even Nicephorus admitted Kni, and Ruffin trans-
lated : quae el sapienlia. Afterward, when accents were added, from »
arose the postpositive » Kal co^ia. But ij cannot refer to 0i0\ia, which
goes before ; so «*/ was omitted, and ^ aofU was written, which even
now occurs in some editions, as might indeed have easily happened
with P Ktl <roft*.
86 CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 4L 42.
why might not even Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther also have
been regarded as a whole ? If we add to this conjecture,
that Nehemiah and Esther, according to Josephus (§. 36.),
must have been parts of the Canon, and that Fathers of au-
thority, such as Origen (§. 42.) and Jerome (§. 44.), expressly
enumerate both in it ; no impartial inquirer can well doubt,
that even Melito does not reject from the Canon of the Old
Testament the two books mentioned, (n)
§. 42.
Origen. Born A. D. 185. Died A. D. 253.
The next Father, whom we must hear, is Origen, whose
catalogue of the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament
has been preserved by Eusebius. Eccl. Hist. vi. 25. It is
of very great weight, because it is derived from the Jews, as
Origen himself, in the very beginning of it, expressly states.
Tov jtjLsv Tojys ^^wTov B^t\yo\}[iZMos vj^aXixov, g'xSeo'iv ors'ji'oiTjrai
( 'n^jy£V»]g ) Tou Twv i5^w» y^a(pwv t% 'makmag 5»a^*jx»)g xaTaXoyou,
^U flfwg ygoKpwv xara X^|iv* oux dyvorjT^ov 5'i/vai Tag ^v5iaS»)xou?
/3(/3Xouf, d)5 'EjS^aroi cr'a^a^iSoafl'iv, dua xai s'/xotfi* otfog 6 d^i'^ft.QS
<rwv leaf auTor? goixsiwv ktv £«<ra (xsm cjva, iieicpi^si T^syuv h(fi,
6s ai s'/xotfi dvo /3i/3Xoi xa^' 'E/3^aioug a5'5s* yj •n'a^' 'Jjfjiwv revstfi?
/S^tfj^, oVfi^ £^/v ^l> OL^ji' "'E^O^OJ:, OUaXSO'fAW^, oVs^ ^^< TttUTtt TO.
ovoftara* Asumxov, ouix^a, xa/ ^xaXgrfsv 'A^i^/xoi «-f«,(XeO'(pexoj5s<jui.*
AsuTS^ovojXJOv, tXXs a6ds(3afii^, outoi e» Xoyor 'iTjtfoug ulog Nau5),
(n) ScHMiD, hist, et vindic. Canonis, assumes with others, that Es-
ther, removed by the error of a transcriber, was originally mentioned
by Melito. I doubt this however, as there is to be found no trace of it;
and Athanasiiis, Gregory Naz., and others, who follow Melito, in like
manner omit Esther. See Schmid 1. c. p. 171. 173. 193. Bkuns in his
edit, of KennicoWs diss, gener. p. 178, is of my opinion.
CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 4*2, 87
Xs»wv flT^wri}, Ssvri^cCj -ra^' airoTg ev Hafxou'iiX, o ^eoxXyj^og* /3atf<-
Xs<5v r^kri^ rera^Tyj, ^v lv<, ouafi-fAsXe;^ Aa8i8, oife^ ki /SatfiXs/a
^a(3id, na^aXfiffofAivajv •tt'^wttj, Sevrs^Uf iv hvi, dilS^ri aiajxj'j*, oVsp
aV< Xo'yoi »3(XE^ojv '^Etf^^aj <ff^uTQS xai ^suts^oj ^v Iv/, ^(^^a, o ^g#
^oYi^dg- /3ij8Xoff 'i'aXfi.GJv o's'ipe^ ^iXXi'fx. 2oXo|xwvtoj <a^oi|xiai /wioXw^,
'ExxXirjtfjasi^j, xwe'Xs^' aCfJt'tt aVfAarwv, tfi^ aCtfi^ifx. 'Htfaiaj, 'letfaVa.
'Ig^fAia^ tfOv ^^-^voij xai <r^ ^"tti^oXi] ^v Iv/, 'I^S/xia, AaviigX, Aavt^X.
'le^sxji^X, 'Igg|xrjX. 'ItfjS, Iw/3. 'Etf^ii^, EtfSrrj^, l|w 6s toutwv ^gi w
MaxxaySaixot, a^s^ intxyiy^cLitTai ^ol^^vi^ tfa^/3avs g'X.
In the exposition of the first Psalm, he (Origen) exhibits
a catalogue of the sacred books of the Old Testament, where
he writes as follows : " It must be known, that the canoni-
cal books, as the Hebrews relate, are twenty-two in number,
according to the number of their letters." Somewhat further
on, he proceeds : " these twenty-two books, according to the
Hebrews, are the following : the Book which with us bears the
title Genesis, is called by the Hebrews, from the beginning of
the Book, * Breshith,' that is : 'in the beginning/ Exodus
* Velleshemoth,' that is : * these are the names.' Leviticus
*Vayikra, and he called.' Numbers, * Hammishpekodim.'
Deuetoronomy * Ellehaddebarim, these are the words.' Jesus
the Son of Nave, ' Joshua Ben Nun.' The Judges, Ruth,
in one Book with thena, ' Shophetim.' (o) The first and se-
cond of Kings, one, 'Samuel,' that is: 'the called of God.'
The third and fourth of Kings, in one, ' Vammelech David,'
that is: ' and King David.' The first and second of Chro-
nicles, in one, ' Dibre Hayamim,' that is : ' Journals.' The
first and second of Ezra, in one, (p) ' Ezra,' that is : 'the
(o) A trace of it is found in the Masora Jinalis of a Spanish MS.
(Kennicott's num. 3.), where Ruth is called D^^at^n l^Qu "13?. from
the beginning of the Book. See Bruns, ad Kennicolti diss, gen., pp. 18,
19. nota.
(p) Proofs of this are also found in the modern Hebrew MSS. Many
still write, the two books of Samuel, the two of Kings, the two of Chro-
nicles, as Ezra and Nehemiab, in one, continuously, without an inter-
%"ening space ; and hence, all these books in the most ancieht editions,
SS CANON OF THK OLD TESTAMfiiNT, §. 42. 43.
helper.' The Book of Psalms, * Sepher Thillim/ The Pro«
VERBS of Solomon, * Mishloth.' Ecclesiastes, * Koheleth/
The Song op Songs, * Shir Hashirim/ Isaiah, ' lesayah.'
Jeremiah, with the Lamentations and the Epistle, in one
Book, * Yirmeyah.' Daniel, * Daniel.' Ezekiel, * Yehezkeel.'
Job, * Job/ Esther, ' Esther.' Beside these, there are also
the Books of Maccabeess, which are entitled : Sarbeth Sar-
bane EI." (y)
§. 43.
Illustralion of this passage,
. In this Catalogue of the Canonical Writings of the Old
Testament, the xii minor Prophets are wanting; notwith-
standing Baruch holds a place in it. The first difficulty
vanishes, on a comparison of Ruffin's Latin translation, and
Hilary's Preface to the Psalms. The former , in the passage
cited from Eusebius, has the twelve minor Prophets after the
Song of Solomon ; and the latter, (who, according to an ob-
sei-vation already made by Jerome, has derived his Preface
to the Psalms in great part from this passage), mentions the
twelve minor Prophets among the Canonical Writings of the
Old Testament, (r) The other difficulty is not so easy to re-
whicli follow as closely as possible the arrangement of the MSS.,were
thus printed in one, until Daniel Bomberg introduced the present
usual division of them. [ See Eichh. Introd. to the O. T., Vol. n.
§. 359. Tr. -j
(q) According to Stroth's Translation.
(r) Here is Valesius' note on the passage: Omissus est in hoc Cata-
logo liber duodecim Prophetarum. Quo factum est, ut cum viginti
duos libros se numeraturum promiserit Origenes, unus duntaxat et
viginti reperiantur. In Rufini versione recensetur hie liber statim post
Canticum canticorura. Nee aliter Hilarius in prologo enarrationis in
Psalmos, et Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus. Ceterum sacrae Scripturae libri
?onge alio ordine hie recensentur, quam Epiphanio, et Hieronyrao f *
OANON OF THE OLD T£STAM£^'T, §. 43. 44. 89
solve. Nowhere is there a trace, that Jeremiah's Epistle
ever was a part of the Jewish Canon. Origen was mistaken,
and perhaps he had before him a copy of the Septuagint, (in
which, as usual, Baruch was placed immediately after Jere-
miali,) and he suffered liimself to be betrayed by this into
his mistake, (s)
§. 44.
Jerome. A. Z>. 422.
Jerome reckons, according to the number of the conso-
nants in the Hebrew Alphabet, twenty-two books, and in his
Prologus Galeatus arranges them in the following order,
which the Bibliotheca Divina also follows : —
1 5. FIVE BOOKS OF MoSES. 8. TWO BOOKS OF SaMUEL,
6. Joshua. 9. two books of Kings.
7. Judges and Ruth. 10. Isaiah.
Melitone, cujus locum supra retulit Eusebius in fine lib. 4. Hilarius
vero in prologo Commentariorum in Psalmos, cum Origene prorsus
consentiL Nee Id mirum, cum totus fere prologus ille Hilarii translatus
sit ex Commentariis in Psalmos, ut testatur Hieronymus.
(«) This is yet more probable, if we reflect, that the Egyptian Chris-
tians, those great admirers of the apocryphal writings, permitted Ba-
ruch to follow the Lamentations. [ The Ethiopians divided the Old
Testament into four parts.
I. The OcTATECCH, including the five books of Moses, Joshusi,
Judges, Ruth.
II. The Kings, in thirteen books: two books of Samuel, two of
Kings, two of Chronicles, two of Ezra, (Ezra and Nehemiah), Tobit,
Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms.
HI. Solomon, in five books : Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solos-
mon, Wisdom and Sirach.
IV, The Prophets, in eighteen books : Isaiah, Jeremiah's prophecies
and lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the twelve minor
Prophets.
They had also two books of Maccabees. Sec Eichhorn's Introd. io
the 0. T., Vol. n. §. 309. note g. Tr. ]
12
90 CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 44,
11. Jebemiah's prophecies 18. Song of Songs.
AND LAMENTATIONS. 19. DaNIEL.
12. EZEKIEL. 20. TWO BOOKS OF CbBU
13. XII MINOR Prophets. nicles.
14. Job. 21. Ezra in two books, i, e.
15. Psalms. Ezra and Nehemiah.
16. Proverbs. 22. Esther.
17. ECCLBSIASTES.
Viginti et duas litteras ( says he in the Prologus Galeatus )
esse apud Hebraeos, Syrorum quoque hngua et Chaldaeorum
testatur, quae hebraeae magna ex parte confinis est. Nam
et ipsi viginti duo elementa habent, eodem sono et diversis
characteribus. ...... Porro quinque Htterae duplices apud
Hebraeos sunt, Caph, Mem, Nun, Pe, Sade. Unde et quin-
que a plerisque hbri duplices existimantur, Samuel, Melachim,
Dibre hajamim, Esdras, Jeremias cum Cinoth, id est lamenta-
tionibus suis. Quomodo igitur viginti duo elementa sunt, per
quae scribimus hebraeice omne quod loquimur, et eorum
initiis vox humana comprehenditur : ita viginti duo volumina
supputantur, quibus quasi litteris et exordiis in Dei doctrina,
tenera adhuc et lactens viri justi eruditur infantia.
Primus apud eos liber vocatur Beresith, quem nos Genesin
dicimus. Secundus Veelle Semoth. Tertius Vajicra, id est,
Leviticus. Quartus Vajedabber, quem Numeros vocamus.
Quintus Elle haddebarim, qui Deuteronomium praenotatur.
Hi sunt quinque Hbri Mosis, quos proprie Thora, id est
Legem, appellant.
Secundum Prophetarum ordinem faciunt, et incipiunt ab
Jesu filio Nave, qui apud eos Josue Ben JVwn dicitur. Deinde
subtexunt Sophetim, id est Judicum librum : et in eundem
compingunt Ruth, quia in diebus Judicum facta ejus narratur
historia. Tertius sequitur Samuel, quem nos Regum primum
et secundum dicimus. Quartus Melachim, id est Regum, qui
tertio et quarto Regum volumine continetur. Meliusque
multo est Melachim, id est Regum, quam Melachoth, id est
Regnorum dicere: Non enim multarum gentium describit
oANON OP THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 44. 91
regna, sed unius Israelitici populi, qui tribubus duodecim
continetur. Quintus est Esaias. Sextus Jeremias, Septimus
Ezechiel. Octavus liber duodecim Prophetarum, qui apud
illos vocatur Tliereasar.
Tertius ordo Hagiographa possidet, Et primus liber
incipit a Job. Secundus a David, quern quinque incisionibus
et uno Psatmorum volumine comprehendunt. Tertius est
Salomon, tres libros habens, Proverbia, quae illi Misle, id est
Parabolas, appellant. Quartus Ecclesiastes, id est Coheletk.
Quintus Canticum Canticorum, quem titulo Sir hassirim
praenotant. Sextus est Daniel, Septimus Dihre hajammim id
est Verba dierum, quod significantius chronicon totius divinae
historiae possumus appellare, qui liber apud nos Paralipomenon
primus et secundus inscribitur. Octavus Esdras : qui et ipse
similiter apud Graecos et Latinos in duos libros divisus est.
Nonus Esther.
Atque ita fiunt pariter Veteris Legis libri viginti duo, id est,
Mosis quinque, et Prophetarum octo, Hagiographorum novem.
Quanquam nonnulli Ruth et Cinoih inter Hagiographa
scriptitent, et hos libros in suo putent numero supputandos, ac
per hoc esse priscae Legis libros viginti quatuor
Hie prologus scripturarum quasi galeatum principium
omnibus libris, quos de Hebraeo vertimus in Latinum, con-
venire potest : ut scire valeamus, quicquid extra hos est, inter
apocrypha esse ponendum. Igitur Sapientia, quae vulgo
Salomonis inscribitur, et Jesu Jilii Sirach liber, et Judith et
Tobias et Pastor non sunt in Canone. Machabaeorum primum
librum hebraicum reperi. Secundus graecus est, quod ex
ipsa quoque phrasi probari potest.
[ That the Hebrews had twenty-two books, is evinced by
the language of the Syrians and Chaldeans, which is in the
main nearly allied to the Hebrew. For they also have
twenty-two elements, with the same sound, but different
characters. . . . Moreover, the Hebrews have five double let-
ters : Caph, Mem, Nun, Pe, Sade. Hence five books also are
by many considered double : Samuel, Melachim, Dibre haja-
mim, Esdras, Jeremias with Cinoth, that is his lamentations.
As there are therefore twenty-two elements, by means of
92 CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 44.
which we write in Hebrew all that we speak, and the human
voice is comprehended in their principles ; so twenty-iwo books
are reckoned, by which, as if by letters and rudiments, the
yet tender and nursing infancy of the righteous man is in-
structed in the knowledge of God.
The first book is named Beresith, which we call Genesis.
The second, Veelle Semoth. The third, Fajicra^ that is, Levi-
ticus. The fourth, Vajedabber, which we call Numbers. The
fifth. Elk haddebarim, which is denoted Deuteronomy. These
are the five books of Moses, which they call properly Thoray
that is, the Law.
They make a Second Class of the Prophets, and begin
with Jesus the son of Nave, whom they call Josue Ben Kun,
They then subjoin .Sophetim, that is the book of Judges ; and
attach to it Ruth, because history describes its events in the
days of the Judges. In the third place follows Samuel, which
we call the first and second of Kings. Fourth, Melachim, that
is Kings, which is comprised in the third and fourth book of
Kings. It is much better to say Melachim, that is Kings,
than Melachoth, that is Kingdoms. For it does not treat of
the kingdoms of many nations, but of the people of Israel
only, consisting of twelve tribes. The fifth is Isaiah. The
sixth Jeremiah. The seventh, Ezekiel. The eighth, the book
of the twelve prophets, which they call Thereasar.
The Third Class contains the Hagiographa. And the first
book begins with Job. The second with David, which they
comprise in five sections and one book of Psalms. The third
is Solomon, who has three books. Proverbs, which they call
Misle, that is Parables. The fourth, Ecclesiastes, that is,
Cohdeth. The fifth, the Song of Songs, which they denote
by the title Sir hassirim. The sixth is Daniel ; the seventh,
Dibre hajammim, that is words of days, which we may signi-
ficantly call a Chronicle of the whole sacred history : we en-
title the book, first and second Paralipomenon. The eighth,
Ezra, which also is divided into two books both by the Greeks
and Latins. The ninth, Esther.
And in this manner there are twenty^xuo books of the ancient
law, that is, five of Moses, eight of the Prophets, nine of the
Hagiographa.
CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 44. 45. 93
Although some often mention Ruth and Cinoth among the
Hagiographa, and think that these books are to be reckoned
in their number, and that thus the books of the ancient law
are hoenty-four
This Preface, as a well furnished proem, may 'be applied to
all the books which we translate from Hebrew into Latin :
so that we may know, every one but these is to be placed
among the Apocrypha. Therefore the Wisdom, which is com-
monly entitled of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the son of
Sirachf and Judith, and Tobic, and the Shepherd are not in the
Canon. I have found the frst book of Maccabees in Hebrew.
The second is Greek, which may be proved from the very
phraseology. TV. ]
He thus divides the whole collection into three parts, Law,
Prophets, and Hagiographa: and reckons eight Prophets
and NINE Hagiographa; and even remarks, that some enu-
merated TWENTY-FOUR Books, and, to make out this number,
reckoned separately Ruth and Lamentations. And he thus
concludes, that all writings of the Jews, except those men-
tioned, were to be placed with the Apocrypha.
§. 45.
The Talmud. Cent, ii — iv.
The Jews, in their quibbling, introduced two jods into the
Hebrew Alphabet, that it might consist of twenty -four con-
sonants. Hence the Talmud reckons twenty-four canonical
books, in the following order (t) :
1—5. The FIVE BOOKS OF Moses. 8. two books of Samuel.
6. Joshua. 9. two books op Kings.
7. Judges. 10. Jeremiah.
(t) BuxTORFii Tiberias, cap. xt.
94 CANON OP THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 4^.
11. EZEKIEL. 18. ECCLESIASTES.
12. Isaiah. 19. The Song of Solomon.
13. XII MINOR Prophets. 20. Lamentations.
14. Ruth. 21. Daniel.
15. Psalms. 22. Esther.
16. Job. 23. Ezra ( and Nehemiah. )
17. Proverbs. 24. Chronicles.
The principal passage is found in the treatise Bava Bath-
ra (m). Having divided the Books of Scripture into
1. nnin [the Law], 2. D^K^p^ [ th^ Prophets ], and 3. D^a^ns
[ the Hagiographa ], and suggested ih regard to them much
that is not here in place ; it then nam^s the books of each
part separately, and exhibits those of the two latter parts in
the following order ;
bi^)t2ti/ D^coiDV^^i j^trin^ o^no^ hu^ pno
b^'^i niypi Dn^trn Tt^ nSnp ^StrDi
D^Dsn nnni Nnrr nnoN nS^jXDi
[ The order of Prophets is Joshua and Judges, Samuel
and Kings, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Isaiah and the twelve.
. . . The order of Hagiographa is Ruth and the book of
Psalms, and Job and Proverbs, the Preacher, the Song op
Songs and Lamentations, Daniel and the roll of Esther,
Ezra and Chronicles, Tr. ]
(«) Bava Bathka, fol. 13. 14. ed. Fenet., 1548. [ The passage cited
from the Talmud is given, as quoted by Eichhorn from the Venice
edition ; but in the edition of Amsterdam (an. Jud. 405), in which the
words occur p. 14. b., lines 26. 27. 34. 35., instead of the Talmudick
D'7D31, (see Buxtorf's Lexicon Chald. Talmud. Rabbin, col. 323, on
the root SoD) , is found the Hebrew DoSdV Tr. ]
CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 46. 95
§. 46.
Result: history declares that all the books of our Hebrew
editions of the Bible are Canonical.
From the accounts thus far collected, it is undeniable, I
think, that at the time of Christ and the Apostles, the Canon of
the Jews corresponded in extent with our present editions of
the Bible. And if, before their time, in the period between the
end of the Babylonian captivity and the birth of Christ, it
may be presumed to have once contained fewer books ; we
must then either deny the truth of the picture, which antiquity
presents to us, of the opinion of the Jews in respect to their
sacred books, or maintain, that a designed and in all parts de-
terminate collection of their national writings never was pro-
vided by the Jews. The former is without any foundation, to
contradict to the face the most credible testimonies of anti-
quity, and the latter is to contend against all self-evidence.
From the remotest period, the Jews glowed with a sacred
reverence for their national writings. In the language of
Josephus, " it was, so to speak, innate with them, to regard
these as divine instructions ; in their solicitude they ventured
not, as he assures us, — to add^ or to take away, or to alter any
thmg, although some of the writings had a very high antiqui-
ty*" (§• 29.) Even by the greatest calamities, which the mad
spirit of persecution gathered around them on account of
their sacred books, they did not permit their reverence to be
repressed (y). How could a nation, with these sentiments,
suffer to be ranked with their sacred books, such as were of
inferior value and authority — in case it had been made out
and generally decided, how many and what books were enti-
tled to divine authority ?
This also was settled. As far as we can go back in their
{v} Compare Philo, in Eusebxus' praepar. evang., lib. viii. c, 6.
96 CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, §. 4ti.
history, just there, where the Apocrypha unites the broken
thread of Hebrew Hterature, we find express mention of a
sacred national hbrary of the Hebrews, as the several parts
of it were strictly determined. It thus appears, that it was
begun soon after the Babylonian captivity ; or that, from the
Writings, which in regard to contents, authors, and date of
composition were so different, there was made a complete
whole, with a view that, for the future, no new writings
should be added to them ;* although, from the want of ac-
counts, we are not now able to specify, in what year, and why
additions at that period ceased to be made.
In short, history attests, that after the Babylonian cap-
tivity, AND INDEED SOON AFTER THE NEW ESTABLISHMENT OF
the HEBREW STATE IN PALESTINE, THE CANON WAS FULLY SET-
TLED, AND AT THAT TIME COMPRISED ALL THOSE BOOKS,
WHICH WE NOW FIND IN IT. Aud yct Icarncd men of modern
•times have endeavoured to prove, that the Canon of the Old
Testament was first determined in very recent times ; that
many of our books, regarded as canonical, formerly had no
place in the Canon, but were first raised to this distinction by
Christian Fathers, and modern Jews.
In this the favourite System was in fault. Men bad spe-
culated in the abstract, on the characteristicks of a Scriptu-
ral Book, and without any materials had erected a building in
the air. Then, innumerable appearances opposed the receiv-
ed general views of the nature of a Scriptural Book. With-
out demolishing the former building itself, and without taking
pains to seek for the materials of a new and more substan-
tial structure, they merely patched up the old castle in the
air, and they would no longer tolerate in the Canon those
books, to which the old theory, (consecrated indeed by the
prerogative of age, but otherwise baseless,) did not admit of
being applied.
* [ The author here refers to his Introduction to the O. T., Vol. i. §. 6.
which treats of the collection of the Hebrew Scriptures after the Babylonian
captivity. Tt. ]
APPENDIX,
Note [A].
The view which the New Testament gives of the particular
books belonging to the Jewish Canon, may be ascertained
by an examination of the references in the following Table.
It contains all the direct quotations from the Old Testament
in the New Testament.
Genesis.
G^PTESIS.
I. 27. Mark, x. G.
n. 3. Heb. iv. 4.
n. 7. 1 Cor. xv. 45. .
n. 24. Matt. xix. 5.
Mark, x. 7.
1. Cor. VI. 16.
Eph. V. 31.
XII. 1. Acts, VII. 3.
XII. 3. Gal. III. 8.
XV. 5. Rom. IV. 18.
XV. 6. Jam. ii. 23.
XV. 6. Rom. IV. 3.
XV. 13. 14. Acts, VII. 6. 7.
XVII. 5. Rom. IV. 17.
XVIII. 10. Rom. IX. 9.
XXI. 10. Gal. IV. 30.
XXI. 12. Rom. IX. 7.
XXII. 16. 17. Heb. vi. 14.
XXII. 18. Acts, III. 25.
Gal. III. 16.
XXV. 23. Rom. ix. 12.
xLvii. 31. Hebr. xi. 21.
Exodus.
II. 13. Acts, VII. 26.
II. 14. Acts, VII. 27. 28.
Acts, VII. 35.
III. 5. 7. 8. 10. Acts, VII. 33. 34.
III. 6. Matt. XXII. 32.
Mark, xii. 26.
- Luke, XX. 37.
Acts, VII. 32.
IX. 16. Rom. IX. 17.
XII. 46. John, XIX. 36.
XIII. 2. Luke, II. 23.
13
98 CANON OF THE OLD TfeSTAMENT,
Exodus. Deuteronmy.
XVI. 18. 2 Cor. VIII. 15.
XIX. 6. 1 Pet. II. 9.
XIX. 12. 13. Hebr. xii. 20.
XX. 12. Matt. XV. 4.
Matt. XIX. 18.
Mark, vii. 10.
Mark, x. 19.
Luke, XVIII. 20.
Eph. VI. 2. 3.
XX. 13. Jam. ii. 11.
XX. 13. 14. Rom. xiii. 9.
XX. 14. Rom. VII. 7.
XXI. 17. Matt. XV. 4.
Mark, vii. 10.
XXII. 8. Acts, xxiii. 5.
XXIV. 8. Hebr. ix. 20.
XXV. 40. Hebr. viii. 5.
xxxii. 1. Acts, VII. 40.
XXXII. 6. 1 Cor. x. 7.
xxxiii. 19. Rom. IX. 15.
Leviticus.
XI. 44. 1 Pet. 1. 10.
XII. 8. Luke, II. 24.
xvHi. 5. Rom. X. 5.
Gal. HI. 11. 12.
XIX. 18. Matt. XIX. 19.
Matt. XXII. 39.
Mark, xii. 31.
- Luke, X. 27.
Rom. xiii. 9.
Gal. V. 14.
Jam. II. 8.
XXVI. 11. 12. 2 Cor. vi. 16.
Numbers.
xvi. 5. 2 Tim. u. 19.
V. 16. Eph. VI. 2. 3.
VI. 45. Mark, xii. 29. 30.
VI. 5. Matt. XXII. 37.
Luke, X. 27.
VI. 13. Matt. IV. 10.
Luke, IV. 8.
VI. 16. Matt. IV. 7.
Luke, IV. 12.
VIII. 3. Matt. IV. 4.
Luke, IV. 4.
IX. 19. Hebr. xn. 21.
XVIII. 15. 19. Acts, III. 22. 23.
Acts, VII. 37.
XIX. 15. John, VIII. 17.
2 Cor. XIII. 1.
XXI. 23. Gal. m. 13.
XXV. 4. 1 Cor. IX. 9.
1 Tim. V. 18.
XXV. 5. Matt. XXII. 24.
Mark, xn. 19.
Luke, XX, 28.
XXVII. 26. Gal. iii. 10.
XXX. 12. Rom. X. 6,
XXXI. 8. Hebr. xiii. 5.
xxxii. 17. 1 Cor. X. 20.
xxxii. 21. Rom. X, 19.
XXXII. 35. Rom. xii. 19.
XXXII. 43. Rom. xv. 10.
XXXII. 35. 36. Hebr. x. 30.
Joshua.
1. 5. Hebr. xiii. 5.
1. Samuel.
xiii. 14. Acts, xiii. 22.
CANON OP THE OLD TESTAMENT.
m
2. Sahvel/
vu. 14. 2 Cor. VI. 17. 18.
Heb. 1. 5.
1. Kings.
XIX. 14. Rom. XI. 3.
XIX. 18. Rom. XI. 4.
Job.
V. 13. 1 Cor. III. 10.
Psalms.
n. 1.2. Acts, IV. 25.26.
u. 7. Acts, xiii. 33.
Heb. 1. 5.
Heb. V. 5.
ii. 9. Rev. 11. 27.
V. 10. Rom. 111. 13.
viii. 3. Matt. xxi. 16.
vni. 5. Heb. u. 6.
viu. 7. 1 Cor. XV. 27.
VIII. 17. 18. Heb. II. 13.
X, 7. Rom. HI. 14.
XIV. 1. Rom. HI. 10. 11. 12.
XVI. 8. Acts, II. 25.
XVI. 10. Acts, xui. 35.
xviii. 50. Rom. XV. 9.
XIX. 5. Rom. X. 18.
XXII. 1. Matt, xxvii. 46.
- Mark, xv. 34.
XXII. 19. Matt, xxvii. 35.
- John, XIX. 24.
xxii. 23. Heb. ii. 12.
XXIV. 1. 1 Cor. X. 26.
XXXI. 6. Luke, xxiii. 46.
XXXII. 1. 2. Rom. IV. 7. 8.
xxxiv. 12. 1. Pet. III. 10.
Psalms.
xxxvi. 2. Rom. iii. 18.
XL. 7. Hebr. x. 5.
XLi. 10. John, XIII. 18.
xLiv. 22. Rom. viii. 36.
XLV. 7. 8. Heb. 1. 8. 9.
Li. 6. Rom. in. 4. ,
Lxviii. 19. Eph. IV. 8.
Lxix. 10. John, II. 17.
Rom. XV. 3.
LXIX. 23. 24. Rom. xi. 9. 10.
LXIX. 26. Acts, 1. 20.
Lxxviii. 2. Matt. XIII. 35.
Lxxviii. 24. John, vi. 31.
Lxxxii. 6. John, x. 34.
Lxxxix. 21. Acts, xiii. 22.
xci. 11.12. Matt. IV. 6.
Luke, IV. 10.
11.^
xciv. 11. 1 Cor. III. 20.
xcv. 7. Heb. iii. 7.
xcv. 7. 8. Hebr. iii. 15.
Heb. IV. 7.
xcv. 11. Heb. IV. 3.
xcvii. 7. Heb. 1.6.
cii. 26... Heb. 1. 10...
CIV. 4. Heb. 1. 7.
€ix. 3. John, XV. 25.
cix. 8. Acts, 1. 20.
ex. 1. Matt. xxii. 44.
Mark, xii. 36.
Luke, XX. 42. 43.
Acts, II. 34. 35.
1 Cor. XV. 25.
Heb. I. 13.
ex. 4. Heb. V. 6.
Heb. vii. 17. 21.
cxii. 9. 2. Cor. IX. 9.
cxvi. 10. 2 Cor. iv. 13.
cxvii. 1. Rom. XV, 11.
100
CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Psalms.
cxviii. 6. Hebr. xiii. 6.
cxviii. 22. Luke, xx. 17.
CXVIII. 22. 23. Matt. xxi. 42.
Mark, XII. 10. 11
Acts, IV. 11.
. 1 Pet. II. 7.
cxL. 4. Rom. III. 13.
Proverbs.
III. 1,1. Hebr. XII. 5.
III. 12. Hebr. xii. 6.
III. 34. Jam. iv. 6.
X. 12. 1 Pet. IV. 8.
XXII. 9. 2 Cor. IX. 7.
XXV. 21. 22. Rom. xii. 20.
xxvi. 11. 2 Pet. 11.22.
Isaiah.
1. 9. Rom. IX. 29.
VI. 9. Matt. XIII. 14.
Mark. iv. 12.
Luke, VIII. 10.
VI. 9. 10. Acts/xxviii. 26. 27.
VI. 10. John, xii. 40.
VII. 14. Matt. 1. 23.
VIII. 12. 13. 1 Pet. III. 14. 15,
VIII. 14. Rom. IX. 33.
Rom. X. 11.
viii. 23. Matt. IV. 15. 16.
ix. 1.
X. 22. 23. Rom. ix. 27. 28.
XI. 10. Rom. XV. 12.
XXII. 13. 1 Cor. XV. 32.
XXV. 8. 1 Cor. XV. 54.
xxvm. 11. 12. 1 Cor. XIV. 2L
xxvin. 16. Rom. ix. 33.
Isaiah.
— Rom. X. I L
1 Pet. H. 6.
XXIX. 10. Rom. XI. 8.
.XXIX. 13. Matt. XV. 8. 9.
Mark, vn. 6. 7.
XXIX. 14. 1 Cor. 19.
XL. 3. Matt. HI. 3.
Mark, i. 2. 3.'
Luke, HI. 4. 5. 6.
John,i. 23.
XL. 6. 1 Pet. I. 24. 25.
XL. 13. Rom. XI. 34.
1 Cor. II. 16.
XLH. 1. Matt. XH. 18.
xLv. 23. Rom. XIV. 11.
XLix. 6. Acts, XHi. 47.
XLix. 8. 2 Cor. VI. 2.
Lu. 5. Rom. 11. 24.
LH. 7. Rom. X. 1 5.
Lii. 11.12. 2 Cor. VI. 17. 18.
LH. 15. Rom. XV. 21.
Liii. 1. John XH. 38.
LHi. 3. Rom. X. 16.
LHi. 4. Matt. vHi. 17.
LHi. 5. 1 Pet. II. 24,
LiH. 7. 8. Acts, viH. 32. 33.
LiH. 9. 1 Pet. 11. 22.
LHi. 12. Mark, xv. 28.
Luke, xxH. 37.
Liv. 1. Gal. IV. 27.
Liv. 13. John, vi. 45.
Lv. 3. Acts, xiH. 34.
Lvi. 7. Matt. xxi. 13.
Mark, xi. 17.
'- Luke, xix. 46.
Lix. 7. 8. Rom. HI. 15.
Lix. 20. 21. Rom. xi. 26. 27.
Lxi. 1.2. Luke, IV. 18. 19,
Isaiah.
UANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
MiCAII.
101
Lxiv. 13. 1. Cor. II. 9.
Lxv. 1. 2. Acts, vu. 49. 40.
ixv. 1.2. Rom. X. 20.21.
Jeremiah.
vii. 11. Matt. XXI. 13.
Mark, xi. 17.
Luke, XIX. 46.
IX. 23. 1. Cor. 1.31.
XXXI. 15.. Matt. II. 18.
XXXI. 31.. Hebr. viii. 8.
XXXI, 33. 34. Hebr. x. 16, 17.
HOSEA.
11. 1. Rom. IX. S6.
II. 25. Rom. IX. 25.
VI. 6. Matt. IX. 13.
— — Matt. XII. 7.
XI. 1. Matt. II. 15.
XIII. 14. 1 Cor. XV. 65.
Joel.
«i. 1. Acts, 11. 17.
ui. 5. Rom. X. 13.
Amos.
V. 25. Acts, VII. 42. 43.
IX. 11. 12. Acts, XV. 16. 17.
V. I. Matt. II. 0.
Habakkuk.
I. 5. Acts, XIII. 41.'
II. 3. 4. Hebr. x. 37. 38.
II. 4. Rom. !. 17.
Gal. 111. U. 12.
Haggai.
n. 6. Hebr. xii. 26.
Zechariah.
IX. 9. Matt. xxi. 5.
John, XII. 15.
XI. 13. Matt, xxvii. 9. 10.
xii. 10. John, xix. 37.
xiii. 7. Matt. XXVI. 31.
Mark, xiv. 27.
Malachi.
I. 2. 3. Rom. ix. 13.
III. 1. Matt. XI. 10.
Mark, i. 2. 3.
Luke, vii. 27.
III. 23. Luke, i. 17.
102 CANON OP THE OLD TESTAM&NT.
There are, in the New Testament, no direct quotations from
the following books :
Judges. Nehemiah. Daniel.
Ruth. Esther. Obadiah.
n Kings. Ecclesiastes. Jonah.
I Chronicles. The Song of Solomon. Nahum.
II Chronicles. Lamentations. Zephaniah.
Ezra. Ezekiel.
But references are made to some of these :
To Judges, in Heb. xi. 30 — 34. and Acts, xiii* 20 ; to
II Kings in Luke, iv. 25 — 27. x. 4. Heb. xi. 35 ; i Chro-
nicles, in Heb. v. 4; ii Chronicles, in Matt. ii. 5L
xxni. 35. Lu. xi. 51 ; Nehemiah, Rom. ii. 24 ; Esther,
Rev. XI. 6; Ecclesiastes, in 1 Tim. vi. 7. Jam. iv.
5 ; Lamentations, 1 Cor. iv. 15 ; Ezekiel, in ii Pet.
II. 5. III. 4. Rev. ; Daniel, in Matt, xxxiv. 15. Mark,
xiH. 14. Heb. XI. 33. 34; Jonah, in Matt. xu. 39— 4L
Luke, XI. 30. 32 ; Nahum, Rev* xviii. 3.
Storr, in his Biblical Theology, (quoted above, §. 8. note *),
has exhibited, /rom the New Testament^ a View of the " Divine
authority of the Old Testament^^^ in Vol. i. B. i. §. 13.; and
in §. 14., he gives the " Proof ,''^ from the New Testament^ " that
the Jewish Canon, in the days of Jesus, contained the same booki
which now constitute our Old Testament," Horne, in his In-
troduction to the Holy Scriptures, Vol. n. P. i. Ch. ix. Sect, i.,
has classified and arranged the " Quotations from the Old
Testament in the New." The most convenient and satis-
factory work, as an aid to the student, who desires to investi-
gate the subject, is entitled " Passages cited from the Old
Testament by the writers of the New Testament, compared
with the Original Hebrew and the Septuagint Version : ar-
CANON or THE OLD TESTAMENT. 103
ranged by the Junior Class in the Theological Seminary,
Andover, and published at their request, under the super-
intendence of M. Stuart, Associate Professor of Sacrefl
Literature." pp. 39. Quarto, Andover, 1827. Tr. ]
Note [ B ].
The quotations from the Old Testament in the New are of
two kinds.
I. Some books are quoted /or the establishment of religious
truths. To this class, without controversy, belong the fol-
lowing books.
1. The books of Moses. Matt. iv. 4. 7. xv. 4. xxn. 31. 37.
Mark, vii. 9. 10. 13. 1 Cor. ix. 8.
2. Isaiah. Matt. i. 23. (viii. 17. xii. 18. Mark, xi. 17.
John, VI. 45.), Acts, viii. 30 — 35. Rom. xii. i Pet. ii. 6.
3. Jeremiah. Hebr. x. 15. 16. 17.
4. Psalms. Matt. xxn. 43. 44. Acts, ii. 25.
II. Some books of the Old Testament are only cited by the
way ; sometimes for illustration, sometimes as parallels.
The student, who wishes to examine this part of the sub-
ject, will be furnished with a list of the direct and indirect
quotations, by consulting Knapp's edition of the New Testa-
ment ; in which, at the close of Tom. ii., is given a table, en-
titled : Recensus locorum Veteris Testamenti in Kovo vel ipsis
verbis, vel obscurius commemoratorum.
The whole subject is very ably discussed by the following
writers, in addition to those cited in the last note :
Drusius, in the work entitled ; In Parallela Sacra Kotae,
inserted in the Critici Sacri, Lond., 1660. Vol. virr.
pp. 1266— 1325.
104 CANON OP THE OLD TESTAMENT.
SuRENHUSius, inhis niK^on -ISD sive B1BA02 K ATA AA APHIS,
in quo secundum veterum theologorum Hebraeorum for-
mulas allegandi, et modos interpretandi conciliantur loca
ex V. in JV. T, allegata. Amstelaedamiy 1713, small 4to.
pp. 712.
MicHAELis, in his Introduction to the New Testament, Vol. i.
P; I, Ch. V. Sect. I— V.
Owen, on the Modes of Quotation used by the Evangelical
writers.
Shlegel, in a Treatise printed in the Thesaurus Novus
Theolog. Philolog. P. ii. T. ii.
Scott, in his contributions on the subject, found in the
Christian Observer; see the Vols, for 1810 and 1811.
Some excellent observations may be found also, in a Lec-
ture by Professor Woods, Andover, pp. 32., on " The
Objection to the Inspiration of the Evangelists and .Apostles
from their manner of quoting texts from the Old Testa-
mmt."
ESSAY
OS THE
JLIFE AND WRITINGS
OF
SAMUEL BOCHART.
BY WILLIAM R. WHITTINGHAM, A. M.
CHAPLAIN AND SUPEHINTHNDENT OF THE KHW-YOHK
PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL PUBLIC SCHOOL.
u
ESSAY.
Success in giving a tolerably accurate outlhie of the events
of a scholar's life, and some idea of the contents and charac-
ter of the vrorks on which his fame is built, is all that will be
aimed at in the following Essay. The extraordinary reputa-
tion of BocHART would, it is true, justify a much more ex-
tensive work. His hfe, although not eventful, contains much
that would afford theme for copious remark ; and a thorough
<iriticism of his voluminous and most learned works would
fill a volume. The imperfect sketch which follows will not
do justice to the subject, but it may, at least, furnish a few
facts respecting a man who, once the wonder of his age, is
now almost forgotten, and excite some attrition to books
which are at this day more praised than read.
Few men have acquired a higher reputation for abstract
learning than Boch art. At an early period of his life his fame
i'was extended beyond the limits of his country ; and on the pub-
lication of his principal works, it almost instantaneously obtain-
ed the most exalted'rank. Tlie most distinguished scholars, in
an age which of all before or since excelled in varied erudition,
vied with each other in admiring and extolling the enjiinence of
BocHART in the very acquirements for which they themselves
were most celebrated, {a) From them the crowd of second-
(a) Sarrau, a coansellor at Paris, an accomplished scholar and patron
of learned men, says in a letter to Saumaise, as early as March 15,
1645: "Cadomensis BocHARTuseruditissimum commentarium in Genes,
cap. X. perfecit — in quo — omnigena doctrina — suaviter te afficiet." —
J. L. Fabricy (in Orat. Inaug. de Animarum Iramortalitale, in 3660,)
says of him "praecipuum aevi noslri dictus sit miraculum, cujus si
quis nomen ignoret, aut stupendum cumque summa mddestia con-
junctum ernditionem non suspiciat, ilium penitus eeyuxdcf esse o.porte-at*'
108 MEMOIRS OF
rate writers, who depend on their Coryphaei for their judg-
ments and opinions, took the tone ; and since that time it would
have been hterary heresy to consider Bochart as other than a
scholar of the first rank. The honourable appellation of " the
learned " — eruditus — is almost invariably prefixed to his name,
and would you give an example of nearly unbounded reading {h)
and equal diligence in its appHcation, cite Bochart, and the
aptness of the illustration will be immediately allowed, (c)
Considering the exalted station which our author has main-
tained among the learned, — his intimate connexion with a
great number of the most celebrated literary characters of
his age and country, and his extensive correspondence with
eminent individuals, it is rather surprising that no independ-
ent biographical account of him should have been given to the
world. Within the last half century, many less prominent
and less interesting characters have been made the subjects
The opinions of G. J. Vossius, Isaac Vossius, Tanaquil Faber, Lewis
Cappel, Paul Colomies, and Meric Casaubon, to the same effect, are
cited by Spizehus, Inf. Lit. p. 917, 919, 925.
(6) In his excellent remarks on the antiquities of the Phoenicians,
Bochart appears to have made no use of a Spanish work on the anti-
quities of Spain and Africa, by Berna rd Aldrete, published in 1614 ; and
as this is an opus classicum, B.'s inattention to it must have arisen from
ignorance of it. The remark is made by Le Clerc, Bibl. Choisie,
V. 389. and 393, and after him by Fabricius, Bibliographia Antiquaria
p. 43. That two of the sharpest critics and greatest readers in the
learned world should have so carefully noted a single oversight in Bo-
chart, and should have been able to discover only one, is a strong proof
of the great extent of his reading. Such criticisms aregreatly creditable
to his learning. They show that its boundaries were those of human
infirmity; ' tantura nan omnia scivit.'
(r) SrizELius^ in that elaborately learned and eccentric work, the
' Infelix Literatus,' has a chapter entitled ' Solertia Jugis, sive Litera-
torum, ingenio pariter ac laboriosa sedulitate aevo nostro maxirae
illustrium Quadriga pobilissima.' The illustrious ybw are Isaac Casau-
bon, Ger. Jo. Vossius, John Selden, and Bochart, He speaks of them
as '' fulgentissima orbis eruditi sidera;" and talks of *' quantis (inde-
fotigabili sua studiositate) thesauris universam rempublicam literariam
«»;tornRnnt. locupletarintnup " Inf. Lit. Common, xxx. p. 887.
SAMUEL BOGHART. 109
i&f extensive works, while he has been suflered to languish
ia comparative obscurity.
Soon after Boc hart's decease, his junior colleague in the
pastoral care of the church at Caen, Du Bosc, who is well
known as the zealous and able advocate of the liberties of
his fellow Protestants in France, avowed an intention to
write his life, (d) But this intention was completely frustrat-
ed by the troubles which preceded the revocation of the edict
of Nantz, and the consequences of that revocation. These
commenced almost immediately after Bochart*s decease,
and resulted in the exile of Du Bosc, with the greater portion
of his flock, to Holland, where he shortly after died. Had
no such series of untoward events occurred, we should doubt-
less be in possession of a faithful portraiture of the life and
manners of our author, and that with the additional advantage
of its being from a master's pen.
This project having failed, Stephen Morin, a junior asso-
ciate with Bochart and Du Bosc in the care of the church
at Caen, was induced, by the intreaties of their common
friends, to draw up, partly from recollection and partly from
papers in the possession of Bochart's family, a short account
<}f the life and writings of our author in the Latin language, (e)
This has been prefixed to both the editions of Bochart's col-
lected works. It is the first article in the third volume of the
splendid edition of Leusden and Villamand. Narration was
not the forte of Morin, and accordingly, as a history of the
life of Bochart, his essay merits very little praise. The detail
of facts is dry, unnecessarily concise, and provokingly meagre.
His reflections are seldom more than common place, often
almost puerile. Bat as a friend and apologist of his deceased
colleague, he shows his zeal, and learning, and ingenuity, in an
advantageous light. His account of the origin and design
of the published and unpublished works of Bochart, also, is
(rf) MoRiNUs de Clar. Boch. p. 1.
(e) Stephanus Moeinus de Clarissirao Bocharto et omnibus ejus
i5cripti«
no MEMOIRS OF
tolerably interesting and well arranged. On the whole, his
thirty-six folio pages are filled with matter rather above the
general character of the biographical notices commonly pre-
fixed to posthumous editions of the works of celebrated men.
From this life, a notice of Bochart contained in the Infelix
liiteratus of Spizelius, and several scattered anecdotes in
Huet's Commentaries on his own Life, the materials of the
following sketch have been principally derived.
When a man has acquired by his own talents and industry
an enduring reputation, it can add but little to his importance
to trace his descent from a noble ancestry. Yet that little the
biographer is seldom willing to spare ; and accordingly, scanty
as are the memorials of Samuel Bochart, it has been care-
fully recorded that he derived his origin, on the father's side,
from a noble family. The frequency of the instances in which
several individuals of the same family have excelled in the
same or similar branches of science or the arts attaches rather
more real value to a near connexion with men distinguished
for their natural endowments. Of this advantage, also, our
author was not destitute, his mother being sister to the famous
Peter Moulin or Molin^us. It was of more importance to
him, however, that his parents were themselves eminent for
their talents and their virtues. His father, Bochart de Mes-
NiLLET, having filled the station of Chief Pastor of the Re-
formed Church at Rouen, with reputation, for many years ; and
his mother having even acquired celebrity for her remarkable
prudence and sedateness, and unfeigned piety. Of such
parents he was born at Rouen in 1599. Nothing is recorded
of his early youth, except that it was well spent. There are yet
extant forty-four Greek verses of no contemptible character,
composed by him at the early age of thirteen, and addressed
to his preceptor, who deemed them of sufficient value to be
prefixed to a Corpus Romanorum Antiquitatum, published in
1612. These verses are of no small importance in tracing the
literary life of our author, since they inform us that he was
the cherished and grateful pupil of no less a scholar than
Thomas Dempster. This man, a Scotchman by birth, a
tutor in the University of Paris, was an object of admiration
SAtfUEL fiOCUATt'A 111
wifi\ nis cotemporaries for his extraordinary talents, his un-
common boldness and great personal courage, and especially
his extensive reading and astonishing memory. It is said of
him that he did not know what it was to forget, and that there
was no passage or circumstance in any ancient author with
which he was not perfectly acquainted. (/) The number
and variety of his works prove the use which he made of such
extraordinary endowments. To have been placed at an early
age under the care of such a man was undeniably no small
advantage to Bochart, and in all probability contributed
greatly to form him to the character in which he afterward
appeared. On the other hand, that such an advantage was
not thrown away upon him, is evident from the fact that a
man of such distinguished learning as Dempster was willing
to prefix the commendatory verses of his pupil to one of his
most elaborate productions. Shortly after the publication of
those verses our author was removed to the College at
Sedan, (g) He there studied philosophy under John Smith,
a clergyman and professor of the institution ; and in 1615,
sustained his public theses in that branch with much credit.
These he dedicated in verse to his grandfather, Joachim
Moulin, a pastor at Orleans, and to his uncle Peter Mouliin',
then resident at Paris. About the same time he also publish-
ed several other minor poems, which do credit to his pro-
ficiency in the Latin language, and the principles of its versi-
fication. One in particular, bearing date 1616, is worthy of
notice, as a remarkable instance of the same indefatigable in-
dustry which adhered to him through life, and as exhibiting an
extraordinary ingenuity which, perhaps, contributed to lessen
the value of the learned labours of his maturer years. A
friend and classmate had published some theses De Mundo.
Bochart, to do him honour, composed a copy of complimen-
(/) Bayle,Dict. Art. DEMPSTER. NoteE.
(g) He was probably residing at Paris, in the house of his uncle Peter
Moulin, while he was under the care of Dempster. Morin. ubi supra,
p. 2.
il2 MEMOIRS OF
taiy verses, increasing in six lines from a dimeter to a fuH
hexameter, and decreasing again to a dimeter in as many more,
so as to form the superficies of a circle. A large O circum-
scribed the whole, and this letter formed the beginning and
end of every line, (h) Some other complimentary poems,
published in 1618, on occasion of the departure of two young
noblemen from Sedan, display considerable powers of versi-
fication, and some invention, and prove the continuance of
Bochart's attachment to these lighter studies. Nevertheless,
although he indulged in these amusements, while at Sedan, he
made theology the principal subject of 1ms attention, studying
it under the learned and celebrated James Capel. About 1619
he left Sedan, and went, as nearly as Morin could ascer-
tain (i) to the Protestant university at Saumur, there studying
divinity under the famous Scotch divine John Cameron, who
succeeded Gomar in his Professorship in that university in
1618. The civil disturbances obliged Cameron to retire to
London in 1621. Bochart accompanied him, attending his
private lectures there. According to Morin, {k) his stay was
short, as toward the close of the same year he was at Leyden,
(h) I insert this literary trifle, to convey an accurate idea of the la-
bour which must have been wasted in its composition.
rbis orig^ ^^
rnatus, situs, ord
/ lympus ipse in parvul
/ rdine pingitup hoc libell
nunc, quisquis es, aggredi cavet
pemque potius, ferre si potes, fert
rbe vel extorris fugies, extorris olympj
rcusque solus supererit tibi raiser
Isace, metum mente repellit
rbera quippe tegit tuus umb
rbis aderit tibi mutu
pponesvalidumtu
rbera inimic
(i) MoRiK. ubi supra. (k) Moriw. ubi supra.
siudying the Arabic language, and perfecting his knowledge
of* Hebrew, under Erpenius, the first Arabic scholar of his
day ; and at the same time attending the theological lectures
of Andrew Rivet. (/) If this be correct, Bochart must
have visited England twice ; since it is certain that in 1622 he
was studying at Oxford, (w) and in the Lent or spring term
of the year was admitted a public student in the library of that
university, at that time the accustomed resort of studious
foreigners. The common complaint of continental scholars
respecting the peculiarity of the English pronunciation of the
Latin language was made by our traveller. A laughable oc-
currence, which took place during his residence at the Univer-
sity, afforded him, it must be confessed, some ground. A crea-
tion of Doctors being about to take place, Bochart paid a visit
to one of the Academical Senate for the purpose of obtaining
admission to a sight of the ceremony. After stating his request
with some urgency, he was no little surprized and mortified
to receive for answer that * the Academical funds were at that
time very low,' accompanied with the tender of a few crowns.
The good doctor had been unable to understand the continental
pronunciation of his visiter, and had only collected from his
speech that he was a foreigner in want of something. Accus-
tomed, no doubt, to applications for pecuniary aid (for Eng-
land was at that time noted for her liberality to needy scholars
from abroad) he presumed the object of Bochart to be of tho
same kind, and framed his reply accordingly. The difference
of pronunciation must have been great, which could so com-
pletely interrupt communication between two persons well
acquainted with the language in which they attempted to con-
verse. The same difference exists to the present day, al-
though it is impossible to prove that either of the modern me-
(l) Rivet was Bochart's uncle by marriage 'with his mother's sister;
and subsequently displayed his esteem for his distinguished relative and
pupil, by dedicating to him, jointly with P. du Moulin, W. Rivet, and
J. M. DE Langle, his Calholicm Orlhodoxus^ in 1629.
(m) Anth. Wood. Fasti Oxonienses, i. 158.
15
114 MEMOIRS OF
thods is conlbrniable to the ancient pronunciation of the
language. There is no plea for such an obstinate adherence
on either side to peculiarities which deprive the Latin scholar of
half the benefit of his acquisition, by taking from it the cha-
racter of an universal language and general medium of com-
munication between the learned. As the English, and those
who in this country have followed their pronunciation, are the
raihority, it behoves them to cede to the generally prevailing
custom, and render their own Latin intelligible when spoken,
to the rest of the world, and themselves able to understand
the conversation of foreign men of letters.
BocHART, having spent his time abroad with pleasure and
profit, was recalled to his native place by the death of his
father, and the duties he owed to his widowed mother. With
her he resided some time at Rouen, until the Reformed Congre-
gation at Caen being deprived, by death, of one of its pastors,
and hearing of the young Bochart's extraordinary talents and
acquirements, unanimously elected him to supply the vacancy.
He accepted the appointment, and consequently removed to
Caen, which, excepting the short interval of his journey into
Sweden, was his place of residence during the remainder
of his life. The date of this settlement is not recorded, but
all accounts agree in speaking of its happy consequences ; and
stating that Bochart's assiduity and faithful attention to all
the duties of the pastoral office quickly gained him a very
great degree of popularit}^ Preaching, in consequence of
the peculiar, and perhaps undue, importance which is attach-
ed to that ordinance by the reformed churches on the conti-
nent, occupied a great proportion of his studies. As might be
expected when a man of such abilities concentrated his exer-
tions on a single object, he met with eminent success. His
discourses were warm and practical, while at the same time,
according to Morin, (n) he displayed consummate ability in
(n) I quote my author, because the assertion appears a little mar-
vellous, and because his judgment may have differed from that which
would have been formed in the premises by a modern sermon-critic.
,^ LIB
'or TUB
SAMUEL BOCHART. Vv ^il5v ^Ti
rendering them replete with learning, without in the least un-
fitting them for popular effect, or rendering them above the
comprehension of his people.
But BocHART was not left long undisturbed in this happy
and useful connexion. The plans which the wily Richelieu
had set in operation were now beginning to take ef!ect, and
all things were fast ripening for the downfall of the re-
formed religion in France. Among other indications of the
approach of that event, was the appearance of a swarm of
self-constituted pacificators, who, under pretence of seeking
by the oft tried method of conference and disputation, to unite
both parties, were in reality deepening the prejudices of the
Romanists and exasperating their ill-will against the Protes-
tant minority. A conspicuous place among these wranglers
was held by one Veron, an ex-Jesuit, who, under authority
of a royal licence, migrated from place to place, holding
formal disputations with such of the reformed as he could
persuade or tease into the measure. He was one of the set
known in history by the name of Methodists, on account of
their adopting and rigidly observing particular methods of con-
ducting their controversies, which seemed to^them best suited
to effect their ends. His plan was to insist that his antagonists
should make good their arguments and opinions, in every in-
stance, by express and formal declarations of Holy Writ.
No inference or conclusion, however fair, no circumstantial
proof, however strong, was to be admitted. * You appeal to
Scripture,' was virtually his language to Protestants, * and to
Scripture we will go. But it shall be Scripture only, without
the least aid of human reason in any way applied.' Of course
there could be very little chance of failure in such a contest.
With all the advantage of the negative side of the question, he
deprived his opponents of the use of the only evidence which
they could, or desired to, bring in support of their affirma-
tive, (o) This champion made his appearance at Caen in
(o) MosHKMii. Hist. Eccles. p. 873. Simon Lettres Choisies, p. 212. 5
116 MKMOIRS Ol
1628, and ^vitll persevering industry tormented Bochart till
he consented to a public disputation in the castle of the city.
The Due de Longueville, at that time Viceroy of Normandy,
and governor of the place, presided ; and a number of per-
sons of distinction, with a great concourse of* people, of botli
creeds, were present. The conference lasted nine days, and
turned upon all the principal points in dispute between the
Romanists and Protestants. Two secretaries appointed for
that purpose, one by each of the contending parties, took
down the arguments of the disputants, and at the close of
each day's session, these were read before the president and
the whole assembly, and signed by Bochart and his antago-
nist. Notwithstanding all this formality, the conference, as
might have been foreseen, produced no good result. Of course
neither the Jesuit nor his friends admitted that he was worst-
ed ; and yet Moiun asserts that he deserted the field of com-
bat, leaving Bochart to finish by himself the third part of the
disputation, as it had been previously arranged. The friendly
biographer even breaks out in admiration of the wonderful
work of Providence (' mirabili Providentiae divinae opera) by
which the acts were prepared with so much formality, as it
were merely for the purpose of displaying the superior learn-
ing and ability of Bochart, and the just predominance of the
good cause for which he was an advocate. It must be con-
fessed, however, that the advantage of the last zuord may have
conduced a little to this apparent superiority, as Morin al-
lows that the extraordinary acquaintance of Bochart with
the fathers and Ecclesiastical History appeared principally in
his additions to his arguments, made by him as they passed
through the press, — which he was prevented from using in the
debate by the procacity of his redoubtable antagonist ( ! ) :
and that the main strength of the support of Protestantism
lies in the last part, with which V^eron had no concern.
How, on the rule of disputing said to have, been invariably
observed by that Jesuit, opportunity was given to Bochart
to display his learning in the fathers and acquaintance
with church history, and, in particular, to adduce ffty testi-
monies of the fathers of tho first four centuries respecting the
SAMUEL BOCHART. iVi
Eucharist, — to bring more than three hundred proofs from the
decrees of councils and canons of the church, of the falsity of
the doctrine of transubstantiation, — and to give a history of
clerical celibacy through sixteen centuries, — it is not easy to
imagine. But be that as it may, it is certain that no small in-
crease of fame accrued to our author from his contest ; and
that if silence is proof of defeat, Veron pleaded craven, by
suffering his adversary's edition of the dispute quietly to take
its course and enjoy its triumph. (/?) The book was in French,
and, like most others of its kind, has been long since buried in
oblivion.
This incident viras succeeded by an interval of quiet study
of some years' duration.. Not to say, with Morin^, that Boch-
ART had instilled a fear of his talents and acquirements into
the opposing party, it is more than probable that they had
discovered that he was not the man to suit their purpose ; he
was too well able at least, to defend himself and his cause, to
afford them any hopes of giving him a downright overthrow ;
and he was too cool in his temperament, and too much in-
volved in erudition, to indulge in any sallies of ill-temper
which might give an opportunity of exciting prejudice against
him. He was consequently left to the peaceful discharge of
his parochial duties, and cultivation of his favourite studies.
However extraordinary it may appear, the pastoral duties
of our author during this period were the occasion and the
source of the monuments of wonderful erudition, which he has
(p) So MoRiN explicitly, ubi supra, p. 4. ad im. Yet Rivet, in his De-
dication of his Calholicus Orlhodoxus to Bochaht, implies the contrary.
* You showed him ' (Verou), says he, * that he was ignorant in Greek
and in Hebrew, and put a bridle on his impudent sophistry, which he
has endeavoured to shake off by telling many lies (according to his cus-
tom,) about his imaginary victories ; but wise men have not been de-
ceived by them, and you have discovered his vanity by your answer.'
This looks as if Veron, so far from allowing himself beaten by his silence,
had publicly claimed the victory, and had forced Bochart to assert
his title to that praise by a printed answer. See Bayle, BOCHART.
llote B.
118 MEiMOIRS OF
left to perpetuate his fame. He undertook, and accomplished
the composition of a course of sermons to his congregation on
the book of Genesis, from the beginning of the book to the
18th verse of the 49th chapter. These sermons, fairly writ-,
ten out with his own hand, he left among his other papers, to
his family. Bochart was not one who would content him-
self with a superficial or a partial view of any subject. While
engaged in the study of the sacred writings for the purpose of
eliciting from them practical instructions for his flock, he
could not pass over the difficulties which they occasionally
present, nor leave unexamined any, even the nicest, question
respecting the facts which they contain. The description of
Paradise in the second chapter of Genesis excited him to a
closer investigation of the real situation of that happy spot
than had ever before been instituted ; which resulted in the
treatise de Paradiso terrestri, now extant, though in a very
imperfect state, in the third volume of his works. In like
manner, almost every chapter presented some points not suit-
ed to be the themes of public discourses, and affording occa-
sion for the exercise of his deep research and unvaried erudi-
tion. The chronology and geography of the sacred volume,
— its natural history, — the origin of the names of men and
places which it records, and the more intricate portions of its
history, were not matters to be neglected by our studious pas-
tor. While plainer, and perhaps more useful, subjects formed
the matter of his weekly instructions to the people, these were
the favourite objects of his esoteric labours, and in these he
was gradually accumulating the astonishing mass of learning,
which he at length digested into his Sacred Geography and
Hierozoicon.
MoRiN, indeed, speaking with especial reference to the book
named Ph A LEG, gives a somewhat diflferent representation of
the matter. * Bochart,' says he, ' when he came to the 10th
chapter, and by his method was obliged to explain the origin
of nations as it is there narrated, bestowed all his powers
upon the work, and spared no pains to collect every thing
needful for the illustration of his subject, and to assure him-
self that every thing which he asserted in the pulpit was true.
6AMUKL BOCHART. il^
and capable of proof.' According to this view, we may sup-
pose his people to have been weekly edified with the erudite
discussions now arranged and condensed into a single work.
In charity to the preacher I would fain believe this to be an
incorrect account. Morin does not pretend to have seen his
discourses, and therefore may have founded his assertion mere-
ly on his own opinion, (q) But an examination of the ser-
mons preached by the friends and contemporaries of Bochart
will show, how contrary to prevailing custom such a proceed-
ing on his part must have been, and how little likely it would
be to procure him popularity. The pulpit discourses of the
age were almost exclusively doctrinal, and never was there
more of onction than they generally breathed. No doubt
the sermons of our author partook of the predominant charac-
ter, and we may charge it rather to his biographer's blind ad-
miration of his learning than to his own utter want of judg-
ment, that he is represented as having preached his Phaleg
piecemeal to a no doubt wondering, but surely spiritually starv^-
ing, flock.
Eighteen years elapsed before these lucubrations were suf-
fered to go abroad by their laborious author. At length, in
1646, he was induced by the solicitations of his friends and
learned correspondents, to commit the First Part of his ' Sa-
cred Geography ' to the press, at Caen, * whither a printer
had been induced to come, from Sedan, for the express pur-
pose of securing greater accuracy in its impression, t The
(g) He merely says of them — *' excellentissimis concionibris, quas
manu sud ad verbura nitide descriptas suo ex unica filia nepoti Samueli
le Seur domino de CoUeville in Parlamento Rothomaycnsi dim Sena-
tori cum multis aliis scrlptis auro contra aestimandis reliquit."— How
well they would deserve the epithet M. here bestows on them, if his ac-
count of them were correct, the reader is left to judge.
^ It was printed at Bochart's own expense, with types purchased
for him, and by workmen in his pay. Like most authors who publish
for themselves, he was heartily tired of the undertaking before its com-
pletion. Ep. ad Voss. 0pp. iii. 862.
i And yet the editors of the edition published in 4to, at Frankfort, in
12U MEMOIRS iJh '
name Phaleg or Peleg, that of the descendant ot 8hem, in
whose days the dispersion of mankind took place, was given
to this part, to indicate its subject, — the origin of nations, and
their derivation from the Noachitic stem, according to the
table in the tenth of Genesis.
The Second Part of the work was immediately after put to
press, and appeared in the following year, under the title
' Canaan,' expressing its relation to the settlements of the
descendents of Canaan, and the vestiges of their wanderings
and colonics, throughout the world.
The work thus completed had scarcely had time to be-
come known to the learned world, before it obtained for its
author an extraordinary degree of fame and admiration.*
The subjects were comparatively new, at least in the extent
to which he had carried his investigations. The treatment
of them was ingenious. The arrangement was perspicuous
and convenient. And above all, the mass of learning brought
to bear upon every point in the least connected with the ob-
ject of the work was almost incredibly great. Erudition was
at that period more in vogue than originality ; and research,
not invention or discovery, was considered the proof of in-
telligence. Accordingly Boon art, who seemed to have read
every thing that had been written on subjects which he dis-
cussed, (r) and to have remembered all that he had read, was
acknowledged as a genius of the first class, and took his sta-
1681, complain of 'Infinita 94)«x,MaTat * in that of Caen: — to the rea-
sonableness of which complaint I myself can testify.
*' Its character and effects are well illustrated by an anecdote told by
IIuET of himself, which shows that in all human probability, we are in*
debted for the benefit of his learned labours, to Bochart. " I was in-
vited to resume the pursuits of general literature and antiquities, by the
Sacred Geography of Samukl Bochart, which then began to be pub-
lished at Caen. By this rich store of Hebrew and Greek literature, I
was not only rendered sensible of my own poverty, but was made
ashamed of it; so that I adopted the resolution to abstain from all other
studies until I might be reckoned not uninformed in these." Comm.
de Vita. Lib. i. Aikin's Mem. i- 31.
(r) See note (&)•
SAMUEL BOCHA&i. i^^i
tion, almost immediately, and without dispute, next the Scah-
OERS, Saumaise, and the elder Vossius. (s)
Of course, any reluctance to expose his productions to the
judgment of the world that our author might have previously
felt, was now completely overcome ; and he was inspirited
to proceed with alacrity in the arrangement of his collections
respecting the natural history of the Bible, preparatory to
their publication as a connected work.
While engaged in this, he received a flattering proof of the
degree of estimation which he had obtained even among
foreigners, in a correspondence which he had in 1650 with
MoRLEY, one of the chaplains of Charles II., at that time an
exile from his throne. That divine, who was high in the con-
fidence of his king, and at the Restoration v/as rewarded for his
fidelity, and his share in that event, with the Bishopric of Win-
chester, thought fit to consult our author as to the best method
of reconciling the religious differences between the contending
civil parties. The answer is a long and able letter, [t) writ-
(s) As an instance of this, it appears from a letter of his to Saumaise.
dated 1646, that even before the Second Part of his work had yet appear-
ed, he had been invited with some earnestness by that great man, to accept
of a situation in the same university with himself. On consultation with
his friends, and examination of his present engagements, Bochart de-
clined the offer. But coming, as it did, from a foreign country, from
one of the most celebrated seats of learning then in Europe (the Uni-
versity of Leyden) and more especially through the instrumentality of
the most eminent scholar of his time, it must be allowed to have been
no trifling honour. Boch. Ep. in 0pp. ni. 1161. A letter of Sarrau,
the Parisian counsellor, to Saumaise (already quoted in note a ) dated
March 15, 1645, speaks of the Phaleg as " Geographiae Sacrae illustris
et nova tractatio," and goes on " majus nostro testimonium habetab
Amplissimo Bignonio (Jerome Bignon, Avocat-general de France, one
of the most learned and accomplished men of his age) qui hodie mihi
affirmavit, Scaligerum, Drusiuji, Fullerum, prae hoc nostro ineptire."
BiGNON had himself written a Descripi'to Terrae Sanctae, which obtained
some celebrity ; and of course was qualified to pass an opinion on the
subject.
{I) " Viro amplissimo D. Morley, Regis Angliae Sacellano, S. Bo.
CHARTDS S. D. 1. De Presbyteratu et Episcopatu ; n, De Provocatione a
judiciis Ecclesiastcis ; iii. De Jure ac Potestate Regum. Cedomi. 4 Non .
Mart, 1650— Opp. Tom. iii. 988—1023. This letter has given occasjojj
16
122 MEMOIRS Of
ten with much caution ; and, making allowances for the pe-
culiar opinions of the writer, much judgment and sound wis-
dom. The claims of Presbyteiy and Episcopacy to a divine
right and exclusive obligation : — the extent and limits of the
rights of magistrates to interfere in ecclesiastical affairs ; —
and the divine origin of the kingly power, with its claims to
passive obedience ; and those of the subject, on the contrary,
to a right of resistance and self-defence, were the subjects
to some curious blunders. Spizelius has given its title in one page
(Inf. Lit. p. 922) and in the next, quoting a letter of Sarrau, in which it
is mentioned by its subject, laments that it has never been made public,
(p. 923) and then again, in the errata, corrects himself by referring to a
mere re-impression, asif it had then first appeared. Bayle (Bochart.
note C.) points out the inaccuracy of Spizelius in the second pas-
sage, and is himself corrected by his translators (ed. Lond, 1735. ii. 41.)
with a reference to the Errata; while both have overlooked the first
passage in p. 922. Bayle's description of this letter as about * The au-
thority of Kings and the institution of Bishops and Priests ' is very incor-
rect, while that of Sarrau, as quoted by Spizelius, p. 923, ' de nupero
Regicidio Anglican©,' is still worse. This letter was published at Paris
in 1650, in 18mo., and an edition, which the paper and typography show
to belong to London, in 32mo., without place or date, bears the imprint,
'juxta exemplar impressum Parisiis, 1650.'* No doubt it was expected
to have influence ; in France, in favour of tha tottering cause of the
Huguenots, by proving their moderation and their loyal submission'to
* the powers that be,' — in England, by instilling moderate views into
both contending parties, and arousing the nation to a sense of the
criminality of the murder of their King. It was also reprinted at the
end of the Frankfort edition of the Geographia Sacra, in 4to., 1681.
A letter of very similar purport to this of Bochart, addressed by his
colleague Du Bosc to Brevint, another of the chaplains of Charles IL,
and containing opinions very much resembling those of our author,
may be found in Le Vie du P. du Bosc, par P. Le Gendre, Rotterdam,
1694, p. 18—29.
A correspondence of the same kind was held about 1680 by Comp-
TON, Bishop of London, with Claude, Le Moyme, and some other dis-
tinguished French Protestant divines.
* It is possible, but, I think, not probable, that this edition is referred
to by Spizelius (p. 922.) when he says " Paris, et Lugd. Bat. exctisa
An. 1650." I rather think he speaks of one edition, published in the
two cities simultaneous! v, as was at that time not uncommon.
:4'
SAMUEL BOCHART. l^*S
which were submitted to his consideration. Taking into
view his situation as an eminent member of a Presbyterian
body, placed among men who were anxiously watching for
any thing which might involve him in trouble, and accelerate
the ruin of his church ; it must be confessed that it required no
small share of prudence and ingenuity so to frame his reply
as, without displeasing those to whom he wrote, to give his true
opinions, and yet bring no difficulties on himself by giving of-
fence either to his brethren, or to their watchful adversaries.
All this appears in his Epistle. He carefully holds the ba-
lance of the contending parties, never suffering an undue pre-
dominance in either scale, and at no time displaying any un-
wary preference of any disputed point. He decides between
Episcopacy and Presbytery by denying the exclusive claims
of either, and maintaining that circumstances must decide the
choice of either for an establishment ; hinting at the same time,
that in England both might be allowed to exist, respectively
prevailing in different sections of the country as the prevalent
opinions differed. On the power of magistrates in ecclesiasti-
cal matters, he merely draws a distinction between the inter-
nal government of the church — that which relates to spiritual
truth and the salvation of souls, and its external administra-
tion, or that which settles its form, provides for its mainte-
nance, enforces its regulations, &c. : and then quotes the re-
corded decisions of several Synods of the Reformed Church in
France in favour of a joint government of the church amd state
in the latter. On the right of kings to the passive obedience
of their people he is much fuller than on the other points, and
maintains it with much warmth of expression and multiplicity
of argument. It was the interest of his church that her
opinions on this point should be known to be entirely loyal,
and evidently his own inclination accorded with that interest.
In all this letter, there are much fewer traces of the multi-
farious reading of the author than in any of his other writings.
His language is more select and exact. His train of argu-
ment is neater and closer than usual. I have dwelt the
longer on it, because, although insignificant in bulk, and prin-
^ipally occupied on subjects of trans^nt interest, it seems fo
1^ ilEMOIRS OF
me better calculated than any of his other productions to do
him credit as an original thinker, and wise and judicious man.
In a letter written about this time to Saumaise, Bochart
maintains the same opinions ; and while he expresses his satis-
faction with the work of that celebrated writer entitled * Pro
Defensione Regis Angliae,' he manifests his own superior
judgment, by declaring his disposition to acquit the English
Presbyterians of any deliberate intention to destroy the king,
and to consider them rather as deceived and hurried on, against
their better intentions, by the duplicity and violence of the
Independents, (u)
The year 1652 was the era of an occurrence of lio small
importance in the quiet and sedentary life of such a laborious
student as Bochart. This Was no less than a journey through
Holland and Denmark, to the capital of Sweden, in company
with HuETj afterward the celebrated Bishop of Avranches.
As early as 1650 the capricious and pedantic Christina, Queen
of Sweden, whose hobby was at that time the higher branches
of classic erudition, had, at the instigation of her counsellors
Descartes and Saumaise, and her tutor Vossius, shown
marks of singular respect to our author. Letters approv-
ing of his works, and exciting him to continue the prepara-
tion of the remainder for the pubhc, and others inviting
him to visit the royal court, were written by her learned
friends at her command. These producing nothing but thanks
and flattery from Bochart, at last Christina sent an urgent
letter written with her own hand, intreating him to come
without delay ; and at the same time caused Huet, then rising
into fame as a man of extensive learning, to be invited to ac-
company him. The measure was effectual. Such powerful
solicitations could not be withstood. The good pleasure of a
queen was not to be resisted, nor her favour to be trifled with.
" In consequence of these allurements," says Huet, (v) speak-
ing of Bochart, " though fettered by the public ministry of his
(u) Ep. ad Salmasium, 17 Mali, 1650- 0pp. Tom. ni. c. 1161. s.
(if) Oommentaria de Vita sUa, Lib. n.— ^Aikin's Memoirs of Hnet. 1. 120-
SAMUEL EOCHART. 125
religion, and the attractions of a very aftectionate family, and
habituated to the pleasures of study and tranquil leisure, he
postponed every consideration to the will of the Queen, and
was not to be deterred, either by the length of the journey,
the loss of time, or the inconvenience to his affairs." Yet
these sacrifices were not repaid. The usual fate of applicants
at courts was experienced by our travellers, and after all their
relinquishments, and all their pains, they returned neither
richer nor more honourable than they went, and well pleased
to regain the quiet and peacefulness of their former situations.
An intercourse of some weeks in Holland with Saumaise,
Heinsius, and Isaac Vossius ; — a personal inspection of
every thing worth seeing in the principal cities of Holland
and Denmark, and in the capital of Sweden ; — and some
months' uninterrupted use of the valuable hbrary collected by
the Queen, and especially of its stores of Oriental learning, —
were indeed, no small advantages, and perhaps well purchas-
ed, even at the cost of the personal fatigue and other incon-
veniences which they suffered. But certainly, with respect
to its principal object, this journey was an egregious failure.
BouRDELOT, a French physician, had made himself neces-
sary to Christina by his medical skill and perfect acquaint-
ance w^ith the arts of flattery. At the time of the arrival of
BocuART and Huet at her court, he was the prime favourite,
and the direction of her regards was under his control. Huet
shall give his naive account of the influence of this man upon
himself and his learned fellow-traveller. " As the Queen had
thrown herself into a state of languor by her intense applica-
tion to those studies, and was occasionally attacked by slight
fevers, Bourdelot, in the first place, craftily attending to his
own consequence and reputation, (zo) removed all books from
(w) He was himself illiterate, so far at least, as regards those deeper
studies to which Christina had been in the habit of attending. Yet there
is no need to impute to Bourdelot a sinister motive, as Huet has done^
prompted by his affection for his beloved studies. The physician may have
been sincere in his advice, and the circumstances of the case render j<
very probable that he was 5=0.
126 MEMOIRS 01
her sight, and denounced certain danger to iier life should she
persist in literary pursuits. He then, in private conversations,
insinuated that a learned woman was regarded in a ridiculous
light by the elegant ladies of the French court. And as he
besides amused her with his pleasantry and jocularity, he
gained so great an ascendancy over her youthful mind, that
she began to lose all relish for serious learning. For the dis-
position of Christina was so flexible and wavering, that she
entirely depended upon the opinions of others, especially of
those who had acquired her esteem by any species of merit."
" And now, having by the advice of Bourdelot laid aside
her studies, and indulged in leisure and relaxation, by which
her health was somewhat amended, she declared herself not
only cured, but preserved from death by his means ; and from
this period she gave so much credit to this buffoon, that she
almost repented of having learned any thing. This circum-
stance destroyed almost all the pleasure of our journey ; and
was the cause that Bochart, invited with so much earnest-
ness as it were from another world, was not received accord-
ing to his merits. Nor did we doubt that this was to be im-
puted to Bourdelot, who considered it as his interest to
banish learned men from court, lest his own conscious igno-
rance should be rendered apparent by the comparison." (x)
" Bochart was not received according to his merit," says
HuET : this is but a faint representation of the truth. His
welcome amounted at most to a free admission to the royal
library, and a maintenance, during his residence at Stock-
holm, at the Queen's expense. It is true, he was several times
admitted to her presence, but the circumstances rendered
these interviews so far from honourable, that, to say the least,
they must have covered him with ridicule. At one time, the
(x) Some allowance must be made for Huet's prejudices. The
caprices of Christina may have had as much to do in the dismissal of her
guest, as the intrigues of her Physician. But it was less discreditable to
himself and Bochart, and more comfortable to their feelings, to attri-
bute it to the latter. Huet Comm- de Vita sua, Lib. ii. Aikin's
Mem. 1. 149. e.
SAMUEL BOCHiRT. 127
Queen had appointed him a day to hear him read a part of
his Phaleg. Bourdelot prevailed on her to refuse the per-
formance of her engagement, under the plea of illness. On
another occasion, she pressed Bochart to play with her at
battledore and shuttlecock, till, with all his gravity, he con-
sented, threw aside his minister's cloak, and awkwardly went
through a game, (t/) It is also said, but, perhaps without
foundation,(2:) that the physician persuaded Christina that Bo-
chart was an excellent performer on the flute, though modesty
led him to conceal it ; and that she absolutely compelled the re-
luctant minister to make an attempt to play upon that instru-
ment, with which he was entirely unacquainted. These were
not scenes well calculated to enhance the reputation of the
principal performer, or to recompense a studious man for the
sacrifice of his literary leisure, (a)
(2/) Menagiana. p. 340. Bayle. Diet. art. BOCHART, note D.
(s) Bayle (ubi supra) rejects this anecdote. Aikin (Memoirs of
HuET. I. 83. s.) gives it as true, but on what authority I know not.
(«) It must be confessed that nothing of this gross treatment appears
in along letter of Bociv^rt to Saujiaise, dated from Stockholm in 1652.
On the contrary, in that letter he speaks of changing his residence [to the
palace ; of having interviews with the Queen ; and of conversing with
her respecting Saumaise's book pro Defensione Regis. (Ep. ad Salmas.
0pp. 111. 1165. s.). But B. would not have been content with a mere
cursory notice of such common civilities, had he possessed any better
grounds for boasting of his favourable receptifti to his old friend and
confidant. Besides, the positive testimony of Huet, and the evident
chagrin with which he gives it, are plain proof to the contrary. An
anecdote told by that writer proves, however, that Bochart and him-
self were admitted to so7ne intimacy with Christina ; and, what is more,
shows that the use they made of that intimacy was so indiscreet as fully
to justify her in shortening it. " In a copy of verses, composed in French,
I had with some keenness satirized the manners of the Swedes, When
I recited these to Bochart, he wrote them out, and carried them to the
dueen, to whom he read them as a piece of amusing pleasantry. She was
entertained by the verses, but observed that her countrymen would by no
means approve of an attempt to ridicule them ; and therefore it would
be better to keep them secret." (Huet. Comm. de Vit. Lib. 11. Aikin's
Mem. 1. 158. s.) Aikin's remark on this passage is pertinent: — " The
Queen appears in this instance to have been more prudent than the two
IJ^ MEMOIRS OF
The learned world, however, have cause to rejoice at this
unlucky visit. During the researches of our travellers in the
library at Stockholm, Huet found a manuscript of some parts
of the Commentaries of Origen upon St. Matthew, and of
his work on Prayer ; and, at the earnest solicitation of Bo-
chart, consented to transcribe it, and undertake its publica-
tion.(6) To this we owe his learned and valuable Origeniana,
and the excellent edition of all the remains of Origen*s exe-
getical performances to which it is prefixed. Boo hart him-
self also employed his time very profitably in the acquisition
of Oriental learning, with which he afterwards enriched his
HiEROZOICON. (c)
The time of Bochart's return to Caen is not recorded ;
but it is certain that he staid longer than Huet, since the lat-
ter took with him as a travelling companion a young man of
noble family, who had been intrusted to the tutelage of Bo-
CHART ; but, tired of his tutor's long stay in a country whose
manners and chmate were disagreeable to him, gladly placed
himself under the charge of Huet, (d) During his absence
Frenchmen, who presumed not a little on her preference of foreigners,
when they expected to entertain her with a satire on her own country-
men. French petulance has seldom appeared in more striking colours."
("Mem. of Huet. Note. i. p. 183.) This piece of thoughtless levity
was certainly not worthy of the author of the letter to Morlev.
(6) Huet. Coram, de Vita sua, Lib. ii. Aikin's Mem. of Huet, i. 152.
MoRiN. de Clar. Bociiart. p. 6.
(c) He had referred to this object as one reason for his accepting
the invitation of Christina, in a letter to Vossius, some time before the
commencement of his journey. (Ep. ad Voss. 0pp. iii. 1 163. s.). The
library of Christina had been enriched with the Oriental collection of
Gaulmix, at that time perhaps the best in Europe. Very likely, to
the use made of its stores by Bochart during his Swedish visit, we owe
the peculiar richness of his Hierozoicon in Oriental criticism and quota-
tions.
(d) This was Peter Cahaignes de Fiervillc, of Caen, of a family dis=
tinguished both for learning and nobility. His being entrusted to Bo-
chart is no small evidence of the reputation of the latter for general
accomplishments as well as mere erudition. Huet, Coram. Lib. i. ^. n
.^ikin's Mem. of Huet. i. 159. comp. p. 30, 8P,
SAMUEL BOCHART. 129
on this journey, our author received a flattering testimony of
the estimation in which he was held at home, by the election
of himself and the companion of his travels to be associates
of a literary society then just formed at Caen, comprising no
small proportion of the talents and learning of France. (/)
Of this society he continued an active and eminent member,
honoured and beloved by his associates, and industriously en-
gaged in the prosecution of their common objects, till the
very hour of his death, which happened at one of their in-
formal meetings, {g)
When at length he had returned and settled in his ordinary
routine of employment, Bochart recommenced the prepara-
tion of his HiERozoicoN for the press with renewed ardour,
deriving additional encouragement to diligence from the con-
siderable augmentation which his materials had received from
his Oriental studies while in Stockholm. But he was hot
long permitted to devote himself to this favourite occupation :
a series of untoward events occurred, which distracted his at-
tention, Rn& retarded almost half a score of years the com-
pletion of his work, {h)
The first of these interruptions was his election to repre-
sent the Reformed churches of Normandy in a national synod
held at Loudun. (i) The perilous aspect of the times, and
(/) The provincial town of Caen contained at that time a surpris-
ingly large proportion of men eminent in one or other department of
learning. See an enumeration of those who constituted the Society
or ' Academy ' referred to in the text, with some account of their lives
and literary characters, in Huetii Coram, de Vita sua, Lib. iii. (Aikis's
Memoirs of Huet. i. 207.) and in Aikin's Notes (i. 295. ss.).
(g) Huet. Comm. de Vit. sua. Lib. iv. (Aikin's Mem. ii. 40.)
(A) It was more than half transcribed July 10, 1659 ; and Bochart then
wrote to Vossius, at that time in Holland, requesting him to negotiate
with some printer in that country for the publication of the work. Ep.
ad Voss. 0pp. Tom. iii. c. 862.
(i) It assembled on the 10th of November, 1659, and remained ex-
actly two months in session, closing on the 10th of Jan. 1660. This
was the last General Synod of the Reformed Church in France that
was permitted to assemble. Benoit Hist, de I'Edit de Nantes, Tom.
III. p. 36(5. ss. Quick's Synodicon. ir. 501 — 596.
17
130 MEMOIKiJ Ot
numerous difficulties and dangers with which those ot his^
communion were surrounded, rendered this station pecuHarly
important and delicate at that period. According to his bio-
grapher, BocHART discharged its functions with uncommon
prudence and dexterity in the transaction of business, (A-) and
returned with no inconsiderable increase of reputation.
Not long after his release from this engagement, he was
brought into still more unpleasant employment by the assaults
of the Jesuit, De la Barre, upon his church. The Second
National Synod of Charenton, held in 1631, had passed a de-
cree admitting membersof the Lutheran Church to communion
with the Reformed churches in France, if desiring, upon a
mere attestation of their belief in the Articles of the Augsburg
Confession. (/) At the time, this decree had given much oc-
casion of remark to the advocates of the Church of Rome ;
some regarding it with a jealous eye, while others considered it
as indicative of a disposition on the part of the Protestants to co-
alesce with the Church of Rome, inasmuch as the admission of
persons maintaining the doctrines of consubstantiation to com-
munion seemed a considerable approach towards agreement
with the advocates of f?ansubstantiation. (m) But now this
matter was revived by La Barre with an entirely difterent in-
tention. He laid hold of it as a proof of the rancorous enmity
to the Church of Rome entertained by the Reformed, who
would admit to their communion foreign religionists differing
from themselves respecting very important articles of faith,
and yet refused that mark of brotherly kindness to the pro-
fessors of the established religion of their couutry. His ob-
ject was, avowedly, to excite the indignation of the latter
(k) The only mention of him in the Acts of the Syuod, is as chairman
of a Committee appointed to see that all editions of the Geneva Transla-
tion of the Bible, of the Metrical Version of the Psalms, of the Liturgy,
and of the Book of Discipline, were printed conformably to the standard
copies. Quick's Synodicon. ii. 552.
0) Quick's Synodicon, n. 297.
{m) Benoit. Hist, de L'Ed. de Nantz. Tom. n. p. 524. Bossuet. Hist
des Variat. des Prot. ii. 328. ss.
SAMU£L BOCHAKT. 131
against the Protestants, and so to procure a reduction of their
privileges. Bochart undertook to counteract this effect, by
refuting the Jesuit, and showing the entire dissimilarity of
the cases which he Iiad so invidiously placed in apposition.
This, according to Morin, (n) he did both in words and writ-
ing. If he published any thing upon the subject,(o) it must have
been of little magnitude, and transient interest ; as not even
the title has been handed down. Yet it must have caused
a material interruption to his studies, since, although his bio-
grapher assures us he found it an easy task, and obtained
a cheap victory over his antagonist, yet, as the same writer
shrewdly observes, "Bochart did not know how treat a
theological topic cursorily, but gave the utmost completeness
to his discussion of every subject which he undertook, and be-
stowed all his powers upon it, whatever might be its nature."
Bochart had again resumed his wonted studies, and had
actually commenced the publication of his Hierozoicon in
London, and was engaged in the laborious work of correcting
the press, and making out the full indices with which it is ac-
companied, (p) when another, and still greater hindrance in-
(n) MoRiNtJs de Clar. Boch. p. 7.
(o) Bayle says expressly "he published a. piece in 1661 against the
Jesuit La Barre." But as I have learned not to put implicit confidence
in the accuracy of Bayle, I think it probable he may have misunder-
stood Morin, and carelessly said this on his authority.
(p) There are no less than seven, more than usually full and accu-
rate, indices. The distance of Bochart from the place at which his
work was printing, obliged his bookseller to send a number of proof
sheets at once, which required immediate attention, that so large a
quantity of type might not be kept out of use. It is easy to conceive
how greatly such occasional influxes of employment, demanding much
care and considerable time, must interfere with his heavy stated duties.
Morin (ubi supra, p. 7) impliedly attributes the whole labour of correc-
tion to Bochart ; but B. himself, in the end of his Preface, says that the
London publisher provided correctors of the press ; complaining, how-
ever, that they had rendered him much more disservice than assistance.
He promises a statement of this from the corrector himself, which ought
to follow on the next page, but in the Leyden edition of 1712, is want-
ing, that page being blank, although the catchword * Eru-' (probably
I3'2 MEMOIRS OF
tervenecl. One of his three colleagues, M. Le Couteur, was
a clergyman of the Isle of Jersey, who had gone into exile on
the dethronement of his king. On the Restoration, his
fidelity was rewarded with the Deanery of his native Isle,
and in the close of the year 1661 he vacated his place in
Caen to take possession of his new dignity. This threw an
additional portion of pastoral duty upon Bochart at a time
when it was peculiarly inconvenient. To relieve himself from
this burthen, he persuaded Morin, then pleasantly settled in
the vicinity of the city, to assume the share of duty relinquish-
ed by Le Couteur, performing the public services of one
Sunday, and two week-day evening lectures, in the month.
But scarcely had this arrangement been effected, when the
two remaining colleagues of Bochart were suddenly remov-
ed from their stations ; the eldest, Beaumont, (the Senior
Pastor of the church) by death ; the other, the celebrated Du
Bosc, by banishment, procured for him by the malicious ac-
cusations of those who rejoiced to wound his religion in his
person, (q) Thus left alone in the pastoral charge, our au-
thor, with some difficulty, procured the dismission of Morin
from his former cure, and obtained him for his colleague at
Caen. Even then, the important duties of their station re-
quired the whole of their united labours, (r) and compelled
the beginning of the usual caption of an advertisement, 'Erudite Lee
tori') occurs on the bottom of the one immediately preceding.
(q) He was banished to Cahors, April 2, 1664, being accused of
speaking injuriously of the Romish religion, by an apostate Protestant
surnamed Pommier. Vie de P. du Bosc. p. 32.
(r) In a letter dated Sept. 15, 1664, which manifests both the atten-
tion of our author to the general affairs of his congregation, and his af-
fectionate solicitude for his valuable colleague, he declares : " Notre
pauvre Eglise seroit en effet ruin^e si on vous mettoit ailleurs: car vous
savez que je me vieillis, et ai bien encore le meme courage, mais non
pas les meraes forces qu' autrefois; et ne pourrois gueres longtems
subsister dans le travail et chagrin que j'ai, qui me ruine le corps et 1'-
esprit. Ce n'cst pas que je n'aie beaucoup de soulagemcnt de M.
Morin, qui est un homme fort actif ; mais tant y a que nous ne sommes
que nous deux, et qu'il n'y a plus personne qui nous .<=Pcoure : et en
SAMUEL BOCHART. 133
BocHART tor a period to relinquish all attention to his literary-
pursuits, (s)
A short time sufficed to demonstrate the innocence of Du
Bosc, and procure a repeal of his sentence, with permission
to resume his former situation, (t) He was triumphantly re-
ceived by his people and his brethren in the ministry, (u) and
by no one, probably, with joy greater than that of our author,
who, besides participating in the common causes of exultation,
was thus released from his extraordinary avocations, and en-
Petat ou est notre Eglise, et toute notre Province, nous avons deux fois
plus d'affaires qu'a I'ordinaire." Le Gentil Vie de P. du Bosc.
p. 378. s.
(s) MoRiN expressly states the imprisonment of Du Bosc as one ob-
stacle to Bochart's attention to his Hierozoicon ; and his opportunities
of knowing the truth were too great to allow a suspicion of inaccuracy.
Otherwise, as the Dedication of the work bears date March 1663, a
whole year before that event, and as the title of the book is dated
1664, which would scarcely allow any time for attention to it after the
liberation of Du Bosc, it seems probable that the work was completed
before Bochart was deprived of the assistance of his colleagues.
Probably the dedication was written soon after the work was put to
press; and when Bochart's attention to the correction of the press was
interrupted, his place was supplied by the correctors whom he mentions
in his Preface. This last circumstance, too. may perhaps account for the
incorrectness in this edition complained of by Dorn, who says it was
printed " splendide satis, sed admodum vitiose.' Bibl. Theol. p. 167.
(t) By a Lettre de Cachet dated Oct. 15, 1664.— Vie de P. du Bosc.
p. 41. s.
(tt) One method of demonstrating this joy was so singular, that al-
though irrelevant, I cannot pass it by. There was a gentleman in the
province, who, although himself of the Romish religion, and withal a
very irregular liver, openly professed a very great respect for the able
pastors of the Reformed persuasion, and especially for M. Du Bosc.
On the evening of his return this gentleman prepared a sumptuous sup-
per, and inviting two Franciscan friars notorious for their attachment
to the bottle, plied them so freely as to cause the death of one of them
upon the spot ! The next morning he called on Du Bosc, and de-
clared that he had thought it his duty to sacrifice a monk to the public
joy ; and that although a Jesuit would have been a much more suitable
victim, he hoped his offering would not be unacceptable, because it was
■yrrerdi/ ft, Cordelier ! Vie de P. Du Bosc. p. 44. p.
134 MEMOIRS 01
abled to resume his literary labour, and very speedily com-
plete the publication of his * opus magnum,' the Hierozoicon.
The work thus ushered into the world placed the key-stone
to the reputation of its author, and is indeed his masterpiece.
For varied learning, general interest, and practical utility in
sacred criticism, it excels its predecessor as much as it does
in magnitude. As the expectations of the learned had already
been excited, and kept, by the circumstances which retarded
its appearance, a considerable time in suspense, it created less
sensation than the Phaleg ; but its permanent popularity has
been even greater than that of the latter, (w) Yet even this
did not satisfy Bochart's desire of usefulness. He regarded
it merely as the second part of a design of which the * Sacred
Geography ' formed the first, and the third was to consist of
a treatise on the Plants and Gems of Scripture, probably of
equal magnitude ; at any rate of an equal extent of research
and variety of erudition. The plan was to be completed by
a dissertation on the * Terrestrial Paradise,' for which he had
already prepared the materials, and even put them into some
kind of order, although not such as would fit them for publi-
cation. But these plans were never to be completed. We
know of their existence only by some scattered intimations,
and by some disjointed and unfinished fragments preserved
for us by the diligence of his biographer and the editors
of his collected works.
It had pleased God to cast the lot of Bochart in troublous
times; and although he accomplished very much notwith-
standing their interference with his studies, yet the rapid in-
crease of difficulties towards the close of his life prevented his
completing all that he had designed to do. The machina-
tions of the Romish clergy for the destruction of the Protest-
ant cause in France grew every day more numerous, more ex-
tensive, and more successful. New pretexts were daily in-
(u)) It was published in folio, with the imprint, ' London, 1664.' The
Oriental characters throughout the work were printed with the type?
cast for ihp London Polyglot
SAMUEL BOOHAKT. Vdi)
vented for intringement on the stipulated immunities of the
Reformed, and the most artful measures adopted to prepare
the way for a total annihilation of their religious liberties. In
such a crisis, it was the plain duty of every member of that
communion to devote all his influence and talents to the sup-
port of its sinking cause, and to consider himself as set apart
for the one object of the maintenance of religious liberty and
a true and uncorrupted faith.
Almost the last labour of our author's life was devoted to
this cause. One favourite mode of oppressing the Reformed
adopted by the Roniish clergy, w^as, to deprive them of their
churches on false pretences. The Edict of Nantz had se-
cured to the Protestants the enjoyment of their religious pri-
vileges, and exercise of their religion, as then established.
This was construed to preclude the formation of new congre-
gations, and the erection of new churches, except, by permis-
sion, to supply the place of old ones fallen into decay or
otherwise rendered useless for public worship. On this pre-
tence, the Protestants were continually vexed with prosecu-
tions alleging that one or other of their congregations or
churches had been formed or built since the passage of the
edict. Such a charge was brought by the Bishop of Bayeux
and some Benedictine monks, against the church at Caen ;
and it became necessary for Bochart and his colleagues, with
their flock, to defend in a civil court their right of existence
as a congregation. False evidence and forged documents
were no uncommon resources of the Romish party in such
suits ; and they were plentifully employed in the present in-
stance, (x) The patient research, multifarious erudition, and
habits of keen investigation, of Bochart, rendered him pe-
culiarly fit for the detection and exposure of such forgeries,
and were, most usefully for his congregation, employed in
that task for the remainder of his days, although he did not
(x) A pathetic statement of the situation of the oppressed Protestants
of Normandy, with particular reference to the suit at Caen, occurs in a
letter of Bochart to James CxrEL, bearing date April 19, 1665. Opp
Tom. in. c. 834. s.
136
MEMOIRS OF
live to witness the victory which he materially contributed to
procure.
He found time, however, during these more necessary avo-
cations, for occasional essays in his favourite studies, as a few
of his minor works still extant prove : his long and able letter
to Louis Capel on the agency of the Serpent in the Temp-
tation bears date April, 1665 ; another on the pronunciation
of Chaldee and Syriac, and the utility of the study of Arabic,
is dated January, 1666 ; and his last literary labour, a long
letter to Hue t in defence of the Protestant doctrine of the
Eucharist, and in proof that it was maintained by Origen, (y)
was composed only a few days before his death.
(y) HoET had transcribed the Commentaries of Origen from a
Manuscript in the Royal Library at Stockhotm, at the request of Bo-
chart, ^oon after their return to Caen, Bochart consulted his tran-
script for the purpose of attentively perusing a controverted passage
relating to the Eucharist, which had already afforded occasion for much
debate. Hcet, in revising this transcript, had discovered Avhat he thought
an omission in copying, and had supplied it from a manuscript in the
library of the king of France. This supplement considerably altered the
sense, and that, too, in favour of the Romish church. Bochart, on pe-
rusing the passage, discovered the alteration, and without delay, warned
several of his learned friends, by letter, that implicit reliance was not
to be placed in the edition of Origen which Huet was then about to pub-
lish. The latter considered this as an imputation upon his honesty ;
and after expostulating with Bochart without obtaining satisfaction
('viz. a retraction of his warnings) broke off the close intimacy in which
they had lived till that time.* Still, an occasional correspondence
on the subjects of their studies and interchange of mutual civilities,
continued ; and it appears that the subject which had produced their
difference was not excluded from farther discussion. The last letter,
mentioned in the text, was probably a continuation of that discussion,
although it took a wider range, applying the authority of Origen in
support of the Protestant opinions respecting the invocation and wop-
* This, however, may have been only a pretext; since Huet con-
fesses, that one principal reason of his leaving Sweden before Bochart^
was the fear that his close intimacy with that divine Avould briug him
into trouble with his Romish friends. Comm. Lib. ii. fin. (Aikin'*'
Memoirs, i. 159. s. )
bAMUKL BOCHART. 137
The long and laborious life of this learned man was brought
to a characteristic close in the year 1667, in the midst of an
active and green old age. Three several times in the course
of six months he had been suddenly and alarmingly attacked,
by a temporary cessation of the heart to perform its functions,
brought on, as his physicians assured him, by excessive study
and abstinence from personal indulgence. Each time, how-
ever, he speedily recovered perfect health, and was promised
by his medical advisers a complete recovery from his affec-
tion, by means of the use of wine, and careful attention to
stated times of relaxation. But on the 16th of May, 1667, a
fourth attack proved instantaneously fatal. He had risen,
according to his custom, very early, and had spent the morn-
ing in his study, writing to some friends, and pursuing his
wonted labour. After a moderate dinner, he had gone out,
accompanied by Morin, to the College (Collegium Sylvanum)
where his only grandson, (M. de Colleville, the son of his
only daughter, afterwards Counsellor in tlie Parliament of
Normandy) that day maintained his philosophical theses.
From three to five in the afternoon the old man attended to
those exercises, and enjoyed himself in receiving the congra-
tulations of the Faculty of the College, and others present,
upon the excellent performance of his grandchild. Thence
he proceeded, still accompanied by Morin, to the house of
the learned and noble De Brieux, where, it being Monday,
the stated day of session, the Literary Society (or Academy)
of Caen was to meet. There he parted with his faithful
friend and colleague, but was gladly and affectionately re-
ceived by his fellow associates of the Academy. He had re-
ceived a letter from Bouteroue, a learned traveller and
medallist, and member of the Chambre des Accomptes at
Paris, requesting information as to the country and value of
the small coin known in trade by the name of Marbotins, and
proposed this question as a proper subject for the considera-
ahip of angels, as well as their doctrine of the Eucharist, the only topic
originally in dispute Aikis's Memoirs of Huet, i. 216. 306 ii. 41>
18
138 MEMoius or
tion of the Academy. Several members had given different
opinions, when Bochaet proceeded to declare his own, that
the coin was of Arabic origin. (2) He was beginning to state
his reasons, when a sensation of choaking seized him: he
drew one breath, exclaimed * Mon Dieu, ayez misericorde de
moi ! ' and instantly fell down, insensible, in faint convulsions.
MoRiN was immediately sent for ; and on his arrival, found
his colleague in the midst of his astounded literary associates,
gasping for breath, and almost dead. He had the dying man
removed into an adjoining chamber, and there, to use his own
expression, * endeavoured to attract his notice by ardent
prayers to God." This was so far successful, that he opened
his eyes, fixed them on Morin, then raised them to heaven,
and closed them, to open them no more. After about half
an hour of continued suffering, he ceased to breathe. Thus
died, as he had lived, in the midst of learning, and in
the discharge of social duties, the learned, the great, Bo-
CHART. He had not yet completed his sixty-eighth year.
Although he may be comparatively said to have reached
a good old age, yet when we consider the vast quantity
of reading which must have been necessary to furnish him
with the almost countless quotations in his works ; the volumi-
nous nature of those works themselves ; — and his acknow-
ledged faithfulness and assiduity in the discharge of his duties
as a pastor and as a defender of the liberties of his church ; —
we shall be astonished that he could have done so much in so
(z) A striking exemplification of Mhe leading idea' is afforded by
Morin's relation of this event. He had been long on terras of the
closest intimacy and friendship with Bochart, and evidently enter-
tained a sincere affection for him. His account of B.'s illness and
death is interrupted, every five or six lines, with exclamations of grief
and tender regret. Yet he scarcely allows himsejf time to relate the
circqrastajices of Bochart's decease, before he flies off into a disserta-
tion of half a folio page upon the true nature and origin of the coin
which occupied the latest thoughts of that learned man. After he has
entirely exhausted his erudition upon the subject, he returns to the re-
lation of some circumstances attending the death of Bochart, and
breaks out afresh into expressions of lamentation. So completely para-
mount was his love of learning !
SAMUEL BOCHART. 139
short a time. An ordinary life might have been industriously
employed in the preparation of either of his great works ; and
that man would be said to have lived a useful life who should
have done no more than Bochart performed in the discharge
of his parochial duties, in his defence of the doctrines of his
church against Veron and La Barre, in his participation in
her legislative councils, and in his assertion of her rights against
the unjust pretensions of the Bishop of Bayeux.
It has been mentioned, that soon after his connexion with
the church at Caen, Bochart commenced a course of sermons
upon the book of Genesis. It was a somewhat singular coin-
cidence, that he brought them to the middle of the last chap-
ter but one of the book, after a duration of at least five and
twenty years, only the week before his death ; and that the
very text on which he had prepared to preach the Sunday fol-
lowing his decease, was the 18th verse, " I have waited for
thy salvation, O Lord."
The following description of his person and character is
translated from Morin, who certainly enjoyed great oppor-
tunities of forming an accurate opinion respecting both.
" His figure was good, although of a middling size. He
was rather agile than otherwise, and occasionally walked with
considerable rapidity. His head was well shaped, with hair
rather scanty, and, before it became grey, of an auburn
colour. A broad and prominent forehead, large and hand-
some eyes, florid cheeks, and slightly distended nostrils, were
so many signs of an ardent temperament. His mouth was
small and well formed ; and a pleasing symmetry w^as con-
spicuous in his whole countenance." (a)
(«) It would be difficult from this description to recognize the face
prefixed to his Hierotoicon, and, in a very handsome engraving, to the
edition of his collected works published at Leyden, in 1712. In that,
the character of the French face seems to be mingled with that of the
inhabitant of the Upper Rhine. A rather low and retiring forehead,
and somewhat prominent eyes, a large and thick nose, high cheek-bones,
square and projecting maxillae, and a compressed mouth, altogether,
convey to the beholder the idea of a man of no extraordinary talent,
but of dogged perseverancej and of rather amiable disposition.
140
MEMOIRS OP
" As to his manners, they were benign, harmless, and bene-
volent. He was inclined to gaiety, and easily irritated, but
his anger subsided spontaneously ; and while it was never
aroused by any thing but vice, seldom extended to the actors
even of that. His constancy and fidelity in friendship, his ex-
traordinary humility, meekness, and kindness towards every
one with whom he was connected, and his sincere piety united
with the most fervent zeal, were beyond all praise, and will
remain a perpetual example, as well as source of admiration,
to his pious friends." {li)
This is scarcely, if at all, overcharged. Almost every thing
that we have remaining of Bochart is evidence of his mo-
desty, kind dispositions, and readiness to oblige. His minor
works are almost all written at the request, and for the benefit,
of some learned friend. His few remaining letters show the
warmth and delicacy of his friendship, and bear testimony to
his extraordinary circumspection and good temper, which
could enable him so long to retain the friendship of the jealous
and rancorous Saumaise, at the same time with that of his
bitter adversary Vossius ; while he himself was in reality a
formidable rival to both, and must have been recognized as
such by men so tremblingly alive to the loss of literary pre-
eminence as they. Even his larger works are striking proofs
of his modesty, having been published only at the earnest
solicitation of men most eminently qualified to judge of their
real merit, after repeated delays, and with no parade of
anxiety respecting their reception. From all we can learn,
he seems to have committed them to the doubtful tide of pub-
lic opinion, in simplicity of heart, as his tribute to the instruc-
tion of mankind, without an anxious thought respecting their
reception, or one glance at their probable effect upon his cha-
racter and reputation.
It would be superfluous to say any thing respecting the
erudition of Bochart, after what has been already brought in
evidence upon the subject. In Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chal-
(6) De Clar. Boch. p. 35. s
SAMUEL BOCHART. 141
dee, and the Rabbinical dialect, he may be considered as a
perfect scholar. Few attain a more thorough knowledge of
the Arabic and Syriac languages than he possessed. The
Aethiopic he first made himself acquainted with by means of
the Prodromus of Athanasius Kircher, and afterwards
studied under Ludolf, who resided as his preceptor for some
months under his roof. Of this and the Punic, however, he
never accounted himself master, although his knowledge of
them was equalled by very few, until toward the close of the
eighteenth century, when the materials and means of informa-
tion had exceedingly increased. Of the modern languages,
after the fashion of the day, he knew only his native tongue,
and never attained to any degree of elegance of composition
even in that.
His correspondence was widely extended, and maintained
with the most eminent scholars of his day, but apparently
never very large. Among the great number of letters of
learned men of that age which have been preserved in various
collections, we find very few traces of Bochart ; and about
thirty epistolary disquisitions on matters connected with the
subjects of his larger works, were all that the industry of
MoRiN, Leusden, and Villamand was able to collect for
publication. Saumaise, the elder Vossius, M. Tapin, a Pas-
tor of Normandy, M. Herault, a Pastor of Normandy,
Etienne Lemoine, Sarrau, Segrais, Michel Fauquet, and
M. Carbonel, a Counsellor at Paris, are the persons to whom
they are addressed.
BOCHART.
Part II. His Works,
If extended and lasting celebrity, and almost unqualified
applause, constitute a reward for labour, few have ever been
better remunerated for their efforts in behalf of theological
literature than Bociiart. Yet perhaps no author whose
works have attained the rank of standards is so little read, so
generally unknown, by those who quote and praise him at
second-hand. He affords an admirable instance of the value
of praise from men themselves praiseworthy — * laudari a viro
laudato.' Only men of extensive learning are fully qualified
to judge of the merits of Bochart ; and by these he has al-
ways been placed so high in the scale of literary merit, that
it has been impossible for the crowd, who follow them at
humble distance, to avoid bestowing on him their feebler suf-
frages. Hence the universality of his fame and acknowledged
merit.
He has not, however, been without his enemies. That
caustic critic, Father Simon, has most severely censured him
on more than one occasion, with what degree of justice it will
be more proper to examine in another place. Others have
not been wanting to take up the charges brought by Simon,
and to a greater or less extent, renew them against our au-
thor. He has still escaped, and his reputation has scarcely
received a blemish from all the attacks which have been made
upon it.
144 AI£M01fih OF
It would be presumption to sit in judgment upon such a
writer ; but a review of the plan and execution of his works
may enable us with some degree of justice to appreciate his
value.
The first published, and in some respects the most valua-
ble, production of Bochart is his Geographia Sacra, com-
prised in two independent treatises, under the titles of Phaleg
and Canaan.
The subjects of this work are, the regions expressly or
tacitly mentioned in the Scriptures ; the dispersion of the sons
of Noah, and the origin of nations ; and the navigation, com-
merce, colonies, language, and learning of the Phoenicians.
The method of the author in the apportionment of this ex-
tensive field of inquiry is certainly deserving of much praise.
A general division distinguishes what relates exclusively to >
the Phoenicians from the remainder. The latter, under the
title of " Phaleg, sive de dispersione gentium e Babylonia fac-
tum, etdivisione terrarum inter Noae posteros," is first in
order, and occupies four books. The former, in two books,
constitutes a second part, entitled " Canaan, seu de coloniis et
sermone Phoenicum."
The^rs^ book of the First Part is occupied with disqui-
tions respecting Noah and his family, and the traces of them
supposed to be discoverable in heathen poetry ; concerning
the construction, voyage, and landing, of the ark j concerning
the relative situation of Armenia and Babylon, and the pro-
gress of the descendants of Noah to the latter place ; and
concerning the wonderful circumstances related of the city
supposed to have been founded there by them. The second
book treats of the settlement of the posterity of Shem ; the
third of that of the sons of Japhet ; and the fourth of the
children of Ham and their residence.
The/r5^ book of the Second Part relates to the intercourse
of the Phoenicians with other nations, and to their colonies ;
the second treats copiously of the remaining traces of their
language and literature.
In filling up these outlines, Bochart has found, or made^
occasion to discuss the origin, site, language, customs, religion.
SAMUEL BOCHART. 145
and ceremonial obsei-vances, of almost eVery ancient nation,
and to describe the natural features, boundaries, climate, and
divisions, of the several countries w^hich they inhabited ; —
we might say, without much exaggeration, of the whole an-
cient world. He gives his reasons, or quotes his authority, for
every assertion, at the utmost length ; and in so doing, displays
a depth of research, and untiring perseverance in investiga-
tion, which are perfectly astonishing. The most recondite
sources of information appear familiar to him. The his-
torical and geographical writers of antiquity are examined
with scrupulous minuteness and accuracy ; and not even a
line of their poets, pertinent to his subject, has escaped his
observation. At the same time he manifests an extensive and
intimate acquaintance with the best modern writers on the
topics of his book, which were extant in his day.
Throughout the whole of the work, he contrives to con-
vey an astonishing mass of historical information relating to
the rise and progress of kingdoms, the establishment and in-
crease of religions, the source and substance of the mytholo-
gical fables of the ancients, and almost all the minor branches
of Jewish and heathen antiquities. The author's plan in con-
ducting his inquiries, is, in every instance, to examine :
1. The sound and /orm of the names of the nation in ques-
tion. To this examination he attaches great, probably too
much, importance. Yet he is not blindly led by mere fancy,
as some have preposterously asserted, but lays down several
very judicious cautions, {a) which prove the justness of his
notions on the subject, however he may have failed in some
respects in practice.
2. The coincidences of general appellatives in sound or
form with names of particular places or persons belonging to
the nation bearing such appellatives. To this species of evi-
dence the remarks just made apply with greater force, as it is
certainly more precarious than the preceding.
3. The significalions of names ; which he considers as sel-
(a) Praefat. in Phaleg. Opp. Tom. ui. p. 38.
19
146 MEMoins or
dom entirely destitute of meaning. Here, too, it must be
confessed, he is too apt to catch at overstrained coincidences,
and attach an undue importance to insignificant or isolated
facts.
4. The existence of synonyms^ in Scripture or elsewhere ;
which often create confusion, and yet not seldom, if properly
examined, afford considerable light.
5. The descriptive epithets and characteristics ascribed to
various countries and nations ; and the accordance or dis-
agreement of Scripture with profane authors in these.
6. The productions of a country ; the predominant occu-
pations of its inhabitants ; and the principal articles of its
commerce,
7. The prophetical and historical accounts in Scripture
and profane authors.
8. The natural and political connexions and alliances of
nations.
9. The respective situations of countries, especially with
reference to Judea.
10. Their several boundaries, as laid down in Scripture, or
learned from other sources ; and
11. The name, situation, and remarkable circumstances in
the history of the mountains, rivers, lakes, towns, &c. in every
country.
On all these points he derives his information from the Sa-
cred books themselves ; their commentators and versions in
every language ; almost every ancient writer in Greek, La-
tin, or the Eastern languages ; and the philological research-
es of the most learned and judicious of the moderns. His
quotations are made at full length, in the original languages,
with a punctilious nicety and attention to the integrity of the
text. -He is, in general, cautious to avoid reliance upon mu-
tilated passages, or such as are not in themselves entirely per-
tinent, and applicable when taken in connexion with their
context. In his choice of authorities he displays a nicety
even more than usual in his age. Although the nature of his
subject led him into the mist of mythological and poetic fable,
he resisted every temptation to accept the guidance of the
SAMUEL BOCttART. 147
ignes fatui of supposititious relics of antiquity. The Jewish
Pscudepigrapha ; Berosus, as now extant ; the pretended
Thaut, or Hermes Trismegistus ; the Argonautics of Orpheus ;
Dares Phrygius ; Dictys Cretensis ; the forged Etruscan
antiquities ; and the Sibylline oracles ; he rejects, on the most
solid grounds. He disproves the pretensions of Zoroaster to
great antiquity ; and shows that the writings under his name
are spurious. Sanchoniathon he only admits after a strict and
able examination of the evidence in his favour ; and then, with-
out reposing implicit confidence in his translator, Philo-Byb-
lius.
Such were the materials and execution of a work which left
behind it at an immeasurable distance all that had previously
been written on the same subject ; and which for upwards of a
century maintained, without an attempt at rivalry, the rank of
sole standard in that bremch of knowledge. While its me-
rits were thus acknowledged, its faults were not unseen.
Father Simon tauntingly declared that the greater part of
the contents of the ' Phaleg ' were mere conjectures, (6) and
that the remainder of the work was filled with uncertain ety-
mologies ; (c) and Wolf {d) and Dorn (e) repeat the charges.
Yet at the very time, these critics allow that the conjectures
themselves are often happy and of no small use ; (/) that the
work so perfectly illustrates its subject as to leave nothing
(6) " La plus-part de ce qui est rapporte — dans la Phaleg — n'est sou-
vent appuye que sur des conjectures." Simon. Hist. Crit. du V. T.
Liv. Ill, 0. XX. p. 481. ed. Rot.
(c) " En eflFet, si I'on excepte la premiere partie de son Phaleg, queya
t' il dans le reste de ce livre — que des etymologies et un amas confus de
literature, qui n'est le plus souvent gueres k propos ?" Simon Rep. a la
Def. des Sent, de quelq. Theol. Holl. p. 72. ed. Rot.
(d) BocH. in Geographia Sacra — ^praecipue etymologiae, ut in aliis,
ita hie quoque, rationem habuit." Wolf. Hist. Lex. Hebraic, p. 239.
(e) "Quanquam meris plerumque nituntur conjecturis." Dornii
Bibl. Theol. Crit. P. ii. p. 167.
(/) " Ces sortes de conjectures sont quelquefois utiles, en ce que si
vous ne decouvrez pas toujours la verity, au moins pent on se precaution-
ner pour nc pas tomber dans rerreur." Simoit. Hist. Crit. du V, T. ubi
supra.
148 MEMOIRS OF
more to be done ; {g) and that its conjectural disquisitions arr
replete with usefulness, and lead directly to the truth. (/*)
In the year 1768 the learned and indefatigable Michaelis
commenced the publication of a work upon the Geography
of the Old Testament, with especial reference to the 10th
chapter of Genesis. Vastly as the * subsidia ' were increased
in number, great as had been the progress of theological
science during the century and a quarter which had elapsed
since the publication of Bochart's Geography, he did not
deem it possible to supersede that work. On the contrary,
he gave the strongest testimony in its favour, by taking for
his own production the modest rank of a Supplement. " The
matter," says Eichhorn, in his biographical notice of Mi-
chaelis, {i) " had already been excellently handled by Bo-
chart, who had left scarcely any thing to be done in the way
of illustrating names from the ancient classics, the Versions of
the Bible, or the Arab writers. But one source of informa-
tion subservient to his purposes, which had at that time already
been partly opened, — modern travels in the East, — he had
disdained to use : and, on the other hand, he abounded in
etymologies, and often changed questions of historical re-
search into mere etymological inquiries. Since the time of
BocHART, moreover, Assemanni had laid open a new and
rich field of geographical discover j% of which no one had as
(g) BocH. in Geographia Sacra, locorum nomina in sacro codice oc-
curentia, ita illustravit, ut aliis otia fecerit." Wolfios, ubi supra.
(h) Cumulatissimae doctrinae volumina sunt, in quibus magnum diffi-
cillimorum Scripturae V. T. locorum numerum dilucide ubique explica-
vit. Et quancjuam, &c. — cae tamen ita sunt comparatae, ut summa ex
inde ad legentes redundet utilitas, etregiaad veritatem via digito quasi
commonstretur." Dorn. ubi supra.
(i) Eichhobn's AUg. Bibliothek der Bibl. Litcratur. B. iii. s. 849. f.
The title of Michaelis' work was ' Spicilegium Geographiae Hebrae-
orum exterae post Bochartum.' ii Ptes. 4to. Gottingae, 1768— 7a It
gave occasion to another by Jo. Rkinhold Forster, under the title of
' Epistolae ad J. D. Michaelem, hujus Spicilegium Geographiae Hc-
braeorum exterae jam confirmantes, i>m castigantes., 4to. Gottingae,
1772.
SAMUEL BOCHART.
149
yet been able to make use. Michaelis was desirous to
make trial how much light could be elicited upon this part of
the shades of antiquity from the travels and the writings of
learned Syrians. He wished to sift the Etymologies of Bo-
chart, and to reduce their application in geographical investi-
gations within narrower limits, and especially to give to such
investigations more of the character of historical research."
Many systems of Sacred Geography have been written
since that time, some of great value, and certainly far prefer-
able to BocH art's for ordinary use : but his still maintains its
character as a standard lx)ok of reference and ultimate au-
thority, and is universally allowed to merit at least the praise
of being " a very learned compilation," though by some it
may be thought to be " overfilled with bold hypotheses." {k)
The Geographia Sacra was first printed, each part sepa-
rately, at Caen, in folio, in 1646. This edition is neither neat
nor accurate. The Phaleg was republished at the same place
in folio, in 1651. (l)
The whole work was reprinted at Frankfort on Maine, in
4to., in 1674, and again in 1681 ; and in the collected works
of the author, in folio, at Leyden, in 1692, and in 1707.
This is undoubtedly the masterpiece of our author. It is less
behind the advanced state of modern science than either of
his other productions. This may be accounted for by the
fact that its subjects are of such a nature as to require little
more than accuracy of research and patient investigation, with
ordinary critical abilities for the management of materials
thus obtained ; and they admit of but little novelty of dis-
covery. The arrangement of the w ork, too, is more perspi-
(fc) "Eine sehr gelehrte, aber mitkuehnen Hypothesen ueberfuellte
Zusammensfellung." Gesenius. Art. Bibiische Geographic, in Allg.
Enc. (Bibel, Leipzig, 8vo. 1823, p. 206. not. 35).
(/) Bayle ( Diet. Art. BOCHART, Note C. ) with his usual flip-
pancy, questions the accuracy of Sir Thomas-Pope-BIount, who men-
tions this edition, because he (Bayle) had never seen it ! I have both
seen and used it. It appears to be a mere reprinted title, and is some-
times bound up with the older edition of the ' Canaan.'
150 MEMOIRS OF
cuous, and its execution more correct, than that of the Hiero-
zoicon.
Nevertheless, the latter appears to have been the favourite
of the author, who bestowed more pains upon it, and occa-
sionally speaks of it as his * magnum opus/ It certainly has
secured for itself a greater share of public favour, as the num-
ber of editions and abridgments plainly testifies. Perhaps
we may attribute this to the greater degree of interest taken
in its subjects, and, in some measure, to its containing more
original discovery that has maintained its value. In variety
of learning, and multiphcity of quotations, especially from
Oriental writers, it undoubtedly much exceeds the Geo-
graphy ; and this was sufficient, at the time of its publication,
to secure it a superior degree of admiration, (m) which may
have been handed down, while the cause has ceased to exer-
cise any influence.
An incredible degree of labom- was bestowed by Bochart
upon this work. It occupied his leisure time for nearly twenty
years, of which the two that he spent in Sweden were devot-
ed almost wholly to researches on its subjects, principally in
the noble Oriental library at that time in possession of Chris-
tina. The diligence with which he examined the minutest
subjects may be inferred from the fact that in a letter written
about that time to Huet, he called the attention of that learn-
ed man to a passage consisting of only two words, illustrative
of a subsidiary argument in some portion of his work, and ac-
tually requested his assistance in the examination of so minute
a point, (n)
By way of displaying fully the merits of this fruit of many tpils,
(m) '' BocHARTi Hierozoicon, summo studio conscriptum opus, quod
raerito thesaurum quemdaraexquisitae et profuhdae eruditionis dixeris."
BudDjEI Isagoge. i. 275. 6. — " Stupendum illud opus Bocharti de ani-
malibus Sacrae Scripturae." Wolfius. Hist. Lex. Heb. p. 67.
(n) The passage in question was the words n«gff-//c» 7rtTTfit»», in the
poem of Paul Silentiarius on the Pythian thermae, contained in the
Greek Anthology. Huetii Coram, de Vit. sua. Lib. in, (Aikin's Huet. i.
212.)
• ' bAMUEL BOCHART. 151
BocHART himself prefixed a perfect syllabus of its contents, in
the shape of a preface, of sixty-three closely printed pages. In
this he also fully states his views, and enters into some vindica-
tion of the manner ia which he had endeavoured to carry them
into effect. His design in the work he represents as twofold :
Jirsty to ascertain the animals designated by names used in the
Scriptures ; and secondly ^ to describe those animals, their ha-
bits, residence, and peculiarities, and to explain the manner
and occasion of their introduction in the sacred books. He
traces the peculiar necessity of the first species of investiga-
tion to the disuse of the Hebrew language, and the perfunc-
tory discussion of subjects of natural history in the Scrip-
tures, the only authentic depositary of that language. The
want of evidence which these causes create, he continually en-
deavours to supply from other Oriental languages, and from
the supplementary testimony of the ancient versions and com-
mentators. In his time, few subjects connected with the
Scriptures had received less attention than their natural his-
tory, and the number of errors in this department was pro-
portionably great. Of course it became the business of Bo-
cHART to notice and refute them, which he does at length,
and with such ability, that Simon, who is unwilling to concede
to him any other merit, is under the necessity of allowing that
in this respect his work is useful, (o)
In this preface, our author represents as one important ob-
ject of inquiry, the reasons why the several names of animals
occurring in the Scriptures were given to the creatures which
they respectively designate. He assumes that the Hebrew
was the primeval language ; — that Adam gave names to all
the animals ; — that he possessed an accurate and intimate
(o) " Au moins peut on se precautionner pour ne pas tomber dans
I'erreur: et c'est en quoi le — ^livre qui traite des animaux dont il est parle
dans I'Ecriture peut beaucoup servir; carbien qu'onne sgachepasau vrai
les noms d'une bonne partie des animaux dontil est fait mention dans
la Bible, il donne quelquefois assez de lumiere pour exclure de certains
animaux, auxquels ces meraes noms ne peuvent convenir." Simon, Hist.
Crit. du Vieux Test. Liv. in. c. xx. p. 481. ed. Roterd.
152 MEMOIRS OP
knowledge of their natures ;— and that he intended to convey
all, or a portion, of that knowledge, in the names given them.
Either of these assumptions it would be difficult, not to say
impossible, for him to prove. The rule which he has founded
on them has given occasion to much unnecessary disquisition
in his work, and to the indulgence of some almost ludicrous
fancies, (p)
The Hierozoicon, like the Geography, is divided into Two
Parts, each containing several books, in all, ten in number.
The first book opens with a general introduction to the
subject, and, ancient precept to the contrary notwithstand-
ing, * orditur ab ovo,' affording no small occasion of sneering
to that critic-general of beginnings, Father Simon. The au-
thor treats of animals in general, — their origin, nature, and
use. According to his usual method, the discussion opens
with an examination of the word animal (n^n, ?wov.). In this
he spends some time to show that life is attributed to plants as
well as animals ; and quotes for that purpose the Scriptures,
Jewish Commentators, and Heathen Poets. The bearing
which this might have upon the precept of Pythagoras pro-
hibiting the use of any living thing for food, introduces that
philosopher, and a discussion of his opinions on the subject.
The grand divisions of the animal kingdom are next laid
down, and the several systems of subdivision stated. The re-
lative station of animals in the creation ; their subjection to
Adam, and their reception of names from him, are then as-
serted. On the assumption that the names now extant are
those which were then given, a long digression is entered into,
to prove that the Hebrew names of animals are indicative of
some quality in the animal itself, or circumstance in its habits.
Thus concludes the introduction to the work.
(p) The hog, for instance, he supposes to be called Tin, on account of
the smallness of its eyes, because in Arabic ,//^ means to have small
eyes:— just as if the Arabic word were not derived from TJtXl; as we now
speak of ' having pig's eyes' ! — The dog, too, is to be called ^Sd, from
UwD, translated by Jerome Uncinum, and the Arabic S'^-K^harpago ;
because he holds any thing in his jaws as if it were in a pair of tongs ! *
Hieroz. Lib. i. c. ix. p. 61, ed. Lugd. Bat. 1712.
SAMUEL BOCHART. 153
The next three books relate to quadrupeds.
The second book contains the history of the domestic qua-
drupeds introduced in Scripture, of which ten sorts are enu-
merated. Their names, habits, pecularities, uses, and pro-
ducts are discussed at length. The accounts of them con-
tained in the writings of the ancients and Orientals are col-
lected. Events in sacred history in which they had a share
are recounted and examined. Miracles relating to them are
investigated. Laws having any reference to them are stated
and explained. Mythological allusions are elucidated and
applied to the illustration of sacred history. Proverbs in
which these animals are introduced, occurring either in Scrip-
ture or in the eastern languages, are collected and explained.
Figurative expressions, drawn from their appearance or habits,
are enumerated and elucidated. In fine, all the passages of
Scripture in which mention of them occurs are recounted,
and if difficult, cleared up. •
The third book treats of the wild quadrupeds mentioned in
Scripture, of which twenty-seven sorts come under observation.
The method is the same as in the last book (which, indeed,
is nearly uniform in all the succeeding books) but, if possible,
more particular, in proportion as the little known of the ani-
mals in question renders the subject more difficult ; and on
account of their more frequent introduction in metaphorical
expressions.
Book the fourth relates to oviparous quadrupeds. Those
noticed in the sacred books are few in number, but they have
created more difficulty than any other branch of the natural
history of the Scriptures. They were almost entirely un-
known, until the learned researches of our author threw new
and copious light upon the subject, derived, in a great mea-
sure, from the writings of the Arabians. The confusion among
the principal versions in modern languages, in rendering the
names of these animals, is amusing. Six animals are named
by Moses, Lev. xi. 29, 30, all of which Bochart has proved
to be different species of lizards, and has been followed in his
opinion by the most eminent Hebraists. Of these the
^0
154 MEMOIRS OF
first, ay, has been called a toad, a tortoise, and a sort of
SHELL-FISH. The sccond, np:K, a newt, a species of locust,
a SPIDER, a winged reptile, a castor, and an otter : the
third, n^, a chameleon, a tortoise, a snail, a squirrel, and
a crocodile : the fourth, hndS, a sort of salamander, a species
of amphibious animal (latacem), a mouse, a spider, a newt,
and a lizard : the fifth, tamn, a snail, a bat : the sixth, riD'^Jtn,
a chameleon, a mole, and a bat. From such perplexity has
the laborious investigation of Bochart delivered us ! In all
such cases, he patiently examines and refutes the variant mis-
interpretations, before he proceeds to establish his ov^rn, which
he generally does by nuiiierous and pertinent proofs from
Oriental writers.
With the fourth book ends the First Part of the work, or
that relating to quadrupeds.
The Second Part comprises six books. Of these the first
two relate to birds.
The first, or fifth of the whole Avork, contains the history of
those designated as clean in the Mosaic law.
The sixth book treats of the unclean birds, twenty in num-
ber, in the order in which they are recounted, Lev. xi. 13,
Deut. xiv. 2.
The seventh book relates to reptiles generally : but by far
the largest portion of its contents is occupied by the several
sorts of serpents mentioned, or supposed to be mentioned, in
the sacred books.
The eighth book gives an account of insects, with even
more than ordinary diffuseness.
The ninth treats of aquatile animals, of which but few are
mentioned in the Scriptures : and of the productions of the
ocean, such as pearls, the purple-fish, amber, &;c.
The tenth and last division of the work discusses the ac-
counts of fabulous animals transmitted by the ancients and
Oriental writers, mention of which, although not made in the
Scriptures themselves, repeatedly occurs in the ancient ver-
sions. Among these our author reckons the ant-lion, now
well known, and by no means considered as uncommon.
Beside this, the goathart, griffin, phoenix, syrens, lamia,
bAMUEL BOCHART. 155
satyrs, fauns, onocentaurs, and hippocentaurs, are introduced.
Every thing related of them is collected ; their non-existence
is proved ; and the true meanings of the passages into which
they have been improperly introduced by the ancient inter-
preters, are given and defended. The whole concludes with
a similar notice of some fictitious animals of the Arabian na-
turalists, not in anywise connected with the Scriptures, but
introduced by Boo hart to show that he did not place an im-
plicit and blind confidence in those from whom he had bor-
rowed so extensively, and derived so large a proportion of
his discoveries.
Simon, while party feeling led him to depreciate the merits
of BocHART, showed his usual sagacity when he fixed upon
the destruction of prevailing errors as the principal utility of
his Hierozoicon. It cleared away the rubbish that ages had
been heaping upon its subject, and if it did not always bring
to light a perfect structure in its stead, we should remember
that ' non omnia omnes,' and that none but a Hercules could
have so completely removed the accumulated filth. The very
list of the more important errors which Bochart enumerates
as corrected in his work, and which have since been acknow-
ledged, almost without exception, as such, is appalling. One
species of the same animal has been mistaken for another;
animals of the same general class have been interchanged ;
beasts have been taken for birds, for insects, and even fishes ;
and the names of animals have been mistaken for those of
places. Under these four classes of misinterpretations he ar-
ranges a list occupying nineteen folio pages. It is important to
recount these particulars, because we cannot properly appre-
ciate the value of the Hierozoicon without an idea of its ef-
fects in this respect. If it had contained no original views,
nothing meriting transmission to posterity, its author would
have deserved well of biblical students for all generations, for
his exploits in the demolition of ancient prejudice and error.
But the work has its uses, and claims to notice, on its own
account. It would not be saying loo much to assert that
two thirds of all the explanations of Scriptural names of ani-
mals given by Bochart, have been adopted by the ablest
lo6
MEMOIRS Oi'
Orientalists since his time. The treasure of zoological language
which he has gathered from Oriental writers has been draw^n
upon by every philologist of note, and is yet unexhausted.
The information w hich he has collected from the same sources
respecting the appearance, habits, and products, of animals
residing in the East, has been in the main confirmed by the
researches of modern travellers. He has afforded the key to
many discoveries which have been made in later times, and
assisted men of perhaps less learning and abilities to proceed
farther than he had done himself. In his preface he claims
to have thrown light upon many parts -of Holy writ by his in-
terpretations of single passages and whole phrases ; and it is
undeniable that he deserves great praise on that account.
Many explanations of passages formerly considered diffi-
cult, which are now universally received, and familiar to the
merest tyro, owe their origin to him. Many which for a time
were esteemed improbable, have gradually acquired an esta-
blished authority. Many, yet the subjects of a difference of
opinion, are nevertheless espoused by most learned and judi-
cious critics.
On the whole, the character of this work cannot be bettet^
given than in the words of Gesenius, certainly a competent
judge. " The work of Boon art is in the highest rank of
classics in biblical Zoology. Its author was one of the greatest
Oriental philologists of modern times. In this production he
has made use of every thing that could be furnished by the
most extensive etymological knowledge of the Oriental lan-
guages, by the Arabian natural historians, and by the ancient
versions and classical writers, for the elucidation of the names
of animals w^hich occur in Scripture, and of all the passages
of the Bible which have any reference to Zoology. Yet per-
haps etymological disquisitions are too prevalent in the
work." (7)
(9) " Fuer — ^biblische Zoologle besitzen wir ein hocchst klassisches
Werk von Sam. Bochart, einem der groessesten orientalischen Philolo-
gen der neuern Zeit, worin alles aufgeboten ist, was die ausgebreit-
este etymologische Kenntnii*? der orientaJischen Sprachen. was Arab-
SAMUEL BOCHART. I5T
The Hierozoicon was first printed at London, by Allestrey,
the pubHsher of the London Polyglot, and with the oriental
types used for that noble work, in 2 volumes folio, in 1663.
This edition is spoken of as being splendid, but by no means
accurately printed, (r)
As early as 1675 it was reprinted with more care, in folioy
at Frankfort on the Maine. It was again republished in the
author's collected works, at Utrecht, in 1692, and at Leyden,
in 1712.
In 1686 there appeared at Frankfort, in 8vo., an abridgment
of this work by Jo. H. Maius, of Giesse, who took the liber-
ty of frequently correcting his author in supplementary notes,
which, however, were of no great importance, {s) In 1690
it was again epitomized by Stephen M. Vesceus, or Veczci^
a Hungarian, and published in 4to., at Franeker.
In 1793, the younger Rosenmueller superintended the
publication of a new edition in 3 vols. 4to., at Leipsic. But
he destroyed its value to the accurate philologist, by mutilating
the work at pleasure, and making additions of his own with-
out distinction from the original text. This excited consider-
able clamour at the time, (t) and although the book was in-
trinsically valuable to the biblical student, it has never obtain-
ed a full circulation.
Something of a different nature had previously been at-
tempted by F. J. ScHODER, who published at Tubingen, in
8vo., in the years 1784, 1786, three tracts, entitled * Specimi-
na Hierozoici ex Sam. Bocharto aliisque virorum commenta-
ische Naturhistoriken, die alten Versionen und kl assiken Schriftsteller
zur Erklaerung der vorkommendcn Thiernamen und aller auf Zoologie
irgend Beziig habenden Bibelsteller darbieten, und nur die etyraolo-
gische Ruecksicht vielleicht zu sehr vorherrscht." — Art. Biblisckk
Geographie in der Allgem. Encyklopaedie (Bibel. S. 215.)
(r) " Splendide satis, sed admodum vitiose.*' Dorn, ubi supra.
(s) " Animadversiones momenli sunt exigui ; " says Dork, ubi
supra, p. 167. But Fabricius, Bibl. Antiquaria, p. 499. appears inclined
to allow them more value.
(<) See Neues tbeologisches Journal, hcrausg. von Ammon, Haenlei.v,
nnd Paulus; vx B. S. 684. if.
158 ' MEMOIRS OF
riis et itinerariis compositi/ In this the matter furnished by
BocHART was worked up together with that obtained from
other sources, into a new form, and the editor made iiimself
responsible for all. The want of a favourable reception, or
some other unknown cause, prevented the completion of this
work, which certainly possessed the merit of a good design
and well laid plan.
The Hierozoicon of Bochart formed only a single divi-
sion of a work which he had sketched out to himself, to com-
prize an entire system of the natural history of Scripture.
The vegetable and mineral kingdoms yet remained to be ex-
amined, and presented fields of investigation at least as broad
and difficult as that already explored. It is certain that our
author did at one time intend to complete this plan, as he re-
fers to a forthcoming work on the Plants of Scripture, in a
passage of the Hierozoicon. {u) Some disjointed fragments
left behind him (v) prove that his researches had been com-
menced, and give us ample reason to lament that circum-
stances prevented their completion. He had also begun a
work on the Gems of Scripture, a subject even to this day
almost wholly shrouded in gloom and difficulty ; and, ac-
cording to MoRiN, had collected a considerable quantity of
materials, which he was continually increasing in the course
of his multifarious studies. How far he had progressed to-
wards a perfect work is unknown, for his collections perish-
ed with him. (zu)
Beside these larger monuments of his industry and learning,
our author produced a considerable number of minor pieces.
(tt) Pt. II. Opp. Tom. n. p. 847. So also Fabricius Bibliotheca An
tiquaria, p. 501, on the authority of E. Benzel in Actis Literariis Sue
ciae, Ann. 1721. p. 157.
(v) ' An Dudaim sint tubera, &c. ad Gen. xxx. 14. Opp. in. 866. ss
De variis Mannae speciebus^c. Ibid. p. 871. De voce Talraudica Col
CHA, ad Lev. xix. 19. Ibid. p. 880. De vocum "ISD et rt^mw, signi
ficationibus, Ibid. p. 916, and, Quid sit Kikaion de quo Iona, iv. 6. Ibid
917. ss.
(w) MoRiN. de Vita Bocharti, p. 5. Braunius de Vest, gacerd. Lib. n
c. viii. p. 637.
SAMUEL BOCHAKT.
l59
ot which such as could be recovered by the dihgence of the
editors, have been pubhshed in the third volume of his collect-
ed works.
Of these it will be impossible to give any detailed account.
They are fifty-three in number ; five being letters to Saumaise
and Vossius, and the remainder critical remarks upon several
works, and dissertations of various length addressed to several
of his friends, principally in answer to queries put to him, or
in compliance with requests for assistance in the examination
of particular topics. Most of these were hastily written, on
the spur of the moment, and many of them in French, whence
they have been translated into Latin by the editors. Of
course, they afford no fair specimens of the abilities of the
writer. Yet, such as they are, scarcely any one of them
can be read without deriving from it some curious remark
or profitable information, often on subjects of even more
general interest than those discussed in the larger works.
The most important are ; the Notes on the work of Stephen
OF Byzantium Us^i IIoXswv ; the Defence of the Geographia
Sacra against some objections urged by Saumaise ; the Let-
ter on Regal and Ecclesiastical power, already noticed ; the
treatise on the coming of Eneas to Italy ; the letter in ex-
planation of the article of the Apostle's Creed, " He descend-
ed into Hell ;" and a treatise on the temptation of Eve by
the Serpent, addressed to James Capel.
The dissertation on the landing of Eneas ui Italy, in which
Bochart asserts that no such event did ever happen, and
at the same time, excuses Virgil for having founded his
poem on the popular error, was written at the request of the
poet Segrais, in French, and published as a prefatory ap-
pendage to the translation of the iEneid by that writer. John
Schepfer, a friend of Bochart, translated it into Latin, and
pubhshed it separately, at Hamburg, in 12mo., in 1672.
Thence it was adopted into the collected works of the au-
thor, (x)
(x) See a list of the authors who have espoused the opinions main-
160 MilMOIKS Ot
The brief essay on the * Descent into Hell/ contained in
a letter to Tapin, I have Httle hesitation in pronouncing
the very best among all our author's w^orks. There is less
display of learning, but there is a condensation of fact, and
sohdity of judgment, which are of far more value. Excepting
a single argument, with which the piece concludes, it con-
tains nothing which is not in the greatest degree pertinent to
the subject, and important. All the erroneous views are
treated of, and solidly refuted, in a few sentences. His own is
given, and established by cogent proofs, in as little space. It
is perhaps the best compendious essay among the multitudes
which have been written on the subject, (y)
To pass an accurate opinion upon the literary character of
Boo HART, and especially on his merits as a Biblical Philolo-
gist, would be a work of no small difficulty. There are,
however, a few traits which can hardly pass unnoticed, and
indeed, have been made ground of serious objection against
his writings.
It is impossible not to charge him with an excessive dif-
fiiseness and discursiveness. His learning is a deluge rather
than a noble, fertihzing stream. He buries his subject under a
massy pile of erudition when he should have raised a substan-
tial and convenient structure. His works are magazines of
learning, to which it is scarcely possible to add ; but whence
very much might be subtracted, and the reader be rather a
gainer than injured by the operation, {z) Simon long ago
tained by Bochart in this little treatise, and an account of the answer
to it by T. Ryck, in Fabricii Bibliographia Antiquaria. p. 216.
(y) It is mentioned by Dorn, Biblioth. Theol. Crit. Part ii. p. 451.
who, however, misrepresents B. as maintaining the article to mean a
mere state of death ; whereas B.'s reasoning and^tatement of his view
evidently include the idea of place. It is singular that Dietelmaier, in
in his full list of writers on this subject (Historia Dogmatis de descensu
Christi ad inferos, Norimb. 12mo. 1741,) should have passed by this
essay of Bochart.
(s) A single instance of a fault so constantly recurring, will suffice.--
In treating of locusts, he observes that they are spoken of by Moses as
having four feet, while others, Aristotle, for instance, mention six.
;bAIilUEL BOCHAHT. Wt
objected, that " he seemed to have desired rather to be thought
a man of learning than to be esteemed judicious." (a) This
is in some measure attributable to the spirit of the age in
which he Hved. He did but push a Httle farther a practice
which had been already extensively adopted by those who
were universally regarded as models of taste and judg-
ment. To make a proper allowance for his errors in this re-
spect, we must carry ourselves back to his days. The fashion,
then so prevalent, of pouring forth the whole treasures of the
author, old and new, upon his unfortunate reader, is, happily
for the cause of learning, now extinct. The division of la-
bour is better understood by the literary world; and, in general,
a writer who pretends to treat a particular subject, does not
expect the attention of his readers to more than is strictly re-
levant to that subject. Divines and critics have recognized
the truth of the adage * ars longa, vita brevis,' and are fain to
relinquish their claim to years for the study of a single work.
But, under any circumstances, this fault in the works of
BocHART would admit of some extenuation from a view of the
nature of their object. The author was almost the first in
his track, and was obliged to explore his way more carefully,
and more sedulously guard his outposts, than would have been
This apparent difference he easily reconciles, by observing that Moses
expressly distinguishes the long legs used for leaping, from the feet ; and
that this distinction is also recognized by Aristotle, while, for me-
thod's sake, he counts them as feet. Here Bochart's task was done.
But he goes on to say, that what Aristotle in this passage calls okXriKci
t*6gta,, he elsewhere terms »r>»(fat\iat. This gives occasion to correct
ScALioER, who had derived that word from vhS'av (salire), and to point
out its true meaning, viz. helms, (of a ship). Then,^ to show the rea-
son for the application of the name, he investigates the resemblance be-
tween the long legs of a locust and the helm of a vessel. Thus he in-
troduces a disquisition on the rudders of the ancients, which occupies
half a folio page ; and in the course of which he makes one quotation in
Ethiopic, five in Greek, and seven from Latin authors ! referring the
reader at the close for more to a work by Scheffer- Hiero25oic. Lib*
IV. c. I. 0pp. Tom. II. p. 452. s.
(o), Simon Hist, Crit. du Vieux Test. Liv, iii. c. xx. p, 481. ed Rot
erd.
^1
162^ MEMOIRS OP
necessary had he merely followed a beaten route. Much cf^
his discursive matter has some bearing, though perhaps intri-
cate and remote, upon the proofs of his positions, if not di-
rectly upon the subject under discussion ; and much that now
appears unnecessary was by no means useless to the accom*
plishment of his design. It was prudent, too, in offering to
the public such a mass of original views and interpretations ;
and in levying war upcm so many errors, venerable for their
age and formidable from their universality, to use every
mean of pleasing and convincing. Variety of tastes was to
be consulted. Allowance was to-be made for the different
effects of argument upon different minds. The author- s
statements were to be defended at every point, that not the
smallest cranny might afford an advantage to those who
should be disposed to attack what they might consider as-
his presumptuous innovations, {b)
Another prominent fault is his fondness for recondite learn-
ing and minute disquisition. He cannot resist the temptation
to display to the admiring gaze of others the treasures which'
he has so hardly earned, however forced the occasion. He
seems to measure the value of his matter by its remoteness-
from the range of common knowledge ; and to suppose that'
the rarity of an author on the difficulty of his style or lan-
guage will amply excuse the improper length, or unnecessary
introduction, of an extract. The necessity of close and ac-
curate investigation, and long habits of minute research, had
accustomed him to attach importance to the minutest points,
which he discusses as gravely and with as much prolixity as
if the safety of the literary world depended on them. Hence
the same acute, but often captious and hasty writer, who has
been already quoted as a censor of Boo hart, takes occasion
to sneer at him as a mere grammatist and dictionary-hunter,
who loves to descant upon bare play of words and changes
of letters, and whose bulky works would shrink exceedingly
(6) The author evidently betrays a fear of such attacks in Praef. ad
Phaleg, 0pp. Tom. in. p. 43. s. and especially Praef. ad Hierozoicon,
Opp, Tom. I- p. 62. s.
SAMUEL BOCHART. IBS
if they were trimmed of every thing that is good for no-
thing, (c)
As to the charge of ^ grammatism' the critical Pere Simon
can hardly have been in earnest, vvrhen he found fauh with
the grammatical learning of our author. Whether he were or
not, the defence of Bochart by Villamandy, the editor of
his collected works, is well enough. *' It is true," says he,
" that the numerous explanations of Hebrew, Rabbinical,
Greek, and other words, which occur in his works, display
much grammatical knowledge. But it is that kind of know-
ledge which relates to the true force and signification of
words, and to their genuine origin and use ; and which is
gained only by an accurate perusal of the best writers in the
language. Such is not the knowledge of the mere gramma-
list who trifles with the endless genealogies and forms of
grammar, and is for ever involved in doubt by the intricacy of
his own disputations." {d)
The assertion that Bochart was indebted to ' dictionaries '
for his multifarious learning deserves a contemptuous denial.
Every page of his works shows that he derived his knowledge
of the languages in which he was so eminently skilled, from
the fountain heads. He is continually coirecting errors, or
supplying deficiencies, of modern lexicographers, especially the
Arabic. It would be diflicult to adduce a single instance in
which he has depended on the authority of a dictionary, except
it be one written in the language itself, as those of Jauhari
in Arabic, or Hesychius in Greek, to which no sober critic
would object.
But as to trifling, and, so to speak, conglomeration of un-
necessary learning, it is impossible to justify om- author. Oc-
casionally we cannot avoid imagining that he selects the least
obvious interpretations of a passage, that he may bring his
(c) Simon, Reponse aux Sentimens de quelque Theologiens de Hol-
lande, Liv. in p. 18. ed. Bpilerd — Reponse a la Defense des Sentimens,
«&c. p. 72, p. 74.
(d) Such is the substance of p. 5, U 4. of Praei^ \\x Tom. m. .Opp,
•BOCHAKTI.'
fl6t MEMOIRS or
immense erudition to bear, in its establishment, (e) Elsewhere
he dallies, through whole pages, with the most absurd hypo-
theses, that he may enjoy the Titanic pleasure of heaving a
mountain to ci-ush a mouse. (/ ) The warmest admirer of
BocHART must allow, that his voluminous writings would well
admit of much retrenchment.
Another serious charge against Bochart, which must be
admitted to have some foundation, is, that he indulged to an
(e) For example. In Isa. vi. 6. he would render nS^*!, ** heattd
stone; relying on ancient authorities (neither numerous nor strong) for
that meaning of the word ; and then brings vast quantities of historical
reading to show that heated stones were used in ancient times for cooking,
&c., and therefore might have been upon the altar for the purpose of
consuming flesh put there. But after all he fails in showing the very
point to be proved — that it was customary to use heated stones in saeri-
Jices, or to place them on altars ; and he does not perceive that his far-
fetched rendering takes away a great deal of the beauty of the bold
figure of the prophet. It is astonishing that Simok, DdDERL£iN, Datbk,
and even Gesbnius, should have admitted implicitly this rendering.— >
HisRoz. P. I. L. n. c. xxxiii.
(/) An egregious instance of such trifling occurs in the Hierozoicon,
¥. 11. B. II. c. xi., entitled ' God's providence towards crows.' In th*
first place he states the allegorial interpretation given to certain passages
of Scripture relating to ' young ravens ' by some of the early fathers,
who made the * ravens ' Gentiles^ the ^ young ravens ' The Christian church,
formed principally from among the heathen. This he gravely refutes
at some length. Then follows a literal exposition given by Solomon
Jarchi, Kimchi, and other Jewish, and many Arabian writers. They
say that ravens, on the first hatching of their youn*:, are so disgusted
with the appearance of the little animals, as to fly away and leave them ;
and that the young birds uttering their plaintive cries upon being press-
ed with hunger, the Deity, in pity on them, creates from their dung in
the nest, great abundance of lice, which run into the open mouths of
the nestlings. With all possible seriousness our author girds himself
for the work of showing this to be an untenable exegesis. The au-
thorities by which it is supported are quoted, lo the number of three
citations in Hebrew, four in Arabic, two in Greek, and three in Latin.
In answer, he undertakes to prove that it is not the habit of birds to foul
their own nests;— that it is not likely that the ravens think their young
ones ugly ; — and that there is no unquestionable evidence of their leaving
them in their vexation. During this process he makes eleven more quo-
ti^tions from Epicharmius, Cicero, Aristotle, Pliny, JEi.iav, Chalfho-
T^ACHMAR, and Servihs, The whole occupie.<5 three large folio pages.
SAMUEL BOCUART. 165
excessive degree in conjecture and unwarranted hypothesis.
Much may be said in palliation of this fault, if such it be. The
subjects of his books were such as seldom to admit even of
the moral demonstration of probability ; and in many cases,
the best guesser is the wisest man. Many of his conjectures
have since been fully confirmed. Others are as near the
truth as the scanty data in existence will permit us to arrive.
Even of those which are palpably incorrect, no few command
our admiration by their ingenuity and the learning displayed
in their support, (g)
The only remaining objection which has been made against
our author, is, his overweening attachment to etymology. Si-
mon passes some bitter jests upon this foible, undertaking to
show, by some of Bochart's irrefragable proofs, that the
Borak, or winged animal on which Mahomet's followers feign
that their Prophet rode, was nothing else than a * she-ass,' in
French bourrique, (h) It is true that Bochakt did place too
much reliance upon etymological reasoning ; and he was even
reprehended for it by some of the most eminent of his con-
temporaries, {i) In his work on Animals, this is easily ac-
counted for by his opinions respecting the derivation of He-
brew names of animals from Adam, and their consequent ne-
(g) His explanation of the Egyptian mythological history of Osiris
and Typho, from the history of Moses, is a splendid instance. There is
scarcely room for a doubt that the whole will, in the more thorough
knowledge of Egyptian antiquity which is now dawning on the world,
appear to be a mere offspring of fancy. . Yet, as given by Bochart
(HiEROZ. P. I. L. n. c. 34.) and as well epitomized by Wixsius (Egyp-
tiacarum Lib. in. c. v. p. 216. 216. ss.^ there is hardly a part which
doe3 not seem highly probable, or an inference which does not possess
a show of adequate support by historical and most ingenious etymologi-
cal argument,— This tracing events of Jewish history in heathen mytho-
logy was a favourite employment of our author. He finds Moses in
Bacchus, Deborah in the Sphinx, &c., &,c. This fault was common in
his age. Huet is well known to have carried it to excessive lengths.
(h) Reponse a la Defense des Sentimens de quelques Theologiens de
HoUande. p. 72.
(i) Hurt is said to hare addressed a letter to him, containing very
-sensible remarks on the subject. Aikin's Memoirs of Huet. h. 492.
166 MEMOmS OF
cessary relation to the nature of the animals theniselves. In his
Sacred Geography, too, the scarcity of other evidence would
naturally lead him to attach undue importance to that derived
from etymology. He is rather to be pitied than blamed for
this erroneous predilection, although it must be admitted thart.
it detracts in no small degi-ee from the utihty of his labours to
those who would build upon surer gi'ound.
As an interpreter of Scripture, Boch art is, to say the least,
respectable. His general views of the rules of interpreta-
tion, are, with the exception of his attachment to etymology,
for the most part good. Many of the most important of
these rules are clearly stated and well defended in different
parts of his writings ;{j) and most of them are well exem-
plified in the Preface to the Hierozoicon, where he was forced
to study brevity, (k) But he is by no means consistent or
uniform in his adherence to those rules.
His conclusions are sometimes hastily or incorrectly drawn,
or founded on insufficient premises. A partial glance at the
evidence before him seems to have seized upon the most pro-
minent, while other portions, conjointly of more importance,
are passed over. (/)
{j) The reasons against an allegorical interpretation of the history ot"
the temptation of Eve are well stated, De Serpente Tentatore. Opp.
III. 933 ; those against interpretation from the event, p. 836 ; — against
forcing tropes, 860. In the same piece, the determining of the scope of
a passage from its context is well exemplified, p. 904 ; and the means
of ascertaining the usus loqwndi are ably applied^ p. 906.
(fe) Let any one compare Bochart's interpretation of Prov. vii. 22.
(HiJtROZ.P. 1 Lib. III. c. Ivi. fin.) and his happy conjecture respecting the
present reading of the Septuagint in that passage, with Michaklis* ar-
ticle on the same passage ; Suppl. ad Lex. Heb. 1898, and the manifest
superiority of the former, will show the high ground which he at least
occasionally takes as a biblical interpreter.
{l) VoRSTius (De Hebraismis N. T. c. xxiii. Vol. ii. p. 33.) shows the
fallacy of an interpretation of Bochart by which he attempted to con-
firm his views (sufficiciently established on other grounds) respecting
the queen of Saba. She is said to have come asro jrtptirccv T»f yiis'
Bochart catches at this, and argues that her kingdom must have been
in Arabia, as that is bounded by the sea, while Ya$t districts extend be-
SAMUEL BOCHART. J6T
He to6 readily indulges in conjectural emendations of pas-
sages in which the present reading presents difficulties to him
insuperable, or offers an obstacle to a favourite hypothesis.
The Scriptures themselves are by no means exempted from
the exercise of this wayward propensity, (m) It is true that
his emendations are sometimes very happy, and throw unex-
pected and vivid light upon a passage seemingly utterly ob-
scure, (n) It is also true that he had the sanction of the
greatest critics of his age in the employment of such means
yond Ethiopia. It is impossible that he could have been ignorant of
the common application of the phrase mpairet mc yue to countries
hot bounded by the ocean, which is clearly shown by Vorstius ; and
yet his eagerness for proof drew off his attention from that fact, and
caused him to rely upon a worthless argument. Very similar, and equal-
ly egregious, failures in exegetica! argument may be found corrected by
Vorstius, De Hebraismis, r. 393. s. and Brynaeus, de Calceis Hebrae-
orum, p. 8. ss. 158. ss. and 242. ss.
(m) So HiEROz. P. i. Lib, ii. c. xliii. Bochart agrees with Beza (and
they are followed by Benson, Doddridge, fcc.) in supposing the word
AC/nfx^, Ac. vii. 16., to be an interpolation by some ignorant transcriber,
who thought the verb mnoretro needed a nominative, and from indistinct
recollection supplied 'Abraham.'
Jebb, (Sacred Literature, p. 324,) cites- Bochart as agreeing with
Tana^uil Faber in a still bolder mutilation of the text of Scripture,
viz. representing Js-ig yd^ rietyttQS tai^ai rU xj rc^ft* ttTroBeivilr, (Rom.
V. 7.) as a marginal gloss. — But I have not met with this in the works
of Bochart, and find no mention of it in the indices.
Something nearly approaching to this conjectural licence appears
HiEROz. P. II. Lib. II. c. xii. where the author is willing to reverse the
present reading of the Hebrew text, in favour of the Greek version, on
the authority of a Grecian mythological fable, and the use of a term
among the Arabian astrologers: virtually admitting such testimony in
evidence respecting an event 2000 years previous !
(n) Such is that by which he accounts for an apparently enormous
l)lunder in the Sibylline Oracles, placing Ararat in Phrygia Niger ; by
changing Mexatirw into Kex«i»«c, and referring it to Celene, afterwards
Apamj£a, called for some unknown reason K/CaToc .— Phaleg. P. i.
Lib. III. c. xiii. See Saurin Diss. Hist. ix. p. 115. s. and compare the
confirmation subsequently given by the medal, lb. p. 132. ss.— Most of
the investigations respecting the ancient Punic, in Part ii. of the Sacred
Geography, partake largely of the character of conjectural emendations^
and roust be allowed, as such, to possess rare merit.
I6B- MEMOIRS OP SAMUEL B06HART.
ef arriving at the sense of a difficult passage ; and that, with
regard to profane authors, the practice has been prevalent
to an extent only not universal. Still, the strict rules of exe-
gesis will not warrant it : much less can its results be used
as evidence in historical research, or as * media ' in the exa-
mination of other passages ; to both which uses they are not
unfrequently applied by our author.
Lastly, he is not always nice in his choice of proofs and
Scriptural authorities. Passages to which it is scarcely to=
be doubted that he would have given the correct interpretation
upon a professed examination, he often cites in a sense very
foreign from the actual import. Who, for instance, would, on
due reflection, bring forward Rom. x. 67 afe a * ratio non con-
temnenda ' for interpreting the ninth article of the Creed, of an
abode in the state of death ? Yet that does Bochart, Gpp.
iu.987.
To conclude this extended, yet imperfect, sketch:— the
works of Bochart have by no means survived their useful-
ness or reputation. They are yet treasures of philosophical
learning, which may be used to no small advantage by the in-
dustrious and discriminating student. The faults of their
writer were the faults of his age ; but his excellencies are his
own, and are such as will endure.
The praise of unparalleled industry, almost unlimited eru-
dition, great ingenuity, and no small degree of independence
as an interpreter of Scripture, wiU be awarded to Bochart
as long as Biblical Philology shall be studied as a sciencCo
His etymologies, conjectures, and occasional lapses in inter-
pretation, will be forgotten, or readily forgiven, by every one
qualified to judge of the true value of his works.
DISSERTATION
ON THE MEANING OF
^^THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN''
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
BY GOTTLOB CHRISTIAN STORK.
TRANSLATED FROM THK LATIN,
BY MANTON EASTBURN, M. A.
RECTOR OF THK CHURCH OF THE ASCENSION, NEW-YORK.
22
DISSERTATION,
That the expectation of some heavenly kingdom had been
long entertained by Christ's hearers, may be even inferred from
the circumstance, » that both our Lord himself, {a) and John
(«) Matt. iv. 17.
1 The extracts made by Wetstein from the Rabbinical writings, at
Matt. III. 2. are all of them, I think, irrelevant. To this conclusion I
have been led, in the first place, by considering the period at which these
authors lived : for though we may allow the earlier of them in particular,
and those who approach nearest to the apostolic age, to be brought for-
ward for the purpose of illustrating and confirming ancient authorities,
yet with Keil (Hist, Dogmatis de regno Messiae Christi et apostolorum
aetate. ad iliustranda N. T. loca accommodate exposita. Lips. 1781.
p. 6.) [ See Keil, Opilsc. Acad. p. 29. Lips. 1821.— Tr. ] I am
reluctant, for many reasons, to receive them as witnesses. The con-
sideration, however, which weighs the most with me, is, that the
Rabbinical modes of expression, as has been observed by Koppe,
(Vol. I. N. T. gr. p. 227.) are exceedingly different from that idea of
the heavenly kingdom, which is the object of my inquiries. The sub-
ject which I propose to discuss is some heavenly kingdom, which was
expected in course of time ; whereas, on the other hand, those Rabbinical
writers usually speak of that ancient heavenly government naaintainetJ
ii.Z THE MEANING OF
the Baptist before him,(^) no sooner made their pubHc appeal^
ance, than they immediately touched upon this topic of the
kingdom of heaven, as one that was quite famihar to all ; and
that furnished an extremely suitable argument by which to per-
suade their countrymen to repentance. And the testimony of
JosEPHUs,^ confirmed thus far by a comparison with the sa-
cred books, leaves us no room for doubt respecting the sources
whence the Jews derived their expectation ; since, from the
time of David, who peculiarly became possessor of a kingdom
divinely conferred,^ we see promised a certain king, distin-
guished by many appellations, who was to be of the stock of
(6) Matl. in. Q.
over all things (the monarchy, as it is called by Philo, p. 812 ss. ed. Fr.)
by Jehovah, the one true God, who, particularly in the later periods of
the Jewish commonwealth, was usually distinguished from the idols made
in the land, by the name of heavenly king, ("Dan. iv. 34,) and God of
heaven ; (ii. 18. 28.) and by becoming subject to the same, understand the
duty of acknowledging one God, of professing his name by reciting the
formula in Deut; vi. 4, and of reverently keeping his commandments.
i do not however deny, that the term kingdom of heaven is perhaps, in
the N- T. itself, though very rarely, applied to the perpetual government
of God over all things; (Ps. cm. 19. cxlv. 11 ss. 1. Tim. i. 17. vi. 15.)
so that Matt, xviii. 23, may be thus rendered : " that function of the divine
government, by which forgiveness is extended to any one, is regulated
by tlie same principle which an earthly king pursued, who, &c., i. e.
'Qod iv. 35.) proceeds in like manner with a king, who, i&c."
2 L. VI. de bell. Jud. c. 5. $.4. Add Tacitu^,^ L. v. Histor. c. 13.
3 Saul was made king, it is true, by divine authority ; but this was
a thing extorted by the importunity of the people, (i. Sam. viii — x.
XII. 12 s.) David» on the contrary, by the divine choice, was not only
made king, (xiii. 14. xv. 28. svi. I. Acts, xiii. 22.) but was also ho-
nored with the privilege (ii. Sara. vii. II ss.) of transmitting an heredi-
tary kingdom to his descendants. For though God could not but dis-
approve of (i. Sam. viii. 7.) the errtreaties of the Israelites for a king, to
the absolute rejection of himself; yat afterwards he signified, on another
occasion, that there was nothing in the designs of his Providence which
.opposed the administration, by human instntmentality, of that kingdom^
which, being his oim, (xii. 12.) was therefore heavenly, or divine. To
what those designs had reference, both the history of David's progeny,,
invested with a heavenly, or divine kingdom, far more august than that
of David or Solomon, and the prophecies of the O T- themselves, clean-
ly explain.
**THE KINGDOM OP HEAVEN." 173^^
Bavid,* far superior to all kings, (c) lorcf not only of the Jews,
but of all nations, (c?) everlasting, (c) to be exalted to a govern-
ment altogether divine, (/) but, previously to the attainment
of that dignity, {g) was to endure the last extremity of suffer-
ing for the salvation of many, (h)
This kingdom therefore of the Messiah, {i) since itisbotb
divinely^ conferred, (y ) and is itself divine, (^) has obtained:
(c) Ps. Lxxxix, 28. lu (d) Dan. vii. 13 s.
(e) II. Sam. vii. 13. 16. Ps. lxxxix. 30. 37 s. Isai. uii. 10. Dan. vii. 14.
(/) Ps. ex. 1. (g) Isai. LU. 13. (h) liii. 3 ss.
0) Epfi. V. 5. Miatt. XI u. 41. Luke xxii. 30. Rev. i. 9. Matt. xv. 34. 40.
Rev. 1. 5. XVII. 14. xix. 16.
(j) II. Sara. VII, 12. 14. Ps. ii. 6. 7. comp. Heb. v. 5. (k) Ps. ex. 1.
* When Davich thou^t of building a house to the honor of God,
(ii. Sam. VII. 5 ss.) God promised on the other hand, that he would
sooner build a house for David, (v. 11. 27.) i. e. bestow a family (v.
18 s. 25 s. 29.) upon him, (Deut. xxv. 9. Exod. i. 21.) and enrich it
(Compare Ps. lxxxix. 5. Obss. gramm. p. 11.) with great blessings.
(ii. Sam. VII. 29.) It is not to be doubted, therefore, that j^-nr in v. 12,
signifies the whole family (f\>^) of David, (v. 16. comp. Ps. lxxxix. 37.)
and his posterity ( o»j3 v. 31. comp. ii. Sam. vii. 14. 12.) even to a re-
mote generation, v. 19. But if the reference is to the whole family of
David, it is certainly also allowable to ascribe to this family things,
which, though they did not apply to all and each of the posterity of
David, yet certainly did to many of them, as v. 14, at the end, or to one
of them, as Solomon, the builder of the temple (v. 13). We ought not
to be surprised, therefore, if, in ii. Sam. v^i. principal reference should
be made to one particular man (comp. Dan. vii. 13), who should be
singularly conspicuous among all the posterity of David, and give sta-
bility to the whole royal family. And as this might very properly have
been done, so it actually is the fact that it was ; as appears, on the one
hand, from the consideration, that, if we except Christ, the offspring of
David was clearly, according to the testimony of history, not placed in
that eternal (ii. Sam. vii. 13. 16. comp. with Ps. lxxxix. 30. 37 s.) and
most illustrious (i?. 28.) kingdom ; and as it might have been infeiTed,
moreover, even in David's time, from a true interpretation of the divine
prophecy contained in Ps. ex. ii. For mention is there made of a cer-
tain peculiar king, placed by God (ii. 6.) upon Mount Sion, where Da-
vid sat ; the reference is, therefore, to some successor of David, who,
most truly of all, should be both the Son of God (w. 7. comp. with
II. Sam. VII. 14), and possess divine (comp. i. Sam. xii. 12. note 3.) or
heavenly power (Ps. ex. 1.).
s Hence it is also called the kingdom of the Father, Matt. xxvi.
29, VI. 10. Lulce, xi. 2. \
174 THE MEANING OP
the name of the kingdom of God or ^ of heaven ; sometimes,
also, it is called the kingdom'^ xa-r' e^oxn^f as being that which
was so well known, both from the sacred books of the Jews^
and from the gospel, of which it is the sum and substance,* •
that none could fail to understand the true signification of the
term.
§. 11.
It cannot indeed be denied, that the prevalent opinion itt
the time of Christ with regard to Messiah's kingdom, was
far removed from the true conception of its character ; and
that the Jews, whose thoughts entirely overlooked those pro-
phecies which related to the death of Christ, and the rest of
his humiliation, (/) supposed the grandeur of the kingdom of
heaven to consist in temporal riches and power, and in the
splendor of their capital f (m) and while they were deceived by
(D Luke, XXIV. 20 s. 25 s. xvui. 34. John, xii. 34. (m) Luke, xix. 11^
6 St. Matthew, in his Hebrew gospel, uses this expression most fre-
quently ; ( e. g. Matt. iv. 17. x. 7. xih. 11, 24. 31. 33. v. 3. xix. 23.)
instead of which, both the Greek interpreter of St. Matthew, (e. g,
XII. 28. XIX. 24. comp. fiber den zweck der evl. Gesch. Joh. p. 369.)
and more frequently still the other evangelists, (e. g. Mark, 1. 15. Luke,
X. 9. 11. via. 10. Mark, iv. 11. 26. 30. Luke, xni. 18. 20. vi. 20. Mark, x.
23 — 25.) make mention of the kingdom of God. 1 have no doubt that the
word heaven, in that phrase of St. Matthew, has the signification of the
God of heaven. (Dan. ii. 44. note 1.) See Matt, xxi.25. Luke, xx. 4 s.
XV. 18. Dan. iv. 23. and Wetstein, ad Matt. 1. c
7 Matt. IV. 23 IX. 35. xin. 19. xxiv 14.
8 Mark, i. 14. Luke, iv. 43. viii. 1. ix. 2. 11. 60. xvi. 16 Acts, i. 3. viii.
12. XIX 8. XX 25 xxviii 23 31.
8 That the Jews connected the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem
with the commencement of the kingdom of heaven, cannot be proved
from the example of the apostles: (Matt, xxiv- 3.)- for these had been
informed of that catastrophe not through Jewish instruction, but by the
prediction of our Lord; (v. 2. Luke, xix. 44.) and they were so struck
with the strangeness of the annunciation., that they thought the world
itself, with whose duration they had connected that of their temple,
would be overwhelmed in the same overthrow. Nor am I at all influ-
enced by that passage of the Gemarists, adduced by Lightfoot at Matt. ii.
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.
175
the vain expectation, that, having expelled the Romans, (n),
they should ere long (o) recover (p) and extend *° their do-
minion, in regard to the real grandeur and glory of the Mes-
siah's reign {q) were shamefully ignorant, (r ) We are not,
however, to imagine, that Jesus and his apostles were obliged,
on this account, either to make no mention at all of the
lungdom of heaven, or to maintain that notion of it which,
though by no means correct, was yet the only one known to
their hearers. It may be observed, on the one hand, that it
was altogether becoming in divine teachers generally, and
peculiarly so in the Messiah, to restore that true idea of the
kingdom of heaven which had been pointed out by the pro-
phets. But, besides this, the prevalent opinion of the Jews
is not to be deemed so entirely false, but that they may have
had some little insight, at least, into that true sense, which is
defined in the ancient prophecies, and repeated in the New
Testament ; and that while, under the teaching of Jesus and
his ambassadors, they unlearned what had been superadded
by the erroneous interpretation of the Jews, and discovered
what it had hidden from the view, they may have been, mean-
while, led to a change of views, by the general (s) doctrine
(>i) Luke, XXIV. 21, Acts, xvii. 7. John, xix. 12. compare Luke, xxiii. 2.
(o) XIX. U. (p) Acts, I. 6. (q) Matt. xxii. 43 s.
(r) V. 46. (s) Comp. Matt. xx. 2L with Mark, x. 37.
1; since, as it is allowed even by Keil himself, who lays great stress upon
the citation just mentioned, (p. 9.) [Keil, Opus. Acad. p. 32. Lips. 1821.
— Tr. ] the talmudical writings are to be referred to not so much for the
purpose of proof, as for that of illustrating and confirming points already,
from other quarters, well ascertained and established. We have the
testimony, moreover, of Josephus, (see note 2) that, by the expectation
of the Messiah, (comp. Matt xxiv- 4 s. 23—26,) the Jews were rather led
into the hope, that it might become their duty to contend fiercely with
the Romans for their liberty, city, and temple. Other traces of the
opinion respecting the wonderful security of the temple, are to be found
in Acts, VI. 11 ss; and in Josephus, L. vi. de bell. Jud. c 2. $. 1.
1 See several well-known passages of Josephus, Tacitus (note 2,)
and Suetonius (in Vespasian, 4).
I're
THE MEANING 01'
which they held, concerning the great benefits they Xvei'e lo
receive from that king of theirs, {t) who was expected from the
family of David, (w) But let us turn for information to the New
Testament itself; from which it seems to me to be clearly esta*
blished, that so far Were Jesus and his apostles from accommo-
dating themselves to the Jewish opinion concerning Christ's
kingdom, that, on the other hand, they reduced it strictly
to the standard of truth, and of the ancient prophecies.*
§. III.
1. The commencement of the kingdom of heaven.
Upon one topic, the subject indeed of ancient prophecy, {v)
but more than any other overlooked by the Jews, Jesus and
the apostles were so much the more particular in their in-
structions ; setting forth the multiplied griefs, and painful
punishment, that were to be, or had already been endured by
Jesus, previously to the occupancy of that promised heavenly
dominion. Among numerous passages" we read some more
express than others, in which, were the order of time to
be regarded, it would be proper to begin with our Lord's
predictions ; but, as I have determined first to talie notice of
those passages where the ancient prophecies ^^ had been
clearly mentioned, another commencement must be adopted.
(t) John, 1. 50. comp. 46. Luke, xxiii. 2. Matt. ii. 4 s. comp. 2.
(m) Mark, xi. 10. Matt. xxn. 42. John, vn. 42.
(v) Isai. Lixi. 10 ss. Ps. xvi. 9 ss.
* Comp. Diss. I. in ll. n. t. hist, aliquot loca ad Matt, v— vii. Diss,
in. ad Joh. VI. 26 s.
1 1 See particularly Luke, xvii. 25. xxiv. 26 s. i. Pet. 1. 11. Phil,
n. 7 ss. Heb. ii 9. Eph. i. 20 ss.
1 2 To these, indeed, Jesus did not omit to bear testimony ; as in
Matt. xxii. 41 ss. he clearly declared, that the offspring of David was
to possess a kingdom so truly divine, that he deserved to be called Lord
** THE KINGDOM OP HEAVEN." 177
When St. Peter, then, after the ascension of our Lord into
heaven, delivered his first public discourse, the substance of
what he wished his hearers to understand way this ; that the
miracle which had brought the multitude together was a proof,
that that same Jesus whom they had crucified {w) had not only
been restored to life, {x) but had ascended into heaven, and,
as Ps. ex. expresses it, had sat down on the right hand of
God,(y) and had thus, through the divine power, been exalted
to a station so preeminent, that he was both able to send fortli
this gift which was evident to the senses of the whole as-
sembly, (2) and ought to be regarded by all as one whom
God had made Lord, and that Lord, too, {a) who, under the
name of Christ, (b) i. e. the king, about to arise out of the
family of David, (c) had been all along the object of their
expectations, {d) With this representation harmonizes that of
St. Paul, that, in his day, it had come to pass, that God had
performed" his promise concerning the offspring of David,(e)
by making Jesus king ;^* (/) who, in pursuance of the predic-
tions of the prophets, {g) having suffered death, and been re-
called {h) to life eternal,(2) that that time bad-arrived, (j) which
the divine prophet had long ago (k) introduced as actually pre-
sent ;" — that now, since Jesus by his sacrifice had expiated our
(w) Acts, II. 36. 23. (x) v. 24. 32. 7 (y) Acts, n. 34 s.
(«) V. 33. (a) V, 36. (6) Ps. 11. 2.
(c) V. 6. n. Sam. vii. 18 ss. (d) Acts, 11. 30. (e) xiii. 23.
(/; V. 32. (g-) V. 27. 29. 34. (/i) v. 27-31.
(i) V. 34. (j) V. 32:^3. ik) Ps. II. 7.
by the parent himself ; but in that place, which I shall make use of
hereafter in reference to my subject, there is certainly no mention made
of predictions.
I 3 On the construction of Acts, xiii. 32. see Bengel.
1 4 Since by that promise which the Apostle says was now accom-
plished, an expectation had been raised of some great king of the stock
of David, (r. 23.), and also a subsequent verse, 33. refers to the kingdom
of the Messiah (note 16.) ; without doubt avaariiasLc is to be taken in
the same sense as in the promise itself (11. Sam. vii. 12.) : " I will make
king (ama-Tiia-at) thine offspring after thee, and I will establish his king-
dom.^* Comp. Acts, VII. 18.
1 5 I do not apprehend that there will be very many, at the present
23
178 THE MEANING OF
sins, (I) the declaration in Ps. ex. had had this issue, (m) that
Jesus was made greater than all things which are subject to
God,(n) and even than the angels themselves, and thus had ob-
tained that name and glory (o) which had been promised to
David's offspring ; (p) that now he is perceived to be that be-
gotten Son of God, who, in preference to all the kings of the
stock of David, deserves to be called the Son of God/° being
possessed of the same divine empire as the Father, {q) But
let us hear also what our Lord himself says. We find, then,
that to the disciples who acknowledged him(r) to be the
Christ, the Son of God, (s) he expressly shews, on the very
same occasion, (t) the sorrow and death he was to undergo^
before he commenced his kingly life ; and publicly before the
multitude {u) he also bids his friends expect not wealth, and
a prosperous condition, but a similar destiny of calamities and
of death ; and, at last, when he should make a most splendid
exhibition of his glory, life, truly so called, and a most certain
recompense of reward : (v) but he adds, (w) that, although
(J) Heb. I. 3. X. 12. (m) Heb. i. 3. comp. 13, x. 12 s. (n) i. 2.
(o) V. 4. (/») V. 5. • (9) V. 2. 3, IS. 8 s.
(r) Matt. XVI. 16. (s) Ps. 11. 2. 7- (t) Matt. xvi. 21
(u) Mark, vin. 34. Luke, ix. 23. (v) v. 23—26.
(xv) t. 27.
day, disposed to doubt whether o^Tj in that place indicates some cer-
tain and definite period, (Heb. iv. 7.) which was present, not indeed in
the Psalmist's tim«, but in that to which the Psalm had reference,
(comp. X. 5.)
1 6 The Apostle, very suitably to the sense of the prophecy, (11. Sam.
VII. 14. Ps. II. 7. comp. Ps. lxxxix. 27 s. Ps. ii. 6) infers from that
name of Son of God the dignity of Christ's empire ; (Heb. i. 5. comp. with
2 — 4. comp- Luke, i. 32 s. Matt. xxvi. 63 s.) but at the same time very
clearly shews, that the offspring of David (Heb. i 5. comp. withn. Sam.
vii, 14.) could not have obtained the name and dignity of Son of God,
in the sense that he was made far superior to the angels, (Heb. i.
4.) and had sat down at the right hand of God, (t>. 3 ) and was appointed
Lord of all things, {v. 2.) unless, besides his human nature, he possessed
also one much more exalted, nay, higher than all others, which had
founded, and which supports all things, {v. 10—12. 3.) and in reference
to which God may be said {v. 2.) to have made the world by his Son.
Compare Roos, Lehre und Lebensgeschichte Jesu Christi. P. i. p. 295.
'*THE KINGDOM OP HEAVEN." 179
that most glorious appearance of the kingdom of heaven {x)
was neither so near at hand, nor of that earthly form, that
any one ought to shrink even from undergoing death, for th6
gospel's sake, (y) yet those who are standing here " shall, a
part of them,^'' not die, till they shall have seen the kingdom of
God, or, as St. Mark expresses it, ix. 1. till they shall have
seen the. kingdom of God come with power, which, according
to the interpretation of St. Matthew, (z) means : until they
shall have seen this man, who now appears so abject and
miserable, (a) coming to ** his kingdom. Jesus, therefore,
some little time after that discourse, but while the apostles ^^
however were, a great part of them, living, entered upon his
government ; so that it was permitted to them surviving to
see ^ his kingdom coming, and also with power : that is, they
(a;) V. 26. {y) v. 25. {z) xvi. 28. (a) v. 21.
17 The apostles appear to have stood next to Jesus, (comp. Mark,
III. 34) having been the only persons present with him while he was
praying, (Luke, ix 18. 21.) before the people were called. (Mark,
viJi. 34.) It is probable that he meant these, therefore, and perhaps
pointed them out, by some visible sign, (Mark, m. 34. Matt- xn. 49.)
when he uttered the words above cited.
1 8 Tim, in the passage referred to, signifies a part, in general ; which
may also be a great part. (John, vi. 64, comp. with 66. i. Cor. x. 7 ss.)
And Judas, whom our Lord usually excepts in other places also, when
he is speaking of the apostles, (John, xni. 10 s.) certainly died before
the commencement of the kingdom of God.
> 9 ^Ep^ofAtvov h tSi 03i.a-tKUA seems to mean the same thing (comp.
II. Kings, XIII. 20. Job. v. 26 ) as i^x.^f*tvov sle t»v ^ATtxiiav ; and
this phrase to signify coming to tJie kingdom, obtaining possession of the
government. Comp. Theodotion, Dan. iv. 33. and the word j<>fo which,
TT '
though it properly signifies to come to any thing CObss. gramm. p. 272.),
frequently means to obtain possession of any thing. Perhaps also Luke,
XXIII. 42. ought to be rendered : ** when thou shalt have obtained posses-
sion o/thy kingdom."
3 Compare above Acts, xni. 32.
3 I In like manner, Matt. xxvi. 64. it is said that the Jews shall here-
after see this same Jesus, whom they were now so ignominiously treat-
ing, sitting at the right hand of God, as the Christ, the Son of God,
(v. 63.note 16.) and possessed of his divine government. But in this
place, as in that under discussion, (xvi. 27.) there is added the mention
of a most illustrious, though far distant, proof of his glory, for the ex-
180 THE MEANING 01
were enabled, from many and great events, (among which,
besides the history of the ascension into' heaven, (6) we
reckon, for example, that remarkable and pubhc gift of the
promised Spirit,(c) a power which, through the divine efficacy
of Christ sitting on the right hand of God, {d) the apostles
sensibly felt to be communicated to them, for teaching, de-
fending, and by miracles establishing the gospel ; — and, last
of all, the destruction of Jerusalem ;) to perceive and know,
that that despised and crucified Jesus now possessed power-
ful and universal dominion. And this is the very point I
wished to enforce ; — that, after the death of Jesus ^ (e) from
the period of his resurrection and ascension into heaven, (f)
that heavenly kingdom which the ancient prophets had pre-
dicted, w^as entered upon by the offspring of David, {g)
§. IV.
But if the commencement of the kingdom of heaven is to
be reckoned from the period, when Jesus, having passed
through liis allotment of suffering and death, ascended into
heaven ; it is evident, that, during the time of John the Bap-
tist, and of Chrisf s residence on the earth, it was as near at
hand as possible, (h) nay, was actually present, (i) For not
only, as it is well known, does the usus loquendi, as well
generally, as in the sacred writings in particular,^^ allow
things to be spoken of as present which are near at hand ;
but the kingdom of heaven was not merely at hand, but in a
(b) Acts, I. 9. 11. (c) Acts, II. 33— 36. (d) Mark, xvi. 19 8.
(c) lleb, I. 3. (/) Acts, n. 31 s. 34. (g) v. SO. 33. 36. Heb. i. 3—5.13.
(/») Matt. III. 2. IV 17, X. 7. Luke, x. 9. 11.
(i) Malt. xii. 28. Luke, xi. 20, xvii. 21.
hibition of which he shall come again from heaven, (Acts, 1. 11.) as he
went up to heaven, when (ii. 34. Mark, xvi. 19.) he would enter upon
his kingdom, and sit down at the right hand of God.
3 3 Comp. Rev. xi. 15. xvi. 17. Matt. xxvi. 64. Luke, xxn. 69.
II Tira. IV. 6 s.
^ OF THE ^4
UNIVERSn
certain sense was come, when Jesus was born. For since it
was promised to the offspring of David^ its commencement
could not in any way be imagined, unless he who was to reign
liad first been conceived and born ; and, on the other hand,
when he was born, the time was already come to which the
prophets had referred, when they foretold the government of
a man, about to spring from David, We know ^"^ certainly
that Jesus was born for the very purpose, that he might pub-
licly appear as the promised king ; and Christ's human nature
was, from the period of his conception, (j ) joined in that in-
timate union {k) with his divine, in order that (/) it might be
properly qualified to enter upon the august empire (m) of the
Son of God. (n) There are discoverable, moreover, in all
those places in which Christ says that his kingdom is come,
clear indications that a royal person ^ is chiefly referred to.
U ) Xuke, I. 35. (k) John, 1. 14. (0 Note 16.
(m) Luke, i. 32 a. (n) v. 35. John, i, 14.
3 3 As I am inquiring only about that kingdom, which the prophets
promised, but which the gospel shows to have come ; it is plain, that I am
not here referring to the divine nature of Christ, in itself considered,
whose government could not be the subject of promise or of expecta-
tion, (comp. John, i. 3. and note 16.) but to the kingdom of that man,
who, as it had been shewn in the ancient prophecies, was one day to
spring from the family of David.
2 4 <' I am a king, being bom for this end, that I might be a king,
(comp. Luke, i. 32 s.) and therefore (Matt. iv. 17. 23. comp. note 7.)
I came into the world, that I might confirm this truth (this doctrine con-
cerning my kingdom)." John, xvm. 37. I give to the article 7» the
same sense, which it has in Acts, ix. 2. comp. xxii. 4. and Heb. iii. 3.
" In proportion to the greater honor which redounds from this house,
over which Jesus presides, (». 2.) to him who built it, than from the
other, over which Moses presided." Comp. Obss. graram. p. Hi), n. 1.
[ That the article, however, has in Acts, ix. 2. the force assigned to it by
Storr, may well be questioned. See a judicious note of Bishop Middle-
ton, in his * Doctrine of the Greek Article,' in loco. — Tr. ]
2 5 The kingdom had so far come, that the king by whom it was to
be administered was certainly present. Unless, indeed, as is often the
case with the words t^ovria,^ a^x^, nu^Umc, the abstract ^acimIa be
used for the concrete ^AffiKtvt, Certainly the Hebrew term, which
commonly signifies king, properly means kingdonif (comp. Obss. gramm.
p. 151-) and was at length figuratively transferred to the signification of
182 THE MEANING OF
Thus, in Maft. xn. 28. he shewed that his kingdom zvas
come, because (o) such manifest proofs existed of his power
over demons, that it was plain a person had made his appear-
ance, who might properly be accounted the conqueror of the
most formidable enemies. (;?) And when, in Luke, xvii. 20 s.
he shews that the kingdom of God does not come in such a
manner, that it may be easily observed by any one '^ or point-
ed out, by this argument, that the kingdom of God was already
in the midst ^"^ of the Jews, though ignorant of it, — he appears
to mean nothing else than this ; that Ac, the offspring of David
about to reign, was present among the Jews.{q) Thence he adds
immediately afterwards, Luke, xvii. ^2. that the time should
come, when the disciples would earnestly desire this presence
of the kingdom of God, and would long to recover one of the
days which he had passed among them ; but that he was then
about to cease for some time his appearance, and that those
ought to receive no credit, who should represent him as being
present, (r) For although he should at some future time re-
turn, (5) yet he should not then come fJt-sra flra^arYj^csw?, (t)
but suddenly, (m) and should take many by surprise, {v) If
therefore you would trace the kingdom of heaven from its
very beginning and foundation, which was laid in the concep-
tion and nativity of the king ; then it embraces the whole time
of the Messiah,^ which Moses and the prophets /oresAewe J as
(0) V. 29. Luke, xi. 22. (p) Corap. Ps. ex. (g) Comp. Joba, i. 26.
(r) V. 23. (.S) V. 24. 26. 30. (0 v. 20.
(u) V. 24. (w) V. 26 ss.
king. Its proper signification is to be found in Dan. viii. 21. at the be-
ginning, vii. 17 ; which the lxx. and THEODOTioif perceived in this last
place, though not in the first. On the other hand the lxx. i. Kings, xi.
14, translate the Hebrevvn^D which is to be understood concerning «Ac
king, {v. 15.) by the word ^utrixtU. Comp. Hess, tiber die Lehren,
Thaten und Schicksale unsers Herrn. p. 61. 178. 279 s.
2 6 Comp. Elsner, Obss. ss. ad v. 20.
2 7 See Raphel. Annott. in N. T. ex Xenophonte, ad v. 21.
2 8 la this are included, besides Christ's kingdom, properly under-
stood, all the other circumstances also, which, according to Moses and
the prophets, (Luke, xxiv. 26 s. 44 ss.) were to take place before the
Messiah entered upon that glorious kingdom-
" THE KINUDOAI OF HEAVEN." 183
io come, (w) but John was able to announce as present,^ {x)
being in this very respect {y) superior to all the prophets, (z)
that immediately after him the last and greatest of all the pro-
phets, that is, the Lord himself, being then just at hand, was
openly to make his appearance. But if you inquire respect-
ing that time particularly, when the person whom the prophets
predicted as about to possess universal dominion, not merely
was present, but, in the sense intended by them,^" entered
upon his eternal kingdom ; then, indeed, the time of the Mes-
siah had arrived {<!tsir'kv]^(^r(u o xai^og), at that period when
Jesus, and before him John, pubhshed .the gospel ; — in such a
manner, however, that his divine kingdom was rather at
hand (a) than come, and was as yet to be looked for, (6) and
sought by prayer.^ (c) On which account, John, however
(w) npot(priTCv(rav, Matt. XI. 13. (ar) evayyeXt^eadai, Luke, xvi. 16.
(y) Matt. XI. 10. (z) r. 9, 11. (o) Mark, 1. 15.
(6) XV. 43. Luke, xxni. 51. (c) xi. 2. Matt. vi. 10.
2 » I think that that more comprehensive sense of the kingdom of heaven,
by which it is made to include the whole of Christ's history, obtains
universally in those places where the gospel (message) of the kingdom of
God is mentioned (note 7, 8) : since it is evident, that in the gospel are
included not only Christ's sitting down at the right hand of God, and
the administration of his divine government, but also all the transac-
tions of his former life. (John, i. 29. vi. 51 i. Cor. xv. 1 ss.) Hence
there is sometimes substituted for the phrase above mentioned (comp.
Acts, XIX. 8. XX. 25. with v. 21.), sometimes there is subjoined in the
same context (xxviii. 23. 31. vui. 12), an explanation, to inform us that
CAmt was intended. Add Luke, xviii. 29, him tm? 0*a-ixilit( tcu
^iovj for which in Matt. xix. 29, is hiKiv tcE xi>ta-rav, and in Mark, x.
29, hiKiv ToD ^pio-rov Kat Toy ivix.yyzKiov, showing the reference to be
to Christ (or the kingdom of God.).
3 The ancient prophecies respecting Christ maybe said to have their
accomplishment, as soon as he had begun to reign in the manner pre-
dicted by the prophets. For all the events, which afterwards took
place, or which shall yet happen, as, for instance, the joyful extension
of the gospel, are included in that very empire (§. vii.) which was then
present. Jesus, therefore, towards the end of his life, when his sitting
down at the right hand of God (Luke, xxu. 69.) was just at hand (note
22,), shews that the things which had been written concerning him had
their accomplishment, v. 37.
3 J It is not to be hence inferred, that this prayer (Luke, xi. 2) is not
184 TftE MEANING OF
superior to the prophets, who were able neither to point to a
present king, nor to announce the approach of his kingdom,
was judged by our Lord himself {d) to be less than the
apostles,^ though these latter, as having been formerly the dis-
ciples of John, were in this respect certainly his inferiors.
The latter exercised their public duty and ministry,^ not only
during that happy -^ period when Christ sojourned among men,
but actually in the midst of the supremely happy days^^ o^ his
heavenly empire ; they having lived to see these, which was a
privilege denied to John, (c) Whence also, during that period
which preceded Christ^s death and ascension into heaven, the
right of citizenship in the heavenly kingdom^^ which was to
(d) Matt. XI. 11. Luke, vii- 28. <c) Comp. Mark, ix. 1.
proper for use in our own day. For although the kingdom of God was
come, as soon as Christ had ascended into heaven ; yet we shall presently
see, that, in another sense, the kingdom of God maybe not yet arrived.
For, to say nothing of that most glorious manifestation of the kingdom
of God which is yet to be made ($. viii.), how many nations are there
to whom this heavenly kingdom has not yet come (Matt. xxi. 43.)?
how many Christians are there, who are not yet within the kingdom
(Col. I. 13.) of the Son of God? Comp. Luther's Larger Catechism
(p. 516 s. ed. Rechenberg.).
32 "' Those who are less; yet, in the kingdom of heaven, when it
shall have commenced, are greater than he (John)." The article does
not forbid, either that the singular fA.tK^6rt^os should be taken collectively,
(comp Diss, de sensu vocis eT/xa/ec in N. T. note 49.) or that, out of many
disciples, inferior to their teacher, cerlain ijidividttals, i. e. the apostles,
should be understood, comp. Apoc. viii. 2.
3 3 That it is to this that the declaration of our Lord refers, is shewn
by the circumstance, that John is considered, through the whole of this
passage, with reference to his public ministry, (v. 9.)
3 4 Comp. Luke, X. 23
3 s There were many things, which could not be proclaimed even by
our Lord himself (John, xvi. 12.) much less by John, which were after-
wards published and diffused far and wide by the. apostles; while, on
the contrary, John's sphere was circumscribed by the limits of Palestine.
Comp. MoscHE Bibelfreund, P. i. p. 380 s. and add John, vii. 38 s.
XIV. 12.
3 6 As the word jrox/TiTst, which signifies both the administration of
a free state (see, for example, Demosthenes, Vol. ii. ed. Reisk. p. 1396,
[Demosh. et Aesch. Op. Ed. Lond. 1827. Vol, 4. p. 420.— Tr. ] and
in many othqr places,), and any form of government whatever, asjn
'* THli: klAM^DOM or H£AV£N." 185
begin when Christ had ascended into heaven, is said to be
sought for^ as it were with violence^ and seized before hand.
It follows, then, that the commencement of the Messiah's
kingdom, although in a certain sense it may be traced from
his birth, (/) yet properly is to be reckoned from his ascen-
sion into heaven, {g) Which proves, that a far different ap-
pearance was then given to the kingdom of David, which Jesus
possessed a/ier his death and return to a new life ; and that
(f) h IV. (go i. n:.
-fflscHiNES, (Vol. III. Orat. grace, p. 29. 389.) [Demosth. et Aesch.
Op. ed. Lond. 1827. Vol. 8. p. 9.— Tr. ] is transferred to the signi-
fication of the right of citizenship (see VVetsteix, at Acts. xxn. 28.) :
so also ^ATiXiicc T^v oi/!xvay means not only the em/)ire or government
of the Messiah, but tht right of citizenship in the Messiah's kingdom, and
all the felicity and duties connected with it, as Rom. xiv. 17. Matt. xiii.
44 s. xis. 12. ('' that either, in seasons of distress, they may the more
surely, i. Cor. vii. 26. or at all times, may the more evidently, v. 34.
sustain the part and obtain the privileges of cilizens,^^) and perhaps
Mark, xii. 34. where, however, as with respect to the word vnKirtittf,
in Eph. II. 12, I am in doubt whether we are to understand //je common-
ivtalth itself, that is, the multitude of citizens, who are followers of
Christ, seated at the right hand of God, (Col. i. 13.) or the right of dti-
scnship, which, in Latin, enters into the signification of the term civitas.
The right of citizenship ^ however, seems peculiarly to be intended, in
that passage of St. Matthew to which I have referred above (xi. 12.) :
" from the days of John the Baptist until these, in which ye are now
listening to my instructions, the right to the heavenly commonwealth is
sought for with violence, and those who use violence obtain it." We
have seen, indeed, that in Luke, xvi. 16. >; ^A<rthtix rtv ^-iou is used in
another sense, (note 28- 29.) But this is no reason why we should not
understand the pronoun airiti, which follows, to refer either to the
right to the divine commonwealth, in regard to which («/? uuTtif, comp.
Rom. IV. 20, and note 86) many strive as it were with great violence, —
or to the heavenly commonwealth itself, itilo which many press with
vehemence. For we have examples, elsewhere, of the word to which
a pronoun refers being used in a different sense, in the second instance,
from that which it had at first ; as Acts, viii. 5. ttoKic is the city itself;
but etvToli refers to the same word, just as if (comp. r. 14) it had signi-
fied the inhabitants of the city. Comp. Obss. gramm. p. 427.
•37 The signification of /3iit<^0iua<, which, in Matt. xi. 12, is used
passively, as is the case with rjayythi^ofjitti in the parallel passage^
Luke, XVI. 16, may be seen from the citations adduced by £s£BS and
LoKS»XR on Matt. zi. 1^.
34
186 THE MKANINfi CkV
the throne of David became a far more exalted seat of ma**
jesty, {h) from the time that it was occupied by Jesus. («)
§. V.
*2. Its perpetuity r
But tliis point being estabhshed, it follows, that the dura"
iion of this empire, which Jesus obtained with his new and
immortal life, is not* to be measured by that of other king-
doms. For since the heavenly kingdom can neither be de-
prived of its king, seeing he lives for ever, (k) nor ever left
destitute by his divine (/) power ; it can certainly have no
end, except one determined by God, who conferred ^ the
kingdom upon Christ. Moreover, that in the^very first pro-
phecy (m) an everlasting empire was promised to the offspring
of David, is evident from a correct interpretation both of the
Old (Ps. Lxxxix. 30. 37 s.=^ Dan. vii. 14. Isai. lv. 3.)
and New Testament. St. Paul, when he had shewn
that Jesus (w) was that same king, who had been so long
expected to arise out of the family of David, goes on to
shew, (o) that he was called by God to life and government *•*
with this provision, that he should never return to destruction,"'
(ft) Acts, n. 34. Heb. i. 3 s. 13. Malt. xxii. 41 ss. xxvi. 64.
(0 Acts, II. 30 ss. {k) Heb. vii. 23 ss. ix. 25 ss. Rom. vi. 9.
(0 Ps. ex. 1. (m) II. Sam. vii. 13. 16.
(n) Acts, XIII. 32 s. \. in. (o) v. 34.
3 3 Comp. Ps. ex. 1. 4. Heb. v. 5 s. Acts, ii. 36. Heb. i. 2. John,
V. 22— 27. Matti-xxviii. 18. Phil. ii.9ss. Eph. i. 20 ss. aod above,
3 9 Comp. MicHAELis, crit. Collegium tiber die drey wixihtigsten
Psalmen von Christo. p. 467 s.
4 That it was to this the apostle referred, appears from the passage
of Isaiah (r.v. 3.) which he cites.
4 1 Although ha.<^^ogaL v. 35—37. ir. 29- 31. signifies properly' that
consequence of death, which consists in the corruption and decay of
the lifeless body ; yet, in this place, destruction, in general, is meant
(comp. Ezek. xxi. 31. Jer. xin. 14.), of whatever kind it be. In the
THE KINGDOM OP HEAVEN.
187
since that great blessing *» promised to David, (p) is eternal.*^
Nay, that (9) so far was he from possessing, hke his father,(r)
(p) V. 32. 23. (q) V. 35—37. (r) v. 36.
. ^ ^ -
former sense, indeed, Jesus did not experience «riai<^9o§« (Acts, xm.
37.); all discussion, therefore, respecting his re/wrn ijc <f '/*<;) 9 og«v, is ne-
cessarily precluded. But no destruction, no death, any more (Rom. vi.
V.) awaits him hereafter. Whence his kingdom shall never be destroyed
(ov S'ix^^afyiTtrdu^ Dan. vii. 14. ap. Theodotion.), nor transferred to ano-
ther (comp. Heb. vii. 24).
4 8 The Greek Sr/*, whicli relates properly to j^icfy, partakes also of
the sense of the Hebrew ^on (Isai. lv. 3. comp. lxx. Deut.xxix. 19.),
and expresses a great benefit (comp, Obss. gramm. p. 97 ss.); as the
■Greek word eiifmt, which signifies pains, has in Acts, ii. 24. borrowed
from the Hebrew ( t<73n ), which signifies both pains and cords, the
signification of cords. But what that benefit toward David is (comp. iv.
9. and note 43,), is evident from Psalm lxxxix. 2. This, both David
himself (ii. Sam. vii. 19. 26. 29.), and the Psalmist also {v. 5. 29 s. 35 ss.)
accounted of paramount value ; that an eternal dignity, namely, was
promised to David's offspring.
4 3 Since the blessing which God wished to confer upon David, con-
sists especially in the perpetuity of his kingdonl ; (note 42.) sure (jr/a-Tov)
cannot mean any thing but eternal. But the sense of perpetuity appears
to be the proper meaning in this place, for this reason, that with ri
Sa-ix Tfit rriard ( D"'JONJn ) ^^ Isaiah, (lv. 3.) there is joined Q^ip f|^«^3
a promise stable, and of perpetual /orce ; to which, in the principal pro-
phecy, (Ps. LXXXIX. 29.) answers nJO}<J ^'•'13 while, on the other
hand, for Q^jQK^n in npH in Isaiah, is read in the Psalm ^ipf^ {v,
^1» inS ) iS'niDa^X thivh • so that it is evident that m^jj and dSi>S
are used for each] other, and that the blessing pKJ towards David, is a
bleasing to be kept for him for ever. The word mj^j moreover, is not
-uncommon in other places, in the sense of stability and perpetuity; as,
for example, in ii. Sam. vn. 16, when it is said that the family and king-
dom of David shall be established (|aX2) /<"* e^'er {th'\^' '^}!l\ reference
is made to the duration of the thing promised, not to the sure fulfilment
of the promise. In like manner, Ps, lxxxix. 38, the term fpKJ ^s ap-
plied to the oflfepring and kingdom of David ; but this, both the parallel-
ism and the adjunct pnt^a n;;, like that perpetual^ Ccomp. Gen. ix, IQ.)
sign in the clouds (c. 13 ss.), explain in this sense : Q^)y p3\ Finally,
perpetual fountains arc said to be D^J0k3» Isai, xxxiii. 16. Jer, xv. 18«
• tv:v
—The blessing; or kingdom, promise^ to Dayid; had a character far dif-
188 THE MEANING OP
a government limited to a certain period, and to be terminat-
ed by death, that, even before he had attained that high dig-
nity, the power was not given (s) to that death which he
voluntarily underw^ent, of subjecting his flesh to the dominion
of destruction or decay, or of at all retarding the attainment
of that eternal (/) life and happiness at the right hand of
God, (m) to which he was advancing. More explicitly, how-
ever, and plainly than all. does the angel who foretold the
conception of Jesus declare, (w) that the son of Mary {x) who
was to arise from the stock of David, {y) should reign ik rove
aluvag, and that of his kingdom there should be no end ; where
that ambiguous expression eiV rovg a/wvaj, (ii. Sam. vii. 13. 16."*)
is, in the parallel part of the declaration, clearly explained in
such a manner, as to make it evident that w^e are to understand
an infinite and eternal duration. The declarations, therefore, of
David (z) and of St. Paul, (a) ought not to be taken in an op^
posite sense. Nor does it seem difliicult to perceive, that their
meaning is far different from this. For since an eternal priest-
hood "^ is attributed to the Messiah, and this is very closely
allied *^ to his kingdom, (b) it is evident that they do not in^
tend to deny eternity to the latter. Therefore Iw? in Ps. ex,
(s) Comp. II. 24. (f) Ps. XVI. II. («) Comp. ex. 1.
(w) Luke, I. 33. (x) v.^l. (y) v. 32.
(z) Ps. ex. 1. (a) I. Cor. XV. 24— 28.
(6) Ps, ex. 4. comp. with Heb. vn. 1—3,
ferent from the unstable'and brief kingdom of Saul (h. Sam. vn. 16.
comp. with 15.).
4 4 That that primary prophecy is referred to by the angel, is clear
from a comparison of the two places (Luke, i. 32, and ii. Sam. vii. 14.
16).
4 5 Jtlf rot ttlmat, (Ps. ex. 4. Heb. vii. 17. 21. 24.) is not only taken
by St. Paul in the sense of eternity (v. 3. 23 — 25.), but the Psalmist him-
self also pretty clearly interprets it in the same way, while he derives
the Messiah's priesthood from a divine decree, of a very solemn and sa-
cred character (Heb. vii. 20), and never to be changed.
4 6 Compare also Heb. v. 5. where it is shewn that Jesus obtained
from God a most glorious priesthood, from a passage which refers more
properly to his kingdom (note IG^.
189
i. does not *^ mean, that, when every enemy has been subdued,
the government "' is to be taken away from Christ ; but as the
general object of this whole Psalm is to shew, (c) that the de-
signs of his enemies against the divine prince would at length
jiave an ending altogether different from that which they ex-
pected, it was in exact conformity with such a design to es-
tablish this point especially, that the divinely appointed Lord
should reign, until all his enemies should be subjected to his
own (d) power. Which does not mean, that he to whose go-
vernment the enemies shall be subjected, (which circumstance
proves of itself the continuance of that government,) should
then resign his power ; but, on the other hand, the result of
the whole matter is declared to be this, that they who had re-
fused to acknowledge this prince, and wished to remove him
(fi) V. 2 ss. compared with ii. 1 ss. (d) ex. 1.
4 7 Compare the passages cited by Glass (Philol. S. p. 382 s. Vol. i.
Ed. Dathe. Lips. 1776.) Isai. xlvi. 4. Matt, xxvin. 20. i. Tim. iv. 13.
4 8 That sitting at the right hand of God is in this passage indicative
of divine government, 1 gather from i. Cor. xv. 25. Heb. vm. ]., to say
nothing of other passages (xii. 2. Eph. i. 20 ss. Mark, xvi. 19 s.), which
not quite so clearly refer to the Psalm in question, treating of the kingly
priest (comp. Heb. viii. 1) and considered at large in Ch. vi. 20, vii.
But if it be inquired, for what reason mention is made of the right hand
of God, the answer is easy. For, as there was evidently no danger
(i. Cor. XV. 27), that he who bade the Messiah to sit on his right hand
should be thought inferior to him, and as, on the other hand, it was ne-
cessary to take particular care to place the wonderful dignity of the
Messiah clearly before the view, it was certainly proper to speak not of
the left, but the right hand, which is a token of honor (comp. Matt. xxv.
33 s. Gen. xlviii. 13 ss. and Muntinghe kurze Anm. zu den Psalmen,
p. 187 s.). But the meaning is, that the Messiah, generally near God .
sits on the very throne of God. Whence immediately after^vards (Ps.
ex. 5.) God is in turn (comp. Comm. in ep. adHebr. p. 81.) said (o be at
the right hand, that is, (comp. Herder, vom Geist derheb. Po6sie, P. ii.
p. 404. 409.) at the side of the kingly priest. But the reason why I hesitate
to refer the term ti^K v. 5. to the Messiah himself, is that otherwise the
T -:
pronoun of the secoryi person in the word nyj3> would have to betrans-
f ' ; • :
ferred to God^ although the Psalm in other places usually speaks of God
In the third {v. 1 s. 4.), but of the Messiah in the second (v. 2 s. 4. 1.)
iverson. (comp. Mu.vtinghe Besondre Anm. p. 170.)
190 THE MEANING OF
by force from his government, are all overthrown and con-
founded, while he himself, on the contrary, is sitting at the right
hand of God, He shall reign for a considerable time in the
midst of enemies, (e) securely (/) expecting {g) an end of the
rebellion ; but, while he himself is sitting at the right hand of
God, it shall at length come to pass, that all his adversaries
shall be reduced under subjection to his authority. Such be-
ing the nieaning of the Psalm, and this sense of it being re-
cognized by St. Paul himself, who has evidently made the
dignity of the Messiah, described in the Psalm, coequal {h)
with his life, which he shews to be eternal ; (i) we seem to
be going quite in opposition to his design, by supposing that
in I. Cor. xv. any end is assigned to the Messiah's kingdom.
Therefore the government, which it is said in v. 24, he shall
restore *^ to God, even the Father, must not be supposed to
mean ChrisCs government, but thatof erery opposing ^ power,
which is evidently declared to be destroyed, that the power
may be restored to God. For since those who set themselves
against Christ, at the same time resist God also ; ( j ) the go-
vernment is restored to God, {k) when it is restored to Christ,
sul)duing ^* those who are at the same time the enemies of
himself and of God, and thus recovering the government for
God and for himself, (/) from the enemies who had usurped it.
That this is the meaning of the passage under discussion,
appears to me to be confirmed also by what immediately fol-
lows. For St. Paul clearly shews, in i. Cor. xv. 27, that r.
(e; V. 2. (/) n. 4. (g-) Heb. x. 13.
ih) Heb. VII. 23—25. <S) Rom. vi. 9. Heb. vn. 25. 24.
(j) Ps. II. 2. Uc) Rev. XI. 17. xix. 6. (/) xi. 15.
4 e Comp. 11. Chron. viii. 2. Obss. gramm. p. 357.
5 That hostile power is meant, is shewn not only by the explanation
{irhfAi Tdwf 'EX©POT'2), subjoined m v. 25, but by the very word
fcxTrtg^wVj) in r. 24, which, like the word dirtKi'vtrai/uivot and similar ex-
pressions (Col. ii. 15), shews plainly, tha^t inifjuical t^iX^i «*' l^ovr'i*t
are intended.
s 1 See Rev. vi. 16. 17. xvii. 14. xix. 11 ss. Ps. ii. 9. 12. ex. 3. Also
the loit enemy (i. Cor. xv. 26) Christ shall destroy (v. 21 s. 67. John^
V. 21—29. VI. 39 s. Phil. m. 21.).
191
"25 by no means expresses in the words a^^jg a a limit and end
of Christ's government ; but that all that we are to understand
is, that all things, and therefore all enemies also, (m) are to be
subjected to the empire of Christ. According to this interpreta-
tion, therefore, the general drift of the Apostle will be this :
that " for all ^^ the friends of Christ "^ who, after the example of
himself who was the first that rose again, (n) have been re-
called from death to a life of blessedness, (o) an end ^ is at
(m) V. 25 s. (n) v. 20. (o) v. 23.
3 2 Not only are these the only persons mentioned in v. 23 (we
know, indeed, that h th Treifiovvi-J. civrou he will restore life to others
also ; but it will not be such as to deserve the name, but only death and
penal suffering (John, v. 29);), but besides this, the whole context
speaks not of the dead in general, but concerning those particularly of
the KSKOtfjiiifjtivoi, who, 'EN XPI2Tn Kot/unBivrtf (v. 18.), shall, in their
own order and place, obtain the same life to which Christ first attained
{v. 23. 20. 49. comp. with Phil. in. 21.) ; a life more happy than this
present, not sought after by all (i. Cor. xv. 19.), but properly by those
only who have had faith in Christ (v. 19.) and in his gospel for the at-
tainment of their salvation (v. 14. 17. 2.), and who, on account of theic
love for Christ, and for that better life to which they believed him to
have gone before, (v. 14. 17. 4 ss ) have suffered multiplied hard-
ships (t? 19- 30 ss ) : — or, in short, the 3e»«V«ff/c of which St. Paul speaks
in this passage, is joined with ^na-ixtiai ^ioZ «x«§ovc»/Mt«t (v. 50), an ob-
ject worthy of the most ardent endeavours (». 58.), and of the warmest
gi-atitude {v. 54—57). Comp. Phil. in. 11. and Obss. gramm. p. 32.
5 3 As all those who have believed in the gospel of Jesus concerning
life eternal, who are no more h Tetli d/jiA^rUic (» 17.), who Koijuiivrat
£» XV^^? (^' ^8.), who are not unwilling, for the sake of Christ and in
the hope of a belter life, to pass the present in misery {v 19), and who
are among that number of mortals of whom Christ is the first (». 20), —
die on account of Adam : so these same shall also be all blessed through
Christ with a life {v. 22.) and resurrection (i'. 21.) which is not death
and punishment (ngiV/f , John, v. 29.), but exactly opposite to the death
introduced by Adam (i. Cor. xv. 21.). Comp. note 52.
54 " eTta (after the ivtiaTetcris i. Cor. xv. 23) to Tf^ec (that istr*/.
comp. Mark, xiii. 7- Luke, xxi. 9. with Matt. xxiv. 6. 14.), then, when
the time of the dead shall have come (Rev. xi. 18.), TEAE20H2ETAI
TO fAUT»^tor rou 3-2oy, ds tvayytKivt toTc Iuvtov Sovxoit Tttt 7rga<^»T«/c
(x. 7.), so that yiyavt, xxr. 6. may have the fullest force possible-"
Comp. <viK9iy Luke, xxii. 37-
192 THE MEAMMti Ol'
hand, (p) to which both the expectations of behevers are di-
rected, (q) and the divine promises, upon which these ex-
pectations rest, all point, (r) For that this is as it were the
scope and end of the divine promises, that the empire of
Christ will at length so far prevail, that all enemies shall be
subjected to him, (5) of whom death must be reckoned the
last,^^ {t) which will be destroyed by the resurrection of those
who have died in faith, (w) For that God ^° has put all things,
and therefore all enemies, under him. (v) That, therefore,
when Clirist shall have destroyed death,(ro) and also (x) every
opposing power, and shall thus have restored the kingdom to
the Father ; t. e. when he shall have caused it to come to
pass, that God every where " prevails, and his majesty is uni-
(p) v.H. (q) V. 19. (r) V. 25. 27.
{s) V. 25. comp. with Ps. ex. 1. (t) i. Cor. xv. 2^
(w) V. 54—57. iv) V. 27. com^. with Ps. viii. 7. note 68.
(w) 1. Cor. XV. 23. 54. (ct) v. 26.
5 5 Many enemies shall be subdued (Rev. xviii. xix. xx. 9. 10.) before
all the children of God shall have risen to life {v 12). But as soon as
these shall have come to life, all the wicked have been subdued, and are
paying; the punishment of their rebellion (v. 15.). After this there is no
death (xXi. 4.) except in hell (v. 8.) ; and not indeed here does the an-
cient form of death continue, but a death of a far different kind (SeTiwrigoc
S-ara-Toc) reigns there, an abiding testimony of the victory and power of
Christ (ii. Thess. i- 9.). As this abstract docir'me was to be represented 6y
a vision, and placed before the eyes of St. John, death and aS»s are de-
picted (comp. Rev. vi. 8.) as an enemy (comp. i. Cor. xv. 26. 54s.), op-
posed to the peace of them that are heirs of God (». 50.), and fellow-citi-
zens of Christ ; and, with other (Rev. xx. 15) enemies of Christ, are intro-
duced (xx. 14.) as conquered by him (comp. i. Cor. xv 57. 21 s.), and cast
into hell. If OEDERhad only been willing to perceive this circumstance,
and to distinguish the figure (Rev. xx. 14,) from the thing signified (xxi.
4.) ; or, in other words, to seek the interpretation of the former of theso
two places from the latter, he might easily have forborne the ridicule
in which he has thought proper to indulge. (Comp. Christl. freye Un-
ters. tiher sogenannte Offenb. Joh. p. 123 s. 308 s.)
5 a That both Cvhu^tv in v. 27, and 5-« in v. 25, refer to the more re-
mote (comp. Obss. gramm. p. 402.) 3-icc khI 7rsiT«g, not to the nearer
;^5»roc (to which without doubt the word K<tTttgy«fii in i. Cor. xv. 24.
had reference), is evident not only from v. 27 s. but from Ps. ex. 1. viii.
7. Comp. also ex. 6. 6. (note 48.).
s 7 nst(7», r. 28, appears to be neuter, which is frequently used to fle-
" THE KINGDOM OP HEAVEN." 193
versalJy acknowledged,^ some rejoicing exceedingly in God
their king,^ and deriving their whole pleasure and happiness ^
from this source,*^* from which they see and inwardly feel it
to flow,®^ i. e, from the all-powerful and benignant government
of Gk)d, with never-ceasing reverence,"^ — others, (y) on the
contrary,^ feeling with terror ^^ the power of his just ^ govern-
ment, and not daring to open their mouths against him ; —
then shall come the end." (z) Nor should it seem strange,
(y) V. 24 s. (2) V. 24.
note place (comp. Acts, ix. 32,) and time. Thus God is said by Philo,
when describing his omnipresence (de sacrif. Abel. et. Caini. p. 141. ed.
Franc). 5rx>»gaVai IIANTA MA IlANTnN, to fill all things every where;
and by St. Paul, when setting forth the divine goodness, TrXwgouo-flati (to fill)
Ta IIANTA EN nA2I, all things every where and always, all things
completely. Eph. i. 23. Comp. Diss, de sensu vocis Trhvigoiifxti in N. T.
note 64.
5 8 As that is said to be nothing, which has little or no power, strength,
&c., and has nothing to boast of (Acts, v. 36. Gal. vi. 3.): so, on the
contrary, God is all things (i. Cor. xv.'28.), because every created
thing, however excellent, owes every thing it has to glory in to God ;
and even the man {v. 21.) Jesus himself, constituted by God the Lord of
of all things {v. 27, comp. with Ps. viii. 7. 5.), possesses this his kingdom
as a divine gift (Phil. 11. 9.). In this sense, indeed, (which is set forth
in I. Cor. xv. 28.) God is all things every where, even before his enemies
have been subdued, in whose foolish and impious (Ps. n. 4.) cpinion
God passes for nothing, or who account him as nothing, although he is
all things, and despise him tx. 4. xiv. 1.), or, at any rate, prevent (i. Cor.
XV. 26,) the glory of his kingdom from shining evidently forth. But
Christ shall restore the government to the Father, or shall vindicate his
glory and authority, by the conquest of all his enemies; that, as God
is in fact all in all, so he may every where be acknowledged to be such,
and may no more be accounted as nothing, but may every where pos^
sess supreme authority. Comp. Kypke, ad v. 28,
s 9 Comp. Rev. xxi. 3. 7. xxii. 3.
fio XXI. 6- 4 s.
6 I XXII. 1. 5. XXI. 22 s.
8 3 XXII. 4.
6 3 r. 3 4.
C4 XX. 10. 15. XXI. 8. II. Thess. i. 8.
«5 Rer. VI. 15 ss.
e 8 u. Thess. i. 9. 5 s. Rev. xxii. 12. xiv. 10-
25
194 THE MEAIMNtr OJi'
that the discourse in v. 24, changed from the government (a)
of Christy who *^ it was said should destroy every opposing
power, to the Father, to whom the kingdom is said to be
dehvered up by Christ. The reason of this the Apostle adds
in V, 27. 28 : " when it is written,®^ that all things are;?w/ under
him (by another), it is manifest, that he is to be excepted who
put all things under him. Since ^ moreover ^° all things are
(a) V. 25.
8 7 He delivers up the kingdom to the Father (i. Cor. xv. 24), he
must reign (v. 25), until all enemies are subdued. This same person,
therefore, uses his own power for the destruction of every opposing
power. Comp. note 51.
6 8 So hTTK must be rendered, being put for sZ/i^^lycy (Luke, iv. 12.),
or (v. 8. 10.) ytygttfAfAvov jT. Comp. Heb. iv. 3. 4. and Obss. gramm.
p. 412. But it appears from this place, that the preceding words were
taken from the Scripture. The Apostle has elsewhere (Heb. ii. 6—9,)
quoted the same prophecy (Ps. viii. 7.).
6 9 We are no more compelled to consider Srav in this place as in-
dicative of time, than we are the same word in v. 27 ; — the sense, on the
contrary, seems to be this : " since it is said, that all things are -put under
him, it is evident, that there is some one person to be excepted from
the number of all, he, namely, who put all things under him ; yes, I
say, since all things are fvi under him, it is still further most clear, that
there is a certain person superior, he, namely, who was able^o put all
things under his power. Comp. oTcey Rom. ii.^l4. and Aristot. de
mundo. c. 4. (in Hoogeveej^, Doctr. parlic. graec. ex ed. Schuzii.
p. 577 [ p. 386. Ed. Glasg. 1813— Tr. ] ).
1 Comp. (Ts Heb. iii. 17. 18. " When it fs said (Ps. xcv. 7. 8.) : to-
day, while ye hear the voice of God, do not be perverse, asin the place of
rebellion (Meribah) ; who (comp. Raphel. Annott. ex Xenoph. ad Matt.
xxvu. 23. and Loesner. Obss. e. Phil, ad Act. xix. 35), when they had
heard, rebelled ? Did not all they (comp. Raphel. Annott. ex Arriano
ad Jac. I. 17.) that were brought out of Egypt by Moses ? (was it not
clearly such as were on the way to Palestine, and also had a promise of
vest before them ?) With whom moreover was God disple?ised, but with
those who sinned against him (comp. Numbers, -xiv. 34. with xxxni. 9.
Add Heb. x. 26) ? Whom moreover did he deprive by an oath of the
promised rest, but (Numb. xiv. 3,) those that had no faith in God?"
There are three points which the Apostle establishes, Heb. in. 15 ss. by
the example of the Israelites: 1. that the simple hearing and know-
ledge of a promise are of little avail to us (comp. iv. 2.). 2. that apostasy
after a knowledge of the truth (x. 26.) precludes an entrance into the
promised blessedness ; but that this apostasy, 3. arises from a^r/rj* (iii.
•• TIIE KINGDOM OF HKAVEN.*' 195
put under him '^ (by the Father), the Son himseh^ also will be
subject ^-' to him. who lias put all things under him, so that
19. IV. 2 3. 11). comp III- 12. "'Lest there he perceived to be in any one
(comp. 11. Cor. iv. 7. and Obss..graram. p. 14. n. 3.) air evil dms-tc heart,
by its departure from God."
7 • The words do not mean, that at the period when all things shall
Ic put under the Son, and every enemy subdued, the Son also him-
self will be subject ; but, that, since all things are (comp, wwote-
TatjtTtfi V. 27,) put under him by the decree t* vTrorct^^avroiy who, be-
fore all could see it with their own eyes (Heb ii. 8), frdvr* TIIE-
TASEN vno rve irSS'tts airS (i. Cor. XV. 27), it follows, that the Son
also is subject to him, from whom he has received this extensive
dominion (comp. note 38,). Bat if we take the words of St. Paul
in the former sense, we shall thereby deny, that the Son, who is never-
theless evidently considered in reference to his human nature («. 21.
45 ss. comp. with Phil m, 21), to which power is given over all
things (i. Cor. xv. 27. Heb. ii. 6—9), was subject to the Father before
he had delivered up the kingdom to him, having vanquished his
enemies. But the Messiah plainly declares, in Ps. xvi. 2, that he de-
rives all his happiness and dignity (v. 11.) from Jehovah, or, in other
words, that God is all, even to him, and not simply to the things which
are subjected to his government Comp. Schnurrer, Anim. ad quae-
dam loca Fsalmorum, p. 7. Fascic. i.
7 2 Both this future, and tots which precedes it, seem to mean a
logical inference, not something following in the course of time, and to
have the same force as if it had been said : on St uvoTirttKrat ttura frd.
jr*vT4t, AHaON OTI (comp. t>. 27,) jteti atuTOf o itk rnOTA22ETAI.
And ToTf may either be rendered therefore (comp. Jer. xxii, 15 s. in the
Hebrew) ; or it may be redundant (Ps.lxix. 5) ; or rather it may answer
to the preceding oTitv, as in that passage of Plato (0pp. Lugd. 1590. p.
158. [ Ed. Bipont. Vol. ii.p. 248— Ed. Bekker, Part ii. Vol. ii. p. 177.—
Tr.] ): OTAN rifl to <f>*yTaVft* avrh {a-o^iTtiy) aTrttrZf ^ufttv kai tjJf
T«;i(;yw thdi Tivat aTrnr^riKnv etuT?, TOTE jroTJgov -^iZSi So^d^uf vnr
^wpC"* «(«»'i' <j>aVe^«» imo tjjc iMiva rrs^viif, >> ri ttot' igSfitv; comp^
Lxx. Prov. n. 5. Ps xix. 14 csix. 92. But J understand iheftUure here
in the same way as in Rom. vi. 5. (where axx* is used instead of tot«,
to connect the inference with the premises) n. 26. i. Cor. xiv- 7—9. 11.
and in the argument wliich immediately follows (i Cor. xv. 29,) the
passage under discussion {v. 28.) : " else (if it sho jld be otherwise, t^an
as we have above?;. 20 — 23 endeavoured to shew,), what shall they
DO, who are baptized for the dead (comp. John, xi. 4. Rom. xv. 8. Acts,
XV. 26.), with this design, namely, that (John, in. 5 Tit. m 5. 7. Gal. m.
26 ss. comp. with iv. 7.) they may have the privilege of entering (i. Thess.
\v. 17. ii. Thess. u. 1. John, xvn. 24. Heb. xii 23 s.) into eternal fellow-
ship, not only with Jesus himself, but with those who iKotfAnd-uTctv (i.
/
196 THE MEANING OF
God is therefore all in all." {h) When St. Paul magnificent-
ly describes that great power of the man (c) Jesus, which is
able to overthrow every enemy, {d) and even death itself, (c)
this kingdom of Christ, thus august, and delivered from the in-
jury and destruction of every opposing power, he gives to
God the Father, (/) not in order to shew that it ceases to be
Chrisfs, but that all things may at last be referred to the
glory of God the Father f'^ especially {g) as the Psalms which
he had in his mind, when he spoke of that rs'Xoj, (h) treated
the same subject in a similar manner, (i) But as we read,
both that the Father subjected all enemies to Christ, {j ) and
that Christ subjected them to himself, (k) so he who is said in
I. Cor. XV. 24. to restore the kingdom to the Father, after the
discomfiture of his enemies, may also be said to assert the au-
thority and dignity of his own government. In other places
we certainly find it said, that, even after the conquest of his
enemies, Christ shall continue to reign. (/)
Ch) Comp. note 58. 71. (c) Note 71. (d) v. 24.
(e)w. 26. 21s. (/) w. 24. (g-) r. 27 s.
(A) V. 24. (i) V. 25. 27. comp. with Ps. ex. 1. viii. 7. 1. 2-
0) Note 56. (A:) Note 67.
(I) Rev. xxn. 1. 3. xxi. 22 s. xi. 15.
Cor. XV. 18. I. Thess. tv. 16.) i? awrm. t. c. ovtic (Rom. xvi. 11. 7.
comp. with 13.), as it Were, U etbroZ (i. Cor. xv. 23. comp. at Phil. i.
1. a.). But if the dead rise not at all, and thus (i. Cor. xv. 16. 18.) both
Jesus and el KoifAnB-ivra h alrce airi^Kovro, and are no more, why are
they baptized for them ? How absurd will be the conduct of those;,
who, in the expectation of enjoying salvation and eternal life, with
.Tesus and his friends who have departed this life, become baptized, if
there be no life after death ; so that Jesus has not risen again, and all
the pious dead who received baptism were miserably deceived in the
hopes which they entertained !
7 3 Comp.Phil.ii.il. Heb. ni. 4. r. Thcsame design is pursued by the
Book of Revelation, (comp. neue Apol. der Offenb. Joh. $. 26.22. note
6.) which I think is referred to by St. Paul in this same xvth Chap, of
1. Cor.; (1. c. $. 13.) and for that reason I have the more frequently
compared it with the declarations of the Apostle.
'* THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN." 19*
§. VI.
3. Its extent.
As of all who have been seated upon the throne of David,
he who sits last upon it,(m) is infinitely the greatest in respect
to the duration of his life and kingdom ; so his authority and
empire are not circumscribed with the narrow boundaries of
Palestine, over which David reigned. For although he is
called king of Sion {n) and of the Israelities ; (o) yet we are
not warranted thereby in limiting his empire to these regions.
For, in the first place, under that illustrious off*spring of David
the boundaries of his father*s kingdom are said to be so ex-
tended, (Ps. ex. 2.^*) that the king of Sion (p) has possession of
the whole earth, [q) and all its inhabitants have either submitted
to his authority ,(r) or are forcibly controlled by him. (s) But
further, not even by these limits is Christ's kingdom circum-
scribed or bounded, but we read that it extends as far {v. L
Eph.i.20— 22. I. Cor. XV. 27.^^ Phil. n. 9—11. Matt.xxvui.
18.) as the kingdom of God himself For although the man Jesus
both has the peculiar charge (t) of human affairs generally,
whether as it respects men living on this earth,*^^ or the dead,
(?n) Luke, i. 32. Acts, ii. 30. (n) Ps. ii. 6.
(o) Lul^c, I. 33. John, xii. 13. 15. comp. with IG.
(p) II. 6. (q) V. 8. (T) V. 10 ss. Isai. m. 15. liii. 10 ss. Amos, ix. 12.
(s) Ps. ex. 2. II. 4 s. 9. 12. ex. 3. 1. 5 s. corap. note 67. 56.
(0 John, X. 16. V. 27—29. Rom. xiv. 9. Acts, x. 42. xvu. S;.
■7 4" Jehovah shall extend (comp. Ezek. ii. 9. Exod. xxii- 7.) the
sceptre of thy kingdom out of Sion ; t. e. thou shalt not reign here only,
but other regions also shall obey thy sceptre, which belongs to them
also."
7 5 Comp. Reussii Opusc. Fascic. i. p 400 s.
•7 6 Hence the world has very properly received the name of 0ii<rt-
MiA Tou Xi'^"^ (Matt. XIII. 41.) or, the province of Christ. For the
the Lord compares it (r. 38,) with a field, which, after the good fruits
have for a long time been mingled with the tares, shall at length be
purified. But it is clear from many passages (c. g. Mark, vi. 23. Esth.
198
THE MEANING OP
and attends particularly to the administration (m) of the faith-'
fill commonwealth of men, or the church f yet, fbr the good
of this church, (x) he governs all things without exception,(i^)
even angels themselves. (z) From all which it is easy to per-
ceive, that the sitting of Christ upon the throne of David may,
on the one hand, be reckoned a real succession to David's
place, inasmuch as («) for the purpose of fulfilling (6) the di-
vine promises, made to David, Christ actually sprang from
David, in that same land which his father had possessed, and,
on account of this peculiar relationship with the Jewish
people, (c) in the first place^ thought proper to present him-
self (d) particularly to them {e) as their king so long expected
and desired, and announce to them the approach of his king-
dom ; (/) in the next place, when he had ascended to hea-
ven, made the first proofs of his exaltation to be exhibited
within the ancient empire of David, (g) and invited the people
of Israel first, through the medium of his messengers, to his
service, and to the attainment of the happiness of his heavenly
kingdom, being about to add to these benefits others besides,
which we are warranted to look for with certainty ; {h) and,
finally, extended his sceptre to the other nations also out of
Sion,{i) and caused them to be brought by the instrumentali-
ty of Jews (Acts, XV. 7J' Rom. xi. 12 s."'®) into fellowship
and communion {k) with the citizens, who were his fa-
(u) Eph. V. 23 ss. Col. 1. 10. (x) Eph. i. 22. (y) v. 20 ss. ,
(2) Heb. I. 2—4. 6. I. Pet. iii. 22. (a) Luke, i. 32.
(6) Rom. XV. 8. (c) ix. 5. {d) Matt. xxi. 1 ss. note 82.
(e) Acts, III. 25 s. Matt. viii. 12. (/) John, xviii. 37. §. iv.
(g-) Acts, II. 33 — 36. III. 16 ss. iv. 10 ss. v. 12 ss. comp. with i. 4. Luke,
XXIV. 49. (h) Rom xi. 2.? ss.
(i) Ps. ex. 2. (k) V. 16 ss. xv. 27. Eph. iii. 6. ii. 12 ss..
I. 22. III. 13. VIII. 12 s.) that ^cta-ixHa not only signifies empire itself, or
supreme power (e. g. Ps. cm. 19. cxlv. 11 — 13. Rev. xn. 10. xvii. 12.
18.), but also the region or province, over which this authority extends-
7 f Hence the multitude of those who yield a pious obedience to
Jesus, their king, or the church, is sometimes with propriety called the
/3cta-iMict or (comp. Matt, xn 25 s. Amos, ix. 8. Gen. xx. 9, comp.
with 4. 7.) commonwealth of the Son of God (Col. i. 13.).
7 8 Comp. Bengel, on this passage.
"7 9 Comp. Diss, de sensu vocis ^r^»'gwft«, §. vn,
" THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN." 199
thers, of the stock of Israel. But, on the other hand, the
government of David, held by mere mortal men (/) for a
brief space of time, and having jurisdiction only over a small
portion of the earth, is so far different from the eternal and
widely-extended empire of Christ, that the throne of Christ
cannot be called the throne of David, except Jiguratively, inas-
much as that divine (m) government over the Israelites, vs^hich
jj^as transferred (i. Chron. xxviii.5.^°) to David and his pos-
terity, as to the sons (w) of God< the king of the Israelites, was
a shadow and image of the divine government over the uni-
verse, (o) conferred upon that man who sprang from the stock
of David, and who was much more truly the Son of God. {p)
Which being established, it follows, that as Christ sits not on
the throne of David itself, but on its antitype, {q) so also the
Israelites, over whom Christ reigns, (r) are not only the
Israelites themselves, but the antitype of this commonwealth,
i. e. the whole commonwealth of God, and, in a certain pe-
culiar (5) sense, his church.^^
(J.) Comp. Heb. vii. 23. (m) 1. Sam. xii. 12. vin. 7.
(n) Ps. Lxxxix. 27. 11. Sam. vii. 14. i. Chron. xxviii. 6.
(0) Heb. I. 2—4. (jt>) V. 5. Luke, i. 32. (q) v. 32.
(r) V. 33. (s) Note 77.
8 David and his posterity sat upon the throne of the kingdom of Je-
hovah, but of that only which had to do with the Israelites (v. 6.) ; whereas
Christ, on the contrary, sits on the throne of that (Ps. ex. 1. comp. note
48. 75.) kingdom of Jehovah, which is so extensive, that it reaches over
all created things (Eph. i. 20 — 22.), and that David himself, although in
that former sense he sat on a divine throne, and knew that by the time
this remote offspring of his should reign, he would have been long since
dead (11. Sam. vii- 12. 19.), yet declared that he himself would never-
theless be within the kingdom and jurisdiction of this his OAvn progeny.
SeePs. ex. 1. where Ihave preserved the reading •'jiN (Matt. xxii. 44),
which declares, that David regarded the Messiah as~i^w own lord, or
willingly submitted to him (comp. v. 43. 45. with r. Pet. m. 6.) in a
manner worthy of a lord reigning for ever (Ps. ex. 4. note 45.) with God
(v. 1. note 48. 75). Comp. Muntinghe, Besondre Anm. zu den Psalmen,
p. 168 ss.
8 1 In Amos, ix. lis. it is said that other nalions,aho, different from
the Israelites, shall profess the name of God, and thus be in the king-
dom and empire of David, or among the number of the Israelites (Acts,
200 THE MEANING OF
§. VII.
4. Its administration.
Since therefore the kingdom of heaven neither has any
limit to its duration, (t) nor is confined within certain regions
of the universe ;(w) its form must be in all respects and widely
(t) $. V. (w) §. VI.
XV. 17. 14. comp. with ii. Chron. vii. 14. add Rom. ii. 26 ss. iv. 16 ss.
12. XI. 17 ss. Gal. vi. 16.). But let us look into this passage of Amos :
"At a certain (comp. Neue Apol. der Offenb. Joh. p. 325.) time, or, at
length {/uitrd txut* Acts, xv. 16 ), unless you would prefer: at that re-
markable period (comp. ii. Tim. i. 18. and Obss. gramm. p. 122.), the
time of the Messiah, 1 will most completely (this meaning is clearly in-
dicated by the accumulation of expressions, all conveying the same
idea,) renew the kingdom of David, which is so desolated (Amos, ix.
5 ss.) that it seems like a cottage (Isai. i. 8.) ; and, as in other days, and
particularly in the time of David, it was adorned by me, so now also I
will improve and enlarge it, so that in the renewed tabernacle of David,
or within his kingdom and empire, may dwell (Ps. lxix. 36. Ezek.
XXXVI. 12.) both the remnant of the Idumeans (to whom Amos, 1. 11 s.
had threatened a terrible destruction), even as foi'merly (comp. ix. 11.)
David had reduced this people under his authority (n. Sam. vm. 14.),
and all other nations, that are called by my name." The word ^>i
(Amos. IX. 12.) I consider with Louis de Dieu (Animad- ad Act. xv. 17),
Fessel. (Adv. SS. T. 1. p. 390.) and perhaps also Bengel, to be the sign
not of the accusative, but of the nominative (Obss. gramm. p. 264 s.) ;
both because we cannot otherwise easily explain, to what the plural
•j^yn"*^ refers, and especially because ^y^ when it refers to persons,
• • -T
usually signifies to succeed to their wealth, which shall be left by them ;
nor indeed do I think it was the design of the prophet to threaten the
nations, ioho professed the name of God^ as he certainly would have done,
if he had foretold that they were to be driven out from their dwelling-
places by the Jews. Now the Idumeans are said by Josephus (Antiq.
Jud. L. xni. c. 9. $. 1.) to have embraced the Jewish religion, a hundred
years, and more, before the birth of Christ. But as Amos foretold, that
many other nations also should profess the name of God, and enter into
the kingdom of David; we must go on a little farther, even to those
times, when not only many Idumeans, who had been long united with
the Jews (Acts, xxi. 20.) in civil compact, but great numbers also of
•• THE KINGDOM OP HEAVEN." :20l
different^ from an earthly commonwealth. For he who
possesses an eternal government over all things, not only can
perform many things, which come within the reach of no
earthly power, however mighty, but easily dispenses with
many external aids, which, though splendid in appearance,
are after all only covers for human weakness. As the go-
vernment of David, even in its best days, was certainly by no
means adequate to the performance of those things, by
which (w) his offspring proved, at Jerusalem, his kingdom to
be divine (x), — and great as may seem to be the glory and
splendor of his triumph over those nations, whom he reduced
by his arms (y), — what is all this pomp, in comparison with
the dignity of Christ, who, trusting in his own legitimate and
almighty power over all things, dared to send unarmed mes-
sengers through the Roman empire, {z) and even into Rome,
with this order, (a) that they should proclaim him lord of all
men, and of all things ; and in this way obtained the obedi-
ence of many thousands, secured not by force of arms, of
%vhich he certainly stood in no need, who could protect and
(le) Acts, II. 2—4. (i) V. S3 ss. (y) Comp. John, xviu. 56.
it) Comp. Acts, xvii. 6. 7. (a) Acts, ii. 36. x. 42. xvii. 30 s.
other nations, exulted in being citizens of the kingdom of David, so
wonderfully enlarged (Am. ix.ll.) when Jesus sat upon the throne of
his father, and in being a people devoted to God (v. 12. comp. with
Acts, XV. 14.). This passage St. Luke has designedly (u. 14 s.) copied
(». 17.) from the lxx, who probably, when they lighted upon it, were
ignorant of its meaning ; being led in the translation of it, as they fre-
quently were in difficult places, rather by conjecture, than by certaia
reasoning. One thing I must add, that eTriaKi-^etro v. 14. as in Ezra,
1. 2. should be rendered has charged (comp. Acts, xv. 7. x. 20.).
8 a Jesus declared this with the greatest plainness both by wprds
(John, xviu. 36.) and deeds ; among which (comp. the above-mentioned
work of Hess, Sect. i. u.) the most remarkable is, that, in order the more
clearly and explicitly to leave in the minds of his countrymen his views
in regard to his kingdom, he permitted himself (Luke, xix. 30. 40.) to be
publicly saluted king of the Israelites (Mark, xi. 10. John, xu. 13.), but,
at the very same time, openly before all, and, in order to excite the
greater attention, with tears, predicted destruction (v. 41.) to that very
metropolis, in which they had been dreaming that he was just about to
commence his reign (v. II.).
26
'iiiM, THK MKANlMi OB'
defend his messengers sufficiently well with his own (b) aid
alone, wherever they might travel, but by love and benevo-
lence. But it is by no means the least exhibition of the great*
ness of Christ, that he is not obliged to inflict immediate
punishment upon the rebellious, but can for a length of time
despise their arrogance : (c) securely confident that it shall
never come to pass, either that they shall dethrone him from
his seat, {d) which is elevated far above weak mortals ; or that
the opportunity shall cease (e) for baffling their attempts, or
turning them to the salvation of believers ; or that any enemy
can escape from his government and authority, or elude his
destined punishment, (/) either by death, (g) or any other
medium, than that of a seasonable and humble return to obedi-
ence. (A) This heavenly kingdom is therefore distinguished,
indeed, by some acts of a conspicuous character, and which
strike the attention of all f^ among which stand prominent
(i) Acts, IV. 9 ss. 30. (c) Ps. n. 1—4. Heb. x. 13. (d) Ps, n. 6.
(e; ex. 2. (/) II. 5.
(ff) Rom. XIV. 3. John, v. 28 s. (A) Ps. ii. 10 ss.
8 3 <' Then, when the Lord shall come (Matt. xsiv. 30. 37. 42. 50 s. xxv,
13.)> the administration of the kingdom of heaven (note 76.) shall be as
if a bridegroom, out of a number of virgins going out to meet him,
should admit to the marriage solemnities only those, whom, coming sud-
denly after some delay, he found prepared for him, excluding those who
pame late." (w. 1.) But that the form of expression, bf/.otoe^»a-irAi » ^etct-
XiisL tUv ^pavuv AEKA nAP0ENOl2, does not mean, that the kingdom
of heaven is properly compared to ten virgins, may be seen by many ex-
amples; as, for instance, the administration of this kingdom is not pro-
perly like a grain of mustard-seed, or a net (Matt. xiu. 31. 47.) ; but like
that action, whereby either a small grain is sown, which grows up to
a wonderful size, or fish of all kinds are caught, which are afterwards
to be separated one from another. In short, the administration of the
divine kingdom is compared to the whole narrative which is told ; and is
said, for example, to be as ^/(Mark, iv. 26) any one should sow seed,
and, from that action, by degrees ripe fruits should grow up with unob-
served progress, and without much labor. Comp. Diss, de parabolis
Christi, §. xix. But that function of theheavenly government, which re-
lates to the distribution of rewards, is in Matt. xx. 1. called, in general,
(inciktitt Tccr j»'/)«tv»ir : " the disfrihution ofrewardsj both in this life and in
203
Ihe rewards and punishments, which are to be assigned publicly
by the king in his own appointed time : (i) but there are some
less conspicuous, though equally real * parts of the same go-
vernment, to be seen in the propagation of the doctrine of the
gospel, and in the government and protection of the church
universal, and of particular assemblies and individuals. He is
said to hold, as it were, the key of David, or ^* the heavenly
(i) Matt. XXV. 34. 31.
the other, is as if a householder, &c." Perhaps also the same meaning
ought to be assigned to that declaration of Christ, in which he com-
mands this inducement to be left (Luke, x. 11.) with those Israelites,
who should despise (v. 10.) the messenger (v. 9.) of the approaching
kingdom of God : " be ye sure, that that divine kingdom has come nigh,
which not only decrees to the obedient that happiness to which we
wished to invite you, (v. 9) but also appoints punishments the most
grievous, not only at the period of the general judgment {v. 13 ss.), but
even long before, in the overthrow of your state (Matt, xxiii. 37 s- x.23»
comp. with §.m.)."
* It is singular that Lange (zur Beford- des niizl. Gebr. des W. A.
Tellerischen Worterb. des N. T., P. iv. p. 85 s.) did not perceive, that,
in this place, and in what follows, (not to mention my former observa-
tions, $. 111. iv. VI. note 76 s. 81.) I referred to the opinion of Koppb,
though not mentioned by name. (Comp. also $. ix. at the beginning.)
If any one, however, would prefer to have a more express refutation of
this opinion, which woulci be inconsistent with my exegelical-doctrinal
plan, I recommend to his perusal pp. 69 ss. of the above mentioned
treatise.
«* Christ holds thb key, or (comp. Isai. xxii. 22. with v. 21, and
WoLL, in his edition of Blackw all's Sac. Class, p. 16^ s.) power of Da-
vid, since he sits on the throne of David, which form of expression, when
used concerning Christ, refers, as we have seen above ($. vi.), to his
government over all things, and particularly over the church. But the
keys of the kingdom of heaven are said (Matt. xvi. 19.) to be delivered
by Christ to the apostles, inasmuch as he wished that many departments
of his government over the church should be administered by them upon
the earth, and that they, as his ambassadors and officers (comp. Isai.
'' XXII. 22), should fulfil, in many respects, the office of the Lord of the
church. They had it in their power, as in the name, and by the au-
thority of Christ, who ratified their decrees in heaven, to ordain upon
earth divine laws (comp. Lightfoot's Hor. Heb. on Matt, in loc), and
to utter commands of divine weight and value (Acts, xv. 28. i. Thess.
IV. 2. 8. II. 13. John, xx, 23. Acts, v. 4. 9. i. Cor. v. 3—5, Acts,
III. 6. v. 12ss.>.
^04 THE MEANING OF
empire, {j ) who, with his succor, so fortified the had of the
church of Philadelphia against the wiles of the Jews, (/c)
though he had httle strength of Iiis own, that both he himself
ndhered steadfastly to the truth, (/) and he was also useful to
many others who were desirous of the truth ; (m) and at
length, triumphing over his adversaries, {n) and delivered
from a new calamity which was impending, (o) he was crown-
ed with great rewards, (p) In like manner we read in St.
Matthew, xvi. 19, that it is the office of the kingdom of heaven,
io govern the church(q) which shall be gathered on the earth ;(r)
for example, to establish laws for it, and either to grant to its
members the pardon of their sins, or to inflict punishments,
or to aid the cause of the church by other miraculous opera-
tions. These ^^ departments of the divine government over
the church were certainly fulfilled by the apostles, to whom
the keys of the kingdom of heaven had been delivered by
Christ, as those of the house of David were given to Elia-
kim (s) by Hezekiah.* Wherefore St. Paul, also, declared
that he should estimate the merits of the inflated (<) teachers,(M)
not by their boasting words, but by what they had done, since
the kingdom of God^ or the superintending providence of
Christ, and his care for the welfare of the church, did not
consist in words, but is distinguished by its power and ef-
0') Rev. III. 7. (k) V. 9. (/) V. 8.10.
(m) V. 8. at the beginning, romp, with i. Cor, xvi. 9. and Acts, xviu. 8— 10.
(«);Rev. in. 9. (o) v. 10. (p) v. 11.
(q) V. 18. (r) V. 19. (.s) Isai. xxii. 22. note 84.
it) I. Cor. IV. 18 s. ' (w) V. 15..
8 s CdMp. note 84, and Bengel's gnomon on the words tr«V«f , ^va-^c,
Matt. XVI. 19. (also BAR-HEBRiEus in his Chron. Syriac. p. 593. XIC'^ TDX;
means one, possessed of supreme poivcr).
* [ Or rather by Manasseh, to whose appointment of Eliakim as his
minister of state, after that king's repentance, and return from captivity,
the prophecy contained in Isai. xxii. here quoted by Storr, properly
refers. Eliakim had, indeed, filled the office of master of the house-
hold under Hezekiah ; but the words of Isaiah relate to his elevation,
after the death of Shebna at Babylon, and the restoration of Manasseh
to his throne. See Prideaux's Connection, Vol. i. p. 152— Tr. ]
•' THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN." 205
fects, {v) in which, therefore, those persons ought to be con-
spicuous, if they wished to be compared with Paul, the legate
of the divine king, and under that title holding the keys of the
kingdom of heaven, (w) This same providence of Christ, by
which he gathers together, and governs the church, seems also
to be meant in Matt. xin. 52, where one who is so taught as
to be able to subserve the Lord's designs, by the spread of the
gospel, is said to be instructed for the benefit of the kingdom
of heaven (tJ) /SatriXsj'a twv «/)dtvwv). In like manner su^stoj sis
«r»]» BA2IAEIAN t« ^s5 {x) may be interpreted /<, in reference
to^ that charge of the divine king, in virtue of which he pro-
vides that there shall be no deficiency of heralds of the doc-
trine of salvation : " he who, having put his hand to the
plough,'^ looks back, is an unsuitable person to be employed
by the providence of the Lord in promulgating the gospel."(t/)
In this same sense, those who labored with St. Paul, in refer-
ence to that same office of the divine king, or, in other words,
who toiled zealously and faithfully in tte service of the divine
government, by delivering and inculcating the gospel, he terms,
in Col. IV* 11, (fuvspyo} slg «n^v BA2IAEIAN t« ^sQ. Where-
fore also the kingdom of God is said to be given {z) to those,
among w^hom is perceived that function of the divine govern-
ment which relates to the promulgation of the gospel ; and,
on the other hand, to be taken azvay from those, to whom the
gospel is no more delivered. But let us proceed to those
passages, which do not refer to one department only of the
divine government, as, for instance, that which provides for,
and is employed respecting proclamation of the gospel ; but
which embrace many species of actions ; as, in Matt. xxii. 2,
(B) V. 20. . (w) Comp. II. Coiin. xu. 12. C • " Luke, ix. 62.
(y)v.60. (=■) Matt. ixi.''43.
8 6 Comp. note 36. and Diss, de sensu vocis irU^ufJLdi, note 28.
8 7 The reader need scarcely be reminded, how frequently figures
drawn from agriculture are made use of in the Scriptures, , in reference
to the instructions of a teacher of the gospel. Comp. Luke, vm. 11.
7. Cor. III. 6 sp. .
206
THE MEANING Of
7) ffatfiksia cwv ypavwv ^s is said to attend both to whatever re*
lates to the spread of the gospel, (a) and also to the punish-
ment of contempt and neghgence. (b) Likewise in Matt.
XIII. 24. 31. 33. 47. Mark, iv. 26. 30. Luke, xm. 18. 20,
the offices of the kingdom of heaven are said to be these : to
supply and make provision for persons^ needed for spreading the
gospel, and for producing from thence^ gently by degrees, the
fairest and most abundant fruits ; (c) and at length to separate
the good from the wicked, who have been so long tolerated,
and to conduct the former to that felicity promised in the
gospel, but to inflict most grievous punishment upon the lat*
ten {d)
§. Vltl.
5. Its periods.
Since, therefore, the administration of the kingdom of hea*
Ven has such various forms, (ej it is evident, that this kingdom
may be variously divided. The first and that a most exten-
sive division, is into two parts, separated one from the other
by the victory which is to be gained over every enemy. For
Christ either reigns in the midst of his enemies, (/) expecting,
(a) V. 4. 9. (6) V. 7. IS, (c) Mark, iv. 26—32. Matt. xiii. 33. 37.
(d) V. 25—30. 47 ss. ie) ^. vii. (/) Ps. ex. 2.
8 8 As the kingdom is conferred upon Christ by the Father (note 38),
his government, and the administration of this kingdom, may be attri-
bated in general to the Father (note 5.). In this passage, however,
there is a particular reason for Christ's ascribing his oWn (comp- Matt,
xxiir. 34. John, xvii. 18. Matt. x. 23. xxv. 30 ss.) actions to the Fa-
ther. For, as he wished to mention his own and John's embassy (xxii.
3), — which ^vere included, in a certain sense, within the idea of the
kingdom of heaven ($. iv.), — separately from the teaching of theapostles^
who were to invite the Jews, when all things were prepared (v. 4.), and
the kingdom, which was at hand during the life-time of Jesus, was ac-
tually present, he could not conveniently, in this parable, sustain th6
principal part himself, and therefore ascribed it to the Father (v. 2.).
207
till they shall all be overthrown, (g) or he sits at the right
hand of God, while his adversaries are lying prostrate, {h)
Though, during the first of these two periods, the sway of
Christ is no less real and powerful, (i) yet we find that the
latter has the name ^(KftXsia applied to it xur 'sio^riv (ii. Tim.
IV. 1.''^ Luke, XXI. 31. xxii. 30. comp. with Matt. xix. 28.
Luke, XXII. 18.'"' Matt. xxvi. 29. Mark, xiv. 25.). For as
during that period which comes Jlrst in order, God is said to
reign, {k) when he makes such use (/) of his power, that all
perceive that he reigns f^ so it will have to be said with pe-
culiar force that he reigns, when, every enemy being subdued^
his supreme power is acknowledged even by those very per-
sons, who treated with contempt the idea that the kingdom
must be thus far restored by Christ, (m) But even in this
period of the kingdom of heaven there will be a twofold di-
versity of administration. For some (?i) will perceive the
majesty of the divine government from the severity of their
punishment, or rather, they will be enemies subdued, it is true,
(§■) V. 1. Heb. X. 13. (/j.) 5. v. (i) Comp. ^. vii.
(A-) Rev. XIX. 6. (Z) v. 2. xviii. 8. (m) i. Cor. xv. 24. note 58.
i'li) Comp. notes 59— 66.
8 9 As it is said that Jesus shall judge the quick and dead at the
time of his coming and kingdom, it is evident that the commencement
of the kingdom, x.at'' i^o^iiv, is connected with the TRSurrection of the
dead, and is thus (note 54. seq.) referred to that time, when every encmjf
sliaU be destroyed.
6 From this passage it seems probable that in v. 16. we ought to
understand Trxw^aS-iT h th ^*7thi[& tk ^tS to mean the same (comp.
Obss. p. 453 ss. and Opus. Acad. i. p. 146.) as -a-^jj^ad-ii (IxS-ji) r) ^ao-i-
Miat. TH 3-8«, "until the kingdom of God is in perfect and complete
prosperity."
9 1 In like manner God is said (Rev. xii. 10. xi. 17.) /S*<rt\6t/cati (to
be acknowledged king, to be perceived to reign; comp. note 70, at the
end.), since (comp. note 22.) he has taken to himself (xA/nCccyn) his
great power to (v. 18.) punish his enemies (ch. xvi— xx. 3). Add xi.
15, where God and Christ are said to obtain the government over the
eBTth^hecause it is evident in the eyes of all, that the earth belongs to
God and Christ. (Comp. Neue Apol. der Offenb. Job. p. 330. note 18 ;
■%nd ToBLER, Gedanken und Antworten aur Ehre J. C. und seines Reichs,
p. 371).
5208 THE MKANING OF
but still rebels, paying the punishment of their lolly ; but
others will, as the pious people of God, (o) reap the blessings
of the divine government, and be, in a far higher sense, in
the kingdom of God : (p) even as now, all men are in the king-
dom of heaven, {q) but in a far different sense those, to whom
the gospel has been presented, (r) and in the most distinguish-
ed sense of all, those who obey it. [s) That province (region),
therefore, of the kingdom of God, in which after ^^ the resur-
rection of the dead (/) the pious people of God shall dwell, who
are to receive, from the benignant and all-powerful govern-
ment of Christ, (u) a mai-vellous and everlasting salvation, (v)
is by a certain peculiar right called the kingdom of heaven, or
of God, in which no place is allowed to the wicked, (w) al-
though they are under the authority of God. Of this kind
are those passages generally, in which are used the forms of
(0) Rev. XXI. 3. (p) XXII. 3. (q) J. vi.
(»■) Matt. XXI. 43. ^. VII. (i) Col. i. 13, note 77.
(0 1. Gor. XV. 50. ii. Thess. i. 5, comp. with 7. Matt. xiii. 43. xxv. 34,
add Luke, xiv. 15. co.Tip. with 14. (u) u. Thess. 1. 10.
iv) Matt. XXV. 54, comp. with 4G. Mark, ix. 47, comp. with 43. 45. and
Matt. xvui. 8 s. John, in. 3. 5.\coinp. with 3G, and Titus, in. 5. 7.
Matt. XIX. 23 s.; corap. with 16. 25. Mark, x. 23—25, comp. with 26. 17.
Luke, xviii. 24 s. comp. with 2G. 18. i. Thess. ii. 12. , Acts, xiy. 22,
comp. with Rom. viii. 17, and Luke, xxiv. 26.
:w) Luke, XIII. 28. Matt. viii. 11. 12. i. Cor. vi. 9 s. Gal. v. 21. , Eph.
V. 5, comp. with Rev. xxii. 15. /
3 As God and Christ are said t2ua-iKiuiiv particularly at the period,
when all enemies shall have been destroyed, and (note 89.) the dead
shall have been raised; so also that province (note 76.), to which the
most glorious fruits shall redound from this perfect splendor .and mag^ni-
ficence of the kingdom of God, takes by a peculiar right the appella-
tion of the kingdom of heaven. But since, before that time, in those re-
gions to which the spirits of departed believers are conducted, the ma-
jesty of the divine government is certainly everywhere acknowledged,
and the grandeur of its kingly offices much more clearly perceived than
in the present life (ii. Cor. v. 6—8. Phil. i. 23.) ; there was surely no
reason why St. Paul should not give to these seats of the blessed, also,
the name of heavenly kingdom, in ii. Tim. iv. 18. Though it cannot be
denied, that even this passage may be understood to refer to that fu-
ture happiness (comp. v. 6—8), upon which the blessed shall entev
after their resurrection, and the coming of the Lord. ^
*' THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN."' i409
"expression sl<fs\A6Tv slg rriv /3atf»Xs»av tww i«^avwv (Matt. vii. 21."^*
V. 20." XVIII. 3.*^ II. Pet. I. 11.), Ssxs(f^M «riiv ^atfiXs/av ci?'
^SH, («) viisriioL ktv 7) (3a(fiks'M tH ^£«, (y) all which are used
promiscuously by St Mark, x. 15. 14. and St. Luke, xviii. 17.
16* More frequently instead of ^ifatfdcw ^ (2) is substituted
xXrj^ovofxgjv T11V ^arfiXslav t« &g«, (a) /o occupy those blissful
seats, (b) so that each individual may have his own share in
the possession. (c) Hence the term xXy]^ovofAo» rrts /3atfiXs<a?,(J)
or uioi rrjg /SatfjXs/af, (e) is applied to those, to whom the king-
dom of heaven belongs, or who shall enter into the region of
(x) Mark, x. 15. Luke, xvni. it. (y) vi. 20. Malt. v. 3. 10. xix. 14.
(z) Corap. I. Mace. 11. 51. (a) Matt. xxv. 34. i. Cor. vi.9 s. Gal. v. 21.
. (b) Comp. Gen. xv. 7 s. xxviii. 4, &c. (c) Eph. v. 5.
(tO Jam. Ui5. (e) Matt. sut. 38.
»3 What follows in v. 22. 23, shews with sufl&cient clearness, that
this passage does not refer to the kingdom of God, which is gathered to-
gether on the earth from the period of our Lord's ascension into hea-
ven, and Vfhose privileges were eagerly desired by many during the life-
time of Jesus (note 36). But in Matt. xxi. 31, xxiii. 13, it admits of a
doubt, whether ff ^*<rtxiia rov 3-ieu is to be understood in this sense
(comp. Luke, xi. 52.), or as referring to the seats of the blessed.
. 9 4 If this place be compared with ». 3 — 12, vi. 19 ss., it will readily
be s^dmitled, that both here, and vi. 33. Luke, xii. 31, the discourse is
concerning the dwelling-place and region of the blessed. Nor is there any
reason, why a different sense should be given to the expression in the
preceding verse (Matt. v. 19J : "Whoever shall wantonly, and without
hesitation,.violate one precept however small, and shall teach others to
do the same thing, and much more, therefore, he who, like the teachers
of the law and the Pharisees (1? 20), shall neglect so many and great
precepts, and shall be a leader and promoter of negligence in others (v.
21 ss. xxiu. 16 ss.), he, though highly esteemed on earth (Luke, xvi. 15),
shall in the regions of the blessed be reckoned of the least account (M«/-
X'^of xA»3"»»"8T*i) by God and his people, and be cast out from this pure
abode (Luke, xiii. v. 25. 27. 28.) as ^iikuyfAa. (Luke, xvi. 15, like iha.-
X's-oe, oviffxttroi, xin. 30. at the end.)."
9 6 Very similar are those forms of expression, by which any one is
said to he in the kingdom of heaven, v. 4. 1. Luke, xiii. 28 s. Matt. viir.
11.
• 6 This answers to Luke, xii. 22. tui'6Knr%i 5 a-^t^j tmdi AO*rNAl
27
^210 THK MEANING OF
the blessed,^"^ or to whom indeed the right of citizenship ^ in
that most bhssfful (/) country principally belonged, (g) Per-
haps also Heb. xfi. 28, is a passage of the same description.
For as mention is made immediately before {h) of a new
heaven and a new earth,^ it is certainly not improbable, that
(/) VIII. 11. (§•) V. 12. comp. with Acts, iii. 25. Rom. ix. 4. (h) v. 27.
fl 7 Just as in Luke, xx. 36. si T«f amTufftees TWj^dirTJf (y. 35) are
called utci tmc aictrdffms.
• As ^ ^xa-txtict refers peculiarly to that administration of the king-
dom of God, which shall take place in the region of the blessed after
the resurrection of the dead (Matt. xxvi. 29. §. viii. at the beginning.) ;
the right of citizenship, also, in the king-dom of heaven, thus understood,
maybe called (note 36.) ^ 0a.(rihiiA.
9 fl Christ, who formerly, when the law was given on Mount Sinai
(». 18 ss.), shook the earth, which could equally well be declared of
him, in reference to his divine nature, as that he created all things (i. 2.
10.), now, when God spoke by him, is said to have promised (xii. 26.).
that he will once more shake the heaven and earth (comp. Rev. xx. 11.
XXI. 1. u. Pet. ni. 10--12.), from which it is evident (Heb. xii. 27.), that
the things which are shaken (heaven and earth, Heb. xii. 26.) are re-
moved from their place, as being made with this design, that they might
await (comp. Rom. viii. 19 ss. n. Pet. in. 7. and /«««<», Acts, xx. 6. 23.)
an immovable condition (comp. the neuters, Heb. vx. 9.), i. c. that that
signal change might remain, whereby the appearance of heaven and
earth shall become permanent. The words »t/ etjretf, used by Christ,
not only shew, that the heaven and the earth will be shaken, but also
imply at the same time, that no other shaking shall follow ; and that
therefore, subsequently to that event, to which the display at Sinai can-
not be at all compared, the state of earth and heaven will be such, that
things will cease to be movable and fragile. But it is probable that the
sentence quoted by the Apostle (xii. 26.), is not from Haggai, but that
it was uttered by Christ, when he was discoursing perhaps at some time
or other (comp. Acts, i. 3.) concerning the kingdom of God, and was
comparing this new economy with the old Mosaic dispensation (comp.
John, VI. 32.) ; and that it was never recorded in the gospel histories (Acts,
XX. 35.). For, to say nothing of the fact, that jhe words of Haggai are
not sufficiently like these, it appears to me to be very n^uch against the
commonly received opinion, that Jesus is said to have promised now,
when God commands by him (Heb. xii. 25. comp. with x. 28 s. i. 1 s.
II. 1 — 3.), Tov drr tf'gatvaiv (comp. John, iii. 31. i. Cor. xv. 47.), not by
Moses, Toir tVi TMC ytie (comp. Heb. in. 3 — 6 ), that he will once more
shake not only the earth, as was done at the time when he IttI t«? yUc
•• THE KINGDOM OP HEAVEN." 211
the unchangeable kingdom which beUevers shall obtain/^ con-
sists in those happy seats in which the faithful shall dwell, (*)
after thev have been restored to life, (j )
§. IX.
Although, therefore, a great number of passages refers to
that future and most conspicuous appearance of the kingdom
of heaven ; (k) yet it cannot be denied that there are also not
a few, which, if we ought to choose the most obvious inter-
pretation,"* lead us to a mucK broader signification of the ex-
pression. (/) And that same idea of the kingdom of heaven,
which includes the whole government of Christ from his as-
cension into heaven, seems to have been in the mind of the
apostles in those places also, which, — because (?n) that empire
is now established, whose extent and dignity will bring to
pass, in its own time, all that remains to be done, and could
perform it forthwith, did not the long-suffering (n) of the
judge prevent it, — shew that an end is at hand (Heb. ix. 2G}'"
(t) II. Pet. HI. 13. (j ) Rev. xx. 12. xai. 1. (&) }. vni.
(.1) }. III. vii. (m) Comp. note 30.
(n) n. Pet. iii. 9. 15. Heb. x. 13.
iX^hlxtttivi, or divinely instructed (Acts, x. 22.) the people, but also the
heaven.
1 • Utt^ttxttfiCdun also in Jer. xlix. 1. 2. means the sameas itx^^o-
yofxtn 'y but the present participle has the sense of the future (comp. Acts,
XV. 27.), as, in Heb. xii. 27, Ti o-ethtvofAtrx signifies things that are to be
shaken, movable. Comp- Obss. gramm. p. 134 s.
1 1 Comp. DoEDERLEiw, Instit. Theol. Christ, p. 748 s. [ p. 291. Vol.
n. Ed. Junge. Nor. et Alt. 1797.— Tr. ]
^02 At the end of the world (comp. also Heb. i. 2. 1. Pet. i. 20.) it
was that Jesus was born, because, at his birth, the commencement was
at hand of a kingdom ($. iv.), which shall make all things new (Rev.
XXI. 5.), and which would immediately have proceeded to make hea-
ven and earth new and permanent (Heb. xii. 26 s.), and to display its
glorious {v. 28. $. viii.) and grand appearance, but for that divine good-
ness which desires first to make men new creatures (ii. Cor. v. 17.), and
that completely, too, that they may be able to rejoice in this wonderful
change of things (n. Pet. iii, ^15.).
M^^ THE MEANING OP " THE KINGDOM OP HEAVEN.''
1. Cor. X. 11. I. Pet. IV. 7. i. John, ii. 18.^°^ ) ; and exhort
to /xeTavoja and the cultivation of hohness (o) with this motive,
that that avvi^ now reigns, by whom God will judge men, (/))
and is ready and prepared to malie the exhibition of his ma-
jesty {q) whenever it pleases him.^"^
(o) Acts, XVII. 31. 1. Pet. iv. 7, Jam. v. 8 s. Heb. x. 25. 35-- 37. comp.
Luke, XXI. 34 ss.
f (^ Acts, XVII. 31. (5) Jam. v. 0. 8. i. Pet. iv. 5.
1 3 From the time that the king, descended from the family of Da-
vid (Ps. II. 6.), reigns, that last time is present (comp. note 30. 102.)
to which the ancient prophets looked. Iii it, also, are contained ivti-
XH^-Tt (comp. Ps. u, 2.), who, before the kingdom of Christ, had no
existence. Comp. ii. Tim. in. 1. ii. Pet. m. 3. Jud. ». 18.
10 4 Although the coming of the Judge did not overtake the first
readers of the N. T. while they were yet alive, yet of the whole num-
ber (Mark, xiii. 37. Luke, xu. 41. comp. with 45.) of those to whom
the instructions of Christ and the apostles are directed (comp. Diss, de
sensu historico, note 18, 183,), there will be certainly not a few, whom
that decisive period of the kingdom of heaven, though it be long delay-
ed (t> 45. Matt. XXIV. 48. xxv. 5. 19.), shall at length come upon un-
awares, while they are alive. But as this time was to be unknown
(Luke, XII. 39's. 46. Mark, xiu, 35. Matt. xxiv. 36.— xxv. 13. i- Thess. v.
2 ss.) ; teachers merely human could not exhort to watchfulness those during
whose, life-time the destined period for retribution wiU he just at hand, unless
they gave this advice to men of all periods of the world. But further :
men of former ages, who were negligent of this precept, certainly wUl be
taken unprepared by that signal period of retribution ; since by the ad-
vantage of death they neither become more prepared, nor do they es-
cape out of the power of the judge, so that he cannot subsequently ap-
point a day for them (n. Cor. v. 10.).
DISSERTATION
PARABIiES OF CHRIST.
BY
GOTTLOB CHRISTIAN STORR.
TRANSLATED FROM THB LATIK,
BY WILLIAM R. WHITTINGHAM, A. M.
CHAPLAIN ASD SUPERINTENDENT OF THE NEW-YORK PROTESTANT
EPISCOPAL PUBLIC SCHOOL.
THE PARABLES OP CHRIST.
§.I.
The word 's'a^a§oX>3 is derived from the verb flra^a§aXXs<v,(a)
which signifies to collate, compare, assimilate, Quinctilian
interprets it * by the words simihtudo, collatio ; Seneca {h)
uses imago. It is, therefore, a comparison (collatio), or to
nse the definition of Cicero, (c) " a form of speech, in which
we compare one thing with some other on account of a
resemblance between the two," which is designated by the
Greek word parable (parabola, cra^a^oX^.). In this sense ^
Christ is said(rf) to have spoken in parables (sv ^ra^a^oXai^) when
(a)' Mar. iv. 30. (6) Ep. lix. («) Lib. i. de Inv. c. 30.
id) Mar. iii. 23.
1 De Institut. Orat. L. V. c. xi. VIII. iii. p. 298. 302. 470. [ p. 256.
260. 399. ed. Oxon. 1693. ]
« The word has the same signification in Lu. xii- 41. xv. 3. xxi. 29.
Mat. xxiv. 32. Mar. xiii. 28. [ in all which passages the comparison is
indicated by the subsequent use of hvtm. ] There is nothing strange in
the application of the name TragtuQoKn to an allegory, even though me-
taphorical as in Lu- V. 36. ; (that also being a form of speech in which one
thing is compared, although less evidently, with some other,) or even to
a thing which is the image, ovtype, of some other, as in Heb. ix. 9.
216
THE PARABLES OF CHRIST.
he proved, by various similitudes, (e) that he cast out demons,
not by the aid of Satan, but by a higher power.
§. 11.
Parables are carefully distinguished by Aristotle (/) from
that species of composition which is known in Greek by the
names of Xoyoj and amg, and in Latin by that of fabula,^ prin-
cipally, as appears from the examples which he adduces,^ and
as has been more fully shown by Lessing,^ on the ground
that in a parable the object or event which is given as the
image of some other, is merely contemplated in the mind as
possible, while in a fable an event is related, as having ac-
tually taken place at some definite time. So the well known
fable of MENENms Agrippa, relating to the dissension be-
tween the members of the body and the belly, narrates ihot
the other members took umbrage at the belly, and conspired
against it f and the 32d of Lokman's Fables, which greatly
resembles it, recounts, that when the feet boasted that they
supported the body, the belly made answer : * what would they
be able to do, if it should prepare no food to afford them
strength ? ' On the other hand when Paul, in i. Cor. xii. 12
— 27, makes use of a parable derived from the same objects,
he does not relate (g) that the foot denied that it was a mem-
ber of the body, because it was not the hand, or that the eye
reproached the hand with being useless to it ; but says " if the
foot should deny that it was a member of the body, because it
was not the hand, would it therefore not belong to the body ?
or, if the eye should desire to reproach the hand with its hav-
(e> Mar. iii. 24—27. (/) Rhet. L. ii. 20. (g) v. 15 s. 21.
3 Comp. Q,uiNTiLiAN. L. V. c. xi. p. 301 s. [ 259. s. ed. Ox. ]•
* See below, note 9, and $. v.
5 In his First Dissertation appended to his Fables iu the German
language ; p. 160 ss.
fi See Livii Hist. Lib. ii. c. xxxii.
THE PARABLES OF CHRIST. 217
ing no need of it, it could have no right to do so. The case
is just the same with those who envy the gifts of others, or
despise their inferiors."
The illustration given by our Saviour in Lq. xiii. 19, has
the form of a fable. In Mar. iv. 30 s. the same illustration is
given as a parable, for it does not assume as a fact that any
certain man committed to the ground in his garden any given
grain of mustard seed, but merely sets forth what was cus-
tomary and might happen at any time or in any place.'^
§. III.
The object with which, in a parable, some other object is
compared on account of its resemblance, must be possible,
either under the actually existing state of things, or else on
some hypothetical and feigned condition. To the first class
belong not only those objects or events, the possibility of
which is so certain, that they customarily occur,^ but also
such, as although they do not customarily occur,^ yet certainly
7 In like manner in Lu. xviii. 2 ss. Christ himself substitutes a form
of composition (xsyov) which recounts the subject as a fact, for the para-
ble in Lu. xi. 6 ss. which merely regards it as posiible, and perhaps about
to happen.
% It is altogether possible that the facts, the reality of which is as-
sumed in a parable, may have actiutlly occurred a thousand times. But
the parable does not narrate any one of these occurrences, but merely
affirms the possibUUy of the fact, inferred from them, and describes
what may now and hereafter happen.
9 EusTATHius (in 11. B. p. 176. ed. Rom.) says that a parable is a
species of composition in which the truth intended to be conveyed is
taught and confirmed (p. 253,) by such things as are wont to happen aU
ways, or every day. And certainly we find that the resemblance which,
as Aristotle has taught (loc. citat.) it is necessary to observe in the
composition of parables, is most generally taken (as Eustathius has
remarked, II. B. n. p. 176. 1065,) as well from the natural history ei-
ther of animals, both rational and irrational, (h) or of inanimate things,(i)
(h) Jer. xiii. 23. M»t. xxiii. 37. <i) Lu. xxi. 2$ ss.
28
^18 THE PARABLES OP CHRIST.
may exist. The second class consists of such as are possible
on the supposition of some change in the nature or state of
things, as, for instance, that irrrational things might have the
power of speech, which is assumed in the parable of St.
Paul, (/)in which he compares Christians with the several
members of the human body.
In both these classes of parables^ the object or event,
whether customary, or merely possible, or only hypothetical,
is only considered as possible — a thing that might have exist-
ed or happened. But if we change the statement, and sup-
pose the object or event to have actually existed or happen-
ed,^^ they become /a6/e5, ih^ first class of parables constituting
(i) §. II.
as from common life and circumstances of daily occurrence among
men. (fc) Of this sort is the parable of Sextius, in Seneca, vbi supra.
But the example given by Aristotle furnishes proof that the use of the
term parable is not confined to this species of comparison. He gives
the following as a specimen of a parable. '* A magistrate ought not to
be chosen by lot. For this would be like appointing as wrestlers, or as
pilots of vessels, not such men as were most skilful, but such as should
happen to obtain the office by lot." The absurdity of electing magistrates
by lot is illustrated in this parable not by events which customarily take
place, but by such as are merely possible. It is better, therefore, to em-
brace the more general idea of a parable ; which is given even by Eds-
TATHios himself, when he says (Odyss. A. p. 1406.) that a parable is a
comparison (vA^nQta-n ofxaia/uictriKHv) instituted for the illustration of
any subject under consideration.
1 Even such events as frequently occur, may be feigned by the au-
thor of a fable. For example, it is not necessary to suppose that Christ
had in view (Mat. xiii. 3 ss.) any particular man, to whom he recollect-
ed such circumstances to have happened as he was sowing grain. He
may have merely assigned occurrences which he knew might at any
time take place to a supposed individual (too iuvt) called up for that
purpose in his imagination. This is, in fact, the very point of distinc-
tion between a historical example {-ret^et^uyfAd.) properly so called, and
a parable or fable, as Aristotle has observed, (ubi supra, corap. Rhet.
ad Alex. c. ix.). He that would produce an example must derive such
as will suit his purpose from the records of transacticns that have actually
ik) u. Ki. xxi. 13. Lu, xi. 5 ss. xv. S—10, xii. S6 ss. xiv. 28 ss. Mar.
Jii. 24 ss.
THE PARABLES OP CHRIST. 219
that species of fables which is denominated rational, and the
other that called moral}''
taken place, while those who make use of parables or fables for the illus-
tration of their themes, may draw upon their own i7ivention* Even if it
should happen that a fable writer should meet with a true history suit-
ed to his purpose, which may save him the trouble of invention ; still,
his attention must be diverted from the truth of the fact, which has no-
thing to do with his design and of which he can make no use. There
is, therefore, no ground for alarm lest the licence of inventing fables
should either lessen the credit of true histoiy, or afford facility for
spreading falsehood. There cannot be even the appearance of false-
hood in a form of speech already in such general use, that, notwithstand-
ing its historical form of composition, it is impossible for any one not to
recognize it as a fiction. The Jews, in particular, had in the time of Christ,
been long accustomed to the ancient mode of teaching by means of
fables, (Judg ix, 7 — 15. ii. Sam. xii. 1 — 4. ii. Ki. xiv. 9. ii. Chr.
XXV. 18. Isa. V 1—6. Ezek. xvii. 3—10. xix. 1—9.) so that none of
them could have been so stupid, as not to understand that the histories
related were /etg-ucrf, not true, (comp. Mat. xiii. 10). Indeed it is not
the design of a fable to put on the semblance of a true history, but to
be understood as a fiction, that the reader, who would not perceive its
meaning, if he confined his attention to the narration ($. xi), maybe
led to inquire concerning the object for which it was invented. The
use of fables, moreover, is allowed to teachers only, never to historical
writers. We may conclude, therefore, that whatever credible historians,
— the evangelists, for instance — relate, is to be received as mattcT offatt,
and not sls fable. In the case of the evangelists, even in their accounts
of the discourses of Christ, it is generally easy to distinguish between
the true and the fictitious histories, although the latter are not always
pointed out as parables; e. g. Lu. vii. 41 s. xiv. 16 ss. xvi. 1 ss. Mat.
xviii. 23 ss. xx. 1 ss. xxv. 1 ss. Even when a teacher has been in the
habit of using fables for the purpose of instruction, we may nevertheless
be sure that examples adduced by him are historically true (e. g. Lu. iv.
25 ss. Mat. xii. 3 s. 41 s. xxiii. 35,) whenever either the same history
has been handed down by historical writers, and those such as are
worthy of credit, or the manner of arguing used by the teacher, and all
the context, show that he assumes the truth of the fact which he relates.
When we are unable by either of these criteria to discover whether &
narrative used by Christ is a historical example or n fable (Lu. xvi. 1^
ss. X. 30 ss.) the probability is, that it is to be reckoned among the lat-
ter, as they were so frequently employed by him.
» 1 This distinction is derived from the progymnasmata of Aphthq-
* [ Fabulae exemplorum vicarii et supplementa olim extiterunt
Bacon de Augm. Scient. Works. IV. 214. 1 ,
^2'20 THE PARABLES OP GHRISt.
The rational fable " relates an event absolutely possible,
i, e which either customarily occurs, (m) or at least may do
so. (n) The moral fable recounts events possible only on the
supposition, either, that the objects of which they are related,
did exist, which species is called by Lessing the mythical
fable, or, that things really existing, such as brutes or inani-
mate substances, were in possession of certain gifts, such as
reason and speech, which they do not enjoy .'^ Of this latter
sort is the fable told by Jotham, Judg. ix. 8 — 15,
§. IV.
The evangelists', contrary to the Greek usage, ^^ (o) have
(m) Mat. xiii. 3—8. 31-33. 47 s. xxi. 28—30, &c.
(n) Lu. xil. 20. xiv. 21—23. Ma(t. xxii. 2 ss. (o) }. u.
A'lusj he makes three classes of fables, to xoyntov, to )iStKov, and t»
fxiKTof, which names. are retained by Wolf (Philos. Pract. Univ. P. ii.
$. 303.) and Lessing. (Diss. iii. p 191 ss.) although they have deter-
mined the character of each class with greater accuracy. The cl?is3
called mixed, comprises fables which narrate things absolutely possible as
facts, as well as those which relate things possible merely under a hypo-
thetical condition, as such. Of this class there is no instance in the New
Testament. — Further information on this subject may be found in Les-
sing's work, ubi supra, p. 204 s.
12 Fables of this kind occur in the Old Testament, in ii. Sam. xii.
1 as. Isa. V. 1 ss.
1 3 This hypothetical condition is expressly recognized by Menenius,
whose fable, as given by Livt, begins thus : *' At a time when the human
members were not, as now, inseparably united, but had each its private
interest, each its power of speech, the other members having taken
nmbrage," &c.
1 5 The words fabula, fabdla, affabulatio, (wrtjxvBtov, §. xiii.) have
already been applied to the parables of Christ by Grotius (Comm. in
Matth. xiii. 10. 44. 49. De Jure Belli ac Pacis, Lib. IL c xx. $. 48.
no. 3,) CoccEius (Schol. in Matth. xx. p. 32, and Disp. Select, xxxv. $. 1,
p. 89. 0pp. T. IV. and vi.) and many others. There is no reason to
consider the very ancient, and, as Luther (0pp. Lips. T. vi. p. 380.
Append. T. xxii. p. 61 ss.) has well observed, highly excellent ($. ix. x,)
<" Tx;«"^'^i
tHE PARABLES OF CHRIST.
given to fables^* of the first class, (the only kind used by
Christ) the name of parables ^ (p) or comparisons, (q) This
may be accounted for by their tendency to the Hebraistic
idioms. The Hebrew word ^&d was used in the first place
to signify a similitude ^® or an image, (r) Poems generally
(p) $. I. (g) Mat. xiii. 3, 18, 24. 31, 33, 36, 53. xxi. 33 xxii. 1. Lu.
xii. 16. xviii. 1. 9. six. 11. (r) Ezek. xxiv. 3.
method of teaching by fables, as trifling or unworthy of Christ,* nor
are we immediately to conclude from there being no mention of the use
of the apologue, or completely moral fable by our Lord, that none of
that sort were ever told by him. Even the common definition of a
parable, that is, a history bearing the similitude of trtilh, invented for the
purpose of conveying through that medium some recondite and spiritual
meaning (see Glassii Philol. Sac. p. 479. ed. Lips. 1705, and Pfaffu
Commentat. de recta theol. parabolicae et allegoricae conformatione,
p. 2.) will suit many of the fables of JEsop, nay, all of the rational fables,
if we take from it the restrictive epithet spirit\ial,wh\ch seems to signify
not a moral of any kind but more definitely a divinely revealed doctrine.
This, however, is only what is called the specific difference of the para-
bles of Christ, which certainly does not deprive them of the gejseric
character of fables- Nevertheless, although in a treatise like the present,
we cannot dispense with the name oi fable, for the purpose of distin-
guishing the different forms of the parables of Christ (§ i — iv.) and of
ascertaining with the greater accuracy the nature of such of them as be-
long to the class of fables. (§. v. ss.) ; yet, as Wolf has remarked (ubi
supra, §. 302,) it is better to refrain from the use of that word in the
vernacular language, and to retain the Hebrew-Greek term parable,
lest the Latin word fable should be misunderstood by ulUearncd per-
sons, and they be induced to confound it with the idea of old wives^
fables.
» * EusTATHius indeed (p. 176, below) comprises even that species
of the Aoyoc in which a historic style is used, ($. ii.) under the name of
tTtf^aCo^M or parable. But it is very possible that the Archbishop of
Thessalonica may have been led to this by some recollection of the
more extended use of the word in the New Testament.
1 • The word tjj^jj, like the Arabic J£j^ , is plainly used for compari-
* C See some valuable remarks on this feature of the teaching of our
Saviour in Scmner^s Evidences, p. 141 s. Am. ed. ; and a full discussion
of the subject in Newcome's Observations on our Lord's conduct as a
divine instructor, Chap. II. Sect. X. pp. 141 — 158. Tr.l J
^222 THE PARABLES OF CHRIST.
abounding in images, it was applied toi;hem. (5) Ingeniousr
sayings being usually couched in poetic style, and replete with
comparisons, next acquired the name ; (t) hence it came to be
applied to proverbs, (?/) which constituted the most usual and
favourite class of ingenious sayings, and at lastto/a6/65. (w)"
Thus, the Hebraizing writers were led to give the Greek word
rra^aCoXTj besides its proper meaning of similitude, {x) not only
the other meanings of the Hebrew word, for instance, that of
an ingenious saying, {y) and that of a proverb, (z) but also the
signification of « fable, {a^^ And indeed both fables (6) and
similitudes (c) might with the more propriety be included un-
der the common name -Tra^a^oX-y), [d) as all the fables of Christ
are a kind of similitudes, which is far from being the case with
any other fables than those of the compound or mixed class.
§. V.
This will appear more evident, upon a closer investigation
of the nature of a fable. In the first place, then, it is well
(8) Isa x\v. 4. Ps. xlix. 5. Num. xxiii. 7, 18. xxiv. 3, 15, 20 s., 23.
* (0 Prov. i. 1. (m) 1. Sam. x. 12. xxiv. 14. (to) Ezek. xvii. 2.
(as) 5. I. (y) Lu. XiV. 7. Mar. vii. 17 Matt. xv. 15.
(2) Lu. iv. 23, and in the Ixx. i. Sam. x. 12. xxiv. 14.
(o; In the Ixx Ezek. xxii. 2. (6) Mar. iv. 3 ss.
c) Mar. ix. 28—32. id) v. 33 s.
son (e. g. Isa. xlvi. 5.) On the etymological derivation of its meanings
ScHULTENs (in the beginning of his Comm. in Prov.) and Michaelis (in
LowTHU Prael iv. de Sac. poesi.Hebr. p. 64 s.) may be consulted. [ See
also Dathe's examination of its meanings, in his edition of Glassii
Philol. Sac. Lib. u Tract. 1 c. xxi. p. 1305 s ]
17 The Arabic Jlit-^aJ has the same meaning. [The Syriac t^'A^^
also is used for the Greek Trct^itSo^n in an equally extended application,
(e. g. Mat. xiii. 18,) and the fables of Talmud are called j^SnO Dathe,
ubi supra.
> 8 On the other^hand the word Trufot/utei which properly answers to
the Htbrew "^^yo in its signification of a proverb, is made to receive the
TT
other sense of the Hebrew word in which it expresses an image, an al-
legory, e. g. Jo. X. 6. See by all means^VoRSTn Philol. Sac. P. 1. c. iv.
end,.
THE VAKABLES OF CBRlST. 223
known ^* that the name of fabh (Xoyoj) belongs only to that
species of narration of fictitious events^ which inculcates some
moral instruction adapted to reclaim from sin, and to recom-
mend the practice of virtue and prudence, (e) With this view
it may either delineate an image of human manners, (/) or
set before the eyes the melancholy consequences of sin, (g) or
by declaring the principles of the divine government {h) re-
move the occasions for rash judgments and attempts, and the
other vices which spring from ignorance of those principles ;
or, as is generally the case, serve for several of these moral
uses.
Now a fable may illustrate such a moral doctrine either
generally, or with a particular reference to some certain event,
or to some impending emergency, which may have furnished
occasion for it. There are therefore two sorts of fables, the
simple and the compound.
The first sort, or simple fable, is not to be reckoned among
metaphorical allegories. There is no similitude between it
and the doctrine which it expresses, inasmuch as the subject
and predicate of the latter form the genus of which the sub-
ject and predicate of the fable are a species. There cannot
be said to be a similitude between a genus and any species or
individual comprehended in it ; and therefore a simple fable is
rather an example of moral doctrine than an allegory.
But a compound fable may be considered as an allegory of
the thing or event on occasion of which it was narrated:^ For
example, the fable of the conspiracy of the human members
for the destruction of the belly (i) is simple, if intended merely
to teach the general truth, that dissensions are injurious to
both the contending parties. For the hand, and mouth, and
ie) Mat xviii. S5. Lu. k. 37. xii. 21. xvi. 8 ss. 19 ss. xviii. 1. 9. 14. \v. 2Q.
comp. 2. Mat. xx. 15 s. xiii. 44 — 4fi. xxv. 1 ss. corap. 13. and xxiv. 47 ss.
(/) Mat. xiii. 19 ss. xxi. 31 s. Lu. vii. 44 ss.
(g) Mat. XX!. 43 s. xxii. 7. 13. Lu. xiv. 24.
(A) Mat. xiii. 24— 33. Lu. xiii. 6 ss. (i) o. ii.
1 « Lessing, Diss. I. p. 131 ss,
2 Le/sswg, p. 114 S5.
224 THE PARABLES OF CHRIST.
teeth, and belJy, bear no resemblance to contending parties,
considered generally, but are among their number. Nor does
the conspiracy of the other members to subdue the belly by
starvation resemble discord, considered generally, but it is a
dissension with the adverse member, one of the several kinds
of discord. Nor, lastly, is the extreme wasting of the whole
body similar to the unhappy consequences of dissension, but
it is comprised in the class of the evils which arise from dissen^
sion generally, and is an example of them. But Menenius
used this fable for the purpose of comparison, that is, as a
fable of the compound class, and consequently, allegorical.
For he compared the belly to the patricians, the other mem-
bers to the Roman people, the intestine strife between the
members of the body to the hatred of the people against the
patricians, and the starvation of the body to the impending
ruin of the city.
To give another instance ; Stesichorus, as quoted by
Aristotle, (k) compared the Himerians to the horse* who,
desirous of revenge upon the stag, permitted the hunter to
bridle, saddle, and mount him for the chase ; their enemies,
to the stag ; Phalaris, whom they had elected their com-
mander in chief {quTriyov auroxparo^a) to the man j his govern-
ment to the bridle, already put on ; and the grant of body
guards, from which the fable was intended to dissuade them,
to the act of mounting. But if this same fable were used for
the purpose of persuading any one not, in avoiding one ex-
treme, to hurry to the other, or not to" make use of a remedy
worse than the disease, the allegory would vanish. The horse
could not be said to resemble a person, who, to shun a lesser
evil, runs into a greater, but as he actually does so, would be
(fc) Rhetor. Lib. ii. c. \t.
* Quern cervus, pugna melior» communibus herbis
Pellebat, donee minor in certamine longo
Imploravit opes hominis, frenumquc reccpit ;
Sed, postquam victor violens discesait ab hoste,
Non equitem dorso, non frenum depulit ore.
HoRAT. Epist. I. xi. 34 s».
THE PARABLES OF CHRIST. 225
an example of that fault, displaying the need of prudence in
avoiding difficulties*
§. VI.
Whenever, therefore, any fable of our Lord is so constructed,
as that its subject and predicate are included as a species in the
subject and predicate of the moral precept which it is intend-
ed to express ; such fable is rather, with respect to moral
doctrine, an example, than a similitude. Yet on another ac-
count, namely, with respect to the fact which occasioned
its composition, it may be a similitude or comparison of one
example of a general truth or precept with another. Thus
the Pharisee and the publican (/) have no resemblance to the
•whole class (m) of men who indulge in self-complacency, or
who are mindful of their own sinfulness, but each is an exam-
ple of the class to which he belongs. In like manner, the rich
men, the end of whose course is described by Christ, (n) are
comprized in that class of men who, neglecting religious mat-
ters, set their affections on the good things of this world, and
experience a great and melancholy change at the time of
death. Yet the object particularly pointed at in Lu. xviii. 9,
is not the class of self-righteous men, but a certain species in-
cluded in that class equally with the Pharisee who is repre-
sented in the fable. Now as individuals may resemble an in-
dividual, the persons against whom the fable is especially di-
rected, may be said to be like the Pharisee, and those whom
they despised to be like the publican. So in the second instance,
the person who disagreed with his brother concerning his in-
heritance, (o) and such of the others (jo) as, like the rich man
described by Christ, {q) displayed an over-fondness for earthly
things, were all of the number of those who care only for the •
Lu. xviii. 10. ss. (?/i) v. 14. . (n) Lu. xii. 16. ss. xvi. I9, ss.
(0) Lu. xii. 13. Q}) V. 15. (9) v. 16. ss.
♦ Incidat in Syllam cupicns vitarc Charybdim.
29
226 THE PARABLES OF CHRIST.
comforts of this life, and neglect the things of God (r),—- and
therefore might and ought to be compared with that rich ma».
Again, the Pharisees, who were covetous, {s) proud, (/) given
to pleasure, (u) and disobedient to the law and the pro-
phets, (w) ^* might with propriety compare their present pros-
perity and their manners with the prosperity and character of
the rich man, {x) and learn what a sudden change of circum-
stances might ensue, (y)
§. VII.
There are, however, other fables which in reality are not
examples of the general doctrine which they inculcate, but are
images and allegories of the doctrine itself. For it may happen
that a fable is used to express some general doctrine, which
again is comprized in some other still more general, in which
case the subject and predicate of the fable will be included
as species in the subject and predicate of the latter, and not
in those of the former.^^ Thus the fable of Menenius not
(r) V. 21. (5) xvi. 14. (0 V. 15.
(u) V. 18. comp. Matt. v. 20. 31. s. (w) Lu. xxi. 16. comp. vii. 30.
(x) xvi. 19^. ss. 30. [(y) v. 22. 25. s.
2 1 It is probable that the rich man described in the parable, Lu. xvi,
39. ss.is intended to be censured for a want of regard for the Holy
Scriptures, as bis brothers, who resembled himself (v. 28,) are repre-
sented (v. 30,) as likely to pay no respect to their authority.
a 2 We do not deny it to be possible, that the subject and predicate of
the fable may be comprized, as species in a genus, in the subjects and
predicates both of the more general doctrine and of that which is
subordinate. So the horse in the fable of Stbsichorus may be an ex-
ample not only of such as for the sake of avoiding a lesser evil, incur a
greater^ ($• v.), but also in particular of those who give up their liberty ta
Iteep out of poverty, in which way it is applied by Horace (Epist. Lib. i-
Ep. X.) who, after recounting the fable ($. v. notet ) subjoins the fol-
lowing moral (itjimoS/ok) v. 39 — 41 :
Sic, qui pauperiera veritus potiore metallis
Libertate caret, dominum vehet improbus, atque
Serviet aeternum, que parvo nesciet uti.
This doctrine is comprized in the other of a more general nature, which
is pointed out in $. v.
THE PARABLES OP CHRIST. 227
©nly admits of being used for the purpose of reconciling the
Roman plebeian party with the patricians, (2) or of teaching
the injurious effects of dissensions upon both the contending
parties generally, but is also capable of being employed to show
tliat mutual contentions between any magistrates and subjects
whatsoever, or if you please, between the citizens of a state or
in a family or among Christians, are productive of evil to the
contending parties, none of which can dispense with the ser-
vices of the others. Now it is plain that the contending
members of the human body are not to be considered as parts
of th^ class of citizens (to select this from the preceding ex-
amples), but that the latter are one species of the class of con-
tending parties, the former another, so that the one may be
used as an image, or similitude, of the other, but not as an in-
stance or example. The fable of Menenius, therefore, be-
comes an allegory when applied to the dissensions of citizens,
while on the other hand both the less general precept which
it would then convey, — that dissensions among citizens are
injurious to both, — and the allegorical illustration of that
precept in the fable itself, would be distinct examples of the
more general doctrine — that all dissensions are hurtful to
both contending parties. To give another instance, the fox
in the fable, who despises the bunch of grapes above his
reach, belongs to the number of those who pretend in a case
of necessity to be guided by deliberation and choice, and
therefore the fable may be considered as an example of the
general doctrine which it inculcates, if applied to such as
make a merit of necessity, {rovg •s'owvrag Tr]v amyxviv (piXor/juwav).
But suppose the fable to be addressed to those who despise
the liberal arts, which they are unable to acquire, and to con-
vey the moral, that the arts are despised by the ignorant only,
which is a branch of the more general doctrine. In this case
the fox would be an image or similitude, not an example, of
those^against whom the fable would be directed, and the
bunch of grapes, which in the first instance was an example
of things which are not attainable, would now be an image
!228 THE PARABLES OP CHRIST.
of another sort of impossibility, — ^the acquisition of the arts
by those who profess to despise them, because above their
capacity.
Many of the fables (Xoyoi) of Christ, are of a similar descrip-
tion ; for the Saviour, in pursuance of the object of his mis-
sion, was accustomed to inculcate morals having a particular
reference to God and the truths of religion, rather than merely
general precepts. So, in Matt. xiii. 3. ss., 24. ss., 31, s., his de-
sign was not to declare the general truths ; that the best in-
structions are, with respect to a majority of the hearers, thrown
away ; that evils are to be borne with, lest their removal be
attended with that of good also ; and, that great events often
spring from small beginnings : but to teach the following,
comprized respectively in those just mentioned; that from
various causes the generality of men would receive little or
no benefit from the most salutary doctrines, divinely promul-
gated; that even wicked men are to be tolerated in the
Christian church till they may be separated from the number
of the citizens of the heavenly kingdom, at the command of
the Lord, without any injury to the good, whom we should
not be able always to exempt from sharing in their fate ; and
that there is no reason to despair, if the commmencement of
the divine kingdom be but small. The fable of the grain of
mustard seed, therefore, although it might have been an ex-
ample of the general truth, that great events often take their
rise from small beginnings, yet in the intention of Christ was
rather an allegory inculcating a doctrine included in that
general truth, respecting the great increase which the king-
dom of God should receive, notwithstanding its small begin-
nings. With respect to the others (the other wvoi), (a) no one
will deny that they are allegories, who has reflected on the in-
terpretations given by Christ himself, {b) in which the sub-
ject and the image used are plainly compared.
(o) Matt xJii. 3. ss. 24. ss. (6) Lu. viii. M. ss. Matt. xiii. 37. ss.
THE PARABLES OP CHRIST.
§. VIII.
Even the loss general doctrine thus conveyed by a fable,
may be applied, in the same manner as the most general
truth, (c) to the instruction of particular individuals. The
fable of the fox and grapes, for instance, may be applied, not
only to ignorant despisers of the arts in general, {d) but also
specifically to some particular despisers of a certain art.
Not a few of this sort of fables, too, occur in the New Testa-
ment. That in Matt. xxi. 28. ss., for instance, might, in a
general sense, apply to all who promise readily, but perform
less than those who at first display some degree of unwilling-
ness. But Christ makes use of it to rebuke such as were dis-
obedient to God, although they boasted of their piety ; and
among these, it relates in particular t© the Pharisees and
Jewish nobles, (e) who esteemed themselves much better
than the rest of their nation, and yet made much more opposi-
tion to the will of God, declared to them by John, (/) than
the very persons whom they despised as sinners. The fa-
ther, therefore, is not to be considered as an example of any one
that makes some request to another ; the first mentioned son, of
one that denies a request , yet at length performs it, and the other
son, of owe that promises without performance : but the father
is an image, or allegorical representation, of GOD ; the first
son, of men now pious, although at first of a different charac-
ter, and yet not of these in general, but properly of the publi-
cans and sinners, who had suffered themselves to be convert-
ed by John ; and the other son, of men really wicked, although
professing to be pious, and among these more particularly of
the Pharisees. In like manner, the object of the fable in
Lu. xiv. 16. ss., is not to inculcate the general truth, that con-
tempt of benefits affords so much the greater cause for indig-
nation, but to show how GOD will regard the contempt of his
benefits, and particularly of those which related to the etei-nal
salvation of the Jews. It is therefore an allegory, in which
(c) $, VI. (d) \. VII. (<•) V. 23, 45. (/) V. 25. s., 32,
230 THE PARABLES OP CHRIST.
the feast represents the future happiness of the good ; (g) the
giver of the feast, is not an example of a benefactor in general,
but strictly an image of GOD ; and the guests who excuse
themselves represent, not generally, those vs^ho despised prof-
fered benefits, but in particular the Jews who rejected the di-
vine benefit offered them by Christ.
The preceding remarks (Ji) we deem sufficient to show
that even the fables employed by Christ are a sort of simili-
tudes,^ and on that account may rightly receive the name of
Parables, (i)
§. IX.
The use of a fable agrees with that of an example, properly
so called, in this resp«ct, that its object is to illustrate the doc-
trine of which it is a fictitious example, (k) For as an ex-
ample serves to reduce a general doctrine to a particular
case, and so conduces to the intuitive knowledge of that doc-
trine,^ in the same way a fable, so far as it is an example of
a general doctrine, assists the acquisition of an intuitive know-
ledge of the truth.* Nor is it any objection, that the ex-
ample thus presented to our consideration, is merely ficti-
tious. For although true examples possess this peculiar ad-
vantage, that they confirm the doctrine which is deduced from
them,^^ yet those of s. fictitious character are equally service-
rs-) V. U. 8. (A) 5. VI— vni. (i) }. IT. ik) {. vi.
2 3 Of this description are evidently Mat. xiii. 24, 31, 33, 44, 47.
xviii. 23. XX. 1. xxii. 2. xxv. 1. Lu. xiii. 18 — 21.
2 * Comp. WoLFius Philos. Pract. Univers. P. II. $. 258. ss. [ " Ex-
amples give a quicker impression than arguments," says Bacon, which
is the purport of Stork's 'conducing to an inluitive knowledge.' Tr. ]
* [ Senkca declares ' Parabolas crebro usurpandas esse, ut imbeeili-
tatis nostrae adminicula sint.' Ep. LIX. p. 149. Tom. 11. 0pp. ed.
Gromov. Tr. ]
2 « See WoLFiDS, ubi supra, $. 266. ss.
THE PARABLES OP CHRIST. 231
able in producing vl clear and vivid knowledge of a doctrine
the truth of which is already ascertained from other sources.
Rational fables, moreover, (to which description all those of
Christ belong,) assume nothing which is at all at variance
with the natural course of things, (/) and therefore are the
less likely to convey to the mind, intent upon the doctrine
which they teach, the notion of their fictitious character. The
folly, for example, of men who are solely intent upon heaping
up riches which they never have an opportunity to enjoy, is
much more clearly and vividly perceived, when we place be-
fore our eyes, as it were, the rich man Lu. xii. 16. ss., with his
possessions and his hopes and projects, and the awful circum-
stance of his unlooked for death, about to take place that very
night, than it would be in any other way. This effect will be in
no^wise lessened by the knowledge that the story is but a fiction,
because the frail and transitory nature of earthly things is al-
ready so well known from experience, that it is not proof of
this by argument, but a vivid sense of the truth already ac-
knowledged, that is needed, and the very fable which is used
to produce this sense, contains only such circumstances as our
previous knowledge of this general truth convinces us may
have actually occurred, and therefore may be assumed as facts.
It may be objected that this use cannot pertain to all the
fables of Christ, inasmuch as it is undeniable that many of
these are not examples of the doctrine which they inculcate,
but allegories, (m) But certainly the less general doctrine
which they convey is subordinate to another of a more general
character, of which the fables themselves may be considered
as examples, (n) and so assisting to the intuitive knowledge of
that doctrine, which knowledge produces the effect of render-
ing the less general doctrine, which it was the immediate ob-
ject of Christ to inculcate in such fables, more easily proved,
and more distinctly known. For example, the analogy ofna^
tural events, made use of in Matt. xiii. 3. ss., 24. ss., 31. ss.,
remarkably illi^strates the facts that divine truth is not defec-
tive although it may produce no good to many ; that it may be
(/) {. III. Uft) {. VII. vin. (n) 5. vin.
232 THE PARABLES OF CHRIST.
prudent to tolerate wicked persons in the church ; and that
the small beginnings of the Christian dispensation might pro-
duce a great and salutary change in the condition of the hu-
man race. The fables there given are examples of the general
truths already pointed out, (o) (as, for instance, of this, that
small beginnings often give rise to great events,) assisting the
attainment of an intuitive knowledge of those truths, and
even, (inasmuch as experience teaches us that the circum-
stances related by Christ do often occur, although the his-
tories are feigned), (p) confirming their truth. In this way
they induce us readily to acknowledge that the case may be
similar in the Christian dispensation, e. g. that great events
may spring from small beginnings.^ — To give another instance,
the fable which occurs in Matt, xviii. 23. ss. is an example of
the general doctrine, that we must not do to others what we
would not that others should do to us, and that we have no
just ground for complaint when we receive the same usage
that we have not scrupled to give to them ; and is very useful
in conveying an intuitive knowledge of that doctrine. The
effect of this is, that it is impossible to disapprove of the pre-
cept, subordinate to the same general doctrine, which it was the
object of the Saviour to convey, (q) and as our own judgment
has approved of the sentence passed by the king in the fable, (r)
we cannot do otherwise than allow the justice of the divine
determination not to forgive the sins of the implacable, who
refuse to forgive the sins of others, since this determination is
another example comprized in the same general rule of con-
duct.
The great utility of fables in general,^ consists in this, that
(o) {.VII. (/)) Note 10. (q)v.35. (r) i>. 32, ss,
a 6 If a fable were used as an example (J. vi.) of the general principle,
contained in it, its application to sxny particular persojis, either by the
author or by the hearer or reader, would be a discovery of something
similar. So the general rule, that he wl^o extorts from his inferior an
article which kc himself possesses in abundance, acts most unjustly, and
I
IHE PARABLES OV CURlbT. 233
they declare the doctrine or truth, which if it were directly
pressed upon us, would doubtless be much weakened by the
force of our passions, by another exaoiplc, similar to our case,
and comprized under the same general rule. In proportion,
too, as fables assist the acquisition of inttdtive knowledge in a
remarkable degree, they also facilitate the recollection of the
doctrines which they inculcate, and consequently, their use.
For the more clearly and distinctly we know a thing, the
more deeply is it impressed on our memory. Comp. Chry-
sosTOM in Joan. iv. 35.
§. X.
But although even tlie fables which are to be ranked as
allegories, serve to illustrate the subjects to which they are
applied ; (s) yet they may also answer the end of clothing
is) a. IX.
is deserving of very heavy punishment, might be extmplijied by the
fable in ii- Sara. xii. 1 — 4, in which case the act of David, v. 7 — 9
would be a similar instance. But Nathan very wisely avoided a direct
introduction of the general principle in his reproof of David, and first
induced the king to acknowledge its truth in another example where
there was no danger of his being swayed by partiality. After this ac-
knowledgment, he could not deny the correctness of the principle (?;. 13.)
even though turned upon himself (v. 7. ss.) ; (comp. Lu. x. 37.) *
In the same manner as a general rule is much more readily and vividly
perceived when conveyed in a fable which is an example of that very
■principle, ($. VI.) and admits of a much readier application to particu-
lar individuals; so the application of a general principle to one less
general is much facilitated by a fable which exemplifies the former,
($. Vlf.) as we have ssen in the instance from Mat. xviii. 23. ss., and it
thus becomes much more eff*ectual with relation to particular individuals
(comp. Mat. xxi. 31, 41. Lu. vii. 43.) if the less general principle, to
which the application of the more general has been made ($. VII.) be.
again applied ($. VIII.) to them.
* [See this ^sjubject happily treated in Porteus' Lecture^.- I^ect xi
Vol. 1. p. 283. s?. ed. I.ond. 1808.
30
^34 IHE PARABLES OF CHRIST.
them in obscurity^ and become ofescwre allegories, or enigmas,
if propounded without any explanation. Many ^ of this sort
were uttered by Christ, especially at the time described by
Matthew, c. xiii, Mark, c. iv, and Luke, c. viii., he having de-
termined to discourse of the heavenly, {t) i, e, ^' divine (m)
kingdom of the Messiah and his Father, (v) more fully than
at other times. His object was to show at length, that the
(0 Mat. xiii. 11, 24, SI, 33, 44, s. 47.
(u) Mar. iv. 11, 26, 30. Lu. xiii. 18, 20.
iv) Dan. vii. 13. s. Mat. xiii. 37, 41, 43.
3 7 Comp. Flacii Clavem Script. P. ii. p. 267, and the celebrated
Teller's note * * on Torretini Tract, de S. Scripturae interpreta-
tione, p. 254.
3 8 This is so plainly affirmed by Matthew (xiii. 3,) and Mark (iv. 2,
13), that there seems to be hardly any doubt that more were spoken to
the people than the four which Matthew relates (xiii. 3. ss. 24. ss. 31 —
33,) as having been uttered in the public discourse. The three others
given in that chapter (v. 44. ss.) cannot be taken into account, as they
were propounded to the disciples bi^ themselves (». 36. 51. s.). But the
testimony of Mark in iv, 33, is even more express than the preceding, for
he makes mention of many other parables, beside those which he himself
has given. Now Matthew (xiii. 24. ss. 33.) only relates two which are
not recorded by Mark, as having been publicly spoken. If, then, we
suppose that he has given all the ' other parables ' to which Mark re-
fers, we must allow that the expression ' many others ' may signify only
two. And even in this case it must be taken for granted that the para-
ble related Mat. xiii. 24. ss., is different from the similar one in Mar. iv.
26. S3., else there will be but one short parable peculiar to Matthew
(xiii. 33.) which, surely, is not the ' many ' spoken of by Mark. — But
the parable in Mark, iv. 26, ss. seems to be no less distinct from that
in Matt. xiii. 24. ss., than the latter is from the one which so mu«h re-
sembles it in V. 47. ss. For in Mark there is no mention of the tares,
which in Mat. xiii. 25. ss. are the principal feature of the parable, (r.
36.) ; and, on the other hand, Matthew is entirely silent respecting the
unobserved progress of the kingdom of heaven, which it is the chief ob-
ject of the parable given by Mark to represent. Now if the parable
given by Mark is different from that in Matthew, it is evident that Mat-
thew does not relate aU the parables spoken publicly on that occasion,
and that it is one of the 'many others ' omitted by Matthew, that has
been preserved by Mark, iv. 26. ss.
.* » Comp. Dan. iv. 23. Lu. xv. 18. and Koppe, Nov. Test. Gr. Vol. i.
p. 216. [also the author's Dissertation De notione regni ccelestis,
Note 6. Tr.1
THE PARABLES OP CHRIST. '235 '
character of this kingdom would certainly in the end appear
to be in the liighest degree glorious, {w) but that notwith-
standing this, its condition would at first be different, and its
foundation be laid in the very preaching of the gospel which
was so much despised, by which, although extended to many
with no effect, the subjects of the heavenly kingdom should
be collected and prepared (x) for future glory, (y) But as
this world is a nursery (z) for heaven, it is absolutely neces-
sary that the evil be mingled with the good, (a) lest either
such as might afterwards reform, should be untimely remov-
ed, or such as were really better than they appeared, should
be reckoned among the bad, and destroyed together with
them, [bj For both the extensive and, ultimately, splendid
kingdom of God generally, and the excellence and happiness
of each of its members in particular, would take their rise
from small beginnings, (c) and increase by imperceptible de-
grees, {d) Nevertheless, the privileges of this invisible king-
dom would be so greatly prized by all that were truly wise («)
that, setting aside all the enjoyments and advantages of this
life, they would pant after that alone. — But the notion of the
kingdom of the Messiah entertained by the Jews (/) was so
different from this, that it was impossible they should be {^eas-
ed with those beginnings, so far removed from every sort of
pomp, and with such a long delay (g) of its ultimate splendour.
Besides, by far the greater part had been so deaf to the other
instructions and admonitions of Christ, and so blind to the
evidence afforded by miracles so many and so great, (h) that
they were neither desirous of salvation, (i) nor possessed of a
teachable disposition, nor willing to beheve in such doctrines
as were mysterious {k) {i, c. till then unknown, and out of the
range of popular opinion,) on the sole authority of Jesus, as a
divinely commissioned teacher. On account (/) of this their
general ignorance of religious things, our Lord in teaching
(to) Mat. xiii. 43. (x) v. 43. (y) v. 3. ss.
(z) V. 38. (a) V. SO, 47. (b) v. 29.
(c) V. 31—33. (rf) Mar. iv. 27. s. (e) Mat. xiii. 44-46.
(/) Lu. xvii. 20. (g) Comp. Lu. six. 11.
{h) Mat.xiii. 13—15. (t) v. 15. (k) v. 11. (0 v. IS.
2S6 THE PARABLES OF CHRIST.
them made use of parables without explanations, (m) that see-
ing the image they might not perceive the object which it
was intended to represent, and that they might hear the words
indeed, but not comj)rehend their meaning, (n) if peradven-
ture ^ they might in this way be led to reform and obtain the
pardon of their^sins. (o) This proceeding might be adopted^*
for this reason ; that so the very ohsG^irity of the obnoxious
doctnnc taught zcould prevent the worst of the people from
deriding Jesus on account of his preaching a kingdom of the
Mei^siah so different from that which they expected, and from
thus increasing their crime, (a measure particularly necessary
at that time, on account of the detestable {p) reports lately
spread among the populace) (7) while at the same time others
might be roused by this enigmatic teaching out of the stupid
indifterence with which they had been accustomed to re-
gard the deeds and instructions of Jesus, and brought to re-
flection, w^hich might, in the better disposed at least, result in
a more careful attention to the precepts of our Lord, and a
more diligent examination of his conduct, for the time to
come, and so produce their gradual conversion. Even to the
disciples themselves, who, unlike the rest, (r) were so far led
by the authority of Christ, as to be able to hear the truth un-
(hsguised without oftence, (s) the enigmas propounded to the
people would be useful, not only on account of their throwing
greater light upon the subject to which they related, (<) as
soon as, by means of the explanation afterward given, (w)
their meaning was understood, but also because they excited
anjncreased degree of attention to the instructions which they
On) Mar. iv. 34. (m) Lu. viii. 10. (o) Mar. iv. 12.
ip) Mat. xii. 31. ss. (?) v. 24. (r) Mar. iv. 33.
(s) Mat. Xiii. 11. (/) \. IX. (w) Mar. iv. 34.
3 Comp. (MjfTCTJ 11. Tim. ii. 25. Lu. iii. 15. and Brit. Magaz. T. in.
p. 721.S.
3 J It was well said by Sallust, as we find it quoted by BLACBwALr
(Critica Sacra N. T. p. 274. ed. VVollh. [ Sacred Classics. Vol.
P- ] ) ''■'' *^^* fAvQuv t' AXiiQis iTTiKgvTrTUf rovs fiisv ayoifTovs
KxtA*§ovi»y UK %x, Tout cTi (TTrvS^cHov? <j>i\oa-o<pftv avctyK^tft
THE PARABLES OF CHRIST. I^St
involved, (v) Moreover, we find that the very parables whicti
vv^ere used for the purpose of rendering the instructions they
conveyed obscure to the ignorant and unprepared, were ser-
viceable to the disciples of Jesus in rendering them perspi-
cuous, so as both to afford them at that very time a degree of
certainty respecting doctrines before unknown {w) and to con-
tribute to their preparation for the full illumination which they
were to receive subsequently to the resurrection of their
Lord. And after they had received that illumination, these
parables enabled them besides imparting the Imowledge which
they then received, to communicate to their hearers the older in-
structions which had been given them before the death of Christ,
and to confirm the new and important doctrines which they
taught by the antecedent agreement of their master, {x) and,
by repeating the' parables of our Lord, to impart a knowledge
of those doctrines to many, more easily and vividly (y) than
they would otherwise have done. (2:)
§. XL
The Parables, the interpretation of which it is the object of
this essay to teach, are rational fables, or fictitious narration
bearing the semblance of truth, (a) by means of which our Lord
illustrated (6) some moral doctrine, (c) There are, therefore,
two things in them to be considered, the doctrine which they
convey, that is, the thing signified; and the narration, or
similitude^ by which it is signified. But the parable itself, {d)
(V) Lu. viii. 9. Mat. xiii. 36. (to) v. 11, 51. (.x) Mat.xiii.
(y) 5- IX. (2) Mat. xiii. 52. comp. Mar. iv. 21. s.
(O) ^. III. IV. (6) 5. IX. X. (c) ^^ V.
(d) Mar. iv. 10. Mat. xiii. 18, 36.
3 2 It is true there are some parables of our Lord, which considered
in themselves, ought rather to be designated as examples than ns similitudes
(§ . VI.). Butas the majority are to be classed as allegories(^. VII. VIII.),
and as even those just mentioned, in as far as they are compound (^. V.)
partake of the nature of a similitude ($. VI.), we may for the rest of the
ii38 THE PARABLES OF CHRIST.
that is, (e) the sense of the parable can only be perceived by
those *^ who understand the Jodrme conveyed, by means of
the narration used. For example, David did not understand
the meaning of Nathan, (/) so long as he on/^ understood
and passed judgment on the fact narrated by the prophet, (g)
For the object of the latter was not to obtain a decision
against the rich man whom he represented as acting with so
much injustice. The king's idea did not correspond with that
of the prophet, till the former perceived the object {h) for
which the history had been invented and narrated, (i) — It
would be no less a departure from the meaning of Christ, if
any one should read such parables as those in Lu. xvi. 1 — 8.
and xviii. 1 — 5, as histories. Their design was certainly
neither to hold out a pattern for imitation, nor to warn against
the sorts of conduct which they describe, but of a very dif-
ferent character, {k) On the other hand, any one who un-
derstands the passage in Matth. vi. 15. will certainly perceive
the doctrine taught in xviii. *23. ss., but he will not be able to
comprehend the parable in v. 23. ss., until he has learned to
apply the narration to that doctrine. This intimate connexion
of the similitude with the thing signified occasionally produces
the insertion of words in the similitude which properly belong
only to the object connected with it in the mind of a person
who understands the parable. So in Matt. xxii. 10,^ the ser-
ie) Lu. viii. 9, 11. (/) ii. Sara. xii. 5. s. (g) ii. Sam. xii. 1—4.
{h) V. 13. (i) V. 7. ss. (k) xvi. 8. s. xviii. 6 ss.
essay make use of the term simihiude [ or parable ], in reference to all.
By this the whole comparison (§. I.), that is, both the image and the ob-
jecU are usually intended, although occasionally it is applied to the
imaire alone. See Q,uiiitilian L. VIII. c. iii. 470. [ p. 398. ed. Ox. ]
Others use the name similitude to express the irgcnte-tt net^AQtcic, (first
member of the comparison) which, in a regularly drawn comparison, is
connected by the ef.vta.TrcJ'cvK or reciprotol reference, with the object of
which it is the image. Quiktil. ubi supra, p. 471. [ p. 399. ]
3 3 Comp. Calixti Concordia iv evangel, scriptorum, L. IV. c. vii.
p. 184 s.
3 4 The description in «. 13 of this chapter and in c. xxv. 30, is to
be understood of a prison, wry remote from the place of the feast, and from
THE ^ARABLES OF CHRIST. 239
vants are said to have brought in * both bad and good,' mean-
ing * guests both suitably and unsuitably clothed' (I) which in
the parable represent the good and bad. On the other hand,
an occasional feature of the image may be retained even in the
explanation, if the interpretation of the other parts i^ so clear
as to leave no difficulty in comprehending the metaphor.
Such is the case in Mat. xiii. 19, 22, 23. So also Horace (m)
inserts a tropical word (n) in the application (o) of his fable :
vehet, having reference to the it^oratfig (p) of the fable of the
horse and the stag which he had used.
§. XII.
It is evident, then, that three things are requisite to the dis-
covery of the grammatical sense of a parable. First, that
the fictitious narration, or similitude, be understood. Second,
that the thing signified be ascertained. Third, that the cor-
respondence of the similitude, or narration, with its object be
learned.
With the first of these requisites we are at present not
concerned, as nothing more than the ordinary rules of in-
terpretation, such as are apphcable to any true history, is
needed for its attainment. However, not to pass it over en-
tirely, we may subjoin the single remark, that in order to give
the feigned history all its concinnity, it is sometimes necessary
to imagine a circumstance not expressed. So in Mat. xxii.
we must supply in imagination the circumstance, that the
guests were not led directly into the banqueting room, but
allowed a sufficient opportunity to change their dress. This
is not expressly affirmed in the narration, but it may be infer-
(0 V. 11. (m) Epist. Lib. i. Ep. x. (n) v. 40.
(0) See above, Note 22. ' (p) v. 36, 38.
all human society J and very dark. This is an image of the punishments
which will be inflicted upon the wicked in the world to come. See
yiii. 12.
>i40 THE TARABLES OF CHRIST.
red from the expression scpt/xw^rj in v. 12, and must be assum-
ed, because the command in i?. 13 would otherwise be liable
to the imputation of great injustice. Yet it is not necessary
to determine whence the wedding garment was to be pro-
cured; whether, for example, we are to suppose that the
manw^ho appeared without one had a suitable garment at home,
but had neglected the opportunity given him to go thither
and procure it ; or whether it is to be assumed that the king,
who had invited his guests in such an unusal \vay,{q) had also,
contrary to the general practice,^^ taken care to offer theni
garments suitable to the occasion. Neither of these hypo-
theses is susceptible of proof, for Christ himself has said no-
thing determinate upon the subject, his design being merely to
show generally that the soul must be clothed anew with
righteousness (r) before an admission to eternal happiness can
be obtained, without any intention to teach the method of pro-
curing the necessary vesture.
§. XIII.
The thing signified, or doctrine with reference to which a
fable is propounded, (the ascertaining of which is the second
requisite to the discover^^ of the grammatical sense of a para-
ble) is usually indicated in the moral, called by Apthonius
'XPoiLv&iov, but more commonly s'^'/acu^jcv. Our Lord himself*
Oj) i\ 0. ' (r) V. 10.
a 5 It cannot be shown by any good arguments that it was customary
to present the guests with garments suited to the festal occasion. See
IvREBs Observ. e Flav. Josepho, in Matt. xxii. 12. We leave it to
others to decide whether the custom of presenting a Caftan to those
who are admitted to an audience of the Turkish Sultan bas any bearing
on this subject. Comp. Luedeke Expositio Loconim Script, ad. orien-
tem se referentium <S. 49, and Michaelis Orient. Biblioth. P. viii. p.
HO.
"' The Evangelist has prefixed an indication of thq subject of the para
Me. in Ln xviii. 1.9. xix. 11.
4^
THE PARABLES OT CHRIST. 241
not unfrequently subjoined to his parables some indication of
their object or even a somewhat copious exposition ; e, g,
Lu. xii. 21. xviii. 14. Matt, xviii. 35. xiii. 49. s. xxi. 42. ss.
Lu. vii. 44. ss. xvi. 8. s. xviii. 6. ss. Occasionally, such no-
tices both precede and follow, as in Mat. xix. 30. xx. 16. But
the parables of Christ differ from other fables in being gene-
rally given, not, like them, in a separate state, but in some de-
finite connexion with a context. This pecularity affords a
means of eliciting their meaning, so that a moral, or g«'»(;.udiov,
is not always needed.
The context of a parable remarkably conduces to a know-
ledge of its meaning, by pointing out the occasion in which it
was uttered. This will be found to be either the actions and
opinions of the hearers of Christ, as in Lu. xv. 11. ss. comp.
1?. 1, 2 ; xix. 12. ss. comp. t. 11 ; or some of our Lord^s dis-
courses, with which it is in connexion, as in Mat. xxv. 1 — 30,
which passage contains two parables, one teaching the necessi-
ty of prudence, the other recommending fidelity, both of which
virtues had been previously mentioned. (5) So in the parable of
the wedding feast, {t) it is the more certain that the invited
guests, of whom but few were admitted to the feast, (m) re-
present the Jews and Gentiles, because it appears from the
context {v) that there was then occasion for Christ to discuss
that subject.
Lastly, as in interpretation generally, great assistance may
be derived from the use of parallel passages, so occasionally
the sense of a parable may be ascertained or confirmed by
means of some other, similar to it. For instance, if there
were no other reasons, a comparison of Mat. xxii. ss., alone,
would render it credible that the similar parable in Lu. xiv.
16. ss. relates, like the former passage, to the contempt of the
(«) xxiv. 45. (0 Matt, xxik 7, 9. (u) v. 8. 13. ».
(f) xxi. 43.
3 « This may directly impugn the opinions of the hearers, and on that
account; be properly continued in the parabolic form, as in Lu. xiii'
2—2.
31
242 TH£ PARABLEii OF CHRIST.
preached gospel by the Jews, and its propagation among th©
heathen. We may reasonably infer that our Lord himself
intended this resemblance between his parables to be observ-
ed and used for their interpretation, from the fact that when
he uttered a parable (w) which contained an image similar to
that previously used by him in another parable, (x) he consi-
dered it easier to be understood than others, {y)
§. XIV.
Besides these external aids, (2) there are others principally
contained in the parable itself, that assist the discovery of its
meaning.
The meaning of that class of fables which consists of
examples of the thing signified, is to be discovered by abstrac-
tion, which substitutes generals for particulars, and classes for
individuals?'^ This rule may be tried by the fables of iEsop
and others of that kind ; but we w^ill proceed to its application
to the parables of Christ. In the parable in Lu. xviii. 10. ss.,
for instance, in order to ascertain its meaning, we must substi-
tute for the Pharisee, who exalts himself above other men,
and particularly above the publican, and boasts in his prayers
which he offers in the temple of his fasts and giving of tithes,
all arrogant men and contemners of others, whatsoever, who
are inflated with an exalted opinion of their own merits, of
whatever description they may be, and who betiny this despo-
tism in any way. By the publican who stands afar off from
the Pharisee, with downcast eyes, and beating his breast, prays
(to) Mar. iv, 3. ss. (at) Jo. iv. 35. ss. (^) Mar. iv. 13.
iz) $. xni.
3 7 That is to say, as far as the subject admits of it. There are parti-
cular ideas (for instance, those of death, and sepulture. Lu. xii. 20. xvi.
22.) which do not admit of generalization, such as that by which a
copious harvest (Lu. xii. 16. ss.) is understood to mean riches of every
kind, and begging (Lu. xvi. 20), miseri/ in general (v. 26,)
THE PARABLRS OP CHRIST. ^43
God to be merciful to him a sinner, we must understand all
such aSf although despised hy others, are impressed loith a deep
sense of their own sinfulness, are desirous of the divine mercy,
and indicate this disposition in any way. The result is, that
we must conclude that the latter description of persons will
receive the approbation of God, while the former will be re-
jected and humbled by him. So, again, from the example of
the Samaritan, Lu. x. 33. ss., who being strongly moved by
pity, and of a liberal disposition, bound up the wounds of a
Jew who had been cruelly maltreated, had been left without
aid by his countrymen, the priest and Levite, and must
perish for want of speedy help, — conveyed him to an inn,
and even provided for his future sustenance, — ^^this too, in k
road infested by the incursions of robbers,^ (6) and when he
could hardly spare the two denarii paid for the support of the
wounded man:(c) from this example we learn that it
is our duty to afford assistance to any man who may absolute-
ly need it, even though he be of different nation, customs, re-
ligion, or dispositions from ourselves, (J) and even if such as-
sistance be attended with difficulty, expense, and peril ; much
more to do any kind offices, attended with less difficulty and
danger, that may be needful, even to an enemy, (e) ^
But there are many other fictitious narrations, (/) which
cannot be considered as examples of the thing signified, but
are included as species under the more general doctrine, which
includes in like manner the precept intended to be conveyed.
(6) V. 30. (c) V. 35. (rf) Cortip. Jo. iv. 9. Eccltts. i.37. s.
(«)Lu.x. 37. (/) {. VI. vn.
3s Comp. MicBAELis Gedanken von Stinde und Geneigthung, p.
462,448.
3» There is reason for laying stress upon this circumstance, as the
lawyer (v. 29,) betrayed a disposition to consider strangers and enemies
as having no claim upon him, (comp. Mat. v. 43,) and our Lord intro- w^
dnced a Samaritan as more benevolent to a Jew than the Jews them- -i,
selves, for the very purpose of shaming the Jews who were unwilling to
afford any assistance to Samaritans, and showed little kindness to
stranger* in general, [ See Porteus' Lectures. Lect. zi. Vol. i. p. 280.
^s. ed. Lond. 180&. Tr. li
244 THE PARABLES OF CHRIST.
Here abstraction alone will not suffice to ascertain the mean-
ing of the parable, as it will discover only the more general
doctrine, to which both the example given and the thing signi-
fied are subordinate, but cannot define the latter. In this
case, the general doctrine being first discovered by abstrac-
tion, other aids (g) must then be used to ascertain the specific
dijfference between the example in the parable, and the thing
intended to be signified. So, in the parable in Mat. xiii. 31. s.,
we first learn by the process of abstraction that it conveys the
general rule, that often a thing from small beginnings attains
to an exalted eminence. But that this general truth is ap-
plied by Christ peculiarly to the heavenly kingdom, is to be
learned from the words prefixed to the parable : ofAoia sgiv ^
§acriXsia Twv x^avwv.^" Again, in Mat. xxi. 28. ss. we discover,
by abstraction, that the parable conveys the general declara-
tion, that it is not he who makes a boast of his obedience, but
he who renders it, although at first he may have refused, that
does the will of him who imposes a command, {h) But it is
from the moral or application of the parable in v. 31. s. that
we learn its particular reference to the Pharisees w^ho boasted
of their obedience to the divine commands, and the Publicans,
who really rendered such obedience.
From all this it appears, that even in this class of parables
there remain some particulars which must be converted into
generals. For example, the particulars in the parable of the
grain of mustard seed, (i) that it is less than all seeds, and that
in its growth it surpasses all herbs, and becomes a tree of such
a size as to afford shelter in its branches to the birds, that is,{k)
becomes a large (I) tree ; convey this general meaning ; that
great progress may be made from a small beginning. There is
no danger of running into error by this process of generaliza-
{g) {. XIII. (h) Comp. V. 31. (t) Matt. xiii. 32.
(.k) Comp. Dan. iv. 9. 18. with v. 7. 8. 17. (/) Lu. xiii. 19.
f » These form a sort of introductory moral (a-go/Mt/flior) which, how-
ever, only indicates the Buhjed of the fable, the predicate appearing with
suffipient clearness from the general doctrine, which may be found by
abstraction." '
THE PARABLES OF CHRIST. 24$
tion, for we are sure to find all that the general truths thus
arrived at may contain, in the less general, which are subor-
dinate to them, and form the subject of the parable. But
when we proceed to determine the particular application of
these general truths to the doctrine taught in the parable,
there are two things to be avoided. First, we must not sup-
pose that there is any necessary correspondence between the
particular idea conveyed by the narration, and the thing which
the parable is intended to signify. Secondly, we must not take
it for granted that all the particulars distinguishable in the
narration, answer to as many particulars in the thing signi-
fied*
We do not deny that it is possible that things belonging to
the same class, may possess the same attributes in common,
and thus agree in many particulars, as well as in their generic
character. It would even be wise, if the natures of the thing
narrated and of that signified would admit such an agreement,
to express such predicates in the narration, as would equally
suit the thing signified. This may be exemplified by the
parable of the wedding feast, (m) where the general truth con-
veyed, when obtained from the narrative by abstraction, is,
that the rejection of repeatedly proffered benefits zoill afford
ground for heavy punishment, and procure the transfer of those
benefits to others, if they will receive them as they ought. To
this is subordinate the doctrine which it was the intention of
our Lord to teach, that the contempt of the blessings of the
heavenly kingdom by the Jews would draw down upon them
heavy punishment, and that on the other hand, such of the
(m) Matt. xxii. 2. ss.
* [ *^* Ante omnia scopus cujusque parabolae est considerandus, et
non modo, quod huic adversatur, sed etiam, quod ad eum nihil confert,
pro sensu loci alieno habiendum, quem auctor parabolae nee intenderit,
nee intendere potuerit. Unde consequens est, magis ad ostentationem
ingenii et foecundae imagination is facere, ilias doctrinas et usus, quae
ex omnibus et singulis parabolae circumstantiis petuntur, et mysteria,
quae in iis queruntur, quam ad parabolae interpretationem, verumque
et ^ loquente intentum carum sensura indagandum et declarandum."
Wkrbnfbm. Opusc. u. 362. Tr. ]
ii46 'I%E PARABLES OP CHRIST.
Gentiles as should prove worthy, should be admitted to the
enjoyment of those blessings. In this instance, the punish-
ment to be inflicted on the Jews was of such a kind, that it
would be explicitly/ described in the narration, as in v. 7. —
But very often the case is otherzoise. So in this same parable,
the general idea of being not unworthy of a benefit, (n) is in the
narrative converted into the special circumstance of being
clothed in a wedding garment ; whereas the import of the
parable requires a different special notion, that of being goody{o)
possessing a habit of mind adapted to the heavenly kingdom.
To use another example : the general idea of obedience to the
will of another, is expressed in the narration of the parable
of the two sons, (p) by the particular action of going into the
vineyard J which does not at all suit the thing signified, in which
it must be changed to the repentance (fAsravoia), (^) productive
of obedience to the will of God, which had been preached by
John, (r) It would be improper, therefore, to conclude from
Lu. xix. 27^ that on the return of our Lord, {s) and his glorious
manifestatibn, {t) (after having suffered his kingdom to exist
some time in comparative obscurity, for the purpose of afford-
ing an opportunity to its enemies to display their fury, (m) and
to his servants to show their faithfulness,) {v) his enemies
should be slain, although that punishment is named in the nar-
ration. For it does not follow that the punishment to be
inflicted on the enemies signified in v. 14 and 27, now for the
most part dead, must be the same as that said to be inflicted
on the enemies of the nobleman (eu/svrig) whose history is re-
counted in the narrative.*^ In like manner, v. 17, 19, afford
(71) Co.i>p. V. 8. (0) V. 10. (p) Matt. xxi. 29.
(g) V. 33. (r) iii. 2. (s) v. 15.
(0 V. 11. (w) V. 14. (v) V. 13. 15. ss.
* 1 For the same reason a distinction must be made between the
form of the sentence of the king in Matt, xviii. 34. and the form of
the divine judgment, and no stress is to be laid on the expression
CArxnreu, or on the other ••{ tk*. From the special sentence of the
king against this merciless servant, that he should be delivered to the
tormentors ' until the payment of his debt,'' vre are merely to collect
fhejg'fnerdf idea, that the king refused, to forgive the debt due him by his
THE PARABLES OP CHRIST. 347
no proof that the faithful servants of Christ shall be appointed,
some to the government of ten cities^ some to that of five.
For this particular method of reward, accommodated to the
worldly nature of the fictitious history, may only signify in
general, that a reward proportioned to the degree of fidelity
will be given, and more particularly, that each should receive
employment and enjoy felicity in the kingdom of heaven in
proportion to his faithfulness, (w)
With relation to the second rule above given, (x) it cannot
be denied that it may happen that the particulars given in the
protasis, or similitude, may correspond to as many in the
thing signified. It is, for instance, altogether probable that
the parable of the wedding feast (y) not only expresses the
general idea of repeated invitations to the Jews to partake of
the blessings of the kingdom of heaven, but also inore particu-
larly distinguishes two *^ distinct times of offering, one, {z) that
in which the Jews were called by the prophets, the other, {a)
that in which, on the nearer approach of the heavenly king-
dom, (6) the call was repeated by John, and by Christ and his
(w) Mat. \xt. 21. 23. (x) p. 245. (3^) Mall. xxti. S. ss.
(z) V.3. (a) V. 4. (6) iii. 2. iv. 17.
unforgiring servant, and that in like manner God will not jorgive the
sins of those who show no mercy to their fellow men (comp. vi. 15.).
The same remark applies to a parable of another class (note 21), in
Mat. V. 25. s. where the particulars in the narration, of the officer des-
patched to seize the debtor, and of the duration of the imprisonment un-
iil the entire payment, relate only to the human judgment, which is an
image of the divine.
*a The word «cs/c^»^«»«c, v. 3, does not necessarily prove b. prior in-
vitation, as, according to Hebrew usage (see Obss. ad Anal, et Synt.
Heb. p. 135," and add i Pet. i. 13. 11. Pet. iii. 11. comp. v. 10,) it may
indicate the persons to be invited, that is, the guests generally. Comp.
Krebsii Obss. Flavianas ad Mat. xxii. 3.
* C The author has there shown by a multitude of examples (pp. 133.
ss.) that the Hebrew participles Benoni and Paoul are used indifferently
to express the past, the present, and the future. Among other instances,
he gives mna^» vastanda, Ps. cxxxvii. 8. and -jSlj, qui nascetur, Fs
xxii. 32. comp. Ixxviii. 6. Tr. 1
^
THE PARABLEJi OF CHRIST.
apostles. So, too, the invitation by the prophets seems to be
distinguished from that given by Chriat in Lu. xiv. 16. s. And
as this last parable was spoken before the Pharisees, (r) ^ to
whom our Lord on another occasion, making use of a simi-
lar {(l) parable, [e) had preferred both the publicans and har-
lots (/) dwelling among them,^* and the heathen ; {g) it is
very probable that Lu. xiv. 21, 23, is intended to distinguish
the iiivitation given to the publicans and heathen, — But it is to
be maintained that it may also happen otherwise in this respect ;
lest we be led to seek for some particular signification for every
particular in the protasis or similitude even when it does not ^
spontaneously present itself,* and so fall into forced, or rash
and absurd interpretations.
In the Jirst place, then, it is to be assumed, that the general
enunciation may, agreeably to Hebrew usage, be distributed into
fewer or more particidar or integral parts.*^ t So in Lu. xx,
(c) Lu. xiv. 1. ((2) {. XIII. (e) Mat. xxii.
/; Mat. xxi. 31. 8. (g- Mat. xxi. 43.
4 3 It was addressed to one of them in particular (v. 16), in whom the
recollection of the resurrection to happiness, which was an article of be-
lief among the Pharisees, had excite^ a desire of the blessings of the
kingdom of heaven (v. 14. ss.), but the love of worldly things (comp.
xvi. 14. lo. xii. 42. s.) seems to have hindered him from embracing the
doctrine of Christ. This circumstance shows the wisdom of our Lord,
in making no mention in this place (comp. Mat. xxii. 6.) of open hatred
against himself, from which this comparatively well disposed Pharisee
seems to have been free, but confining his reproof to the immoderate love
of wordly goods, Lu. xiv. 18 — 20.
4 4 Comp. Tus noKtmc, Lu. xiv. 21.
* C 'O" Xi** TTXvra Tcl it ?r<ig*CeXat7c k«t« M^ifn'%^it^yd^ta^^oLt ct'xxci
tor C'KiTTot fict^ivrAS t* h auvtri^n ruroi 3"{fjriff3"*/, 5 fj.nS'if jroKV-
jT^etyfAoiin irt^etni^u. Chrysost. Horn. Ixiv. in Matth. ]
*s See Num. vii. 12. ss, ix. 17. ss. Rev. vii. 4. ss. Mar. xii. 20. ss.
Lu. XX. 29. ss.
t [ So in the fable of Jotham, the disinclination of persons who by
their endowments are best qualified for the office of governing (Ju. ix.
9. 11. 13,) to undertake that office, is represented under the general
similitude of a tree valuable for its usefulness {v. 9. 11. 13,) refusing the
government of the other trees. But to give a more vivid idea of the
superiority of their claims^ and to increase the evidence of a general
disposition to decline the office by the introduction of a reptaled refusal,
THE PARABLES OP CHRIST. ^£4^
10 — 12, we are not to seek for three prophets, who may have
exercised their commissions in the order given, and suffered
the insults ascribed to the several servants. For Matthew,
c. xxi. 34 — 36, and Mark, c. xii. 2 — 5, expressly add, that
there were many others sent, and even as to the three who
are mentioned, those evangelists do ^o not entirely agree
with each other or with St. Luke, in their accounts of the
treatment received by them, and the order in which they
were sent. The ojjject of our Lord was merely to inform uy,
that many servants having been repeatedly sent, were received
with various insults and harsh treatment. This general de-
claration admitting of division into many of a more special
nature, some of these, of any of the different kinds, might be
selected for the sake of illustration, {h) Nor is it any more
necessary to be at pains to^a; the definite periods of time ^ at
which men are represented as divinely called, in the parable
of the labourers, (i) and even the words of the narration will
bear this general signification, that some were sent earlier^
some later, into the vineyard by its master.
Secondly, as one great use of parables is to assist in afford-
ing a vivid knowledge of what they teach, {k) it is the more
(A) Comp. Lu. xiv. 18 —20. xvi. 5—7. (?) Malt. xx. 2—6. {k) \. rx.
three several offers to particular trees are specified. That the particular
application of the offers of the trees to the olive, the fig, and the vine, to
distinct and unsuccessful offers of the crown to Othniel, Deborah, and
Gideon, which has been made by some (Saurin, Disc. Hist, iii, 405,)
could not have been in the mind of Jotham, is proved by his confining
his application (r. 16. ss.) to the choice of Abimelech, and the injury
done thereby to the house of Gideon ; not to mention the far-fetched re-
semblance between the several particulars in the narrative and those
supposed to belong to its application. Tr. ]
4 6 The variety, and uncertain and precarious nature, of the interpre.
tations which have arisen out of an attempt to do this, will be very evi-
dent to any one who compares Theophylact (Comm. in Matt, xx.)
with Jerome (in loc.) or consults Petersen's work entitled: das
Geheimniss von den Arbeitern in Weinberge ;* c. vi.
* [ The Mystery of the , Labourers in the Vineyard. ]
3^
250 THE PARABLES OP CHRIST.
proper in such narrations to substitute for generals, or (conjoin
with them, particulars which may contribute to bring the mat-
ter as it were before the eyes. For although in this way the
several particulars will not have each its peculiar signification ;
yet the thing expressed by them conjointly, or by such parti-
culars in connexion with generals, will be more clearly and
strongly represented to the mind than it would be in any
other way. Thus the expression * my oxen and my fatlings
are killed,* in Matt. xxii. 4, means nothing more {I) than the
phrase which immediately follows, 'all things are ready;'
but it conveys that meaning with more force. The words in
the parable of the prodigal, (m) * I have sinned against God '
have no signification other than that conveyed by the expres-
sion * I have sinned against thee,' as the father himself is
there an image of God. But as they are well adapted to the
human father and son to whom the narrative relates, they
serve to express a deep sense of sin much better than the
mere acknowledgment * I have sinned against thee,' which in
that case would not sufficiently convey the idea of a lively
sense of sin in the returning prodigal. — The particulars men-
tioned in Matt. xxi. 33, express nothing more (w) than that the
vineyard, when planted, was furnished with every necessary,
so that there was nothing wanting. But although neither the
hedge, nor the tower, nor the press, have ^uy particular sig-
nification, yet the introduction of these circumstances adds
much force to the representation, that God had omitted no-
thing to effect the salvation of the Jews, and yet neither the
prophets nor Christ himself had found any fruits (o) worthy
of such extraordinary care, in that people, whose chiefs were
so far from aiding in the counsels of the divine Providence,
that they rather sought only to increase their own enjoyments,
by obtaining offices for themselves, {p) — In Lu. xv. 20. 22 —
24, too, who would wish to deprive the admirable narrative
of the particulars which so strikingly represent the parental
tenderness and joy, notwithstanding that the ring, the calf,
&;c., cannot be said to have any signification in themselves,
(I) Comp. Lu. siv- 17. (m) Lu. xv. 18. 21. (n) Comp. Isa. v. 2. with v. 4
(o) V, 43. (p) Comp. Jo. li. 48,
THE PARABLES OF CHRIST. "'251
but merely, taken altogether, have the same^' meaning that a
general mention of great tenderness and extraordinary plea-
sure received from the safety of the son, would have convey-
ed, although with less significancy ; viz. the great mercy of
God towards sinners, his pleasure in their conversion, and
the great benefits by which he is accustomed to declare that
pleasure.
§. XV.
But, as there are many particulars in the narration,(q) which
do not apply to the thing signified ; so, the narration may also
have other parts which must not be insisted on by those who
institute a comparison (/•) between the object and the nar-
rative, or similitudes^ We will readily grant to Peter-
(5)$. XIV. (r)§. XII.
* 7 So our Lord himself, in Matt, xviii. 33, expresses by the single
gtneral term ;^^atig«r, whathe had elsewhere, by the introduction oi par-
ticulars brought as it were before the eyes,Lu. xv. 5, 6. Even in the lat-
ter passage, in the KTro^oats (v. 7,) he substitutes the general word ;t*§*"'
for all the particular signs of great joy which he had previously recapi-
tulated.
* 8 This same rule is given, with relation to parables or (comp. note
15,) fables, generally, by Eustathius (ix. B'. A', p. 177. 856.) among
the ancients, and among the moderns by Sulzer, Allg. Theorie der
schoenen Kuenste, P. 1. p. 107. With respect to the parables of Christ
in particular, it is confirmed by Tertulliabt, as quoted by Semler,
Antt. Hermeneut. ex Tertall. Spec. 1. p. 27., by Chrysostom, Comm
in Matt. xx. 1. ss., and by other fathers, cited by Suicer, Thesaur
Eccles. Tom. 11. p. 570. So also Lother, Postil. in Evang. Dom
Septuagv 0pp. T, xiii. p. 387 ; Bccer, Enarrat. in Matth. xx. xxii. xxv
Lu. xvi. (fol. 154. 161. 178. 215); Flacius, p. 40; Glassius, p. 489
Cahxtds, p. 186. 5. ; Wollius, Herm. Nov. Foed. p. 131. ss. ; Turre
Tuc, p. 262. ss., 148. ; Ernesti, Inst. Interp. P. i. S. u. c. iv. extr. ; and
many others. Even Cocceius himself does not deny that the literal
sense of the parables may be found without a nice accommodation of
each, and every circumstance in the narrative to the object of the para-
ble ; although he thinks that those circumstances may receive a mystic
and prophetic sense. Such is his declaration (Schol. in Luc xv. 0pp.
Tom. IV. 54.) * that the misery of the prodigal son, and the indignation of
Jhis elder brother, which are so minutely described, are intended, perhaps.
^52 THE PARABLES OF CHRIST.
SEN^^that nothing ,^is , introduced into the narroiion without
seme reason ; but that the cause why this or that circumstance
is related, must necessarily exist in its agreement with the sub-
ject, we deny. Yet we would not have any thing considered
as merely ornamental, for though it is allowable in poetry to
to make use of circumstantial narrative merely for the pur-
pose of giving pleasure, yet in fables, the object of which is to
assist the acquisition of intuitive knowledge of the truth, the
only ornament ought to consist in brevity and simplicity ^^ as
the careful exclusion of every thing foreign to the subject,
however agreeable in other respects, tends greatly to secure
the accomplishment of their object, and a ready recollection (s)
of the fables themselves. There can, therefore, be no adequate
reason assigned for the use of any thing that is not serviceable
in the parabolic illustration of doctrine. But then the para-
bolic illustration of doctrine requires, not only that the doc-
trine be illustrated, but also that it be illustrated by a parable.
It was not our Lord's intention in his parables to afford an
illustration of his teaching of any kind whatever, but to illus-
trate it by parables."^ Any thing, therefore, required by the
(5) 5. IX.
for a description of the misery of those who wallow in sin, and/or an illus-
(ration of the affection of the father (comp. below, §. xvni. extr.) ; yet
perhaps they also contain a mystical signification, which may be ascer-
tained from oiher propliecies.'' Bnt that Christ had in view, beside the
proper signification of the parable, other future events, is entirely with-
out proof in Scripture, unless we admit as proof the existence of parts of
the narration to which there are no correspondent particulars in the thing
signified. The inadmissibility of this will appear when we shall have
shown, as we propose to do, that there were sufficient reasons why our
Lord should interweave such parts in the narration, even though he did
not intend to represent by thena any thing similar either in the subject pro-
perly signified, or, in something else to be mystically understood. Nor
is any great credit done to this hypothesis by the precarious interpreta-
tions of CoccEius (Disp. Sel. xxxv. §. i.p. 89. Opp. T. VI.) and his dis-
ciples, specimens of which are given by Pfaff, in the Dissertation
already cited, p. 16. ss., where that author also enumerates the prin-
cipal defenders of this opinion, p. 21.
*o Ubi supra, p. 123, and in his work: die Gleichnisse des Hem,
«tc. p. 285. 338. 362. s. 393. 507, 746.
5 » See Lessing's Fourth Dissertation ; ubi supra.
* £ " IJcet non existimemus, qnamlibet parabolae circumstantiam
THE PARABLES OP CHRIST. 253
nature of a parable, was necessary, although devoid of any-
particular correspondence with the subject of the parable.*
Now a parable is a narrative bearing the resemblance of
truth, (t)
§. XVI.
In the/r5( place, then, things which, so far as relates to the
signification of the parable only, might have been omitted,
are sometimes necessary to give the narrative designed to
convey instruction the appearance of a real history, and
to render it agreeable to the ordinary course of things. For
example, the mention of the man who sowed the grain of
mustard seed (w) was altogether unnecessary, taking into con-
sideration only the nature of the thing signified. (i>) But,
without it, the comparison would have been a parable in the
strictest sense, (w) In order to change this into the kind (x)
of which alone our Lord made use, {y) it was necessary to
introduce a particular man as having sowed the seed, in place
of the general statement of its being sown. The same prin»
ciple applies to the introduction of the woman in Matt. xiii.
33, which is merely for the purpose of reducing an event
which daily occurred to women making bread, to a singh
definite example. So again in Lu. xvi. 28, it was much
better to represent the rich man as speaking of a certain num-
ber of brothers, than to make him speak of them in a general.
(t) §. XI. (U) Matl. xiii. 31. (v) Comp. Mar. iv. 31.
(w) §. I. (x) b. IV. (y) §. u.
peculiarem habere significationem, illas propterea non vanas et inatilcs
esse credimus; faciunt enim ad parabolarum non modo elegantiam,
sed ad earutn etiam naiuram, quae haec est ; ut narrentur cum quibus-
dam circumstantiis, alioquin enim narrationum historicarum speciem
non haberent." Werknfels. Opusc. ii. 352. Tr. ]
* [ " Non seulement il n'est pas n6cessaire que chacun de leurs
membres ait une veu particuli^re, qui se rapporte directeraent au but de
celui qui la propose ; il faut m^me que ce but soit en quelque sort cache
sous des images dtrangeres, destinies a I'enveloper." Saurin Disc. His»
tor. Tom. in. p. 405. ». Tr. ] ' ^
^04 TH£ PARABLES OF CHRIST.
}:t^ .. " ■■•J' " '• ■ -^'.v .■> ■- ■.. • r
way, as if he had been ignorant of their number. In this
case, it is unnecessary to inquire the reason for choosing the
number /re. As it suited the historical form of the parable
best to speak of a definite number, all that was needful was,
to fix some certain number not in itself incredible, and
in doing this, it mattered not which might be selected, there
being no more reason for the choice of Jive than for that of
any other number, say, for instance, /owr. The ^ame remark
may be made of the use of the number ten in Lu. xix. 13.
and Matt. xxv. 1., where it only occurs because, as in every
single event, the number concerned in it, e. g, of human
agents, is necessarily definite, the case must be the same in
z. fictitious history. Our Lord, therefore, intending to fix the
number of the talents, and of the virgins, was unable in that
respect to have any reference to the thing signified in the
parable, and so took the first that occurred, e, g, that, which
it was usual to employ in expressing generally an indefinite
number, (z) of, perhaps, was commonly preferred in different
kinds of business.^* As the virgins in Matt, xxv. 1. were to
be distinguished into two sorts, the whole number, ten, was
divided into two smaller numbers. These were made equal,
because that method of division is the most simple possible,
not with any intention to signify that the number of watchful
Christians and that of persons of the opposite description will
be equal ; unless we choose to believe that c. xxi. 28. ss. proves
the equality of numbers of both classes, or to infer from c,
xxv. 15, that the number of faithful Christians will be greater
than that of the wicked, because two faithful servants are men-
tioned, while but one is slothful.^^ — In the parable of the lea-
(2) Dan. i. 20. Neh. iv. 6.
5 » Comp. LiGHTFOOT, Hor. Heb. in Matth. xxv. 1.; and RHEirreRDii
Opera Philologica, p. 729. s.
5 2 There was, it is true, a weighty reason for the mention of two
faithful servants ; but this related, not to the number of faithful and
careless Christians, but to the proportion of the goods entrusted to the
faithful servants respectively, with the increase made by them. For if
no mention had been made of a second servant (v. 17,; it could not have
been learned from the parable that most will be expected from him to
whom mo'st has been entrusted (v. 16, comp. v, 17,) and must be ren-
THE PARABLES OP CHRIST. 255
ven {a) the narrative is rendered much more neat and pro-
bable by the mention of the particular number of three mea-
sures of the meal, as some definite number must certainly have
been employed in a real event of that kind, (b) This alone
was a sufficient reason why Christ, when intending to frame
a fictitious narrative on the subject, should mention a particu-
lar number of measures of meal, (perhaps the number most
commonly used,) although there is no discoverable relation
between the object of the parable and the number three.^ —
For similar reasons we dare not attach any particular import-
ance to the mention of three years in Lu. xiii. 7, especially as
the Jews were allowed not merely the third year (c) of the
ministry of Jesus, but also several others in addition, for the
purpose of hearing the preached gospel, and bringing forth
corresponding fruits. It seems rather to convey this general
truth, that God, who for a long while {d) had discovered In
them no fruits worthy of the excellent instructions they had
received, would yet grant to the Jewish nation a period, short
indeed, but well suppHed with the means and opportunities of
improvements, (e) after the expiration of which without any
great conversion of the people, certain destruction would be-
fal their country.
(a) Matt. xiii. 33. Lu. xiii. 21. (b) So Gen. xviii. 6.
(c) Comp. V. 8. id) Comp. Matt. xxi. 34. ss.
(«) Lu. xiii. 8. comp. xix. 44. xxiv. 47. Ac. iii. 19. ss.
dered, if he wishes to obtain the credit of being faithful (v. 21,) and to
retain his place (v. 28. s.). So in Lu. xix. the express introduction of
the other servant {v. 18. s) was necessary, as without it we could not
have known that the extent of reward could be proportioned to the de-
gree offatthfidness, which now appears from a comparison of the services
of each servant (v. 16. 18,) with his respective reward {v. 17. 19. 24. ss.),
— So in other places, as in Lu. vii. 41, comp. v. 43. and in Matt, xviii.
24. 28. comp. v 32. the mulual relations of the numbers introduced are
of great importance.
5 3 Interpreters, indeed, have invented several. But as these diflFer
from each other, and each has as much right to credence as the rest,
their variety itself gives rise to suspicion. Examples may be found in
the work of Petersen; Gleichnisse des Hern. p. 260. ^although the
number might easily be enlarged.
2;56 THE PARABLES OV CHRIST-
§. XVII.
In the second place, the narration ought to be apt and con^
sistmt in all its parts. If it were otherwise, it would not
please, and therefore would excite no desire \o learn ; (/)
and as it would be in many respects defective, it would da
little for the general recommendation of the doctrine, the intui-
tive knowledge and easy recollection of which it was designed
to aid : (g) least of all would it wear the gmh of probability, {h)
The subjects of the narration, therefore, must be such, that
the predicates necessary to express the nature of the subject
of the parable, may suit them. Hence it may happen that
a thing may be taken for the subject of the protasis, or
fictitious historj^ although it bear no close resemblance to
the subject of the apodosis, or truth conveyed,^ on account
of the agreement of its predicates wtth those of the apo--
dosis. Of this the parable of the wise and fooHsh virgins
may serve as an example. Our Saviour, designing to re-
prove the folly of temporary Christians, {%) who would be
ready to accompany him (A:) to the regions of eternal happi-
ness, if his advent were to be immediate, but neglected to
lay a solid foundation of faith and piety, capable of enduring
a longer period,^' represented in a parable a number of per- -
(0 Coinp. Lu. viii. 13. (A) Matt. xxv. 13.
5 4 Where the predicates do not absolutely require any particular
subject as the most suitable, that would doubtless be preferred which
may be most significant. So what is related in Lu. x. 33. ss. might be
attributed to others as well as to the Samaritan, but the latter.is design-
edly introduced. See note 39.
SB The principal cause assigned (v. 13,) for watchfulness lest our
Lord at his return may find us unprepared, (v. 10,) is the ignorance of
the time when that return will take place, and the possibility that it may
be farther oiFthan we anticipate (v. 5). We are therefore to take care,
that in case we be found alive, we may be ready, not having lost our
faith and Christian virtue ; and that if he is to find us dead, the uncertain
time of death, which, as it finds us, will leave us for the judge (n. Cor.
V. 10. n. Tim. iv. 7. s.) may not have surprized us while unprepared,
and slackened in our zeal by the lapse of time
THE PARABLES OF CHRIST. $SS
sons pin3paring to go out by uiglit and meet a bridegroom,
but not reflecting on the possibility that his conning might be
delayed, and neglecting to provide themselves \*^ith a sufficient
supply of oil, to feed their lamps, which in consequence, go
out, and they, while gone to purchase oil, are excluded fronj
the wedding. In this case, it is evident, a bride, who was
usually brought from her father's house by the bridegroom
himself, and would neither come late, nor be excluded from
the wedding, would not be a suitable object to represent the
procrastinating Christians in question, as the predicates ne-
cessary to express their character, would not apply to her :
while, on the other hand, they would perfectly suit the virgins
who were wont to go forth to meet the bridegroom, whom
it was proper, for that reason, to make the subject of the nar-
rative. A suflicient reason for the choice of the subject, then,
being discoverable in its predicates, which certainly have
their proper significations, no other w^as needed, nor can the
use of this image afford any ground for the inquiry, in what
the difference between the Christians whom it designates,
and those who are elsewhere called the bride of Christ, con-
sists. — To make use of another example, in Matt. xiii. 44, the
reason why the treasure is represented as hidden in the field,
appears to be, that if it had been represented as exposed, it
would either have belonged to no one, and so have been ob-
tainable without expense, which would not have suited the de-
sign of our Lord in his parable ; or, it must have been the sub-
ject of a direct purchase, in w^hich case this similitude would
differ in no respect frc«n the other of the pearl, (/) as that is a
species of merchantable treasure. Supposing it, then, to have
been the design of our Lord to convey the same instruction in a
twofold mgmner,^ he would not have done otherwise than re-
(Z) V. 45. s.
5 8 There could be no objection to thus illiistrathig the sarwie truth by
means of several parables, as the object of parabolic instruction is to
convey a more vivid knowledge of the subject than could be otherwise
obtained (^. IX.), and variety of illustration will more effectually ac
38
25S
THE PARABLES OP CHRIST.
present the treasure to be bought, as hidden.^ It follows of
course that nothing can be necessarily inferred from the con-
cealment of the treasure as to any occult state of the heavenly
kingdom.!
complish that veiy end. In Matt. xiii. 44, for instance, we learn, it is
true, that the worth of the kingdom is so great as to deserve our efforts
to obtain it, in preference to all other matters ; and this is the more
forcibly pourtrayed by the significant manner in which we are informed
of the value of the treasure, it being represented as sufficient to warrant
the purchase of the field under the necessity of parting with every other
possession, simply because it contained that treasure, the image of the
heavenly kingdom. But the reasonableness of setting aside every other
pursuit in comparison with that of the kingdom of heaven is still more
strongly felt, when in another example (v. 45. s.) we are reminded bow
plainly accordant with common sense it is, to acquire what is more
valuable by foregoing things of less worth. In the same chapter, the
possibility of the great increase of the kingdom of God from small be-
ginnings, is more fully-shown by two examples of the increase of little,
things (v. 31. s. and 33,) than it could possibly have been by one. — The
propriety of the great pleasure taken by all good persons in the conver-
sion of sinners is held up to view too by our Lord, in Lu. xv., with the
more vividness, in proportion as he has shown, in a manner adapted
to the common sense of all, shepherd, woman, and father,* that in
similar cases all are actuated by the general principle of taking most
pleasure in the safety and preservation of such things as had previously
been thought in danger.
* [ Another reason for the insertion of this circumstance is given in
^. XVIII. p. 78. Tr. ]
t [ In the parable of the leaven, on the other hand, while the actor
in the transaction represented (p. 65,) and the particular quantity of the
meal (p. 67,) are both unconnected with the signification of the para-
ble, the circumstance of the production of a change in the state of the
whole quantity of meal by a little leaven hidden within it, is the prin-
cipal point in the protasis. " Peculiar as this comparison is, none could
be found which should more justly characterize the nature of the pro-
gress of the gospel. Not compelling proselytes by force of arms, as the
religion of Mohammed afterwards ; but so hidden at first, that we are
obliged to seek carefully for traces of its growth in the history of na-
tions ; yet maintaining its place, and effecting its purpose ; gradually meli-
orating the laws, and changing the moral aspect of the countries where it
it was received! and insinuating its renovating views of God and man
* [ See an excellent sermon on these three parables in connexion,
by Waterland, Sermons, Vol. i. Serm. xvr. p. 170. ss. ed. 1776. Tr. ]
IflE 1'ARA6LES OF CHRIST. *259
§. XVIII.
To- fender the narration apt, (m) especial care must be
taken in the arrangement and connexion of its several parts.^
Whenever, therefore, it is impracticable to reduce the prin-
cipal parts of the narration, on which the knowledge of the
thing signified properly depends, into some certain and apt
order, without the introduction of other parts having no re-
semblance to the thing signified, such adjectitious parts may
with propriety be inserted.*^ Of this the parable of the
tares (n) may serve as an example, since Christ himself, when
interpreting that parable, (o) lays no stress upon the questions
of the servants, (/?) thus intimating that it was not his inten-
tion to foreshow by them any wonder on the part of the
apostles at the admission of bad men into his church, or any
attempt of theirs by prayer to obtain divine directions on the
subject : all occasion for such wonder he was at that vefy
time removing, by the doctrine conveyed in the parable it-
self {q) But there would have been no suitable place in the
narration for the answer in which that doctrine is contained,
if previous mention had not been made of the notice of the
tares by the servants and their conversation with their mas-
ter ; these incidents affording the occasion for that principal
part of the narration, in v, 26. s.^^ — Nor does the divine
(m) {. XVII. («) Matt. xiii. 24. ss. (o) tJ. 37. ss.
(p) V. 27. s. (j) V. 29. s.
into the heart of those with whom it came in contact." Summer, Evir
dences, p. 130. ed. Am., who refers to Benson, Hulsean Lectures, Disc,
xi. Vol. I. Tr. ]
5 7 C<ymp. Lessing, Diss, i p. 135. ss.
5 8 These are of no disservice to the more essential parts, as the lat-
ter are even brought more plainly into notice by the obviousness of the
fact that the others are subordinate to them, and invented and intec-
woven with them solely on their account.
5 9 In like manner the notice of the murmurs of the labourers in
Matt XX. 11. s- is not to be considered as a prophecy of any disposition
of men in this life to dispute against the arrangements of Proyidence ;
2i}0 Till: PARABLES OF CHRISl.
teacher, in his interpretation, (r) give any warning to his
apostles and other teachers of his rehgion, to beware of be-
coming sources of evils in the church through their drowsiness
and neghgence of their official duties. This rule, however
true and salutary in itself, is certainly not conveyed in the
parable in question, (5) since in that it is not the servanis oi
the master, (t) but men in general that are introduced as
sleeping, and the reply of the master to his servants (u) is en-
tirely devoid of any appearance of rebuke. It was in order
to introduce the declaration in v. 29. s., an essential part of
the narration, that the tares are represented as having been
sown without the knowledge of the servants, and thus, when
(.') V. '27. <u) r. 28, ss.
much less of any conduct of theirs iu the life to come ; provoked in ei-
ther case by the Divine determination to reward with the same benefits
as he will confer on others (xx. 9. s. 12,) and perhaps even more speedi-
ly, (v. S' 16. xix. 30,) either in this life or in the next, (v. 29,) such per-
sons as, although they may seem to have done less in his service, and
to have been less time devoted to it, nevertheless possess a higher de-
gree of excellence of character (fx^kro/, v. 16,*) are free from reliance
on their OAvn deservings (comp. xix. 27.), and are tiioroughly imbuetl
•with a sense of his free and unmerited favour towards them. On the
contrary, the only object of the mention of those murmurs was, to in-
troduce the answer (xx. 13 — 15,) which is the principal point in con-
nexion with the apodosis, and by declaring the supreme right of God to
dispense the blessings of this life and that to come according to his plea-
sure, rather tends to prevent the occurrence of such murmurs.
*■ [ Such a meaning is undoubtedly attributable to iKhtKTos in some
passages of the N. T. (See Schleusner, in voce No. 1. 4; Wahl,
No. 2. a. b.) But in Matt. xx. 16, the expression vof^oi yx^ uat kxutoi,
ohiyot «r« tK\tKtci is certainly of similar import with the same expression
as used in xxii. 14. and in this latter passage, no mere excellence of cha-
racter, but separation, distinction from the great ftiass, is evidently the
idea which tKhtK^uc is intended to convey. The contrast is in both
places between the many who make pretensions to the character of fol-
lowers of Christ, and the comparatively /ew who really possess that cha-
racter, and are distinguished by it from the rest, in this case, of the Jewish
nation, — in other passages where the word is used, of the world. See
Matt. xxiy. 22, 34. 31. and oomp. Tit. i. 1- J. Pet. i. 1. Tr.-}
fHE FARABLLS OF CHRIST. 261
noticed, (v) exciting their surprize : (w) for such a proceeding,
the uight (a;) when men are accustomed to sleep, (?/) would
be the most appropriate tinie. If the tares had been repre-
sented as sow n with tlie knowledge of the servants, it would
have been their duty to have hindered the enemy from doing
it, there would have been no room for their com[)laint and the
promise of extirpation made to them, {2) and the lenient re-
commendation of patience by the master, (a) which is of so
much importance to the subject of the parable, would have
been improper. — The same account may be given of the sleep
in the parable of the virgins, (h) It undoubtedly was intro-
duced, not as a defect in the wise virgins, who, on the con-
trary, are an example of vigilance, (c) and prudent circum-
spection ; (d) but on account of its being necessary to the or-
der of the narrative* The design of our Saviour in the para-
ble (c) required that the cause of the exclusion of the foolish
virgins should be, their neglect to furnish themselves with oil.
They would not have been excluded, had they perceived the
approaching extinction of their lamps before the oil was quite
exhausted. For if the bridegroom had come early, the oil
that yet remained would have been sufficient for their pur-
pose ; or if his coming had not been more timely known, (f)
there w^ould have been an opportunity of purchasing {g) a
fresh supply. It was therefore necessary to represent them
as having only perceived the extinction of tlieir lamps when
the oil was already exhausted, and the bridegroom near at
hand. It was also necessary to suppose the wise virgins to
have slept as well as the others, lest it might have been ob-
jected to their answer in v. 9, that they had neglected to ad-
monish their companions of their danger while there w^as yet
an opportunity to avoid it, although, haying been awake, they
must have known it.— It would be equally improper to lay stress
on the word sk§v^s in Matt. xiii. 44, which has no bearing on the
subject of the parable, but is necessary to make the narrative
(V) V. 2G. {w) V. 27, (a-) Comp. Job. xxxiii. 15.
(y) And that witliout affording any ground of censure; Mar. iv. 37.
(») Matt. siii. 37, s. («) v. 29. s. (6) Matt. xxv. 5.
(c) v.\S. (d) ^.4. («) 6. XVII.
( O V. 6. . (§•) V. 9. s. '' ' ^.# **'
ii(}5i.
THE PARABLES OP CHWS'J
complete, as it would have been folly to purchase a field on
account of the treasure it contained, while that very treasure
w^as left exposed, and liable to be removed in the meanwhile.
In Matt, xviii. 23. ss. it is in order to render the com-
mencement of the parable less abrupt,^" and to smooth the
transition to its proper subject in v. 24, that the king is repre-
sented as taking account of his servants generally, (k) and by
that means occupied in hearing others (i) while the merciless
servant withdrew,*^' and ignorant of what he did without .^^
Thus the passage in v. 31, became necessary, to connect this
portion with the remainder of the parable, (k) although it has
no part in the application of the whole, since a relation of the
kind which it describes must certainly be unnecessary to the
Deity. (/) There are many things of this sort in the para-
ble of the prodigal son ; (m) where, for instance, we are not
to look for any particular signification in the division of the
father's goods, (w) or in the departure of the prodigal.* (o)
(h) V
.23.
(i) . Comp. V
.24.
ik) V.
.32.
ss.
(Z) V.
35.
m) Lu. XV.
(0) V. 13.
11. ss.
in) V.
12.
6 So in Lu. xvi. the compulsion of the steward to render his account
is not abruptly introduced, but the way to that event is prepared by the
mention of the accusation {S'tiCx}iBn) in v. 1.
6 1 Our Saviour's representation of the cruelty of the man to his fel-
low servant, as having occurred when he was scarcely out of the pre-
sence of his judge, who was yet sitting, and taking account of his fel-
low servants, tends to excite in us the greater detestation of the man who
can so far forget the mercy and indulgence of God, of which he con-
tinually stands in need, as to be unmerciful to his fellow men.
6 2 The subject of the narration being a human monarch, was to be
described with all the characteric-.tics of a 7nan. Co nip. also ctxa; in Lu-
XX. 13. a'.d also Lu. xv. 18. '21. (§. XIV. end).
* [ With respect to the former of these examples, it is so evidently a
piece of ihe necessary machinery of the story, and so little connected
with the general scope of the parable, that there can be no doubt of the
correctness of S torr's remark. But it appears very questionable whether
the removal of the prodigal to a far country has no bearing on the apo-
dosis of the parable. The sin against the father (v. 18. 21.) could only
Lave consisted in the demand of a division of his goods, and this departure.
The latter alone ^jan be alluded to in the expressions Kiwgcf ntf and «t?ro-
THE PARABLES OP CHRIST. 203
The latter was introduced because it would be incongruous
to represent an indulgent (p) father suffering his son to sink
*to such a pitch of disgrace and misery (7) if he were resident
in the same place, so that his necessity must have come to the
knowledge of the father. The other was introduced in order
that we might perceive the poverty, (r) which so strongly de-
picts the misery of sinners, {s) to be the consequence of the
son's own crimes, and for the purpose of setting in a stronger
light the mercy of the father towards his son who had no
right to expect any more from him than he had already re-
ceived. (0 See the passage of Cocceius, quoted in note 48.
§. XIX.
All these minor discrepancies between the narration and
the thing signified {u) will create less difficulty to us, if we
carefully attend to the fact, that the great cause of the utility
of parables is that they do not immediately present to notice
the thing signified itself, but first prove that with reference to
some other thing, which they are designed to teach concerning
it. The construction of language therefore, in' which the narra-
tive is clothed, should be such that it may bear inspection hy
(p) V. 20. (9) V. 15. s. (r) V. 14—16.
{S) §. XIV. end. (0 v. 19, end, and v. 30. (w) §. xvi — xviit.
xaXflDf »?(». 24, 32,) which are the only epithets used by the fatherto desig-
nate the former miserable condition of his son. In fact, in any case, the
entire separation from the paternal care and superintendence would be a
weighty cause of complaint, but is more particularly heinous in the East,
where the distinction of tribes, &c., is religiously observed, and the pater-
nal authority is much more strictly exercised than in western nations.
Now the sins of the prodigal against his father are certainly an import-
ant part of the protasis of the parable, corresponding to the sinfulness of
men, and their liability to the just wrath of God in the apodosis. If, then^
the departure of the prodigal be a prominent part of his offences against
his father, and these essential to the meaning of the parable, it is surely
improper to place the former in the low rank assigned to it by Stork
Tr]
U64:
THE PARABLES OF CURtST.
itself as cm indepmdent whole, and afford satisfactioh when so
considered, and be perfect in its kind. Now as the thing nai^
rated is distinct from the thing signified, some things may be
required to m:ike the narration of the former perfect, which
are unnecessary in the signification of the latter. The exist-
ence of this distinction cannot be any hindrance to the per-
ception of the signification, if we orAy acknowledge it, and seek
to discover the signification not so much from particular parts
of the narration, as from its whole context. This course is
plainly taught by our Lord himself,*^^ who, for example, com-
pares the kingdom of Heaven (t;) indiflferently to of frco^iire,
and to a merchant seeking pearls,^"^ which he could not have
done unless his intention had been that the whole context of
his narrations should relate to the kingdom of heaven, and so
should be understood to signify that the case of the kingdom
of heaven was similar to those of a man discovering a trea-
sure, or a merchant seeking pearls.*'' For certainly, in the
latter instance, the kingdom of heaven does not resemble the
single part of the narration which the merchant constitutes,
but rather that of the pearl, {w) But the case of the heaven-
ly kingdom — its value, and the manner in which it is to be
sought — agrees remarkably well with the zvhole history of the
merchant.
Again, if it were part of llie nature of a parable that the thing
signified and the narration should correspond so perfectly, a^
that the former should be intelligible, not from the whole struc-
ture of the latter, but from its several individual parts ; how
then, (to use the words of Augustin ^'^ ) could the parable
prove any thing from its very dissimilitude? In the parable
of the unjust judge, {x) for instance, there certainly is no re-
semblance between the latter and the Deity, but it is the
(p) Malt. xiii. 44. (jv) v. 46. (x) Lu. xviii. 1.
6 3 Gomp. CAiixTtis, p. 185. s.
4 Gomp. similar formulae, v. 24. xxii. 2. xviii. 23.
6 5 Gomp. xiii. 18.
• « Lib. n. Quaest. Eyang. v. xiv. 0pp. Tom. iv. p. 358
* THE PARABLES OF CHRIST. 265
■whole histoiy concerning him (y) that conveys the purport of
the parable, (z) From this we learn that even an unjust
judge, wearied with the continual repetition of prayers for
justice, will deliver the innocent from injury ; there is far
greater (a) reason to expect that the perfectly/ just (6) judge of
all will willingly grant the continual (c) prayers of men who
are the objects of his love, {d) In the parable of the un-
just steward, (e) the repentant pubhcans (/) who spent their
unjustly gotten gains in acts of beneficence to the poor, (g)
and especially to the pious poor, {h) bear no resemblance to
the steward who aggravates his former guilt (i) by a new act
of dishonesty ; {k) nor is God like the master (/) who praised
an act of wicked cunning. The object of our Lord is to teach
by the whole narration : that " if that master praised the cun-
ning injury done himself, by which his steward, making a
dishonest use of his master's property, provided for his own
future wants in such a way that when he should have no fur-
ther controul over his master's goods, there should be some
at any rate that would receive him ; much more will God ap^
prove the faithftd (m) use of ill gotten riches, in a way agree-
able to his will, (m) by a distribution of them among the poor
of your generation, (o) i. e. among my disciples, (p) in conse-
quence of which those beneficiaries will receive you, when
the goods of this world shall fail you, into the eternal habita-
tions of the blest, (q) — in other words, it will have the effect,
that you, having thus by the communication of your benefac-
tions to my worshippers, shown the sincere conversion of your
mind ^ from its former covetousness to me, and proved your
faithfulness by your care of greater riches, (?) shall re-
ceive from me {s) on whom you will have been conferring the
same benefits bestowed on them, {t) the reward of everlasting
(ij) V. 2—5. (z) V. 6—8. (a) Comp. xi. 13.
(6) Comp. n. Thess. i. 6. (c) v. 1. (d) c*cXc«ro)v, Lu. xviii. 7.
(e) Lu. xvi. 1. ss. (/) xv. 1. (g) xix. 8.
(h) xvi. 0. (i) xvi. 1. (k) V. 6. 7.
{D V. 8. (m) V. 10—12. (n) xii. 21. S3.
(o) yeveag, xvi. 8. (p) v. 1. (q) v. 9.
(r) V. 10—12. (.0 Mat. XXV. 34, (t) v. 35—40
34
266 THE PARABLES OF CHRIST.
happiness." {u) — —In the parable of the prodigal son, the
Pharisees are not directly represented by the elder son, (v) for
they, who blamed the kindness of Christ to publicans and sin-.,
ners, {w) were nevertheless as much degenerate sons of God',
as the publicans and sinners yet unconverted from their
sinful lives, (x) The reasoning of Christ appears to be as
follows : " if even they, who have long zvorshipped God, (y) —
if even those just ones who have never departed from his
ways, {z) have no right to make any objection («) to the great
pleasure which is taken by the good (6) in the conversion of
sinners ; hoiu much less ought you, who in fact are no better
than the sinners whom you despise, to find fault with my care
for the salvation of sinners ? " (c) — Lastly, the import of the
parable of the debtors, (d) is, that to whomsoever most sins
are forgiven, that man will be the most grateful in will and
deed, (e) a truth which is remarkably confirmed by the in-
stance of St. Paul. (/) Yet there is no need of concluding
from this parable that Simon, to whom in particular it was
applied, had been forgiven fewer sins (g) than the penitent
woman. The argument is this : " if he who has been for-
given fewest sins, is less at pains to show the love of which in
reality he feels less than one who has been forgiven so many ;
how much more is it to be expected that thou, who hast re-
ceived no forgiveness shouldst come far short in thy demon-
strations of respect and love, (/^) of this woman who has re-
ceived froiti me (i) forgiveness of many sins ? " {k)
§. XX.
Any thing intentionally signified by Christ in any of his
parables, is equally sufficient for the proof of doctrine with
any other of the sayings of our Lord. Such proof, therefore,
(u) V, 46. (v) Lu. XV. 25. ss. (w) v. 2.
(x) Comp. Mat. xxu 30. 32. xxiii. (y) v. 29. 3!.
(«) V. 7. (a) V. 32. (6) v. 7. 10. 32.
(c) V. 1. s. (d) Lu. vii. 41. s. (e) v. 4,7.
(/) I. Tim. 1 12. ss. (g) Comp. Lu. vii. 47. (h) v. 44. ss.
THE PARABLES Of CHRIST. 267
may be very properly derived, not only from the authentic in-
terpretation of any parable, whether full, as in Matt. xiii. 19.
ss., 37. ss., or more general and brief ;(/) but also from the
fictitious narration, or all such parts of it as are not inserted
merely for the purpose of preserving its historical form or keep-
ing up the connexion, (m) but are plainly either altogether
superfluous, or else invested with a certain signification : what-
ever signification can be deduced from these by legitimate (n)
interpretation, is properly (o) a proof of the truth of any doc-
trine which it may contain.* But no such use can be made
of a rash accommodation of a parable to a subject foreign from
the known (p) design of the Saviour, as has been done by
those who have found in the parable of the good Samari-
tan, (q) Mam under the figure of the way-laid traveller,
Christ ^ under that of the good Samaritan,t (r) and a number
of other allegorical and mystico-prophetical senses, (s) Nor
can anything be positively proved from such parts of the nar-
rative as may have been admitted only on account of its his-
torical form and connexion, {t) or from a too minute ^ in-
terpretation (m) of even the principal parts. To give an in-
stance of the legitimate use of parables in proof of doctrine ;
— in Matt, xxii., the parts of the parable which occupy verses
8 — 10 and 11 — 13, might have been omitted without any in-
jury to the completeness of the narration ; but, as they cannot
have been altogether useless, they must have a necessary apo-
(T) 5. XIII. beginning. (m) §. xvi. xviii. (n) {. xui. xiv.
(0) {.XV. (p) $. xni. XIV. (q) Lu. x. 30.
(r) V. 33. (s) See note 48. (0 §. xv— Xix.
(m) §. XIV.
* [ " Though every thing in a parable be not argumentative, yet the
scope of it is, as all divines acknowledge." Bull. Sermons ; Vol. i. Semi,
in. p. 63. Tr.1
6 1 Comp. Franzius de Interp. Orac. cxxiii. p. 763. s.
t [ See Ernesti's Elements of Interpretation. Stuart's Trans. §. 158,
note, p. 80. Tr. 1
« t Such, for instance, as should not recognize the existence oitynec-
doche, nor allow the possibility of a substitution of a species or individual
for a genus i but should every where consider the same 8peciC9 or in-
dicidml object to be intended.
"i^S THE PARABLES OF CHRIST.
dosis of their own, and it may be very certainly inferred tironi
them, that the calling of the Gentiles was foretold by Christ,
arid that, he inculcated a diligent study to prepare the soul for
the possession of the blessings proffered by the gospel.^^ In
like manner, we need not hesitate to found an argument, as
has been done by Bucer {v) and Weisman, (w) on the phrase
viro rwv ay/sXwv, (a) in the parable of the rich man and Laza-
rus ; since there is nothing in all the structure of the narrative
to render that addition necessary, the narration being per-
fectly complete without it. There could therefore be no rea-
son ^° why our Lord should have mentioned the conveyance
of the soul of Lazarus to Paradise by a company of angels^
except a design to signify some circumstance of the blessed-
ness of the pious dead. Nor can his intention be to convey a
general notion by this special illustration ; for that it was by
the providence of God that Lazarus was brought to Abraham's
bosom, is so evident, that the phrase ucro twv ayysXwv, if de-
signed to convey that meaning, would have been perfectly
needless. Hence we may believe '^ that our Savionr intend-
ed to point out,'^ in the example of the dying Lazarus, the
manner in which the divine providence is exercised towards
the good in the hour of death.— But, on the other hand, there
is no more reason for concluding from the same parable (a/)
that the souls of the blessed hold intercourse with other spirits
(V) Comm. in loc. (w) Inst. Theol. exegetico-dogm. p. 283.
(x) Lu. xvi. 22. (y) v. 23. ss.
e 9 We have already seen (note 52,) that the gradation of future re-
wards can be proved from Lu. xix. 17. ss.
7 e The reasons why the mention of this circumstance cannot be at-
tributed to accommodation to a common, but false, opinion of the
Jews, are given at length in the Dissertation on the Historic Sense.
1 » Nor does any objection arise from the nature of the thing itself,
as certainly the ministration of angels (Heb. i. 14,) is of all things least
incredible in that most important change of our condition.
' 2 We have already seen ($. XIV.) that this may take placefin para-
bles which are not examples of the thing signified. It ought to create
much less surprize in such as are cxawp?w of the very thing signifieii.
(n.37).
THE t>ARAHLES OF CHRIST. ^69
of the departed, than there is to infer from Lu. xii. 20, that
men are usually divinely premonished of their death. For
those who neither spoke nor acted, might be introduced by
Christ, in accordance with the parabolic usage, (z) as speak-
ing or acting, whenever there was a sufficient reason for the
fiction. But the precepts in xvi. 25. s. 31, would not have
been inserted in the narration, if some conversation had not
been invented. It cannot, therefore, be proved that the conver-
sation, which the historical form of the parable, (a) of itself,
rendered necessary, was introduced for the purpose of giving
us to understand that there is some intercourse between the
departed spirits of the good and of the wicked. - Nor does it
seem to follow from the speech of the rich man in v. 27. s.
that we ought to suppose the wicked solicitous for the salva-
tion of their survivors. We are rather to consider all that is
said by the rich man in v. 24. 27. s. as inserted merely for
the purpose of introducing (b) the instructions of Abraham,(c)
which form one of the principal parts of the parable, and, if
rightly explained, afford an ample fund of most important
and substantial doctrinal proofs.
§. XXI. ■ '-'•^'^
There is no reason to consider the rules of interpretation
thus laid down as hnposing needless restraint upon the preacher
who may take a parable for his subject ; although it be our
firm persuasion that the popular interpreter should be govern-
ed by the same laws, and that the knowledge of Christians
generally should be founded, not on human ingenuity, but on
sure oracles of God, the force of which is beyond a doubt.
For in the first place, the inadmissibility of making every
thing out of any thing in a parabolic text, creates no peculiar
difficulty. The ordinary helps in homiletical interpretation
are not excluded from application to such passages. The
part of the preacher is to make use of the doctrine legitimate-
(z) J. in. (a) 5. XVI. (6) $. xvni. (c) v. 25. 8.,25, 31,
^70 THE PARABLES OF CHRIST.
ly {d) derived from the parable, just as he would of that drawn
from any other part of the Scriptures :— to confirm it with
proof from holy writ, and from the nature of tlie subject ;— -
to define its meaning accurately and illustrate it by examples ;
—to show its connexion with other doctrines and their mutual
dependance on each other ; — and to apply the whole to practi-
cal use.
Take for example that one point of the immoderate care
for earthly goods, which is the true object of the parable in
Lu. xiv. 16. ss. What ample field of disquisition and what
useful matter it affords, if the preachw be prepared rightly to
explain the vice and prudently distinguish it from a lawful re-
gard for earthly things ; — to explain the evils of such immo-
derate care from the context (e) and other passages of Scrip-
ture, considered together with the nature of the subject ; —
and to produce incitements of different kinds, and helps, for
surmounting an immoderate attachmeht to this world 1 — In
like manner, the parable of the good Samaritan is already suf-
ficiently full of meaning and useful in its application to ob-
viate all necessity of resorting to the allegorical interpretation
already mentioned (/) or any hke it.
Often it is even possible to introduce the particular applica-
tions, which it would be rash to deduce from the parable itself,
in a discussion of the general doctrine which the parable
really does convey. So in the parable of the prodigal (g)
it would be improper to consider the several marks of the
father's joy and pity as proofs of so many benefits of God
to men ;* but as these particulars, collectively taken, desig-
(d) §. XX. (e) Note 43. (/) §. xx. (g-) Lu. xvi. 22. s.
* [ Sumner, for instance, a writer generally remarkable for sound
judgment, has certainly erred in considering the circumstance in the
narration that when the returning prodigal ' was yet a great way off'
his father ran to him, and affectionately greeted him — as a representa-
tion of the eo-operating grace of God. Apostolical Preaching, p. 127.
The design of the parable is to express the willingness of God to receive
repentant sinners, and his pleasure in their conversion ; it does not re-
late to the means by which that event is brought about. Tr. ]
THE PARABLES OP CHRIST. 271
iiate generally the great mercy of God towards repentant sin-
ners, for that very reason they afford an opportunity of re-
counting particularly these benefits from other parts of Scrip-
ture.
Secondly, the parabolic method may be turned into an ad-
vantage to the hearer, if the desire {h) of applying every par-
ticular of the parable directly to the thing signified, be avoided.
— For instance, the justice of the punishment of tliose who
esteem the things of heaven more lightly than those of
earth, may be much more vividly represented to the hearer
than it would be otherwise, if the master of the feast intro-
duced in the narrative, Lu. xiv. 16, be first proposed to his
consideration separately from any reference to God, and it be
left to his own judgment to decide whether that man might
not be justly offended with his guests, who at his previous in-
vitation had given him hopes of their appearance, but, when
he had made every preparation on their account, had not
scrupled to refuse to come. The effect of this will be, that
the hearer having perceived in another case, that the con-
tempt of proffered benefits may justly provoke indignation,
vdll so much the more readily allow that contempt of the joys
of heaven, (i) even though unaccompanied by any enormous
sin against men, is a grievous crime, (k) In the same way it
may be practicable to throw no small degree of light upon
the minor parts of the narration,"^ and thus to prove generally
the great wisdom of its author ; — a popular method of de-
fending the authority of Scripture which seems worthy of par-
ticular attention. For example, if we examine the whole series
of the narration in Lu. xiv. 16. ss. it will appear much more
plainly how ill the giver of the feast must have taken the con-
tempt of his entertainment, since he preferred inviting the
most abject, (/) to leaving room for any of those who had des-
pised his invitation, (wi) For although God has invited the
(h) 5. XIX. (0 V. 14. s. ik) Add {. ix. end.
(0 V. 21.23. (m) r. 24.
" 3 Comp, Lu. X. (p. ) Matt, xviii. (note 61.)
272 THE PARABLES OP CHRIST.
publicans (n) and gentiles, (o) to a participation of eternal
happiness, on the same terms as others ; yet Christ in this
place designedly omits to mention the great change (p) which
such persons must undergo if desirous of partaking of the
offered blessings', and considers them with reference only to
their first condition.* This he did for the purpose of more
vividly representing to the man for whose use the parable was
especially designed, (9) that persons longing after this world's
goods, be they ever so much more disposed toward Christ
than others, — be they ever so often affected with good de-
sires, (r) are so displeasing in the sight of God, that he will ad-
mit rather than them the veiy persons whom they despise as
wicked and idolaters, {s) to the possession of eternal happi-
ness.
Lastly, as even the Apostles often adopted the language of
the sacred writings, although in a sense different from that
which it possessed in the Old Testament f* it is certainly al-
lowable in the preacher to accommodate the particular parts
even of Ihe parables of Christ to his own purpose, although
that may differ from the original intention of our Lord, pro-
vided he do it with prudence and moderation. In doing this,
however, he must be careful never to appear to prove what-
ever doctrine he may advance, by the declarations of Christ,
but to speak plainly in his own name, and merely borrow his
expressions from the parable. — This liberty of accommodation
may be exemplified by Matt. xiii. 24. ss. To the demonstra-
tion derived thence, that the Lord wisely tolerates for the
(n) V. 21. (0) V. 23. comp, p. (p) Mat. xxii. 11. ss.
(j) Note Ao. (r) Lu, xiv. 15. («) Mat. viii. 11. s. xxi. 31.
^ [ The very same peculiarity is observable in the parable of the
Pharisee and publican. The latter is represented as filled with the
deepest contrition and humility, it is true, but no mention is made of
any previous reformation. *' The true purport of the parable appears to
be, that an humble Publican, disposed towards repentance, is, with all his
ricei, more acceptable to God, than a proud censorious Pharisee, with^all
his strictness, sobriety, and regularity." Waterland, Serm. Vol. t.
p- 193. Of course the application is a /brfion. ZV. ] ■
■''* Comp. Diss, de sensu historico, ^. XXIV.
THE PARABLES OF CHRIST. 273
present the wicked in his church, whence they are ultimately
to be separated, the preacher might, with the utmost propriety,
join an admonition that every one for his own part guard
against evil as carefully as possible. In doing this, we see no
reason why he might not make use of the expression, " it is
therefore not allowable in us to sleep " although the words of our
Lord {t) to which it alludes, have not the signification it would
attribute to them, (m) But we take for granted that this pas-
sage would not be adduced as proof, but that the proof of the
doctrine would be derived from other passages of Scripture,
and from the very nature of the subject.
(0 V. 25. iu) 5- xviiz.
35
1(^
NO TRACES OF THE GNOSTICS
AHE TO BE FOUND 15 THE
NEW TESTAMENT.
A DISSEKTATION
BY
C. C. TITTMANN-
THA.NBLATED FROST THE LATIN,
BY MANTON EASTBURN, M. A.
RECTOR OF THE CHURCH OF THE ASCENSION, NSW-VORK.
V^ OF THE '/^
■w^^
NO TRACES OF THE GNOSTICS
IN THE
NEW TESTAMENT.
Among the adversaries of the Christian religion, there ap-
pear to have been some, who, on account of a certain pecu-
liar knoveledge (yvwtf<s) which they professed to possess of
things divine and human, presumed to distinguish themselves
by the pompous name of Gnostics. It is not necessary to
enter here into a lengthened discussiun, as to the nature of
this knowledge of theirs ; my object being rather to inquire
into the period at which it took its rise. It would moreover
be entirely impracticable ; for such a discussion would re-
quire a whole volume, if we would repeat all that learned
men have written, and that too with much profound erudition,
on the character of the Gnostic philosophy. Those who
are desirous of acquiring an accurate acquaintance with
this subject, may obtain it by examining these writers.
Among them may be mentioned Hammond, in his Diss. I. de
Episcopatu, and his Annotations on the New Testament : Jac
Thomasius, who was the first to publish any thing worthy of
commendation on the subject of the Gnostics, in his work
" de Originibus Hist. Phil, et Eccles. ;" but especially Beau-
soBRE, in his learned work entitled, " Histoire Critique de Ma-
nichee et Manicheisme ;" Mosheim, Institutiones H. E. maj.
p. 136 s. and 339 s. — Diss, de Caus. suppos. Libr. inter Christ.,
37S NO TRACES OP THE GNOSTICS ^
in Dissert, ad H. E. pert. Vol. i. p. 223 s., and in many other
places ; Brucker, Hist, Crit. Phil. T. ii. p. 639 s. ; and vi. p. 400
s. ; Walch's Hist, of heresies, P. i. p. 224 s. ; and above all, the
learned Semler, in his Hist, dogmat. fidei, prefixed to Baum-
garten's Polemical Theolog}% Tom. i. p. 121 s. and in Sel.
Capita H. E. T. i. p. 22. 40 ss. A summary account of the
whole Gnostic system has been given by Schroeckh, H. E.
Tom. I. p. 338 s. and Tom. ii. p. 348 s. — Leaving this out of
the question, therefore, I shall proceed, in order to avoid the
appearance of vagueness and ambiguity, to state the precise
subject which I propose t6 discuss. The reader is not to
suppose, that I consider all which has come down to us re-
specting the Gnostics and their errors, as nothing better than
idle fictions ; which is the ridiculous opinion of Arnold,
in his Hist. Eccles. et Haeres., and has been long ago explod-
ed by Mosheim and others. Nor can I absolutely deny, that,
about the time of Christ, and a little before, there was in use
among the Persians, and those neighboring nations which,
according to the Hebrew mode of speaking, w^ere properly
called Oriental,* a certain kind of philosophy, or even of the -
* It must be borne in mind that the Hebrews called those nations East-
ern, who lived between Egypt and the Euphrates, namely, the Persians
and Arabians ; and the region inhabited by them, the East, jj-jp ; as
in Gen. xvi. 12. xxv. 6, where Abraham is said to have sent away the
sons of his concubines, i. e. of Keturahand Hagar, mp 2f>t<~'7K HOlp ,
towards the East, into that country which is commonly called the East,
and in chap. x. 30, is termed DlpH IH* Hence, in Judges, vi. 3. and
Job, I. 3, the Arabians are called Dlp-'J3, vtoi avArohay, men who
dwell in the East ; and the Egyptians are distinguished from them in
I. Kings, IV. 30, where Solomon is said to have excelled the people of
the East, i. e. the Arabians, who were very famous for their wisdom,
especially in pointed sayings ; and the Egyptians. They styled them-
selves people of the East, in Arabic c^+£r^ , and are called by ns
Saracens. Jer. xlix 28, Hence the wise men, Matt. ii. 1, are said to
have come d^ro dyftToxav. And in this sense the term East should be
understood, in all inquiries on the subject of the Oriental philosophy :
the mind must not, therefore, go, in this treatise, to Western, or Jew-
ish Asia, and Greece ; much less to those European provincefs, which, in
any other case, are reckoned as part of the East.
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
279
ology, which, as it flourislied in the East, may be termed Ori-
riental ; although it was unknown by this appellation to all
antiquity, and embraced opinions respecting God, and the
origin of all things, both moral and naturah but chiefly the
latter. This has been long since shewn by learned men.
But whether, besides this philosophy, about which all are well
agreed, another, of a peculiar and different character, was cul-
tivated in Western Asia among the Greeks and Jews, which
Mosheim considers as properly the Oriental philosophy ; and
from this as the fountain-head, according to the opinion of
MosHEiM, 11. cc. and Brucker, Tom. vi. p. 407, sprang,
not in the time of Christ only, but even long before, a certain
new philosophy, viz. that of the Gnostics, (Mosheim, Instit.
H. E. maj. p. 142, and Brucker, Tom. ii. p. 642.) mixed up
with various and peculiar opinions of different sects , which
carried with it a new and mystical appearance of a more divine
philosophy, and constituted a peculiar system ; and, above all,
whether, already in the time of Christ and the Apostles, it had
spread from Egypt and Syria into Asia Minor and Greece,
was well known among the Jews in Palestine, was favorably
regarded by many, was made use of, in numerous instances,
for the purpose of confusing and deceiving the minds of
Christians, was diligently practised and studied with the view
of corrupting the pure doctrine by sundry errors, and of thus
weakening, unsettling, and at length altogether overthrowing
the foundations of the Christian religion, while as yet in its
incipient and growing state ; and defiled the whole world with
its iniquitous doctrines ; (Brucker, Tom. n. p. 639,) so that
the Apostles were obliged seriously to admonish Christians —
to prove the wickedness of the system in their writings —
and to establish and defend the truth of Christianity against
these its worst enemies — and so that, moreover, traces of this
philosophy are found in their writings, both in allusions to it,
in refutations of it, and in the mention of it by name ; — this
is the subject into which I propose to inquire ; and about
which, I confess, I entertain very strong doubts.
In order to proceed in the discussion of this question with
the greater advantage, I have thought it best to divide i^
280 NO TRACES OP THE GNOSlics
into two parts, the one historical, the other philological. In
the former, I shall bring forward the grounds upon which I
contend, that the philosophy of the Gnostics did not take its
rise in the time* of the Apostles, but at a later period, viz. in
some part of the second century ; and certainly was not be-
fore this time injurious to the cause of Christianity. In the
elucidation of this point, I shall adduce two separate kinds of
proofs : the one drawn from the express testimony of ancient
writers, the same being competent witnesses upon the sub-
ject ; the other, from their silence. At the end I shall subjoin
a brief discussion on the Oriental philosophy. In the philolo-
gical part, I shall mention the principal places of the New
Testament, in which traces of the Gnostic philosophy have
been commonly found, and shall endeavour to shew, that a
more suitable, and perhaps a more probable interpretation
may be given to these passages ; adding some few general ob-
servations at the last in regard to the opposite opinion to my
own, and in relation to the whole Gnostic philosophy, and its
sources and beginnings. I think that I have taken the correct
course for the discussion of the present inquiry. In proving
questions of fact, such as this is, the thing before all others
to be regarded is the order of time, which, it is obvious, is of
no little importance to either side, in determining upon the
credit to be attached to a representation. For, as the credit
to be placed in any thing is, rightly enough, considered to
be very sure, if it is suitable to the times with which it is
connected, and unless there are other circumstances which
lead to an opposite conclusion ; so this credit is destroyed, if
it can be shewn that what is related is unsuitable to the pe-
riod to which it is assigned : by which means numerous false-
hoods have been cleared away from history ; and it is with
truth asserted of chronology, that it brings history to the highest
possible degree of certainty. We must see first of all, then,
in the present instance, whether the philosophy in question
was, as early as the time of Christ and the Apostles, diffused
through so many parts of the world, and was pernicious to the
true doctrine. As I think it can be proved that this happen-
ed at a later period, that is, in the Second Century, it will
IN THK NEW TESTAMEm". '281
immediately be seen what we are to conclude, in i^gard to
the alleged traces of the philosophy of the Gnostics in the
New Testament books.
Part I. historical.
I SHALL begin by mentioning the almost universal opinion,
and that entirely in my favor, of the ancient ecclesiastical
writers : among whom although there were some, who
thought that the doctrine itself of the Gnostics began in the
First Century, with Simon, Basilides, and others, yet they
agreed in this, that the name of Gnostics began to be used,
though indeed in rather an unfavorable sense, in the Second
Century ; for example, Irenaeus, adv. haeres. L. i. c. 24, and
m. 11, (which last passage is a subject of considerable contro»-
versy between Lardner, in his Supplement to the Credibility
of the Gosp. Hist. Vol. i. p. 383, and Michaelis, Einleit. ins N.
T. P. n.p. 1133, Gott. 1788.*) Jerom, de Script. Eccles. c.
21, and especially Epiphanius, in whom some passages occur,
which deserve to be mentioned. For instance, in Haer. 21,
he speaks of Simon, and says that he delivered fj^uCr^pia yvCxfsus
TTis rsKsiorarris ; and a little afterwards he adds, x-ai o-orug ap-)(s-
roLi TQM rva>tf'nxwv xaXoufjos'vwv >j dpx^- He undoubtedly means to
say, not that the name of the Gnostics, but their doctrine,
had its beginning, or rather was first broached, at that time.
For, in haer. 27,t he says ; xai sv&sv (i. e. in the times of Ani-
Cetus, of which he is speaking,) ysy ovsv vi dpx»j rvwCTixuv twv
xoXoujxsviJv. From which it is plain, that it was the opinion of
Epiphanius, that the Gnostics were first called by that name
in the time of Anicetus, i. e. in the Second Century. Which
was the opinion of Chrysostom also : certainly he evinces
great hesitation, and speaks with much caution, on i. Tim. vi,
as we shall see hereafter.
* [ Marsh's Michaelis, Vol. iii. Part i. pp. 278. 279. Lond. ISO?. -..Tr, I
' [ Pa^e 108. Vol. 1, Ed. Paris, 1623 ; and Ed- Col 16^.— Tr. |
36
282 NO TRACES OF THE GNOSTPCS
\
Among the ancient ecclesiastical writers, however, tliere
were others also, and they very competent witnesses on this
subject, who expressly asserted, that neither the name of the
Gnostics, nor the heresy itself, existed in the time of Christ and
the Apostles, but that both prevailed about the time of Adrian,
and therefore in the Second Century ; and were a source
of trouble to the Christian church, after the Apostles were
dead. Let us now examine the testimony of these writers.
The most ancient is that of Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom.
L. VII. p. 764, ed. Sylburg. where he says, xarw 8s, \. e. after
the Apostles, of whom he had been speaking, *tp< rovg ASptavou
^ou jSaCiXswg p(p6vouj, oi raj atp^tfsig sVjvo^fl'avrs^ ysyovatfi. Though
I am well aware, that this excellent work of the Stroma-
ta is in many places very difficult, and perhaps in some cor-
rupted, since we have not very many manuscripts, wherewith
to obviate this difficulty by various readings ; yet in the passage
before us, which is quite clear, I have never been able to per-
ceive what confusion or manifest error there is, as Mosheim
thinks, InstiK H. E. Maj. p. 315 ; though, as he himself has not
pointed out the precise confusion or error which he means,
I have diligently examined the whole place. Clement is em-
ployed to the end of Book vii, in refuting the opponents of the
Christian religion ; and principally in answering that objec-
tion, which is drawn from the existence of heretics. Having
advanced some sound arguments, and then, after his usual
manner, made a digression, he goes on to shew the antiquity
of the doctrine inculcated, and thence to determine its truth ;
and to exhibit, on the contrary, the novelty, and therefore the
corruption, of heresies. He goes back, therefore, as it were,
to the fountain-head, and shews that the commencement of
the delivery of the gospel doctrine was made by Jesus Christ
and his Apostles, while Augustus was emperor, and that its
termination was in the reign of Nero ; but that the absurdi-
ties of the Gnostics (for that it is of these that Clement
speaks, is very clearly shewn by the whole tenor of the
discourse,) began to be disseminated, and to be pernicious to
the pm'e doctrine, after the time of the Apostles, and some-
^vhere in the reign of Adrian. He goes on to observe^ '^fiv
IN THE NEW TESTAilENT.
28S
rfi'aj, ras jXSTaysvgo'Tepag raura?, xai Ta^ sVi toutojv uiTo/Ss^iixuia^, to)
^(povw xsxaivoro/x^tf^ai 'Ka^cc/OLfCLy^sidas a\ps(^sis. From which he
draws the conclusion, that that doctrine only is true, which is
ancient Now I do not see how Clement, arguing against
the heretics of his time, would have gained any thing, or ad-
vanced his cause, by wishing to keep out of sight the antiqui-
ty of the heresy which he was opposing. Could not his op-
ponents, and especially those to whose CcrsfxvTjixaTa he opposed
TO. xara <n^v aXr)5>j 9»Xo(J'o(p»av yvwtfTixa uifo/xvr/fjLaTa (i. e. Commen-
taries on the true yvwrfi^, or knowledge, for this is the real title
of the Stromata,) have accused him of falsehood, and instant-
ly refuted his declaration, if he had attempted to deny any
thing, which was known by all, and certainly by them, just
as well as by himself? By such a course Clement would
surely not have considered the true interests of his cause.
But was he so totally ignorant, and so unacquainted with the
Gnostic philosophy, that nothing respecting it was fami-
liar to him, and therefore it is not to be wondered at, that he
committed an error of this kind ? So indeed Mosheim thinks,
Instit. H. E. Maj. p. 326. But quite differently Brucker,
who expressly says, that Clement not only was intimately ac-
quainted with the Greek philosophy, and is to be classed
among those ancient ecclesiastical writers who were most
distinguished for their knowledge of it, and for turning it to
the advantage of Christianity, Hist. Crit. Ph. Tom. iii. p.
304 ; but was also thoroughly skilled in Oriental history and
learning, Tom. vi. p. 410. And how could it be otherwise,
when Clement was born and Hved in Egypt, where, as
Brucker expressly states in more places than one, the Gnos-
tic philosophy was in very great repute ; and when, more-
over, he was the first to write against it ? This circumstance
ought certainly to give the more weight to his testimony.
Mosheim appears to have felt this difficulty ; for, in his
Institut. Hist. Eccl. Ant. et Rec. p. 56,* he supports his own
* [ Cent. I. Part ii. Ch. v. Sec 3, of Mosheim's Eccl. Hist, translat-
ed by MAeLAiNB.—Tr. ]
*2S4 XO TflACKS OF THE GNOSTICS
opinion, but attempts to soften it down, by adding, that thtst
stray Jlocka did not arrive at any great number, confederacy^
or reputation, before the time of Adrian : and in his Institut. H.
E. Maj. p. 310, he observes, those halfchristian sects, which
PERHAPS became united before the death of the Apostles, were
not numerous, nor well organized and established, because the
friends of our Saviour made every effort to prevent their gain-
ing strength ; although in p. 142, he says that the sect did not
arise when Christianity was beginning to pervade the whole
loorld, but was in existence long before; and Brucker himself
says, that Mosheim discovered, that the Gnostic philosophers
defiled the whole world with their depraved doctrines about the
time of the birth of Christ. Tom. ii. p. 639. Such continual
wavering is surely evidence enough of a doubtful cause.
Another very remarkable testimony is that of Hegesippus.
who lived in the time of Adrian, according to Eusebius, Hist.
Eccles. L. IV. c. 8, p. 121 ; though Valesius, in his note on
this place, doubts the truth of the statement. The testimony
referred to is to be found in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. L. m. c.
32. p. 104 s. edit. Mogunt. ; and is as follows : 'fig apa
fiig^pi rwv TOTS "Xj^^r^y ^ap^s'vo^ xaSapa xa< d^ja(pSo/JO£; tfxsjvsv vi
sxxXyitfla, sv dS/iK(f) crou tfxoTSi (pwXsuovTOJV sjVsVi tots, twv, el xai TJVffj
y^^^j^ov, 'r:apa(p'hslp?iv i'r^i-)(Sfpo6vTuv tov vyirj xavova tou CwT*]pjou xtfipvy'
jftttTOff. *f2ff 5' Ispog TWV 'A-rrotfToXcov x°^^^ diacpcpov slK'/}(p£i tow /8iou
TsXoj, 'n'apBKri'Kv'^si rs '/j ysvsa sxeivi^ twv aMrcug dxoaTg Ty\z IvSe'ou tfo^iaj
gflr'axoutfaj xaTyi|iwfXsvwv, Tr^vwauTa t^j d^sou -rXavajj to^'v ctpp^oi'v sXafX-
€avsv ^\ (fC(f7a(fig, SioL T>jg twv iTS^o^i^atfxaXwv dcfaT-yj^. oi' xai otTS
IXTjSsvog gTj TWV 'A's'oo'to'Xwv Xsj'Tojxgvou, yufjLv^ Xoicrov ^8yi t^ xs^aXof,
Tw T^jg dXiidefag xyjpuy/xaTi ttj'v -vl^sufJwvujAov yvwtfiv dvTJXvj/ji^TTeiv ^<n's-
XSjpouv. ' After this Hegesippus adds ;' " that the church un-
til this time, (viz. that of Adrian) remained as a virgin, pure
and uncorrupted, while those who were endeavoring to cor-
rupt the sound standard of the preaching of the gospel, hither-
to lay hidden in dark obscurity. But after the sacred compa-
ny of the Apostles had terminated their lives in various ways,
and the generation had passed away of those who had been
deemed worthy to listen, with their own ears, to the divine
Wisdom himself, then arose the conspiracy of impious error.
IN 'iHFi NEW TESTAMENT. '285
liirougli the deceit of strange teachers ; who, as none of the
Apostles now remained, attempted, from this period, to pro-
claim, in opposition to the preaching of the truth, that know-
ledge (yvojtfiff) of theirs, falsely so called, without shame
or concealment/' — A plain and very clear testimony, surely,
is this. But is it also certain and unquestionable ? Mosheim
considers it as by no means such : for he thinks, in the first
place, that the authority of Hegesippus is not of any great
weight ; and secondly, that he is not speaking of the whole
Christian world, but only of the church of Jerusalem ; and
that he is relating, that this church enjoyed tranquillity and
peace until the time of Simeon the bishop ; when it began to
be distracted and disturbed by some men, who were more
fond of their own glory than of the truth. As to the first ob
jection, it seems hardly just to make such an assertion of
Hegesippus, without any reason being mentioned : for it is
very evident that this writer was not only learned, but also
diligent and w^orthy of credit ; and he receives this commen-
dation both from Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. L. iv. c. 8, and Pho-
Tius, who have recovered some fragments of him from the
spoils of time. As for the other objection, so far from fa-
voring the views of my opponents, it is directly against them,
and completely agrees with my own. So then the Gnostic
philosophy, by the confession of the learned men from whom
I differ, did not spread through all the churches of the world I
So it did not, in the time of Christ and the Apostles, conta-
minate the whole world with its iniquitous doctrines ! But
there were some churches, and, among these, if you please,
that of Jerusalem, which remained pure, and were not cor-
rupted by wicked doctrines. I might, therefore, without any
injury to my own side of the question, agree with Mosheim,
that this passage of Hegesippus is to be understood only of
the church of Jerusalem. But even this is unnecessary,
since Eusebius himself did not consider it as referring to that
alone ; as appears plainly from Hist. Eccl. L. iv. c. 22. p.
142 s, where he cites other passages of the same Hegesippus,
from which it is evident, that this writer attributed to other
churclfes, in which he himself was, viz. the .Corinthian and the
^M6 NO TRACES OP THE GNOSTICS ,
Roman, the same purity of doctrine, which in the above^
mentioned passage he had commended in the church of Jeru-
salem. Valesius, indeed, as Mosheim has also observed,
finds fault with Eusebius, in his note on the place under dis-
cussion, for understanding the words of Hegesippus to apply
to the whole church : he does not, however, deny the fact it-
self, as may be seen by his observations on L. iv. c. 7, where
he says, that Eusebius correctly states that the heresy of Ba-
silides began in the reign of Adrian ; for^ he adds, the heretics
first began to emerge from obscurity, and to raise their heads t
when, the Apostles being all dead, they thought that a good op-
portunity was now come for spreading their erroneous doctrines.
And, in short, the passage of Eusebius just referred to is
abundantly clear ; for he there very plainly assigns the Gnos-
tics to the time of Adrian ; and shews, principally from the
testimony of Irenaeus, that there lived at the same period one
Carpocrates, the founder of a sect, called Gnostics*
But let us turn to another testimony, that of Firmilian,
bishop of Caesarea ; which is found in a letter to Cyprian,
and is among the Epistles of the latter. It is as follows :
" Quantum ad id pertineat, quod Stephanus dixit, quasi
Apostoli eos, qui ab haeresi veniant, baptizari prohibuerint, et
hoc custodiendum posteris tradiderint, plenissime vos re-
spondistis, neminem tam stultum esse, qui hoc credat Apos-
* [ Notwithstanding the ingenuity which the author has here displayed
in his argument, it must certainly be admitted, that there is no little dif-
ficulty connected with these passages of Eusebius to which he refers.
The inference as to the period at which Hegesippus lived, drawn by Eu-
sebius from the words of that writer, as he has given them to us in Lib.
IV. c. 8. p. 121 s, seems to be by no means well-founded ; and the testi-
mony of Hegesippus in Lib. in. c. 32. p. 104 s, of Euseb. if examined
in connection with the note of Valesius, will be found to be so vague,
as to leave the questioi^ of a general application to the church at large,
or of a particular reference to that of Jerusalem, quite open and unde-
cided. One thing, however, is clear ; that, whether Hegesippus was de-
scribing thepure state of the church universal, or of one particular sec-
tion of it, the inference is fully warranted, that the Gnostic heresy was
not, during the time of the Apostles, generallv known and diffused.—
Tr.-]
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 287
tolos tradidisse, quando etiam ipsas haereses constet execra-
biles et detestandas postea extitisse ; cum et Marcion, Cer-
donis discipulus, inveniatur sero post Apostolos et post longa
ab iis tempora sacrilegam adversus Deum traditionem indux-
isse, Apelles quoque blasphemiae ejus consentiens, multa alia
nova et graviora fidei et veritati inimica addiderit. Sed et Va-
lentini et Basilidis tempus manifestum est, quod et ipsi post
Apostolos et post longam aetatem adversus ecclesiam Dei
sceleratis mendaciis suis rebellarint. Cseteros quoque haere-
ticos constat pravas suas sectas et inventiones perversas,
prout quisque errore ductus est, postea induxisse." "As
for that which Stephen has said, as though the Apostles for-
bade those to be baptized who came over from heresy, and de-
livered this as a rule to be observed by those who should suc-
ceed them, you have very completely answered, that there is
none so absurd as to believe that the Apostles made any such
regulation : since it is plain that even these execrable and
abominable heresies themselves arose at a subsequent
PERIOD ; for Marcion, a disciple of Cerdo, is found to have in-
troduced his impious tenets long after the time of the Apostles ;
and Apelles, agreeing with him in these bfasphemous senti-
ments, added to them many new and more heinous doctrines
in opposition to faith and verity. Again, in regard to the
period of Valentine and Basilides, it is well known that, by
their infamous falsehoods, they rebelled against the church of
God, subsequently to the days of the Apostles, and after a
long interval of time. It is evident, also, that the other here-
tics introduced their different depraved sects, and wicked no-
tions, according as each one was led away by error, at a sub-
sequent period." 0pp. Cyprian, edit. Baluz. p. 144. and
Bremens. p. 219.* — Is it possible, therefore, that the doctrine
of the Gnostics could have been spread far and wide in the
time of the Apostles, if, as we are assured on the authority of
Firmilian, heresies did not arise till afterwards ? J am not, in-
deed, ignorant of what learned men advance, in order to
* C Page 219 s. Ed. Oxon. 1683.— Tr. ]
288 * NO TRACES OP THE GNOSTICS
weaken the force of this testimony ; viz. that heresies are men-
tioned by St. Paul himself, and are enumerated among the
works of the flesh ; i. Cor. xi. 19. Gal. v. 20 : and also that
instances of heretics are adduced in the New Testament, as
Alexander, Hymenaeus, the Nicolaitans, Simon Magus, and
others. These objections, however, may soon be answered.
The word aipstfi?, in the sense in which it is used of one, who,
while he professes himself a Christian, dissents from the
truth delivered in Holy Scripture, and so dissents, moreover,
that his difference of opinion relates to some doctrine of re-
ligion, on the removal of which the very foundation of the
faith is weakened and overthrown ; and who, finally, so de-
fends this antichristian opinion, that he founds some new sect,
distinct from the Christian church, — is unknown through the
whole volume of Scripture ; but obtained that signification in
subsequent times. At^sifts is used in Scripture to denote the
party to which any one belongs; as atpsiftc twv la88ovxaiuv.
Acts, v. 17. L e. the sect of the Sadducees, in an inoffensive
sense ; ai'pstfig (papi(ra«wv, xv. 5, called in xxvi. 5, dxpi(3s<iTDL7Yi
aVpetfig ; and xxiv. 14, which passage is likewise in point. And
the use of ai'^etfis in this sense is borne out by the authority of all
the best Greek writers. For (1 add this for the benefit of young
persons who are studying the language,) aipeCig is equivalent to
•nr^oai^gtfi^, and a'l^sitf&ai to 'jepoaipsT(f&ai ; for it is a mistake to suppose
that the preposition •n'^o is at all emphatic, since it is plain, from
the usage of the best writers, that frequently there is no force
in the prepositions -Jf^o, rrs^t^ sx, rfOv, dva, &c., joined to words,
and therefore no regard to be had to them in the interpreta-
tion. But Demosthenes frequently uses cr-poajpstfj^ in the sense
of the sect, or party, either of the Optimates, or the Populares,
to which any one is attached ; and flr^oaj^src^ai also means, with
him, to follow the party either of the Optimates, or the Po-
pulares. But in the same sense in which he has used crpoai-
psftf^ai and "Tpoalpstfj^, he employs, in another place, a«pe«<J'^a< and
oi't^s<fie. Examples have been adduced by Krebs, Commentar.
ad decreta Rom. pro lud. p. 402 s. So also in Josephus,
Antiq. Jud. Lib. xii. c. 5. §. 3. Ed. Oxon. 1720, '^rpocctpiasdg
cms fivai, is to be of any one^s party ; and in Clemens Alex.
the phrases aj'f«tf<? lisei'ffaTsri'Kr;, Htmuv^ &c., occur ; See Strom.
IN t.he new testament. 289
I. p. 301. — In other places of the New Testament, however,
ai§s(tis occurs in another, and, as it were, a new sense besides
this ; signifying, not only the party to which a person is attach-
ed, but also the dissensions which were then arising in certain
assemblies, though meanwhile the pure doctrine of religion
continued sound, and the communion of the Christian church
still remained unbroken. And such a^s(feis were spreading in
the church of Corinth, as appears plainly from i. Cor. xr. 19,
ox»Vf*ara, as they are termed in ver. 18 ; having no relation to
doctrine and opinions, but manifested in strifes, arising from
the circumstance, that one was of the party of Paul, another
of Peter, another of Apollos ; as appears from Ch. i. 12. And
accordingly St. Paul says, SsT ya^ xai ai^idsig, x. r. X. ; since
there was some advantage attending them, viz. iVa s» ^oxifAo/,
&c., i, e. that the good might become conspicuous, and
be sepai'ated from the wicked. And strifes of the same kind
are to be understood, in Gal. v. 20. The word aJ'^stf*?, how-
ever, occurs in a sense somewhat different, in ii. Pet. ii. I,
where it signifies any mischievous opinion ; not by itself, in-
deed, but with the word d^raiXsjag following it. But -jra^sirfcc-
ysiv (in this word, again, the preposition has no force, as is
evident from the usage of Polybius, iv. 20.) ai^s'tfstj d^wXe/a?,
i. €, dcroXXu/jt-svacT, signifies : to devise false and pernicious
opinions, and to obtrude them upon others. — Thus much
about heresies in general. Let us now proceed to the in-
stances of heretics, which are adduced for the purpose of
lessening the force of the above mentioned testimony. Now,
in my opinion, neither Alexander and Hymenaeus, nor the
Nicolaitans, ought to have been cited : the former, because
they were merely individuals, and did not form whole sects ;
the latter, because their oflfence appears to have consisted rather
in their practice, than in their doctrine. Nor is the instance
of Simon Magus at all in point. The ancient ecclesiastical
writers, indeed, place him with one consent on the list of
heretics ; nay, even consider him as the father of heretics,
and the founder of all the sects which afterwards arose, but
especially of the Gnostics. I cannot, however, agree with
them in this opinion. I can readily allow, that -he was the
37
290 NO TRACES OP THE GNOSTICS
first who created disturbance among Christians by the dis^
semination of false doctrines ; but I cannot as easily admit,
that he ought to be termed a heretic. I think rather, with
MosHEiM, Instit. H. E. Maj. p. 394 ss.,* that he is to be styled
a most wicked, inveterate, and impudent opponent of the doc-
trine of Christ, who labored to weaken, unsettle, and entirely
overthrow the foundations of our holy religion ; setting him-
self up for the Messiah, as did also his teachers or disciples,
Dositheus and Menander. Josephus informs us, Ant. Jud.
L. XX. c. 7. §. 6, Ed. Oxon. 1720, and De Bell. Jud. L. ii. c.
13, §. 4, that there was, at that period, a great number of
mad men of this kind. Mosheim has the same opinion in re-
gard to Dositheus, 1. c. p. 376 ;t and it has been clearly as-
serted by Origen, L. i. adv. Cels. p. 44, and L. vi. p. 282.
Ed. Spencer. Cantab. 1677. The most satisfactory evidence,
however, on this point, is to be found in Tertullian, de
Praescrip. adv. Haer. c. 46, where he says, " Simon Magus
ausus est summam se dicere virtutem, id est, summum Deum.
— Post hunc Menander, Discipulus ipsius, eadem dicens, qua^
Simon ipse : quicquid se Simon dixerat, hoc se Menander
esse dicebat, negans, habere posse quenquam salutem, nisi in
nomine suo baptizatus fuisset, rell. ;" " Simon Magus presum-
ed to style himself the supreme power, i. e, the supreme God.
— After him came his disciple, Menander, avowing the same
tenets as Simon himself; whatever titles Simon had given
himself, these Menander also assumed, denying that any could
'be saved, except those who were baptized in his name, &c.'*
I would observe, by the way, that the opinion which has been
held by modern writers, and advanced also by some ancient
ecclesiastical writers, that this Simon professed many doc-
trines in common with the Gnostic sects, does not, in the
first place, necessarily lead to the conclusion that he was the
founder of these ; and, in the next place, the things which ai'e
related in general respecting Simon, by Iren^us, adv. Haer.
* [ Cent. I. P. n. Ch. v. Sect. 11, of Mosheim's Eccl. Hist, by Mac-
LAIITE. — Tr. ]
^ I Ibid. sect. 10.— TV. 3
^91
L. I. c. 20 ; the Author of the Apostol. Constitut. L. vi. c. 8,
9 ; in the Recog. of Clem. Rom. L. i. c. 19 s. 74. L. ii. iik
Homil. Clem. ii. m; by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. L. ii. c. 13.
14 ; and othei-s, are, for the most part, if we except what St.
liuke tells us in the Acts, and if, indeed, there were not two
persons of the name of Simon, — obscure, doubtful, and al-
together uncertain ; some of them even trifling and ridiculous ;
as, for example, what is related by Justin Martyr, Apol. 1 ;
so that nothing can be advanced on the subject, which carries
with it the least appearance of truth. I have entered into
this brief discussion, in order to shew, that there is nothing ei-
ther in the word aJ'^stfij which occurs in Scripture, or in the
instances of Alexander and others, which makes against my
opinion; or is calculated to render Firmilian's testimony
doubtful, and to expose it to the suspicion of falsehood : but
rather that it can thence be fully established, that the heresies
of the Gnostics arose after the time of the Apostles ; and cer-
tainly did not, before that period, prove injurious to the Chris
tian church and doctrine.
I add lastly the authority of Tertullian, who expressly
denies that the Gnostics arose at the period commonly assign-
ed. The passage most in point occurs in his work entitled
* De praescrip. adv. haer.' c. 29 s. ; where Tertullian makes
use of the same argument employed by Clemens Alex, in the
passage above-mentioned ; namely, shewing the antiquity of
the Christian religion, and the novelty of heresies. The first
argument he adopts, is drawn from the nature of the case.
" Ante Christiani," he says, " quam Christus inventus ? ante
haereses, quam vera doctrina ? Sed enim in omnibus Veritas
imaginem antecedit ; postremo similitudo succedit. Caeterum
satis ineptum, ut prior doctrina haeresis habeatur, &c." " Were
Christians found before Christ came ? were there heresies
before the true doctrine ? For, m all cases, truth precedes
the resemblance of it ; the likendSs comes afterwards. It is
absurd enough, then, to maintain that the doctrine of the
heretics came first in order, 6lc" He then goes on to treat
of the authors of the different heresies, c. 30 ; and shews
that they were all subsequent to the time of the Apostles.
!!J92 NO TKACES OP THE GNOSTICS
" tJbi tunc Marcion, Ponticus nauclerus, Stoicae studiosus '
Ubi tunc Valentinus, Platonicse sectator ? Nam constat, illos
neque adeo olim fuisse. * Antonini fere principatu et in catho-
licam pene doctrinam credidisse, apud ecclesiam Romanen-
sena, sub episcopatu Eleutheri benedicti, donee ob inquietam
eorum semper curiositatem semel et iterum ejecti." " Where
was Marcion then, the pilot of Pontus, the disciple of the
Stoic philosophy ? Where was Valentine, the follower of
Platonism ? For it is well known that they were not of
so ancient a date ; and that, somewhere in the reign of An-
toninus, they believed in the doctrine which almost universally
prevailed -, being of the church of Rome, during the episcopate
of the blessed Eleutherus, until, on account of their continually
restless inquisitiveness, they were once and then a second time
ejected." And then he proceeds as follows : " Si Marcion
Novum Testamentum a Vetere separavit, posterior est eo, quod
separavit ; quia separare non posset, nisi quod unitum fuit."
" If Marcion separated the New Testament from the Old, he
must have come after that which he thus separated ; he could
not have separated what had never been united." He re-
fers, moreover, to the churches and bishops of the Gnostics?,
who were neither appointed by the Apostles, nor reached up
to their time. " Caeterum," says he, c. 32, " si quae audent
interserere se aetati Apostolicae, ut ideo videantur ab Apostolis
traditae, quia sub Apostolis fuerunt : possumus dicere, edant
ergo origines ecclesiarum suarum, evolvant ordinem episco-
porum suorum, ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem,
ut primus ille episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis vel Apostolicis
viris habuerit auctorem et antecessorem. — Ita omnes haereses
probent se quaqua putant Apostolicas. Sed adeo nee sunt,
nee possunt probare, quod non sunt, &c." "But if any
of these presume to make themselves contemporary with the
Apostles, that they may thereby appear to have been trans-
mitted from them, because'they were during their time ; we
may say, let them shew, then, the origin of their churches,
let them unfold the series of their bishops, coming down in
such a regular succession from the beginning, that their
first bishop was constituted and preceded by some one of the
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. ^3
Apostles, or some Apostolic peraou. — In this manner let all
heresies prove that they are, as they suppose themselves,
Apostolic. But they are not such, and therefore cannot prove
it, &c." At the end of c. 33, he uses the very authority of
the Apostles, v^ho pointed out by name the enemies of the
Christian religion w^ho vsrere then in existence ; but among
these did not make any mention at all of the Valentinians, the
Marcionites, or the Gnostics ; from v^^hich he infers, that the
opinions of these were subsequent to the doctrine of the
Apostles. C. 34, he says, " Eligant igitur sibi tempora uni-
versae hsereses, quae quando fuerint ; dum non intersit, qtee,
quando de veritate non sint ; utique, quae ab Apostohs no-
minatsB non fuerunt, sub Apostohs fuisse non possunt. Si enim
fuissent, nominarentur et ipsae, ut et ipsae coercendae. Quse
vero sub Apostohs fuerunt, in sua nominatione damnantur."
Such, then, are those testimonies of the ancient ecclesiasti-
cal writers, by which I designed to prove, that the philosopliy
of the Gnostics did not reach as far back as the age which is
commonly assigned to it. I shall now proceed to another
argument, by which to strengthen this opinion, and to shew
the falsehood of the opposite position. The sentiment which
I oppose cannot be proved by a single testimony of the wri-
ters of the First Century ; but they observe in their writings
a profound silence on the subject ! I will not deny, that this
species of argument, derived from the silence of writers, h
not capable of a universal application, and that, even in the in-
stance before us, many allow little, or no weight at all to it ;
and I admit that, in many cases, this is a correct mode of pro-
ceeding: but not, when writers who are diligent, and worthy
of credit, are engaged in relating facts of this kind, and when
the thing is itself of such a nature, that from its notoriety it
could not have been unknown, nor, from the very design of
the history, could it have been omitted without fear of blame
by the writers of the age to which it belongs, when they had
a reason and an opportunity for mentioning it. If I shall be
able to shew, then, that such was the case in the present in-
stance, I trust that this kind of argument will not be deemed
altoj^ether without weight. It is plain, and appears, indeed.
2i94 NO TRACES OP THE GNOSTICS
from the observations already made, that the authors and
supporters of the opposite opinion suppose, that the Oriental
and Gnostic philosophy not only began before the time of
Christ, but was besides this in such reputation, was so cele-
brated and favorably received through all the world, as to
h£ve admirers and disciples both very numerous in multitude,
and distinguished for the elegance of their genius and learn-
ir^. Now it is altogether improbable, that the ancient wri-
ters would be silent upon such a subject as this, those of them
especially, who were treating of philosophical and theological
subjects : we might rather expect, that in their works, nume-
rcus as they were, and of such a kind, they would enter into
considerable discussion respecting it, as being something new
aid strange ; or, at any rate, would say a word in mention of
it. But, as I have already said, there is nothing of the kind
tc be found in any Greek, Latin, or Jewish writer. In the
former, indeed, the Greek and Latin writers, not the faintest
shadow of any trace of the Oriental or Gnostic philosophy
among the Asiatic Greeks is discovered, which would lead us
to suppose that they knew any thing about it ; nor has it been
found possible, even to this day, to adduce one testimony from
all antiquity, which carries with it even any semblance of truth.
Some, I know, are cited, but we shall presently see to what
they amount. Luci an handled all kinds of philosophers very
severely ; but it is worthy of remark, that he let the Gnostic
philosphers pass without censure ; or rather, he made no
miention of them ; which certainly would not have been the
case, if any thing had been known about them at that time in
Asia : unless, perhaps, he did this out of regard for them,
being himself strongly attached to that excellent philosophy !
But much more remarkable is it, that a subject of such im-
portance as this was entirely passed over by the Jewish wri-
ters, and by those of them most worthy of credit, viz. Josephus
and Philo. As these authors were extremely diligent in re-
cording every thing relating to the Jews, and were very learn-
ed in the Greek language, they must have been mtimately ac-
quainted with the Gnostic philosophy ; and would certainly
have mentioned it, if it had been so extensively known and dis-
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 295
seminated in Palestine, the country of Josephus, and in Egypt,
where, according to the opinion of very learned men, Philo
lived.
It is well known with what minuteness Josephus treated of
all the sects of the Jews, and related their history, doctrines,
and opinions ; with the exception of the Therapeutae, whose
school was established only in Egypt. He did not even omit
the Zealots, although they were rather a faction among the
Jews, than a sect. But he has not said a word respecung
the Oriental or Gnostic philosophy. Now is it likely, that
Josephus would have passed by this philosophy and its fol-
■ lowers, if at that period, and for a short time before, it kad
been known and also cultivated in Judea ? Would it not
have been a culpable omission on his part, to say nothng
about a subject so important as the Gnostic philosophy is
thought to have been ? But he was unacquainted with it, aid
did not understand it ! On the contrary, he did acquire a knov-
ledge of it, during his stay in Egypt, asBaucKER supposes, X
II. p. 709. Yet he has not said a word respecting it, nor ha?
given us the faintest trace of it. He himself, moi-eover, re
lates, that, saving the education peculiar to his own country,
he bestowed his attention exclusively upon Greek learning,
although it was the custom of his nation to despise every
thing foreign. Antiq. Jud. Lib. xx, at the end. Yet he does
not mention the Oriental and Gnostic philosophy.
We must come to the same conclusion in regard to the au-^
thority of Philo, who is also silent about this philosophy in
those places, where he would have been no less inexcusable in
omitting it than Josephus : and further, if he had had any know-
ledge of it, he would certainly have mentioned it in his work
* de Vita Contemplativa,' throughout the whole of which book
he has treated of the Therapeutae, who are thought by some
of the learned to have agreed in many respects with the
Gnostics. He has nowhere, however, mentioned it, although
he lived and wrote in Egypt, where, in the opinion of learned
men, the Oriental and Gnostic philosophy began, and was in
very great repute ; and used, and particularly delighted in
the allegorical mode of interpretation, from which the Gno«-
296 NO TRACES or THE GNOSTICS
tic philosophy was derived, and of which it ahnost altogether
consisted. I am indeed aware, that some very learned men,
as Mosheim, Brucker, Michaelis,* and Walch, suppose that
the Essenes were those Oriental philosophers, at least that
they had many things in common with them ; respecting
whom both Josephus and Philo have treated at large, in whose
books there are also traces of these philosophers. Two ar-
guments, however, may be urged against this opinion. In the
first place, Josephus and Philo, with one consent, class the Es-
senes among the Jewish sects. The principal places in Jo-
SEfHus, are Lib. n. c. 8. §. 2, de Bell. Jud., Ed. Oxon. 1720,
wkere he says expressly, that among the three sects of the
Jews are the Essenes, who are Jews by birth, and pay great
attention to the cultivation of mutual affection ; and Ant,
J^d. L. XV. c. 10. XIII. c. 10 ; but particularly Lib. xviii. c.
^, where he says, lovSaiais rpsTg s/vai h rov cr'avu dp-xam twv *aT^i-
(Jj Twv Etftf'Jivwv, xa« rriv rdv 2a55ojxaiwv, t^(tojv ds (piXo(fo<pwv twv
(^apjfl'aiwv. Philo expressly states the same thing in several
i)laces ; for example, ' Quod om- prob. Lib.' p. 876, Ed. Franc.
1691, where he thus speaks ; Xsyovrai Tivsg cra^' auror^ (i. e.
lo\)8a'm$) ovofAtt Etftfajoi : " there are certain persons among them,
(i. e. among the Jews,) called Essenes." But, m the next
) place, facts are opposed to this opinion ; for the philosophy
under discussjon rejected the whole law, while, according to
Philo, in the passage just referred to, the Essenes were very
much attached to it ; and, moreover, it inculcated so many
false and pernicious opinions respecting God and divine
things, that neither a disciple of the Essene school, nor any
* Einleit. ins N. T. P. ii. p. 1247, Gott. 1788. His words are these :
'< The scattered observations made by Philo and Josephus respecting the
Essenes, may all be explained from the principles of that philosophy,
which I might briefly term the Oriental or Gnostic ; though it is to be
observed, that the Essenes did not adopt all the peculiarities of this phi-
losophy, but principally the moral part of it, and truly a gloomy and
monastic morality. At least, Philo is their great eulogist, who, in other
matters relating to doctrine, is a violent opponent of the Gnostics." —
[See Marsh's Michaelis, Vol. iv. p. 82. Lond. 180?.— Tr.]
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 397
Other Jew, could, without losing liis purity of doctrine, approve
and follow it.
But Philo, although he either designedly abstained frowi
mentioning the Oriental and Gnostic philosophy, or negligent-
ly passed it by as being improper for his own nation, yet in
particular opinions followed the principles of that philosophy ,,
and gives frequent and evident marks of this in his writings.
I know, indeed, that this assertion is made by learned men^
particularly by Brucker, in order to prove, that traces of the
Oriental and Gnostic philosophy are not altogether wanting
in the works of Philo. But, in the first place, it is injpossible
to discover for what reason Philo observed an utter silence
about this kind of philosophy. Because he thought it did no
credit to his nation ? Such a reason as this amounts to no-
thing, and, in my opinion, ought never to have been mention-
ed : that Philo, forsooth, considered it as unworthy of his
character and his nation, to give any account of philosophers
and of polite learning, which he himself, so far from despising,
admired and cultivated to such a degi'ee, that he may rightly
be ranked among the most successful imitators of the more
elegant learning of the ancients ; so much so, that, if he did not
quite come up to it, he seems to have approached very near,
and, in acuteness of mind, and elegance of language, to have
borne a close resemblance to Plato and Demosthenes. In
the next place, I should like to see the passages, where Mosg
heim and Brucker have thought they discovered traces in
Philo of the Oriental and Gnostic philosophy, expressly point-
ed out by them ; that we might have something definite on
the subject. I perceived, indeed, when I read that very
learned, but somewhat too prolix work, the " Hist. Crit. Phi-
losoph.," that passages of the kind referred to are here and
there cited by Brucker ; whose principal aim is to establish
the opinion, that Philo was veiy fond of the Oriental and
Gnostic philosophy, and that this is very evident from his
writings. But the reply to these is easy. For; in order to
let us see with clearness the main particulars of a man's doc-
trine, and to what school he was attached, it is not enough to
adduce passages of any kind whatever : but. in the first place.
' ' ' * 38
298 NO TRACES OF THE GNOSTICS
they must be doctrinal, i. e. places in which the author is de-
livering his own doctrines ; not historical, that is, where he is
relating the sentiments and opinions of others : and, in the
second place, they must be plain and clear. Now the
places cited by Brucker do not appear to be of this charac-
ter ; being either historical, or obscure and doubtful. That
I may not appear to accuse unjustly this learned man, I shall
endeavor to prove my assertion. To the first class belongs
that passage to which he refers in Vol. vi. p. 415 ; conip. Vol.
11. p. 772 s. It is in p. 876 s. Ed. Franc. 1691, of Philo's
work entitled * Quod om. prob. lib.,' where he is treating of
the Essenes, and is handling the subject historically ; and re-
lates their manners, rites, and customs ; and says that they
leave to others the dialectic part of philosophy, as being not
necessary for the formation of a virtuous character ; bestow-
ing their attention on that alone which gives rules of life and
morals ; that they examine every thing by the threefold law,
which inculcates the love of God, of virtue, and of men ;
that they have great reverence for God ; despise riches and
honors ; live continently ; and other things of the same kind.
What trace is there, I would ask, of the Oriental philosophy,
in such a passage as this ? and even if there were any, it
cannot be thereby proved, that Philo was a follower of it ;
since the passage is not doctrinal, but historical, and is not
at -all, therefore, to the purpose. But how Brucker came
to think so, may be easily conjectured ; for he thought that
the Essenes w^ere those very philosophers themselves.
To the other class of passages, that is, obscure, doubtful,
and therefore uncertain, belong those places cited by Brucker
and others, in which Philo discourses concerning the "kdyog.
As the Gnostics trifled a great deal about this subject, there-
fore Philo himself was also a Gnostic ! Those who have ad-
vanced this opinion did not recollect, that some consider this
use of the term Xoyog as peculiar to Philo ; while others think
it was borrowed from the diction and refinement of Plato^
whom Philo copied : and that this very difference of opinion
shews the obscurity and difficulty of these passages ; a dif-
ficulty which verv learned men have not hesitated to acknow-
iN THE N^iW TESTAHENT. 290
lodge. Neither is it enough to say, that, because Phiio main-
tained one or two opinions, or modes of phraseology, in com-
mon with the Gnostics, he learned and adopted them from
these. So, however, Brucker thinks, Tom. ni. p. 385 ; and
he thence proves, that Philo was attached to the Gnostic and
Oriental philosophy, since, in his work ' de Mundi Opif.,' p.
3 s. Ed. Franc. 1691, he agrees with Jamblichus, * de
Myster. iEgypt.' Sect. v. c. 23, p. 183, and derives from
Demiurge the origin of the world and of matter. But, in
the first place, in regard to the opinion itself, there is no
such thing as this in the words of Philo. For he says nothing
more, than that God, in the creation of the world, formed to
himself, first of all, an intelligible image of it, that he might
complete the corporeal world after the pattern of that
which was incorporeal, and most like to God ; this more re-
cent one being a resemblance of the older, and being intend-
ed to embrace as many sensible kinds of objects, as there
were intelligible kinds in the other. His words are these :
Oso^ ^ov\ri6sts <r6v oparov rouTev/ xetffji/ov ^rjfJMou^yijo'aj, cff osfSTU'Tr'ou rov
vorjTov, i'va ^pCifisvog difujiiarc} xui '$ssosiSs(fTarui 'gapoidzl'y^a.riy rov
tfWfAaTixov difSpyacfriTai, 'sfps&QvTSpou vsdrspov d'Tr'sjxo'vifl'fjLa, ro(favTa «»'£-
pis^ovra ai(f6yiTa ys'vij, oda.itzp ^v Ixsivw \ot\ra» What is there, I
would ask, in this place, about Demiurge, or the origin of the
world and of matter from him, or about seons, sephirs, ema-
native virtues, and other things of that kind, which Brucker
thinks it contains ? Philo speaks of God in a human way ;
and, as what follows clearly shews, compares him with a
king, who, if he has undertaken to build a city, first con-
ceives in his mind and thoughts that which he terms the in-
telligible city, voYjri^v croXiv, and then orders the city which he
has thus conceived to be built ; this last being called by Phi-
lo the corporeal city, cwfAaTwaj. He himself explains his
meaning more clearly in p. 5, where he says ; ou^evav eVejov
hitai Tov vo>jTov sfvai xorf^ov, ^ ^£ou Xo/ov -^Srj xotrfAotfoiouvro^ oudi
/ap v} voriT-^ <3ro'Xi5 sVepov ti kth, -?} h tou d/»xi^sxTovog XoyjtffAoj ''ih t^v
voiir75v *6Xiv xri^iiv 5<avosfjLsvou. There is, therefore, no reason
for supposing, that Philo in that place referred ta the doC"
?JO0 NO TRACTiS OF THE GNOSTICS
Irines of the Gnostics. If the reader, however, prefers the
opinion, that he had some particular philosophy in view, I
should rather think it to be the barbarian, which, according
to Clem. Alexand., Strom, v. p. 593, recognized a xoC/aos
vo»)To5 and a<V^7]To?5 the former being the dp-^^srvifog, and the
latter an e/jcwv tou xaXoufts'vou 'xapaSsiyij.ards ; and which opinion
he classes among those, borro^ved by the Greeks from the
Barbarians. Brucker does not seem to have been altogether
opposed to this opinion, and, on this account, appears some-
what inconsistent with himself ; for, in another place, viz.
Tom. n. p. 802, he thinks that these ideas are to be regarded
as improved Platonism. Perhaps, however, in the passage
above mentioned, he was deceived by the word ^ri^io'jpyog,
which Philo uses in the place cited, and in a thousand others ;
and which it is surprising that even some among the
ancient ecclesiastical writers, considered as unsuitable to
God. This w^ord, however, ought not to be offensive, since
it is applied to God not only by profane writers, but also in
the sacred Scriptures ; as Heb. xi. 10. Comp. Elsner, Obs.
ISac. Tom. i. p. 365.
I cannot pass by another passage, particularly worthy of
ijotice, in w^hich Philo is thought to have followed the Oriental
philosophy. It occurs in his work ' de Great. Princ' p. 728, Ed.
Franc. 1691, where there is found a description of the creation
of the world, in which, among other things, he uses these words :
0sog Ttt fji.7] ovra ixaXstfsv slg to s/vai, and, sx (fxoTovg cpCig ipyoctfa^svog ;
which, to my great surprise, Brucker, Tom. ii. p. 884,
thinks cannot be understood, " unless, according to the doc-
trine of the Cabbalists, which arose in Egypt, we maintain,
that divine emanations, when they removed to a great dis-
tance from the supreme light, became darkness, on account
of being deprived of light ; but that, through Sephiroth, and
the canal of Adam Kadmon, a ray of light was transmitted
into the darkness, and thus the material w^orld was formed."
But is not the passage in question perfectly intelligible, without
maintaining any such thing ? To me, indeed, this doctrine of
the Cabbalists, so strange and seraphic in its character, wraS
'much more obscure than the passage of Philo, the meaning of
IN 'nit NEW TESTAMENT. ^Ol
which, without thinking any thing about those egregious trifles^
I perceived as soon as I looked at it ; recollecting some
places to be met with in the sacred books, in which both
those phrases occur. The first, xaXsTv tol fA>j ovra slg to sivai. oc-
curs, with a slight variation, in Rom. iv. 17, where it is, xoCksTv
ra ju.^ ovfa i}s ovra ; though this place of St. Paul may be ex-
plained in another way also, viz. as referring to future things,
and the foreknowledge of them. But there is another place^
II. Mace. VII. 28, where the phrase to, oux ovra occurs in the
same way as to, ^iri ovra in the passage of Philo. Now the
words TO, ovra, in common Greek language, generally signify
" the things which are ;" and ra iiri 6Wa the same as f/^r^ s-k
(pajvofxs'vwv, in Heb. xi. 3, which is* for h it^n (paivofAs'vwv ; a phrase
particularly frequent with Thucydides, as Markland, who
was thoroughly versed in the Greek language, has observed in
his notes on Lysias.* But the phrase ra, iiij 9a»vo/xiva signifies,
" things which do not exist, and therefore cannot be perceiv-
ed ;" in which sense it occurs also in Joseph us. Ant. Jud. L.
v. c. 10. Ed. Oxon. 1720. The other phrase occurs, in a simi-
lar manner, in ii. Cor. iv. 6 ; except that for ipyu(faiisvog (pwj h
(fxoTovg there is the Hebrew form of expression o skwv ex tfxo-
Tous <?wj XajXvj^ai ; evidently, however, in the same sense. In
my opinion, therefore, this passage of Philo is clear enough,
without bringng any light upon it from the absurdities of the
Gnostics ; and, as the phrases used in it are common both
with the sacred writers and with Philo, it is evident, that they
were derived not from the usage of the Gnostic philosophers,
but from the customary mode of speaking of the Jews ; who,
when they wished to describe the creation of things -which
before had no existence, said, that God produced things that
were not, or ordered light to arise in the place of darkness.
But I will grant, although, as I have shewn, there is no ne-
cessity for doing so, that Pliilo in certain opinions agi-eed with
the Gnostics. Is Philo, I would ask, on that account, to
be called a Gnostic, or a votary and defender of the Orien-
* [ See Lysias, Ed. Reiske, Vol. i. p. 281.--7V. ]
^0^ NO TRACES OF THE GNOSTICS
tal philosophy ? For it is evident, that many persons ire-
quently entertain, or seem to entertain, certain opinions in
common with others, which they can by no means be said to
have derived from them. The Pharisees, according to Jose-
phus, held in common with the Pelagians the doctrine, that a
man can live a holy life by his own strength ; and thus they
were the first broachers of Pelagianism. But did they learn
this from the school of Pelagius, and did they follow him ?
Was the Pelagian error known, and diffused far and wide, at
that period ? The case is precisely the same in regard to
Philo ; who must not be supposed to have been attached to
those egregious trifles, for so they ought to be called rather
than elegancies, but' rathef to have learned them from his
own Platonic school. The Gnostics, on the other hand, must
be said to have derived some things from Philo and Plato, if
we determine that there is any agreement between their
doctrine.
It ought, however, to be borne in mind, that the Gnostics dif-
fered in many respects from one another, and that we have no
certain knowledge what their opinions were ; our information
being for the most part obscure and doubtful. The reason of
this lies, partly in the Gnostic tenets themselves, which are ex-
ceedingly obscure and involved ; and partly also in the circum-
stance, that not a single book or confession of theirs is extant,
from which we might determine something certain respecting
their opinions. The whole matter, therefore, has to be de-
cided by reference to the works of others, and of those, more-
over, who have undertaken to refute the Gnostics; who,
though it cannot be laid to their charge, that, through hatred
or ignorance, they branded these their enemies with infamy,
cannot, however, be pronounced altogether free, in their fre-
quent controversies, from the appearance of too impetuous a
zeal, and of the frailty belonging to human nature. The
system of the Gnostics was first explained by Irenseus, whose
^ Books against Heresies ' are among the sources, from which
a knowledge of the Gnostic heresies is to be derived. He has
this fault, however, in common with others, that he employs
himself rather in refuting, than simply recording, their wicked
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. SO*^
tenets, and speaks more like a censor, than a historian : not
to say, that only a Latin version of his work is extant, and
that, too, a baVbarous and uncouth one ; the author of whicli
had no competent knowledge either of Greek or Latin, and is
therefore in many places very obscure. Now if any person
liad it in his power to become acquainted with these difficul-
ties, with which, so far as its tenets and character are concern-
ed, the philosophy of the Gnostics is beset, it must certainly
have been those, whose studies were chiefly devoted to its
illustration. These persons, accordingly, have not hesitated
to avow them ; as, for example, Mosheim, Instit. H. E. maj.
p. 142, and 372 : Brucker, Tom. ii. p. 639 s. where he thus
speaks ; " It is to be lamented that the books of these men
are no longer in existence, and that only a few small frag-
ments remain ; and also that the ecclesiastical writers, per-
plexed from various causes, have rendered the knowledge of
their system so confused, that thus far little can be said re-
specting this philosophy, and its true reasonings and principles,
which is not, by the insuperable difficulties with which it is
surrounded, nearly proof against the most diligent scrutiny."
He shews the same thing at the end of the chapter, through
the whole of §. xi. p. 651 s., and Tom. vi. p. 402 s. Mi-
CHAELis agrees with him, in his Einleit. ; and also Semler,
who in his * Comment. Hist, de ant. Chr. Statu, p. 76, says,
" It is to be regretted, that we have nothing at all remaining
of the writings of the Gnostics, except scattered and obscure
opinions, of which we find it hard to form even a small collec-
tion, out of the writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others of
later date." But if this be the fact, how vain the attempt to
determine upon the agreement that exists, between Philo and
the Gnostics.
Some things, however, remain to be said, respecting the
source of the Gnostic philosophy^ the parent, so to speak, t>f this
offspring, namely, the Oriental philosophy, which I might very
well have omitted, had I not thought that they tended strong-
ly to confirm and throw light upon my own opinion. The
opinion of Mosheim and Brucker, 1 shall give in their own
words : "that a certain philosophy prevailed through almost all
304 NO TRACES OP THE GNOSTICS
the provinces of Asia, and of the whole East, different from the
Greek, and from that which is called the barbarian, and en-
tirely opposite to it ; and that this was not only known to
other nations, but was also cultivated by them, as a superior
part of philosophy, and constituted a peculiar kind of diviner
wisdom or theology, in relation to God and the world ; and
that this same philosophy, or theology, is the source of the
Gnostic philosophy." Now I am certainly not among those,
who would entirely reject the testimonies adduced in support of
this opinion, drawn as they are from a rich store of profound
erudition ; and who would pertinaciously deny what has been
advanced by two men of such distinguished attainments. Two
things, however, I propose to do ; in the first place, to the
testimonies cited by them I shall oppose others ; and, in the
next place, I shall offer some doubts in regard to those which
Brucker has adduced, Tom. vi. Hist. Crit. Phil. p. 411 ss. and
which are the most prominent, and exceedingly plausible.
And first, one suggestion presents itself, which I cannot
think entirely unworthy of attention, that all the ancient ec-
clesiastical writers were evidently unacquainted with the
Oriental philosophy, much less considered it as the source of
that of the Gnostics : but, on the contrary, derived the origin
of the latter partly from the doctrine of the Jews, which at
that period abounded in errors and trifles, and partly from the
Greek philosophy, particularly the Platonic. Clear proofs of
this statement are to be met with ; and how they are to be re-
conciled together, will be seen at the end of the present treatise.
Among those ancient ecclesiastical writers, who considered
the doctrines of the Gnostics as being derived from the idle
fables of the Jews, is particularly to be mentioned that same
Hegesippus, of whom I have spoken above ; who, in Euseb.
H. E. IV. 22. p. 142 s., clearly shews, that the heresies of Si-
mon, Positheus, Menander, Marcion, Carpocrates, Valentine,
Basihdes, and others, who, if not all, yet most of them, were
either authors of the Gnostic absurdities, or their promoters
and disciples, at least the persons who first suggested them,
derived their origin from Juda3ism, or, to use his own words,
from the seven sects of the Jews, (which are then enumerated.
IN THE NKW TESTAMENT.
-m
VIZ. the Essenes, Galileans, Hemerobaptists, Masbotheatis,
Samaritans, Sadducees, and Pharisees,) and that thence arose
false prophets, false apostles, and false Christs. And Has
opinion is approved of by Valesius, in loc. Other ancient ec-
clesiastical writers, however, and, which is particularly to be
borne in mind, those who more thoroughly than any otheii?s
investigated and refuted the Gnostic doctrines, viz. Irenaeus,
' adv. haer.' L. ii. c. 14, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Tertullian,
passages from whom I shall presently cite, suppose that the
Gnostics learned their tenets from the Greek philosophers,
but particularly from Plato ; and that they were either dis-
ciples or rivals of him, and altered his system for the worse : aii(t
the testimony of these men ought to be considered as of grea£
weight for this, among other reasons, that they had come over
to Christianity from the schools of the Platonic philosophers.
In order to prove their point, they have adduced examples by
no means undeserving of attention ; and have instituted com-
parisons between the philosophers referred to, which, how-
ever they may appear to some to be a little far-fetched and
refined, and more ingenious than correct, yet shew that it was
not through ignorance of the Oriental philosophy, that those
writers derived the heresies of the Gnostics from the Grecian
philosophy. Their opinion, moreover, receives great proba-
bility from the circumstance, that the philosophy of the Gnos-
tics took its i-ise in the same regions, in which that of the
Greeks almost exclusively prevailed. This has led many verj^
learned men to assent to their decision ; among whom are
Massudt, Diss. I. in Iren. p. 93 s. Vitringa, Obss. Sac. p. 135
ss., &c. And, in truth, it is very surprising, that Clemens Alex-
andrinus, in so lai'ge a work as the * Stromata,' in which he has
so many admirable discussions respecting the Gentile philo-
sophy, does not utter a syllable about the Oriental philosophy.
On the contraiy, though he had no enmity against schools
of this nature, and admired to the gi-eatest degree every kind
of liberal learning, (comp. Strom. L. i. p. 292. and 297, and
the very honorable testimony borne to him by Eusebius, H.
E. VI. 1, 13, 18.) yet he constantly speaks of the philosophy
of the Greeks and Barbarians only, except in one passage^
39
306 NO TRACES OP THE GNOSTICS
about which we shall see presently ; and in Lib. i. Strom, p.
302, he divides all learning into the Grecian and Barbarian only,
and shews that from it one system must be selected. Hence
we may infer, I think, not without reason, that Clemens knew
nothing about any Oriental philosophy ; but rather that he
traced the opinions of the Gnostics, which are usually consi-
dered as being derived from that source, to the Grecian and
Barbarian. With Clemens Alex, agrees Tertullian, *de
praescrip. adv. ha?r.' c. 7. His words are as follows : " Ipsa^
haereses a Philosophia subornantur. Inde seones et forma?,
nescio quae, et trinitas hominis apud Valentinum. Platonicus
fuerat. Inde Marcionis Deus melior, de tranquiUitate ; a
Stoicis venerat : et uti anima interire dicatur, ab Epicureis
observatur. Et ut carnis restitutio negetur, de una omnium
Philosophorum schola sumitur. Et ubi materia cum Deo
sequatur, Zenonis disciplina est : et ubi aliquid de igneo Deo
alligatur, Heraclitus intervenit. Esedem materiae apud haere-
ticos et Philosophos volutantur, iidem retractatus implicantur^
Unde malum et quare ? et unde homo et quomodo ? Et quod
proximo Valentinus proposuit, unde Deus ? Scilicet de En-
thymesi et ectromate. Sequitur Aristotelem, qui ilhs Dialec-
ticam instituit, &c." " Heresies themselves are suborned by
philosophy. Thence came aeons, and I know not what other
forms, and the human trinity of Valentine. He had been of
the Platonic school. Thence the superior Deity of Marcion,-
as respects the tranquillity ascribed to him ; this idea cam^
from the Stoics. The doctrine that the soul dies, is maintain-
ed by the Epicureans. The denial of the resurrection of the
body, is taken from all the philosophers without exception.
Where matter is made equal with God, it is the school of
Zeno : and where any confused remarks are made respecting
a fiery God, there it is Heraclitus. The same subjects are
treated by the heretics and by philosophers ; both discuss the
same intricate questions. Whence came evil, and wherefore ?
Whence came man, and how ? And the inquiry next pro-
posed by Valentine, Whence came God ? Forsooth, an in-
vention of caprice and distorted fancy. He follows Aristotle,
who taught all those persons dialectics : ^c." I have added
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 307
this passage, indeed, with some diffidence ; as Bruckeb, Tom.
VI. p. 402, wonders " that it is mentioned at the present en-
lightened period of the history of philosophy ; it being ob-
vious that Tertullian wrote in this manner, merely for the
purpose of heaping odium upon the heretics." I must con-
fess, however, that I cannot see how Tertullian would have
stained the character of the Gnostics, by saying that they
learned their system from the Greeks. Perhaps because the
worthy writers of the church, like many in our own day, despisp
ed the instruction which is to be derived from polite, or, to use
plainer terms, profane learning ; and endeavored to dissuade
persons from the study of it, as being dangerous and perni-
cious, and tending to Atheism and paganism. This, how-
ever, is by no means the fact. Yet no other reason appears
for supposing, that Tertullian, in the expression of this opinion
of his, desired to detract from the character of the Gnostics.
Not to say that it has been admitted by very distinguished
men, and also by Brucker himself, as we shall hereafter see,
that we have had as yet very little light in the work of illuS"
trating the Oriental philosophy.
I now proceed to consider those testimonies which are ad-
duced by learned men, in order to prove, both that there was
a philosophy of this sort, which they have been pleased to
term Oriental, and that the Gnostic was taken from it ; and
to offer some doubts in regard to them, especially to those
cited by Brucker, 1. c. which are prominent, and have been
most recently advanced. These testimonies, I must confess,
appear to me rather vague and ambiguous. They shew
clearly, indeed, that the Persians, Egyptians, and others,
were famous for their extraordinary learning or wisdom, and
that this induced the Greeks to become acquainted with it ;
and this nobody is disposed to deny : for Clemens Alex,
shews through the whole of the Fifth Book of tlie Stromata,
that the latter took many ideas from them, and transferred
them to their own philosophy. But it cannot in any way be
discovered by what is there said, whether these nations had
any peculiar system of philosophy, or mystical theology, dis-
tinct from that general wisdom ; of what sort it was ; what
308 NO TRACES or THE cTnOSTICS
was' its character and genius ; or wliat doctrines it delivered ;
which, however, is very necessary, if these testimonies are
to prove any thing ; for otherwise this philosophy may be
made to suit any opinions whatsoever. But, as I have
said, we do not find this in the passages cited. The princi-
pal references are these. In Pliny, H. N. L. xxx. proem;,
Democritus is said to have gone " to learn the magian philo-
sophy ;" (ad philosophiam magicam discendam,) and in Por-
phyry, Vit. Plotini, c. 13, Plotinus is also stated to have set
put " to endeavor to learn the philosophy cultivated among
the Persians ;*' {(piXocfocpias cra/)a toTs Tlsptiafs iifirridsmii^ivrig ifsTfav
Xa^sTv,) and finally, in EuNAnus, Aedes. p. 61, two strangers
profess, ^rvai Trjg-xoLKdoCixrjg (fo(pias xaXou|ASV*js oux (tfAu'^TOUg, that they
are initiated in the Chaldaic wisdom, as it is called, and in-
structed in its mysteries. But what is this (piXotfo(pIa ? None
other than the Oriental, they tell us. But as in these places
the term Oriental philosophy does not occur ; and no one ap-
pellation in particular is used, but sometimes it is called the
magian philosophy, sometimes the Persian, sometimes the
Chaldaic ; and as there are no certain and clear marks, from
which the nature and character of the magian, Persian, and
Chaldaic wisdom, may be known, and which would lead us
thence to infer, that it was the Oriental philosophy ; I think
that my assertion is just, that these testimonies are doubtful,
and of no weight. It is evident, moreover, in how various a
sense the Greek writers used the term 9iXoo'o(p«'a ; compre-
hending in it, chiefly that wisdom, which relates to the go-
vernment of human life ; also eloquence ; and great fortitude
in the endurance of afflictions : but, as far as I know, there
is no example to prove, that they employed it with reference
to any theological system, or to opinions in regard to God,
and divine things. But, to speak my own opinion in respect
to this (piXotfo(pia <rapa ro7s nF^tfaiV, and Coqji'a p^aX^aVxi^, I consider
it as nothing else than that ancient science of the Eastern na-
tions, called Magic ; which was supposed to consist in a se-
cret knowledge of spiritual beings, and a famihar intercourse
with them, and arose first in Chaldea, Persia, and other neigh-
boring countries^ but not vfiry long afterwards was spread
IN THE NJIW TESTAMENT. 309
and boasted of among the Egyptians ; who, owing to their
fanatical and superstitious character, (Brucker, Tom. ii. p.
219.) went even farther still, and attributed to this familiarity
with spirits a power of doing things, which were beyond hu-
man ability. Men of this kind, who cultivated that science,
and a very ancient example of whom is to be found in those
Egyptian impostors, who, imitating by their fraudulent; con- •
trivances the miracles of Moses, endeavored to deceive the
eyes and the minds of the unwary, were called ^aufxatfioi or
Sau/jiaTO'jroioi' ; not only because they were distinguished for
their wonderful power and learning, as Cicero, in his Ora-
tor, calls Herodotus "wonderful" (mirabilem),* and as
Athenaeus, Deipnos. iii. 5,t terms him " most wonderful,"
(^au|uia(rjwrarov,) but because they performed miracles, or ra-
ther false appearances of miracles, feigned either for the sake
of gain, or for superstitious purposes, or in adaptation to the
opinions of the people, who were given up to weak supersti-
tion. Among these was particularly famous that Apollonius
Tyanaeus, of whom the garrulous and trifling Philostra-
Tus, in his ' Vit. Apoll. Tyan.'J has not blushed to say, that
he raised the dead to Hfe. After Apollonius, the next place
in the school of wonderful (^auf*atf»oi) philosophers must be
assigned, as Brucker himself shews, Tom. ii. p. 227, to Plo-
tinus, " since not only, (I use his express words) was he al-
together occupied in metaphysical speculations, but also
boasted of theurgic powers." Compare also p. 143 s. and
265 of the same Volume. Which circumstance is itself a
proof, that by (piXotfo^/a -jrapot roTs liipdats is meant Magic, for
the sake of acquiring which it appears that many philoso-
phers travelled to the nations which were famous for the pro-
fession of it, and on their return boasted that they were com-
pletely instructed in it ; to prove which Brucker, Tom. iii.
p. 379, cites the testimony of Tatian, who, after he had said
* [ Orator, ad Brutum ; Cicer. Opera, Vol. n. p. 5S2, Edit. Gronoy.
Lugd. Bat. 1692.— Tr. ] '
i [ Vol. I. p. 309. Ed. Schweigh.— Tr. ]
t C IV. 16, p. 206, Ed. Morell. Par. 1608.— Tr. ]
3lO NO TRACES OP THE GNOSTICS
" that he had gone over a great part of the earth, and had
acted the philosopher ((ro(pi(rrsu(ra^)," adds, "that he had acquired
innumerable secret arts and inventions/' The case of De-
mocritus, however, is the plainest of all. He vsras universal-
ly charged by the ancients with magic ; and the same Pliny,
who states that he went to learn the magian philosophy, class*
• es him among magical authors, H. N. xxiv. 17. xxx. 1.
Though some learned men, particularly Brucker. Tom. i.
p. 1184, do not agree with him in this representation, and
Gellius, xvii. 21, reproves him for ascribing to Democritus
a number of intolerable absurdities ; yet others, for the most
part, assent to Pliny's account, and are not so ready to acquit
Democritus of the charge of magic. At any rate, it may be
perceived from what has been said, that this passage of Pliny
cannot, with any propriety, be cited, for the purpose of prov-
ing the Oriental philosophy ; since Pliny understood by * ma-
gian philosophy,' though incorrectly, as learned men think,
magic and magical arts.
And that the same thing is meant by * Chaldaic philosophy'
in Eunapius, the whole tenor of the narrative may shew to
any one, even at the slightest investigation. I will give the
reader a brief statement of the writer's subject, that he may
the more easily judge of the great weight of this testimony,
adduced in proof of the Oriental philosophy. To two old
men, Eunapius tells us, who had come to the farm of Sosi-
patra's parents, dressed like travellers, and having the ap-
pearance of rustics, was entrusted, at her request, the care
of a vineyard ; which, from that time, bore fruit in far great-
er abundance than ever, so that every one who saw it imme-
diately suspected a miracle. Wherefore the old men, having
been very handsomely attired, and sent for to a feast, when
they saw Sosipatra, and were captivated with her beauty,
entreated that she might be committed to their instruction
for five years ; beseeching her father not to be anxious ei-
ther about his farm, or his daughter ; but to expect that the
former would yield very abundant fruits, and that the latter
would rise above the condition of mortals. The father com-
plied. When the five years had elapsed, the daughter re-
IN THE NEW TESTAMEiNT. **}11
turned ; and her father not knowing lier, from the size and
beauty of her body, worshipped her, thinking that he saw a
being altogether of another nature. When she had at length
been recognized, she told every thing, from the greatest to
the least, that had happened to her in the mean time ; and
threw her father into such admiration and astonishment by
this account, that he thought his daughter a goddess, and fall-
ing down at the feet of the old men, begged that they would
tell him who they were. They hesitating, said with difficulty,
after a while, that they belonged to the cect, called Chaldaic,
and were initiated in its mysteries ; and this in an enigmatical
manner, and with downcast faces. When the father had
heard this, he begged them, in an imploring manner, that they
would become the proprietors of the farm, and would more
fully instruct his daughter, who was consecrated to the
Gods ; to which they signified their assent by signs, not ut-
tering another word. In what follows, these old men are
called genii ; and she is stated to have been Srsiarf/xsvii xai iv.
Soufl'»(iio'a, (agitated by a divine power, and filled with inspira-
tion,) and Sffjors'/ja, and to have been every where present, and
to have predicted future events, which were brought to pass.
I do not know what others may think, after reading this ;
but, for myself, I do not see even the shadow of a trace of
a certain peculiar science, viz. the Oriental ; but am persuad-
ed that all this relates to magic. And, in truth, I cannot
cease to wonder, that so much stress has been laid upon
this passage, which is evidently to be placed on the list of
mere idle fables ; and ought never to have been cited by
way of proof on such an occasion as this. This is also the
opinion of Walch, in his 'Dissertation on the Source of the
Gnostic System in the Oriental philosophy,* which is added
at the end of Part ii. of the Commentatt. of Michaelis, p.
284 ; where he alsp adds, that not only is the credit of Eu-
napius injured, by his relation of such absurdities, but his tes-
timony is not of much weight, on account of the character of
the age in which he lived.
From what has been said, the point I designed to establish
is clear ; viz. that the passages cited by Brucker from Pliny
312 NO TRACES or THE GNOSTICS
and other writers, do not relate to the Oriental philosopKy,
but to Magic ; and therefore that the whole subject of the
Oriental philosophy is uncertain. But let us grant that those
passages have a different meaning from that which I have as-
signed to them : at any rate they are not to be explained of
the Oriental philosophy, but rather of the barbarian ; which,
though held in great contempt by some of the ancient philo-
sophers, as was the case with Epicurus, according to Cle-
mens Alexand RiN us, * Strom/ L. i. p. 302. ed. Sylb., was
held in the greatest estimation by others ; so that it is easy to
see the reason of the journies made to those nations by the
Greeks. Hence Clemens, in the place just mentioned, ob-
serves that it would be superfluous to prove, that some very
distinguished philosophers and wise men of the Greeks were
both barbarian in their extraction, as Pythagoras, Antisthenes,
Orpheus, and Homer ; and also instructed by the barbarians.
He relates, moreover, that Plato, (as is shewn by his very ele-
gant writings, from which Sylburg has cited passages, at this
place of Clemens,) not only was a great admirer of the bar-
barians, but also frankly confessed, that he and Pythagoras
acquired among those nations the most excellent part of phi-
losophy. Hence he observes, L. vi. p. 629, that Epicurus,
though he said that none but the Greeks understood philoso-
phy, (as had been shewn in the above mentioned passage, L.
I.) stole his principal doctrines from that same Democritus,
who was very learned in the barbarian philosophy ; and also
that Pythagoras conversed intimately with the prophets of the
Egyptians, L. i. 1. c, on which account he submitted to cir-
cumcision, in order that, by entering into their secret recesses,
he might acquire the mystical philosophy of the Egyptians ;
and that he was intimate with the most distinguished of the
Chaldeans and Magians. And no one, I imagine, would deem
Pythagoras a Gnostic ! To this testimony is added that of
Origen, cont. Cels. L. i, p. 5. ed. Hoeschel, who derives the
origin of almost all schools and philosophy from the barba-
rians. There is no need, however, of these proofs, the thing
being quite evident. Nor do I perceive any thing in that
place of Clemens. L. r. p. 303, so far as I can understand it :
IN the; new testament, 313
irom which, because he speaks of the philosophy of tho
Brachmans, the Odrysoe, and the Getae, and also of the Chal-
deans and Arabians, Brucker thinks it may be discovered, that
both the name and reputation of the Oriental philosophy had
spread among the Greeks. This only I can see ; that what
is said relates to the barbarian philosophy, to which the Greeks
accommodated their own ; not to the Oriental, i. e. some pe-
cuhar system, different from the Greek and the barbarian.
The testimonies, therefore, cited by Brucker, in proof of
an Oriental philosophy, have not sufficient certainty, and are
of no weight. It is, indeed, evident from these, and cannot
be denied, that some of the learned men of antiquity had
heard of the remarkable knowledge of the Persians and Chal-
deans ; and that some among them, ardently desirous of ac-
quiring it, took journies to them, and were considerably be-
nefited by their instructions. But the great point under dis-
cussion, and against which I contend, can in no way be made
to appear by these citations ; viz. first, that these nations, be-
sides that philosophy which is commonly attributed to them,
had a ccrttiin peculiar system, of a mystical and theological
nature, different from the barbarian wisdom, so called, and
termed Oriental ; secondly, that this is the source of the Gnos^
tic philosophy ; and iastly, what is absolutely necessary to be
shewn, if any passages of the N. Testament are to be illus^
trated from the Gnostic philosophy, that this Gnostic philoso-
phy took its rise from that Oriental philosophy as early as the
time of Christ, and perhaps long before ; and, what I wish
chiefly to be borne in mind, that it was approved of by the
Jews in Palestine, and by the Greeks in Asia Minor, and also
in Greece itself, at Corinth, and in other places ; and was ea-
gerly received by so great a number of people, and so made
use of to corrupt, and defile with various errors the pure
Christian doctrine, that the Apostles were put to the necessity
of seriously admonishing Christians, not to suffer themselves
to be deceived by it, and of rejecting and vehemently refut-
ing, in their writings, its false doctrines, which had already
crept into the Apostolic doctrine, and $ystem of morals. I
think, therefore, th^re will be none disposed to blame me, be-
40
314 NO TRACES OP THE GNOSTICS
cause I have ventured to differ from the opinion of so many
distinguished men ; and to doubt both as to the existence of
the whole Oriental philosophy, and as to the position that
from it the Gnostic system was derived.
I shall now briefly sum up what has been said. In the
first place, I cited the testimony of authors worthy of credit^
who assign a somewhat later date to the Gnostic philosophy,
than is commonly supposed, and clearly shew that it became
generally known in the Second Century. In the next place
I shewed, that Greek writers, and the Jewish authors Jose-
phus and Philo, have not said a word about the Gnostics even
in those places, where they could not properly have passed
them by, or, at any rate, where they had a convenient oppor-
tunity for mentioning them ; and that it can by no means be
believed, that they would have omitted a subject of so much
importance, as it is commonly supposed this system had ob-
tained, if it had indeed existed in their time. I then consi-
dered some passages of Philo in particular, in which learned
men have thought they discovered traces of the Gnostic phi-
losophy, and defended them against this supposition ; shewing
that they can be easily otherwise explained, and ought there-
fore to be so. In the third place, 1 treated of the source of
the Gnostic philosophy ; that philosophy, viz. which Mosheim
first termed Oriental ; and shewed, not only that the ancient
ecclesiastical writers were entirely unacquainted with this
Oriental philosophy, and suppose the Gnostics to have drawn
their doctrines from another source, but that in the passages
of PHny, and of other writers, from which learned men have
attempted to prove, both that there was a certain Oriental phi-
losophy, and that the Gnostic was derived from it, there is
nothing of the kind ; but that they ought to be understood in
some other sense, certainly not as referring to the Oriental
philosophy. And thence I think it may with good reason be
inferred, that that opinion is doubtful, not sufficiently esta-
blished, or, to speak freely, is false, which maintains that the
philosophy of the Gnostics was known, spread, and receiv-
ed, through nearly all the world, in the time of Christ and the
Apostlcr^. or rather during that of the Seventy Interpreters ;
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 315
biit that there is much more probabihty, and therefore cer-
tainty, in that which supposes the Gnostics to have been sub-
sequent to the ApostoHc age. And here I cannot refrain from
adding the words of Brucker ; in which he appears to utter
an opinion precisely in accordance with my own : though the
praise is due to him in common with Mosheim, of having
brought forward, and defended, the opposite sentiment. In
Tom. VI. Hist. Crit. Phil. p. 402, he thus expresses himself :
" Although these testimonies which I have cited, to prove the
existence of some theological and mystical system, flourishing
every where among the Eastern nations at the first period of
the Christian religion, are sufficient, if not fully to satisfy an
inquisitive mind, at any rate to convince it that the position is
probable ; yet it must be confessed, that, amidst so many
traces of its existence, historical circumstances are very ob-
scure ; and that as clear a light is not shed upon the history
of this sect, or of the Oriental philosophy, as that which
guides us in the history of the Grecian school of philosophy,
or even of the heresies, which sprang up within the Christian
church." Mark how doubtfully he speaks, and with what lit-
tle confidence in his own opinion ! And in p. 403, he says ;
•' I confess also, that, although I have been engaged for al-
most fifty years in investigating the history of ancient philoso-
phy, I have not yet arrived at as certain and clear a know-
ledge, as we have, for example, in regard to the Socratic, or
even the Pythagorean sects ; and that great darkness hangs
over this portion of the subject, &c." The same admission
is made also by Mosheim, De Reb. Christ, ante Constant. M.
§. xxxi. p. 26 ; by Michaelis, in the Dissertation above re-
ferred to, respecting the traces of the Gnostic philosophy in
the time of the Seventy Interpreters, and of Philo ; and by
Walch, in the work just cited.
I would here make the general remark, h6wever, that I
cannot cease to wonder at this inconsistency of learned men,
in their defence of the point under discussion ; and particu-
larly of Mosheim and Brucker, who are every ^here so con-
fused, that they do not know where to turn amidst the difficul-
ties into which they have brought themselves, and frequently
B16 NO TRACES OF THE GJ^OSTJCS
run hither and thither into opposite assertions : and some-
times it is impossible to know with any certainty what is
their real opinion. Thus, for example, Mosheim, when he is
endeavoring to illustrate, and prove the existence of the
Oriental philosophy, attempts to benefit his cause by saying,
that the doctrine of the Chaldeans and Persians respecting
the origin of evil is so very ancient, that none can have any
doubt in regard to it. This is true enbugh, and about that
doctrine there is no question : but whether, besides it, there
was another peculiar system among the Chaldeans and Per-
sians, which was professed also by the Jews and Greeks in
Palestine and Asia Minor, iii the time of Christ and the
Apostles, and which was termed the Oriental philosophy i
and whether from this had arisen, even at that time, the
Gnostic system ; this is the point, as to which I ask for histo-
rical proof — Moreover, when he finds it impossible to get
clear of the difficulty presented by those passages of ancient
ecclesiastical writers, in which it is expressly asserted, that
the Gnostics arose subsequently to the times of the Apostles ;
.he admits, indeed, that the Gnostics were not, at this period,
called by that name, but says, however, that their philosophy,
which was termed /vwo**^, was then in existence. This is no-
thing more than strengthening one conjecture by another*
And besides, he himself thinks that he has proved, in many
places, " that in the time of Christ, and before that period,
there wef^ philosophers, who were called Gnostics by others,
or aspired to that title themselves." See Instit. H. E. maj. p.
260 s., and other places already cited. How do these things
agree one with the other ? But conjectures, and predeter-
mined opinions, never afe consistent with themselves. — Fui»-
ther, in his Commentary on the two Epistles to Timothy,
p. 597, he divides the Gnostics into two separate classes ;
saying that some of these heretics were united with the
Christians, while others had no communion with them.
There is no warrant, however, for such a distinction, but Mos-
heim's own imagination ; nor can it be established by any
historical proof. — At length he creeps out, either by saying,
that every thing is false and uncertain, which the ancient eft?-
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. dVt
xilesiastical writers have told us respecting the period and
sources of the Gnostic philosophy, as we have seen above ;
(but I have just as much right to say, that what M osheim as-
serts is false ;) or by perverting and confusing the passages
which occur in these writers, until they are made to coincide
with his own opinion. Thus in his Commentary just referred
to, p. 105, he wishes to prove from a place of Clem. Alex.
Strom. II. 11, that the Gnostics themselves also allowed, that
their opinions were condemned by St. Paul in his Epistles to
Timothy ; and that, on this account, they rejected these epis-
tles. There is no such thing, however, as this, in the whole
passage. Clement says, indeed, that these epistles were re-
jected by the Gnostics ; not, however, because they thought
that they had been attacked in them, but rather for this reason,
which he adds expressly ; viz. because some passages might
be adduced from these epistles in refutation of their opinions,
which they could not answer : and the same course ever has
been, and is now pursued by those, who are the inventors of
erroneous doctrines. — From all this therefore, it may be seen,
how learned men are compelled to turn from one resource
to the other, in order to establish their opinion as to the anti»
<juity and the source of the Gnostic philosophy ; and also
what weight is to be attributed to it, in the midst of such in-
consistency and uncertainty.
Part II. philological.
Mlaving in the former part proved, by arguments which
appear to me conclusive, that the pernicious philosophy of
the Gnostics did not arise among the Jews in Palestine, and
the Greeks in Asia Minor and in Greece itself, during the
times of the Apostles, but somewhere in the Second Century,
at any rate that it was not before this period injurious to
Christianity ; I shall now proceed to the consideration of
those passages of the New Testament, in which learned men
are of opinion that the sacred writers are opposing the Gnos*
tics, and that verv clear traces of these heretics exist. 1
318 . NO TRACES OP THE GNOSTICS
shall, therefore, bring forward these places, and' endeavor
to shew, that they can be explained in some other more suita-
ble, and perhaps more probable way : not, indeed, with the
intention of proposing a new meaning and scope for all the
passages under discussion ; but in order to render more pro-
bable, by an exhibition of the very words and subject-
matter, and using, as it were, the authority of the inspired
writers themselves, that explanation which, I think most
agreeable to the best interpreters ; and to estabhsh and illus-
trate it by arguments either new, or at any rate supplied with
new force ; and thus to endeavor to put the interpretation
in a clearer light. I shall not, however, cite and examine
every single place, in which some learned writers, blinded by
attachment to their own preconceived opinion, and particu-
larly Hammond, have thought they discovered something of
the kind. In this case I should have no end to my labor ;
for they bring forward such a multitude of passages, that
there is scarcely a page, in which they do not seek, and of
course find, traces of the Gnostics : for an eager anxiety to
maintain a new opinion never is in quest of any thing, which it
does not with ease discover. A course which some distin-
guished men, who, in other respects, have gone to the great-
est lengths in their anxiety to hunt after traces of the Gnos-
tics, and particularly Mosheim, Institut. H. E. maj. p. 316,
have exceedingly blamed in Hammond ; not hesitating to
confess, that he has transgressed all proper bounds. Nor
shall I say any thing about places in the Old Testament ;
either in the Hebrew text itself, where Vitringa thinks he
sees something in reference to the present subject, in his Com-
mentary on Isaiah, Vol. n. p. 583 ; or in the Septuagint ver-
sion, where Michaelis, in his learned dissertation above re-
ferred to, has maintained that there are traces of the Gnos-
tics. From this labor I may be excused ; since, so far as the
dissertation just mentioned is concerned, Ernesti has al-
ready performed it in the N. th. Bibl. T. vni. p. 721 s., where
he has brought forward some arguments in support of my
opinion, few in number, indeed, but, as is usual with him, ex-
ceedingly weighty. I shall only observe this much, that it
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 319
may perhaps seem wonderful, that such a degree of proba-
bility should be attached to two or three passages, and those,
too, ambiguous in their character, in a version of such ^ize.
I shall only, therefore, cite the principal places of the rfew
Testament, which have been adduced, in order to prove
traces of the Gnostics in the New Testament, by those who
profess to take a middle path on this subject. As this middle
path, however, is not defined by any certain limits, the same
thing has happened to them, as to all who give out that they
take a moderate course on any subject ; viz. that they fluc-
tuate, and step aside from their path ; and think that they
have discovered the inspired writers to be, in some places,
opposing certain opinions, of which, in those passages, not a
trace exists. Of this kind are chiefly those places, in which
the name of a certain philosophy, and also yvwo'jj itself oc-
cur ; viz. Coloss. n. 8 s. and i. Tim. vi. 20. It is thought, in-
deed, that these entire epistles, as also the Epistle to the
Ephesians, have reference to this subject ; but that these
places are particularly clear on the point : I shall consider
these, therefore, first of all ; and afterwards attend to the
other passages, from the writings of St. John and St. Peter.
I begin with the Epistle to the Colossians ; in which some
learned writers are particularly struck with the Apostle's ar-
gument in opposition to a certain philosophy, which they
think is none other than the Gnostic ; and this they have en-
deavored to prove in a very ingenious manner. There is
very great difficulty in the word (pjXotfotp/a itself; respecting
the signification of which, in this place, there is much differ-
ence of sentiment among the learned, whose opinions I need
not here mention. Let it suffice to name one, whom I have
recently read, viz. Clemens Alexandrinus, whom most others
follow ; who understands <p<Xotfo(pja of the Greek philosophy,
and particularly the Epicurean and Stoic, and adds to the
words of the Apostle these which follow : t% dvatpoCdT^g Trjv
'jfpovoiav, Strom. L. i. p. 295 s. and L. vi. p. 645 ; where he
says, that the Apostle's meaning is, that he who has aspired
to a more exalted knowledge, i. e. has learnt the doctrine
of Jesus Christ, should no more resort to the Greek philoso-
320 NO TRACES OF THE GNOSTICS
phy ; and that he calls this to. ioixsTa <rou xotrM-ou, the elements
of the world, since it teaches, after a certain manner, the first
beginnings, and is, as it were, the instruction which precedes
truth. But it is a very ancient meaning of (piXorfoipla with the
Greeks, to denote all science, and particularly eloquence ; in
which sense the word is frequent with Isocrates, as in the
beginning of the Panegyric,* and of Evagoras ;t though the
word was subsequently applied to human life, so that (piXotfo-
(p»a was the same as wisdom, of which signification abundant
examples and proofs are to be found in ancient works, parti-
cularly those of the Greeks. Comp. Ernesti, opusculaOra-
toria, p. 200. But the Jews, when they began to speak and
to write in Greek on their various subjects, had no better or
more suitable word than (p»Xo(ro(p<a, wherewith to express the
system of revealed religion, which we term Theology ; and
accordingly called it by that title. For at that time the word
&soXoy»a was not in use, unless the heathen writers happened
to be discoursing of their opinions in regard to the gods, and
their generation, which they usually called Srso^oyfa ; but to
apply the term to the knowledge of sacred things, was not
warranted by the usage of those times. The Jews, therefore,
having no word in the Greek language to express the doc-
trine of divine things, employed the word (piXotfoipja for this
purpose, as appears plainly from the writings of Philo and
Josephus ; various places from whom have been cited by the
learned, particul£u*ly Krebs, in his * Observatt. in N. T. e
Joseph.,' at this place, p. 336, and Wolfius in loc. Parti-
cularly clear is that passage of Josephus, Ant. Jud. xviii. 3.
1., where he calls the ceremonial law (piXotfocpla vo/xou ; and that
also of Philo, ' Quod om. prob, lib.' p. 878, Ed. Franc. 1691,
where he applies the term (ptXcCo^ia to the whole sacred doc-
trine of the Essenes ; and, in what goes before, uses this
same word in the sense of the lazvs of their country, which
the human mind cannot understand without divine inspiration
* [ I30CR. Op. Vol. I. p. 124, Ed. Lond. 1749.— Tr. 1
t [Ibid.Vol. ii.p,73.— Tr. 3
IN THf: N£W TESTAMENT. «i*21
(var^i'oi^ vof/.o(^, ovg ofA^^avov a.Mdpu'slvYiv i1e^vo1^(f^x.^ •4>i>}(^v etvsu xenraxu-
X^jff iv^iou). And this was the only philosophy with which
the Jews were acquainted, viz. that science which related to
the sacred writings, and to their right interpretation : this
was their philosophy, and was taught in their schoob. Those
who had not learnt it, were called aypAj^fAaroj, Acts, iv. 13 ;
and the science itself was termed y^af^fAora, John, vii. 15.
Now, from this usage of speech of the Jews, it may be seen
what the Apostle means by (piXotfocpia in the passage referred
to ; viz. as has been remarked by some learned writers, the
Jewish theology, which, in those times, had assumed almost
entirely the form of philosophy : and as the Jews supposed
the knowledge of the laws to be the perfection of wisdom
(tfo^ia), as is shewn by Josephus, Ant. Jud. Lib. xx, c. 10.
§. 2, Ed. Oxon. 1720, f^ovois tfofptav fAa^u^outfi roTg to, v6jui,»|*a (fci(pug
itmikivois, * they allow those alone to be considered as wise,
who have acquired a thorough knowledge of the laws ; '
therefore, in the passage under discussion, may be understood
principally the knowledge of the Mosaic law, not only that
possessed by the Jewish teachers, but also that of some
Christians themselves, who, while they professed faith in
Christ, inculcated the necessity of obedience to the ritual
law, and particularly to circumcision, as being an eternal co-
venant between God and men. This, then, is that deceitful
and vain philosophy, (for <piKo(fo<pia, xcu xevfj aflrarii, as Grotius,
and others after him have observed, is a hendiadis for (piXotfo-
<pia xai xsvYi xai d^ar/}Xi9,) against whose deception the Apostle
wishes Christians to be on their guard. How common, at
that time, was this sense of the word (pjXotfoipia, is evident from
the fact, that it was adopted also by the ancient ecclesiastical
instructors, and Christian writers. For it is very common
with them, to call the doctrine delivered by Jesus Christ aX*3-
Qris (^Xo(fo(pia^ the true philosophy, which certainly is not any
Gnostic or Oriental philosophy ; as in Clemens Alex., Stro-
mat. L. I. p. 314, and^SocRATES, H. E. L. iv, c. 27 ; and al-
so iuayyBlix'?! (piXotfotpla, the evangelical philosophy, as in Thd*
41
32^ NCF TRACES OP THE GNOSTICS
ODORET, de Cur. Graec. Affect. L. xii ;* and Christians them^
selv6s (piXotfo'tpoi Tov 0£ou, philosophers of God, as in Clemens,
Strom. L. vi. p. 642. Who these (piXoVoipoi are, he himself
explains ; viz. oi docpiag ipuvrsg^ «r^s ifavruv 6y]iiiovp'yo\j xai 5i5atfxa-
XoD, TouTgtfTi yvCi^sug tou Omrov Qsov, * those who are lovers of
wisdom, which is the creator and teacher of all things, that
isj of the knowledge of the Son of God.' Jonsius, 'de
Scriptor. Hist. Phil.,' L. iii. p. 16, and Wolfius, in loc. have
cited a number of passages. From these it may be perceiv-
ed, that this sense of (?»Xo(ro(p/a is not entirely new, but was in
use as early as the time of the Apostles, and was subsequent-
ly very common in the Christian church.
This interpretation, moreover, of the word (piXotfoipia, as it
is clearly proved by the usage of speech of those times, is al-
so required, and rendered absolutely necessary, by the whole
connexion of the discourse, the design of the Apostle, and the
character of that period. I shall now attend to this some-
what more minutely, that it may the more plainly appear, that
the Apostle is speaking of nothing else than the ceremonial
law, and that his words cannot possibly be referred to the
Gnostic, or to any other philosophy. And, in the first place,
it is evident, that the first part of this Epistle is employed in
unfolding, on the one hand, that divine favor which has been
conferred upon all men in common by the redemption of Je-
sus Christ, and, on the other, that, in particular, which has been
displayed to the Gentiles ; and that this exhibition is made,
partly with the view of exciting their minds to admiration of
the divine benevolence, and partly to confirm their opposition
to that doctrine, which defended the Mosaic law, and requir-
ed from Christians the continuance of circumcision, and other
ritual observances. This is the scope of the First and Se-
cond Chapters ; which I shall now consider in detail. The
Apostle first mentions the greatness of the faith of the Colos-
siaos, and their constancy in the same (Ch. i. 3 s. dxovtfavTss rnv
flfijiv ufAwv,), to which they had been led through the mercy of
* ITftEOD. Op. Tom. IV. p. 666, Ed. Par, 164^— Tr- ]
la THE NEW TESTAMENT. 323
God ; and exhorts them not only to persevere in it, but alst)
to increase daily more and more. He then begins, from verse
12, to extol the divine goodness and wisdom, and particularly
that of our Lord Jesus Christ ; vi^hich is conspicuous not on-
ly in his redemption of the human race, but also in his call-
ing and bringing the Gentiles to a share in the blessings ob-
tained by Christ, and in his abolition of the ritual law ; which
was odious to them, now that they were engrafted into the
true church, and, with those who had been converted from
Judaism to Christianity, belonged as one body to Christ, the
head. This union of the two divisions of Jews and Gentiles,
which, in verse 20, he had termed the reconciliation of those
things which are in heaven, and those which are in earth, (as
Ernesti first proved very clearly, in a particular essay on the
subject,) he declares, in verse 26, to be a mystery, a thing un-
known before, (for this is the meaning of jxugripjov,) which had
been hidden from all time, d's'oxsxpufAfjilvov aero twv aiwvwv xa» a^ro
Tuv ygvswv, and was also by the Jews themselves, not designed-
ly on the part of God, for it was revealed in the Old Testa-
ment, but through their own fault, either not at all, or imper-
fectly understood ; but which was now made known to them,
and to others, to whom it pleased God to reveal it, that it
might be seen, rig o leXovrog Tvjg So^rig cou fiiu^ripi'ou Tourou iv rtTg e&-
vctfiv, i. e. how wonderful was the divine goodness toward the
Gentiles, clearly manifested in that secret design of bringing
the Gentiles to a share in the benefits, obtained by Christ ;
and this is Christ in you, 05 ki Xpjgo? iv {,^Tv, i. e. it is evident
that this is the divine intention, to make the Gentiles as well
as the Jews partakers of eternal salvation, from the circum-
stance that the doctrine of Christ is preached to you, and the
hope of salvation, ^ i'kieig Trig dhlrig, which before was granted
to the Jews alone, is announced, without circumcision, to you,
no less than to them. But those who had come over from Ju-
daism to Christianity, were now quite indignant at the Gen-
tile Christians, whom they found to be, in this way, made
equal with themselves ; and were also hostile to St. Paul him-
self, Ch. II. 1 : partly because he taught that the Jews and
the Gentiles were on the same footing, and partly because hfe
324 NO TRACES OF THK GNOSTICS
shewed the ceremonial law to be abolished, which, and parti-
cularly circumcision, they required to be continued in the
Christian religion. This opinion, carrying with it much plau-
sibility, so harassed the minds of Christians, that the Apostles
were obliged to meet together, and with united strength to
set themselves in opposition to this prevailing error of the
Jews ; and fortify the minds of Christians against this opinion
in favor of the Jewish law. St. Paul, therefore, aroused by
the great necessity of the case, and by the extreme danger of
the C(5lossians, seriously admonishes them, verse 4, not to per-
mit themselves to be deceived by these specious representa-
tions (^iSavoXoyia), or to be led away from the firmness and
constancy of their faith ; which admonition the Apostle re-
peats, and sets forth more fully, from verse 8 ; as is manifest
from the following verses, where he shews the excellence of
the gospel doctrine above the Jewish law, and the obligation
to follow and embrace the former, and abandon the latter, by
three arguments. The first is this, that the Author of the
gospel is the true God (verse 9, oVi iv dvri^ xutoixsI itSiv to ir\ripu>
fia rris ^soTr]rog tfwfAotTixwg, i. e. in him is truly divinity itself,),
who knew very well the will of the Father in regard to this
law, and is therefore a most perfect instructor, and infinitely
to be preferred to the Jewish and all other teachers, who re-
commend the observance of the ceremonial law. The se-
cond is, that those good things, greater than all others, which
the ritual law had only faintly shadowed forth, and prefigured
by mere images, he had actually produced by his redemption,
and conferred through a spiritual circumcision, made in bap-
tism, and sealed in justification, verse lis. The last is, that,
by his death on the cross, he had also destroyed, transfixed, as
it were, with nails, torn in pieces, and altogether abrogated,
the ritual law, verse 14 s. sgaXgl-^^ag to xa^' Tjfjuwv j^ei^o^/paqjov roTg
ioyy^adiv (i. e. having ritual precepts,) o ?v CcrsvavTlov r}iuv, (i. e.
which law produced such a separation between Jews and
Gentiles, and prevented them from uniting together in peace
and fellowship) xai' aM ?pxsv ex, x.t.x. Now, therefore, the
Apostle proceeds, in verse 16, to shew, that, for these reasons,
Christians cannot be compelled to observe those rites ; and.
IN THS NEW TESTAMENT. 325
accordingly, that the Jews, and the defenders of the ceremo-
nial law, have no reason for being inimical to the Gentiles, or
for blaming the Christians (xpiv^Vw for xaraxpiv^rw), because
they observe no difference in meats and drinks, in festivals
and sabbaths, and altogether neglect the Jewish law. That
they who still retained this law, carry with them a great ap-
pearance of modesty, and affect peculiar piety and obedience
to the divine precepts (^pri^xela <rwv dyysKuv) ; but that they
are vainly puffed up with human wisdom, and abandon the
true instruction which Christ requires. At length the Apos-
tle draws from all this, in verse 20 s, the following inference ;
If, therefore, ye have been made free from the ceremonial
law, through the death of Christ, of which ye have been
made partakers in baptism, so that ye are reckoned, as it wei-e,
dead with him, why do you still submit yourselves to its or-
dinances, as if you were in that former condition ? Why do
you pay any attention to those who say. Do not eat this or that
food ! Which meats (the words a ki iravTa sis (p^opav ttJ dm-
X?^<is^ are parenthetical) add nothing to real piety, but yield
to corruption in their very use ! Which, indeed, is nothing
more than a human system, not enjoined upon us of the pre-
sent day, xoLTOi TO. ivTaX|xara xai Sidatfxakias twv dvdpw<7fwv, after the
commandments and traditions of men ; though it has a certain
appearance of wisdom, affecting great piety, modesty, and
severity to the body, which, in this way, is deprived of that
attention which it requires, and naturally seeks.
In such a course of argument as this, what room is there
for the absurdities of the Gnostics, or the trifles of the Essenes
about the adoration of angels ? Who does not at once perceive,
that a controversy of such a nature, instituted against this class
of men, is entirely foreign from the purpose in the explana-
tion of an argument like that before us ; or, at any rate, would
not have deserved to be so long dwelt upon by the Apostle ?
The former subject, on the contrary, was highly important
and proper, and moreover absolutely necessary to be exhibit-
ed in the clearest manner ; since not only a great proportion of
the Christians were infected with that Jewish opinion, respect-
ing the necessity of still adhering to the ceremonial law, but
326 NO TRACES or THE GNpSTICS
/
also St. Peter himself was striving, at least in secret, through
a too great fear of offending the friends of the ceremonial law,
to recommend it by his own example in abstaining from meats
forbidden in it, and appeared to approve of it, Gal. ii. lis.;
and on this account caused great confusion among the Chris-
tians, when they saw the course he took ; and not merely led
those who were of Jewish origin, and Barnabas himself also,
to imagine that it was necessary to keep the law, but also
those who had been converted from among the Greeks. And
accordingly, in many other places also, and in whole chapters,
as Rom. xiv, the Apostle seriously admonishes Christians
in regard to this matter. Nor did the trifles of the Gnostics
recommend themselves by any great plausibility of language,
so that the Apostle could not be afraid of the Colossians
being deceived by it, as we shall see hereafter. Not so,
however, with that Jewish opinion : first, because the
ceremonial law had been once given by God himself ; next,
because the Jews had been accustomed from childhood
to reverence Moses, and their eyes had become used to
the pomp of the sacrifices, and of the High-Priest, and of
the whole priesthood, to which they found nothing to com-
pare, for external grandeur, either in Christ himself, or any
where among the Christians, or in the teachers, or in the re-
ligious worship ; every thing, on the contrary, being mean,
humble, and simple in its character, and all pomp and out-
ward show being removed. My interpretation, therefore,
seems to be confirmed by the testimony of facts.
There are some things, however, in this portion of Scrip-
ture, which must be more accurately explained, and which I
have found to be urged very strongly by those, whose opinion
difl^ers from my own ; and a reason must be given for certain
words and interpretations, which I have given above. If, in do-
ing this, I shall be thought by the learned to have, here and there,
exceeded proper bounds, and to have dwelt too much upon
the illustration of refined terms, and phrases, which have been
already treated of by men eminent in this department of lite-
rature ; they must ascribe this to my desire to benefit young
persons, who are engaged in studies of this nature. And, in
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 327
the first place, the reason why the supporters of the opposite
opinion think that (piXocfocpia, ch. ii. 8, cannot mean the Jewish
law, is this ; that the Apostle adds, nai xsvr}g diraryig, xaTot t^v
ifapaSotftv <rwv av&pw'^rwv, xard to- ^oi/sTa too xntf^Aou, xai ou xam
X^itfTov (and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the
rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.). This, they think,
cannot apply to the law, which was enacted by God ; but is
peculiarly suitable to the Gnostic, or Oriental philosophy. As
I think differently, I shall now proceed to inquire, whether,
by a correct interpretation, these words may not be made
perfectly appHcable to the. subject to which I have referred
them.
It must be chiefly borne in mind, that the Apostle is speak-
ing, in this place, not of the law in general, or the Jewish
Theology, which was nothing but the knowledge of the law,
and particularly the ceremonial, as we have already seen ;
but of the law, as it then was : viz. deformed with the in-
ventions and absurdities of the Jews ; and which, though it
had been annulled by the death of Christ, was required to be
still observed among Christians themselves. Very correctly,
therefore, this Theology may be termed cpikotfoar^ia xsv/i, vain
philosophy, for the reasons just stated ; which are express-
ed also in the words that follow, xara tt^v irapaSotfiv, x, <r, X.,
after the tradition of men, &c. With the same propriety may
it be further called <p»Xoo'o(pja t^^ aitarvig^ i. e. a^ariiXii, deceit-
ful ; for any one might easily be deceived by it, as it com-
mended the law, which was given by God himself, and which,
as I have already observed, the Jews had been accustomed
to admire from their childhood, on account of its outward
splendor. Now this doctrine, inculcating and commending
the Jewish law, he calls (piXoCo^ia xara ti^v •Wa/ja^oO'iv Twv avSi/Jw-jrwy,
i. e. a human system.* The word •jrapa^otfj^ is exactly
* I have thus rendered the words jtatTa tjjf irapeiS^ociv tSv dy^puTrui,
in conformity with an elegant use of the preposition Kara^ which is em-
ployed by the Greeks in place of the substantive verb, or of the adjec-
tive or substantive in the Genitive case. Thus, in the inscription of St.
Matthew's gospel, to /c«t* M«tTS-«7o» '^vxyyihrn, the gospel of Mat-
328 NO TRACES OF THE GNOSTICS
suitable to the Jewish theology, which was pecuHariy distin-
guished by this name ; as is evident from several places in
the New Testament. See Matt. xv. 2. 3. 6. Mark, vii. 3.
5. 8. Gal. I. 14. For it signifies any system of instruction
whatever ; particularly, that which relates to external wor-
ship, in which sense, undoubtedly, it occurs in i. Cor. xi. 2,
where Luther has well rendered it, * die Weise,' (the ordi-
nances). But the ritual law is called •jra^a^oo'ij twv av^^w^wv, a
human system, either because it was enlarged, or rather de-
filed, with innumerable inventions of men, which were more
scrupulously observed than even the commandments of God
himself; (which is the opinion of Deyling, in his * Diss, de
Chirographi et Principum legalium abolitione,' contained in
Obs. S. Tom. IV. p. 58%) or because, now that Christ had
died, the observance of it was still enforced, which certainly
was nothing more than the system of men ; or, finally, be-
cause it was imperfect, and was of no avail for the attainment
of inward holiness, and eternal salvation ; so that it is called
human in the same sense in which the whole law is termed
tftt^^, and also the ritual law itself, in Heb. vn. 16. ix. 10, in
order to express its imperfection ; as is well known. Neither
of these opinions is contradicted by facts, or the usage of
speech. The Apostle then adds, xaTd -ra (froixsTa <rou xotffAou ;
(after the rudiments of the world,) in the explanation of which
words, ancient and later commentators are very much divided
in opinion. Chrysostom and Theophylact understand them to
mean the stars. Though I shall not deny, that the term (froi.
yfoi was formerly applied to the stars, and that these are un-
thew, or, which is Matthew's, or written by Matthew ; as also in Jose-
phus, oi Teic »«fcTA noiMffif/oF vpA^ut <»'vae^p*4'itv'r«c, meaning clearly:
t^ose who wrote the history of the actions of Pompey. So $ K.ctrd
xirTii iiKsttoa-vvh, is the same as what is sometimes callp.d ^ tjc or JVa
ziarrto): S'uaitoauvn^ or simply i'tKXiotrvm tmc ?rtVT«a)f. So also tj »ar
Uxeyh vpo^d'tTts, the free kindness ; and the Greeks frequently use the
expression, ot xctr' iKXoym avfptt, chosen men. In Acts, xvii. 38, rme
Tur K»^' vfAtit TTomtmr some of your own poets. According to thitf
elegant Greek usage to <c*t* in this passage must be expteined ? In :
stead of which tt? Ttpi is sometimes used.
IN THE NEW TESTAMEiNl. 321^
doubtedly referred to in ii. Pet. iii. 10. 12, where the Apostle
had reference, without question, to 0]u}i; nnpiD, which was
imitated also by the ancient ecclesiastical writers ; yet the
context forbids v^ to understand the word in this sense, in the
passage before us. We must look, therefore, for some other
signification. The word (froixsTa properly means, letters, and
is used in this sense by the ancient grammarians : but further
signifies, the first principles of any subject, which are taught
young pupils ; according to the phraseology of the Hebrews,
who call the ground- work of a thing nnPiD. Whence, also,
the Jewish teachers call the elementary parts of philosophy,
and the first principles of a subject, by the names nio; and *ip.
derived from '^d\ Hence, however, the term c-a tfroixsra came
to be applied to religion, and signifies its very beginnings, the
first instruction in Christian doctrine ; as in Heb. v. 12, where,
by an allowable pleonasm, (See Horat. Sat. L. i. Sat. 1. 1. 26,
where the phrase * elementa prima ' is used,) is added,
T^s oLffx/is, which, according to the Hebrew mode of speaking,
is for •jr'puTa ; and this latter word is applied to the first prin-
ciples of i-eligion, in i. Cor. xv. 3.* In the same way the
word tfToip^s'w was applied to religion, for the purpose of ex-
pressing, both the manner of outward life, and the inward
feelings of the heart ; this mode of speaking being derived not
merely from the Hebrew usage, in the word "fyn, but from
the practice of the Greek writers, who use in the same sense
the word /3aivw. Thus, in Gal. vi. 16 ; oVoi <r^ xavovi toutw
(fToij^^jtfouCjv ; in the explanation of which words commentators
have been very much embarrassed. Every thing is plain,
however; if this sense of tfroixs'w only be borne in mind. The
meaning is this ; whosoever, in their faith and life, follow this
rule (viz. that which the Apostle had given in verse 15, iv
XpitfTw 'Iiitfou OUTS 'TfspjTojXTj 71, X. T. X.) ; or, who SO believe and
act, as if they thought that nothing is of any avail in the
Christian religion but xa»vii xritfig, a new creature, shall be
saved. In the same sense this word Ctoixs'w occurs in Phil,
42
330 NO TRACES OP THE GNOSTICS
III. 16, where I should apply it principally to the mind ; dince
(pftovsTv is added, which I understand as referring to a prudent
manner of life ; and the meaning is this : that rule which we
have thus far followed, we ought to maintain in our way of
thinking and of living ; for the infinitives (/roix^Tv and (pponTv
are governed by <5sr understood, according to an elegant usage
of the Greek writers, of which Krebs has cited some ex-
amples, in his Comment, ad Deer. Rom. pro. Jud. p. 428.
Now from all this it may be seen, that, in the passage before
us, ra tfrojp^sra is to be understood as referring to religion, and,
indeed, to that divine instruction which the Jews had, when
they were only, as it were, novices and infants. But they
were such, the Apostle tells us in Gal. iv. 3, so long as they
were bound under the irksome and severe discipline of the
ceremonial law ; which law, the Apostle says, Ch. in. 24,
was a schoolmaster until Christy or until the death of Christ,
whereby we are delivered from it. Therefore by ra rfrou
ysTa Tou x6(j'fji,ou, i. e. TotJcou, in Hebrew, n^n DSi;r "nTo^ is to be
understood the ceremonial law itself; to which, as it was im-
perfect, is therefore opposed the perfect doctrine of Christ,
(p\Ko(to(pia xoLTo. Xpitfrov. This is very plainly shewn by verse
20 ; dflr's^avSTS tfOv <rw XpKJ'Tw ctflTo rwv tfroip^ciwv tou xoo'fiLou, where
the reference is evidently to the laws of Moses, from the ob-
servance of which we have been freed. And no less clearly
is this meaning established by Gal. iv. 3 ; where the Apostle
says, ^l^^'iSi oVs 'JfASv vrjiriot, C-n-o TO. (fTQi-)(£Ta rou xorf/xou ^fjisv Ss-
oouXwH-^voi; which (frotxsTa are, in verse 9, called daGsvT} xolI
ifTUix^} in comparison to the good things of the New Testa-
ment ; those (fToix^Ta, having no power to procure salvation.
And finally, my interpretation is exceedingly strengthened by
the circumstance, that these tfToi^sra are called (froix^Ta <rou
-xotffxou. For it is the usage of the sacred writings, to call by
this name the Jewish law of the Old Testament, in compari-
son to the Gospel, which was the doctrine concerning /Satf*-
Xsj'a Twv ou^avwv, the kingdom of heaven, or of God, to which
is opposed o xotf^og ; as is very plainly shewn by the words wV
?wvrsg ^v x6(ffi(f), in verse • 20 ; i. e. as if ye were still in that
former condition of the Old Testament.— The sense of the
IN THE XEW TESTAMENT. ^1
Verse under discussion, therefore, I think to be this : Let no
man impose upon you by that deceitful (for the Apostle refers
to verse 4) and vain Jewish doctrine, which recommends the
Mosaic law ; and exacts the observance of that which is a
mere human system, and which (inasmuch as it was once de-
livered by God) contains merely the first and imperfect in-
struction of men under the Old Testament ; which is nothing
in comparison of the more perfect system of Jesus Christ.
The Apostle, therefore, brings forward two arguments, where-
with to fortify the minds of Christians against that vain and
deceitful Jewish doctrine, which required the observance of
the ritual law ; the first, that this is a doctrine of men ; a point
which he explains more fully in what follows, by shewing,
that this law has been abrogated by Christ : the second, that
the ceremonial law contained simply the first teaching, and
small beginnings of the worship of God under the Old Testa-
ment ; of which Christians stood in no need, inasmuch as
they had the much more perfect doctrine of Jesus Christ, and
by far the most excellent worship. The word tfuXaywysij is
from tfuXov, or tfxuXov, a booty,* and ayw ; and signifies, there-
fore, to rob, to carry oflf as a prey, and further, to take any
advantage of a person, either by force, or by fraud. Hence
arises a very suitable interpretation : " beware least any man,
by the deception of this judaizing doctrine, deprive you of
that freedom from the ceremonial law, which has been pur-
chased by Christ ;" which, moreover, agrees entirely with the
character of the Jews, and of all the defenders of the Mosaic
law. Comp. Matt, xxiii. 15. Certainly all these things do
not accord well together, if you understand the reference to
be to the Gnostic or Oriental philosophy.
* Students of the sacred writings would do well to observe another,
though somewhat less frequent sense of this word. It is used in the N.
T. to signify goods of any kind ; e. g. Luke, xi. 22 ; as is shewn not only
by the parallel place, Matt. xii. 29, where we find t« y*«/», instead of
T» a-KvKct, but also by the usage of the Hebrews, who apply the term
^Sj^, booty, to all kinds of goods ;];as Prov. 1. 13, xvi. 19, Dan. xi. 24,
y T
Esth. 111. 13 ; in which last passage the Septuagint has t«' vrdfx^frat.
333
:N0 traces of the GNOSTUi
The same observation may be tnade in regard to what fol-
lows ; for every thing relates to the ceremonial law, and its
abolition, concerning which the Apostle speaks so plainly in
verse 14, that this passage is exactly in point. But before I
say any thing of this verse, a few observations must be made
in regard to verse 9 ; which I should have omitted had I not
observed, that learned men lay much stress upon the word
^X^^wfAa in particular, and give it I know not how many dif-
ferent applications. For some think that they have drawn
from this word a very weighty proof, that the Apostle is, in
this passage, opposing the Gnostics, and particularly their
Aeons ; which they usually distinguished by this name.
Others, however, think that the reference is to the Oriental
philosophy, or to the Essenes ; and suppose that this way of
speaking is taken from the temple, of which God himself
was the •jr'Krjpuika ; and that the Apostle argues thus : " Christ
is the head of the whole church, and greater than all the an-
gels ; we must not think of any other mediator, therefore,
in our approaches to God (as the Essenes did, thinking that
we must have an angel as a mediator with God), since we
are ourselves the temple of God." I certainly never saw
an interpretation more far fetched than this ; and cannot sup-
press my astonishment, that men in other respects very
learned, and skilful in the Hebrew tongue, should have
brought forward such an idea : it being as plain as possible,
that the Apostle, in the use of the word -rX-^/iwfjLa, imitates the
phraseology of the Hebrews, who, as Schoettgen, Hor. Heb.
and after hin Wolfius, in loc. have observed, use the word
«SP to express the whole of a thing, or all that belongs to it.
Thus in Psalm xxiv. 1, hkiSd^ y^xn n^n^h; l. 12. and i. Cor.
X. 26, flrXrj^wfxa rris yrig. According to this usage, -rX^^^wfjia rrjg
agoT»)T05 means the whole of divinity ; or the divinity itself,
with all its attributes, as in Eph. iii. 19. -ffSiv rh 'rXvj^w/xa.Tou 0g-
ou, the sum total of those divine blessings, which are confer-
red upon the faithful. This latter passage throws light upon
the words which follow : xal id^s Iv auTw (for ^»' durov) 'jesieXr-
fwftsvoi ; i. e. by whom, or, by whose kindness, also, you have
been enriched with the gifts of divine grace : which gifts the
IX THE NEW TESTAMENT. 333
Apostle then -enumerates, viz. faith, hoHness, and the pardon
of sins, with words and figures taken from the ritual law.
All these things he mentioned, for the purpose of shewing the
excellence of Christ, and his doctrine, above that Jewish no-
tion ; and the duty of embracing the former, and rejecting
the latter. What connexion, then, is there, between such a
course of argument, and the Aeons of the Gnostics, or the
worship of angels, required by the Essenes ?
And it cannot be doubted, that in verse 14 s, the Apostle is
speaking of the ceremonial law, which he shews to have been
blotted out on the cross ; and thus that the distinction between
Jews and Gentiles was done away, and peace had been made
between them. For xs'porpa<?ov ToTg Uy^^adi, the ritual writing,
or that which related to rites, is the same as vo'/xog twv t^ToXwv Iv
ooyftatf/, in Eph. ii. 15, the law, which consisted in ceremonial
ordinances and rites, as Deyling has shewn, 1. c. To this
law he elegantly applies the name x-'P°7po'-9ov, which has the
same signification as /pViui-a, i. e. a writing : and he thus not
only alludes to the use of this word in pecuniary matters, as
is plain from the words klaKB\-\,as and ■n'potfTjXwo'ar ; but also, as
Ernesti has shewn, 1. c. and in N- th. Bibl. T. i. p. 159, to the
difference between the law and the gospel ; inasmuch as the
law, being first promulged by writing, is called p(;^ipoypa9ov,
as II. Cor. ni. 6, ypafxfia ; while the gospel is called 'tfvsujxa, the
Spirit, because its first promulgation was made, without letters
and writing, by the Holy Spirit, speaking through Christ and
the Apostles. It is called, moreover, to xa^' '/jf^-wv p^^jpoypacpov,
i. e. standing in the way of you Gentiles, as a cause of sepa-
ration ; I think, therefore, that >)ixwv is put for 6fJ^wv, these terms
being often used for each other.; as in Eph. ir. 1. 5, where
those who, in verse 1, are called ^M-a?, are, at the end of the
parenthesis, called V"s ; and then follows, Xap«V< Icrs o'g<j'w(rjxs-
voi. 1 would, therefore, refer to xa^' >j/ji<wv to the Gentiles, but
the words which follow, o ?v Cflrsvavn'ov ^/xn/, tp the Jews ; and I
think, with GrotiUs, that they ought to be interpreted from the
usage of the Hebrew verb "i^y, to oppress, from which comes
"^J, which is, in many places, rendered by the Greek interpre-
ters, SflTsvavTioff ; and I would thus understand the phrase ; hy
334 NO TRACES OP THE GNOSTICS
which we also were oppressed^ in reference to the irksomenesii
of the Levitical worship. This worship, however, Chnst is
now said to have entirely annulled, and to have taken away
the force of the law which enjoined its observance, (■jrpotftjXw-
(fas ctuTo Tw (Traupw) and to have deprived of their dignity and
authority all those, who thus strongly urged the necessity of
adherence to it, (for I understand dpx^s xaj slovdias to mean,
not the devil, as Grotius thinks, but, according to Deyling's
view, the Jews, who, in i. Cor. ii. 6, are called ap^^ovrsj tou
a/wvo^ rovTov ; and also all, who, either by their authority or re-
commendation, were able to compel others to the observance
of that law,) and to have exposed them to signal scorn {ISsiy-
lioLTKfsv sv <n'a^|>)(r/a) in a pubhc manner, that all might perceive,
that this law was no more of any force ; and, as it were, to
have triumphed over them. And it is plain that the Apostle
had reference to the same thing in verse 16, and 17 ; since
he draws an inference from what he had said, and makes an
excellent comparison between the tfxia <rwv fxsXXovrc^v, and the
tfcjfxa Tou XpirfTou. For tfxia means a faint shadowing forth, a
type, or symbolical representation ; tfw/xa, therefore, signifies
the thing or blessing itself ; whence we obtain a sense not
only very elegant, but perfectly suitable to the subject, and to
the whole context ; viz. " in things of this kind, or, in the
whole ceremonial law, there were only to be found images of
benefits to come ; but in Christ, i. e. in the New Testament,
were the benefits themselves. The Apostle makes use of the
same comparison, with a slight difference, in Heb. x. 1 ; and
also JosEPHus, de Bell. Jud. Lib. ii. c. 2. §. 5. Ed..Oxon.
1720. •
In verses 18, and 19, he describes more minutely those who
held the Christians in contempt, because they laid aside the
Jewish law ; in order to put the Colossians the more upon
their guard against them. These same verses, however, have
led some learned writers to suppose that the Gnostics, or the
Essenes, who they think may, in a certain sense, be termed
Gnostics, are here intended ; principally, because in this, and
other places, the Apostle opposes the worship of angels, in
which they suppose that he referred to both those classes of
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
335
men, who maintained that angels ought to be devoutly wor-
shipped, as intercessors with God. We must inquire, there-
fore, whether we are obliged to understand men of this kind
in the present passage ; or whether we can find another in-
terpretation, agreeable to the usage of speech, and to the con-
text itself. I shall first, however, make a few observations in
regard to the opinion, that the Essenes paid religious worship
and honor to the angels ; after which I shall consider the pas-
sage before us.
With respect, then, to this opinion, which is maintained by
some very learned commentators, and, among these, Grotius,
Price, and after him Michaelis, in his Comm. in loc, it seems
to be very doubtful, and without foundation in history. For
there is not sufficient certainty in the testimonies which have
been adduced, to lead us to the inference that angels were
worshipped by the Essenes. One proof adduced from Jose-
PHus, de Bell. Jud. Lib. II. c.8. §7. Ed. Oxon. 1720, (for
that which is cited from Philo By Price, ought not to have
been mentioned) has some plausibility. It is as follows :
avrCtv §i^»a, xai ra twv dyys'Xwv ovo'/xara. " They swear, that
they will abstain from robbery, and will keep with equal re-
verence the books of their sect, and the names of the an-
gels." This testimony, however, is not sufficiently certain ;
and there are two objections, moreover, which may be made
to it. In the first place, this passage of Josephus is very ob-
scure ; for what is the meaning of " keeping the names of
the angels ?" Does it signify, honoring the angels with
divine worship ? Let the learned decide ! But, further,
this passage has undoubtedly been corrupted, as has been
shewn by Havercamp, the very learned editor of Jose-
phus ; who thinks that for dyyiXuv should be read ayvs»wv ;
so that the Essenes are stated to have bound themselves by
an oath, not to betray to the uninitiated the rites, and names
of the methods, whereby they were wont to be cleansed
and purified. Josephus had made mention of ayvsia in this
sense, in the fifth section of this same chapter. And, indeed,
if .by (fvv7r}fr\<fsiv Tot ovofXafa cwv ay^sXwv, he had meant thf
33t) NO TRACES OF THE GNOSTICS
worship of angels, although the usage of speech by no means
allows of such an interpretation of his words, Josephus cer-
tainly would have explained this point more fully afterwards,
where he sets forth more minutely the religion and customs
of the Essenes. Nor does this idea agree with the character
of those times ; since it is well known that the Jews, after
the Babylonish captivity, altogether abstained from idolatry,
which the worship of angels, if there was any, must certainly
be accounted. The opinion itself, therefore, in respect to the
worship offered to angels by the Essenes, which the Apostle
is thought to have been opposing, is very uncertain ; a point,
however, which ought, above all others, to have been clearly
established.
But what is to be done, then, with the passage before us,
in which the Apostle has certainly mentioned worship offer-
ed to angels ? Let us see. It must be particularly borne in
mind, that the genitive tuv ayysXwv is to be referred not only
to ^f^tfyisia, but also to Ta<n'Sivo(ppo(fvvyi. But '^pri(fxsia <rwv dyys'Xwv,
as Ernes Ti .has shewn, N. th. Biblioth. T. in. p. 420, means
the same as ik\o'^pri(fxsiUf in verse 23, which is there joined
with the word <ra':r£<vo(p^oo'uv>]. But ^pri^xsioL does not refer to
inward worship, (as even Wolfius has shewn, at this place,
though he has erred in saying, that the word ^^vjCxeia is never
followed by the genitive of the object, to which the worship
is offered ; which Krebs, in his Observ. on this place, has
shewn to be a thing of very frequent occurrence,) but is used
with reference to that part of religion, which consists in ex-
ternals ; and this interpretation is rendered necessary, in the
present passage, by the whole context, and agrees with the
usage not only of the sacred writers, (as James, i. 26, where
^firi<fxog means one, who thinks that he complies with the re-
quirements of religion, by observing some outward appear-
ances of holiness ;) but also of Greek authors. There is a
remarkable place in Philo, in his work entitled, ' Quod dete-
rior potiori insidiari soleat,' p. 159, Ed. Franc. 1691, where
he says of a hypocritical man, ^pri(fxsiav dvT< otfioVajToj Tjyov^svos.
This is also strongly confirmed by the interpretations of He-
sychius in his Glossary ; where ^py}<f^og is explained by ktpo^
IW THP NEW XESTAMENT, 337
0»fo^, i. e. one who liolds false opinions in regard to holiness
and the mode of procuring the divine favor ; and ^pid^os,
which is the same as ^pr}(fxos, by 'KSfirrhSy that is, one who is in
any respect given to affectation, and also by ^sitfi^aifAwv, a su-
perstitious person, one who seeks the divine favor by methods
which cannot obtain it. In regard to the meaning of Ss'Xwv Jv
T«*eivo(p^oo'j>v>j xa/ ^pijo'xgia, commentators are very much em-
barrassed. The explanation, " affecting humility and piety,"
is the most natural, and suitable to the usage of speech. For
it is necessary to bear in mind a somewhat refined use of the
verb ^^Xw or ^Ss'Xw, that when simply joined to another verb,
or placed in connection with a preposition, it signifies a some-
what vehement desire of any thing, and also, particularly in
composition, affectation of any thing. This signification is
found not only in the Greek writers, but also in the New Tes^.
tament, as Markland has shewn, in his notes on Lysias.* Thus
in John, vni. 44, Tag s-ffiSfu/xjag <rou ^arpog C/xwv ^s'Xsts iroisrv, " ye
do voluntarily and freely, and with pleasure and eagerness ;
ye eagerly do." Ch. vu. 17, sav tis ^sXt} to ^iXruLo. auro? iroisTv,
i. e. if any one desires ; and Ch. vi. 21, ^^sXov \aQsTv dorhv slg
TO ffXordv, " they willingly received him into the ship." — This
usage is very common also in the Hebrew language, where it
answers to yBV}, which, joined with :3, signifies, to be exceed-
ingly delighted with any thing, so that one vehemently de-
sires it ; and it is rendered by the Septuagint either by ^sXw
£v Tiv/, where they have imitated either an elegant Greek, or a
Hebrew usage, or by iv5oxs(^ ; as in u. Sam. xv. 26, ^n^an xS
^5, oux 7j3-£Xr]xa 8v rfo/, i. Sam. xvui. 22. Ps. cxLvn. 10, oux Iv Tjf
8wa(ftSi(t Tou iVcrou S-sXiyrfs*, ouSs iv tolTs xv^fjuaig tou dvSphs svSoxsT, i.
Kings, X. 9. Of the same kind also is i. Mace. iv. 42, where
the words ^sXriral vo'jxou mean, those who were eager for the
law. From this signification, therefore, of the verb 3-s'Xw, its
compounds are to be explained ; as ^SsXoVovoj, i. e. he who,
for the sake of a little vain glory, desires to appear laborious,
in Aelian, de Nat. Anim. iv. 43 ; also i^sXatfreiog, an elegant,
*[ Lys. Op.; p. 616, Ed.Reiske, Lips. 1772.— 2V.j
43
338 NO TRACES or THE UN08TICS
effeminate man, one who affects polish and urbanity, in He-
LiODOBUs, Aeth. Lib. vu ; i^s\6(focpog, one who affects wisdom ;
and in the same manner also i^sXo^-pridxog, one who desires to
appear religious. Hence ^^-sXoa-^Tjo'xsra, verse 23, does not
meaa, a cunningly devised worship, formed after their own fan-
cy, as Luther renders it, and as Grotius also thinks it should
be interpreted ; but, according to this usage of speech, it sig-
ni$es, an affected love of religion, for which a person looks
upon himself with great complacency. In this manner, more -
over, the word has been explained by ancient commentators ;
as Augustin, Ep. 59 ;* Chrysostom, who explains it by h\k-
§5ia ; Theophylact, who interprets it, C^rox^tvoix^vr} guXa§sia ^v <r5j
^fy\<tmc^ ; Hilary the deacon, who, in his Scholia On the epis-
tles of St. Paul, which are attributed by some to Ambrose^
understands by it, a pretence of religion. Therefore also,
S-eXwy £v ra-rsivo^-^otfuvrj xou ^piqcfxsicL in the place before us, means,
one who affects humility and holiness ; or, who aims at an af-
fected humility and holiness. In this way the words are explain-
edbyalearned commentator of the tenth century, Atto, Bishop
of Vercelli, in his Commentary, h. 1. His words are these : " If
this could be expressed by a Greek word, it would sound still
more familiar in the ordinary Latin usage. For he who af-
fects to be rich, is, in the same way, commonly called thelo-
dives, and he who affects to be wise, thelosapiens ; and so al-
so in other cases of the same kind. Therefore, also, in this
place, thelohumilis, i. e. one who affects humility, &c."t And
this interpretation is exactly applicable to the Jews, and par-
ticularly the Pharisees, and to all who w^ere in favor of the
ceremonial law ; of whom the Apostle is speaking in this
place. Atto perceived this, and considers the passage as re-
ferring to the Jewish observances ; though he, too, trifles a
great deal about the worship of angels.
* [August. Op. Vol. I. p. 389. Ed. Antw. 1700.— Tr.]
t [The learned author has committed an error in attributing these
words to Atto. They are Augustin's own expressions, in the very pas-
sage referred to just before by Tittmann ; who must, therefore, have
cited this place of the Latin Father without having seen it.— Tr.]
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. t)l3il
Why, however, does the Apostle add twv ayyg'Xwv ? To
«hew the nature of this ^pYi(fxsia and TaitsmcpfotfCvri, and to in-
timate their greatness, dignity, and excellence. For the He-
brews, when they wish to express things that are great and
remarkable, make use of names, indicative of objects of this
character ; as, for example, the name of Gk>d, which is very
common in the Scriptures, as may be seen by a reference to
Glass. They employ, however, for this purpose, the name
il^b^ also ; for instance, when they wish to express remark-
able wisdom, as in ii. Sam. xiv. 20 ; o xvpi6s fxou tfocpog xa^wj
<fo<pia dyyiXou «rou ©sou, cou yvmm <n:6LVTCc ra iv t^ yvf, i, e, thou art
exceedingly mighty in wisdom and understanding ; or, when
they would speak of distinguished kindness and justice, as in
II. Sam. XIV. 17. XIX. 27, o xvpiog jjiou 6 .SatfiXsus ug ayysXos tou
©5oy, xtti 'ffoivicfov to dya^ov iv oqj^-aXftof? tfou ; or, when they de-
scribe great good- will in any one, as in i. Sam. xxix. 9, aiD
o^HSk ^kSds •'Vi^a nnx ; where the Septuagint has omitted the
last words, and rendered the phrase, dya^og cO iv Icp^akit^oTg jjlou ;
or, when they speak of very great majesty, as in that descrip-
tion of Stephen, Acts, Vl. 15, sfdov to •rpotfojcr'ov auTou wCs/ *po-
tfw^ov dyyshov, i. e. his face was full of dignity and gravity ; or,
finally, when they are describing a great multitude, as in i.
Cor. XIII. 1, where nobody surely can suppose, that the lan-
guages of angels are meant ; but we perceive immediately,
that by yXwaftfaig twv dv^-puifuv xai twv dyysXojv, are intended
all languages whatever. From all this it may be perceived,
what is the meaning of S-piQtfxsia twv dyyiXuiv, in the place be-
fore us ; viz. a life and holiness, which resemble the life and
holiness of angels, and are therefore most pure and perfect
There is no need of a long proof, as Wolfius has already per-
ceived this to be the meaning, as well as a great proportion of
the very learned commentators whom he cites. But what t««
^eivocppotfyvT} twv dyyiXuv means, is shewn by verse 23, where
it is connected with dopstSiti (fu^a'ne;, which consists in severe
treatment of the body, and in abstinence from such food as
men naturally desire ; and is opposed to rii^i, viz. tou (fdfMroe,
which signifies, attention to the body, both in general, and par-'
ticularly as it regards the nourishment of it. This signification
3J0 NO TRACES OF THE aNOSTICS
of TifAi?, as also of the verb T»fjoaw, is not, indeed, very common ;
sometimes, however, it occurs in Scripture, as in Matt. xv. 5,
6u fAii Tiju-V;'? ^ov flfaTspa auTou, x. r. X. where T»(xa.w is to be un-
derstood as referring, not merely to the paying of proper re-
spect, but also principally to liberality and munificence in the
support of parents ; as even the parallel place, Mark, vii, 12,
shews, where, instead of TifAaw, the verb •roj^w is used, which,
as Grotius observes, is for ayaS^oTroiiw. Ti^xig occurs, in the
same sense, in i. Tim. v. 3 ; as is evident from the verse
which follows, where the Apostle orders, that widows who
have children should be supported by them, and not by others.
Particularly clear, however, is verse 17, which is exactly to
the point. See also Ecclesiasticus, xxxviii. I. The Apostles,
in their use of this word, imitated, without doubt, the usage
of the Hebrews, who use in the same sense the verb nD3 ; as
in Numb. xxiv. 11. T»jxaw, however, is to be found with this
signification in the Greek writers, who also, in the same way,
elegantly employ the verb iiratviu ; as in Demosthenes, de
Corona,* i^aivsn/ xp^^V CTf^avw, i. e. to honor ; or rather, to
reward with a golden crown ; for Demosthenes had a little
before said, in reference to the same subject, (fTscpavutfai XP^^V
tfrs^avcj. Nor is it unusual with Latin writers to use the words
honor and honoro in this sense, i. e. instead of pramium, and
beneficiis officio. Thus, for example, in Cicero, pro Quintio,
4 ; pro Roscio Amerino, 37, and 47 ; quod virisfortibus honos
habitus est, laudo ; also in his Epist. L. xvi. 9, medico honos
haberetur, i. e. it was proper to give him a reward ; but in
what way, Cicero could not tell. In the same sense, also, the
word occurs in Suetonius, August. 45, where see the com-
mentators ; comp. Krebs, Comm. ad Dec. Rom. et Athen.
pro. Jud. p. 416, and Elsner, on this place, p. 416. And that
this is the sense of the word ti/xi) in the passage before us,
the words that follow clearly shew ; 'Spk •rX^io'fj.ov^v t^j^ Ca^xo^,
i e. to the satisfying of the body ; which expressions point
out the nature of the ^[tA before mentioned. For crXijtf/jiovii
' C Denrosth. et Aesch, Op. Ed. Lond* 1824, Vol. j. p. 190.— Tr. 1
'OF TBJB ^4
IN THE NEW TESTAMEiNT.
signifies that satisfying of the body, which is produced by
food ; as appears from the usage of the Septuagint, which al-
most always employs the word to express this idea, and ren-
ders by it the Hebrew words j;Dir, and jrgiv, as in Exodus,
XVI. 3, V^jofjtsv aprouff sig -rXijtffji-ovyiv. The Apostle, therefore,
refers to those, who abstained on certain days from food and
drink, through their scrupulous reverence for the ceremonial
law ; and used severe bodily mortification ; and in this man-
ner dealred to appear more holy than others, to imitate the
angels, and to lead an angelic, i. e. a perfectly humble and
pure life. It is evident how suitable this is to the design of
the Apostle ; since he is speaking of those who were too par-
tial to the Jewish law, which required a severe treatment of
the body, and who, on this account, thought themselves more
holy and religious than others. Nor is the usage of speech
against it : for abstinence from marriage is also called an
angelic life ; whence the term iVayysXoi, in Luke, xx. 36 ; and
therefore abstinence from food may be spoken of in the same
w^ay, and that, too, according to the usage of the Hebrews,
with whom any one who eats little, or mean food, is said not
to eat, and he that eats so as to satisfy the natural wants of
the body, or lives on delicate and dainty food, to eat ; as ap-
pears even from Matt. xi. 18 s. Tairsmcppoffuvri twv dyyi'huv
consists, therefore, in abstinence from food, and too great
mortification of the body. And to this agree the words a ffcog
hupaxsv ^.a/3aT£uwv, if they are explained thus ; bestowing in-
cessant attention upon what he does not understand ; or, he
is ignorant of that which he is doing ; or, as Vatablus inter-
prets it, " agens, quae pro certo non habet, Deo accepta esse,
doing things which he does not know certainly to be accepted
by God." For 6^a,w is used according to the Hebrew man-
ner of employing the verb nx";, viz. to understand, as Gen.
XLii. 1. 1. Kings, X. 4. and also in numerous places in the New
Testament. The verb ^/x§areu'w means properly, to enter
into ; and also, figuratively, to bestow constant labor and at-
tention upon any thing, as was the case with those who were
zealous for the ceremonial law. Comp. Krebs, on this pas-
'Eix>j (putfioufASvo^ u'To Tov vohe: <rrjs (fapMS aurou, i. e. who
•342 NO TRACES OF THE GNOSTICS
nevertheless is proudly elated in the midst of this his igno-
rance, and is vainly puffed up with human wisdom, and led
away by empty arrogance, and an eager desire for human
applause, as were the Pharisees and Jewish teachers. Kara-
^patosuw, I think with Casaubon on this passage, means, to cori'
demn, so that it is the same as x/>»vw in verse 16, which is used
in numerous places for xarajc^ivw ; so that the Apostle repeats,
in this place, the admonition given in verse 16, only using
another word. I would therefore render the passage thus :
Let no man, therefore, I say, condemn you, or charge you with
doing wrong. The word xara§^a§£uw is taken from the mode
of conducting the games. B^a^suw is applied to the master,
or president of the games, who not only distributes the prizes,
but also decides who is worthy to receive them. Hence it
denotes, in the next place, in general, to preside over, to rule,
as in Ch. in. 15. But xam, in composition, sometimes has the
force of giving an unfavorable sense to a word. Kara^^aSsvw,
therefore, signifies, to judge in an unfavorable way, or, to
condemn. Hesychius, accordingly, interprets the word by
xaraxgjvw. Krebs, on this passage, thus explains it ; " Let no
man artfully and unjustly circumvent and deceive you."
This, also, is a very suitable sense.
The Apostle now proceeds, in verse 19, to describe a per-
son who advocates, and submits himself to the Jewish law :
leaving, says he, the doctrine of Jesus Christ, (viz. while he
recommends and observes what Christ has forbidden,) by
whose power the whole of this spiritual body (he speaks of
the church as of a body, of which Christians are the mem-
bers,) receives nourishment and strength through all its parts
and joints, so that it gains increase pleasing to God. The
verb sVip^o^'o/^w, which is freely used by the Apostle, I have
rendered, " to receive nourishment." Xopriyew and iirixopriyiu,
and also xoLroLxof^ysc^, (for those persons are much mistaken,
who think there is any particular force or emphasis in the
compound verb) are used by the Attic writers principally ;
and signify, to furnish the expenses necessary for the celebra-
tion of the games. Hence, the person who is at the expense
of the games is called x^f^Y^^^^ as Emesti has shewn, on Xe-
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 343
uophont. Memorabilia, in. 4 ; and xmy^^^t and the Latin cho-
ragiwn, mean the apparatus necessary for the celebration
of the games, as, for instance, garments, statues, &c., and,
further, any apparatus for the execution of any design.
Hence y^fv\yi^ and l^tdy^^rtiy^^ mean simply to give, to furnish
what is requisite for the accomplishment of any thing, to sup-
ply with the necessary articles and aid ; and, in the passive
voice, to receive these same things. These verbs are always
used in these senses in the New Testament ; as, ii. Cor. ix.
i. e. he who supplies seed to the sower, will also furnish every
kind of food ; as appears from the parallel place, Isai. lv.
10, from which these words are taken and translated ; for
the Hebrew there is \T}}, which the Septuagint has rendered by
^i^wfAi. Accordingly, x'^^'^7^^ ^^^ i-rj^^o^iiysw are used one for
the other, as in the passage now cited, and also in Gal. in. 5,
and I. Pet. iv. 11 ; and likewise for 5«5wfjii, as Luke xi. 13.
Hence oupV) r^g girip^o^tiyiag, Eph. iv. 16, is the joint, by which
any member supplies another with what tends to its increase.
Let us here add the sense of this whole passage ; as it is ve-
ry intimately allied to that before us. It is this : By whose
power this whole spiritual body, fitly joined and compacted,
through that junction by which the members communicate to
each other spiritual benefits, (as the members of the body
impart to one another the nervous moisture,) according to the
measure and power of every member, increases, so as to ad-
vance in love. Respecting the words ^of ^y^'w and i-jrip^o^Tiysw,
Krebs has treated extensively, and, as usual, with great
learning, in his Commentar. ad Decreta Rom. pro Jud. p.
22 s.
In the verses that follow, it is evident at once that the
Apostle is repeating the admonition, delivered in verse 8 s. ;
and giving a reason for the statements which he had made,
and the substance of which has been already mentioned.
This only I would observe, that m a'^r), iirids x. t. X. in verse
21, are expressions referring to the same subject, and are to
be explamed without any distinction as relating to food ; ui
which sense they occur in Xenoph. Cyropaed. Ii. i. c. 3, as
344 NO TRACES OP THE GNOSTICS
Bos has observed in his Exercitt. Phil. p. 207. So in the
Memorabiha, L. i. c. 3, (fkuv a'K^sd&ai does not mean, to touch
food, but to eat it. As for ysuo^Aai in particular, that it signi-
fies not to taste, but to eat, Bos has shewn by several instan-
ces, in his Animad. ad Vorstium, which are added to the Ob-
servv. Miscell. p. 249, where he establishes this sense of the
word, by reference to several authors, principally profane
writers. The words « stfri cravra sfe (p^ofotv Tr\ d^opf^^csj, in verse
22, are parenthetical, and are to be understood in the same
way as the words of Christ, Matt. xv. 17. 'EvraXfjoara tw»
av^pw-jrwy, mean the same as tta^a^odig twv av^^wir'wv, in verse 8.
A6705, in verse 23, means, appearance ; for the word is used
in this sense by the Greek writers ; whence the phrase X670V
sysiv means, to have or to shew the appearance of any thing,
as Bos, 1. c. has proved by several examples.
Having thus given my explanation, and established it by
the usage of language, not less than by the design of the
Apostle, and the whole context ; I think that I have asserted
not without reason, that, through the whole of this Epistle to
the Colossians, there is not so much as the shadow of a trace
of the Gnostic or Oriental philosophy, but that every thing
is to be understood as relating to the ceremonial law, and its
zealous supporters.
I have occupied considerable time in the elucidation
of this passage ; and must now hasten to the considera-
tion of others. It is thought by some learned writers,
that there are nowhere more clear and evident traces of
the Gnostics than in 1. Tim. vi, and particularly in the
concluding verses of the chapter, where they think that
the Apostle points them out by name ; being no doubt de-
ceived by the sound of the word yvwc*^. Let us see, how-
ever, whether an interpretation cannot be given, which may
suit both the usage of language, and the design and views of
the Apostle, without making the place refer to the Gnostics,
or other philosophers of that kind. First let us inquii-e
into the meaning of the word /vwC/^, which I think signi-
fies here the Imowledge of divine things, or religion ; which
is perfectly agreeable to the other and most ancient use of
IN THE N£W TESTAMENT. 345
the word. The Septuagint sometimes renders by yvwtf<^ the
Hebrew word na^a, which properly signifies, an accurate and
distinct knowledge of any thing ; from the word |n, which,
like the Arabic uLj , means properly, to cut ; and hence, to
consider any thing part by part, i. e. more accurately, as
ScHULTENs has shewn, on Prov. i. 2. But nra signifies fur-
ther, the knowledge of divine things, or also divine inspira-
tion, as Dan. ix. 22. For it answers evidently to the Arabic
i'-jC.X^i, which occurs very frequently in the Koran, and
is the ordinary word for expressing those divine inspirations,
with which Mohammed professed to be favored. For the
most part, however, and very frequently, the Septuagint trans-
lates by yvCxiig the word riri, which signifies any kind of know-
ledge whatever ; but, especially, the knowledge, and also the
system itself, of things relating to religion, as Mai. n. 7, where
the prophet says, nn-nn^'". |n3 'naif', i. e. it is the duty of the
ministers of God, to watch over doctrine and its purity ; care-
fully to keep the divine doctrine ; or rather, so to deliver it,
that its purity may receive no injury. The Septuagint has
rendered the passage word for word ; x^iX^i le^sw^ (pi^Xafsrat
/vojfl'jv. And the word ^vwCig has this sense in the New Tes-
tament also, so that it signifies simply, knowledge concerning
God ; as Rom. i. 19, where, indeed, the words are yvw^rov t«u
GsoiJ, but this is for yvwCi^ <rou ©$ov, as Ch. n. 4, x^tjCtov for x^riC-
ToVyjs ; and in Chap. xi. 33, yvwCi^ is attributed to God him-
self, for which reason he is called, in i. Sam. u. 3, niiri Sk, ®shc;
yvwtfswv. In this sense the word occurs in numerous places of
Clemens Alexandrinus ; as at the beginning of Book V, of
the Stromata, where he speaks of yvwo'jj uiou xou "rrar^o?, which
he says ought to precede -rirfTi^. Thence, also, /vwiTi? signifies
every kind of knowledge of divine things ; as in that diflicult
passage, i. Cor. vin. 1, though even this place, also, Hammond
and Brucker have made to refer to the Gnostics, because they
found the word yvw^jg there ! Those who entertain this opi-
nion, however, do not understand the real meaning of the
place. It is this : " The generality of us (-ravrfg, on account
of verse 7,) have a knowledge of such things (he particular-
ly refers to knowledge concerning the nothmgn^gs of idol?,
44
346 KCf TRACES OF THE GNOSTrCo
as the context very clearly shews,), without doubt, (finalfy we
are in part not wanting in knowledge ; for a parenthesis be-
gins from these words, which is continued to the end of verse
3, as Schmidt and Bos have correctly observed) but this know-
ledge by itself usually leads to pride ; but it will profit, if love
be added to it, which is the most excellent teacher of our du-
ties." So Ch. xui. 2. rvwrf/f, however, signifies besides this,
religion itself, as Phil. m. 8, which is a very clear passage. In
the same way yivwcxw is used, John, xvn. 3, where, without
doubt, reference is made to Isaiah, lui. 1 1 , where our Lord
Jesus Christ is said to bring many to the faith ^P^vi^, i. e. by
his gospel and doctrine. This use of y^ddig, in the sense of
religion and divine doctrine, is also found in Clemens Alexan-
drinus ; as in Strom. L. vi. p. 645, where he speaks of ymiig
ira^OL Tou uiou Tou ^goi; ifuPaSo^sTda xai aitoxa'kv(p'^sT(fa, " the know-
ledge delivered and revealed by the Son of God," and also
in numerous other places ; and he constantly distinguishes by
the term yvwCTjxo^, one who has embraced the religion of Je-
sus Christ. From all this, therefore, it may be perceived,
that yvwrfjj, in the place before us, may, according to the usage
of language, have the meaning which I have assigned to it ;
and that it has, is, in the next place, proved by the con-
text. This yvwtfjg is called -^suduw^Log, i. e. that system of di-
vine things, which is not worthy of this name, and, on ac-
count of its corruptions, can no more be spoken of in
this way ; in a word, false religion. Ygudwvu/xo? yvwtfj^, there-
fore, is precisely the same as 9»Xo(j'ocpja, in tlie Epistle to the
Colossians ; viz. the Jewish doctrine, depraved and corrupted
in various ways, which is, therefore, no more worthy of the
name of divine doctrine. The word avTt^s(feig either means ques-
tions and discussions respecting this doctrine, or is redundant.
Now the Apostle calls this same doctrine cag ^s^rjXous xsvocpu-
viag. The word xsvoqjwv/a is from xsvog, which is used in the New
Testament according to the Hebrew manner, and answers
to p"^, vain, void ; as xsvm answers to pOI? which signifies, ei-
ther to take away altogether, or to diminish, or to abase one's
self, to lower one's self, or to makes one's strength less than
the natural ability ; which the Greek writers elegantly ex-
press by frau«e'uoaa», and the Latin by the words, ' dispenso
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. ^^4"?
Vii^s meas/ We find xsvoj, in this sense, in Luke, i. 53,
^XouTouvraf s^afkrsiKs xsvovg, he makes the rich poor, he de-
presses them, so that they have nothing of which they can
boast ; and xsvow, in i. Cor. i. 17, i'va it^rj xsvy^Jj 6 tfraupog cou
XpKfTovy i. e. least that power, which is pecuUar to the gospel,
and which it has over the minds of men, although no art be
used, should be taken from the gospel, and ascribed to hu-
man artifice. Hence we may perceive the folly of those,
who, in Phil. ii. 7, and in the condition of our Lord Jesus
Christ while on the earth, termed in scholastic language his
state of humiliation, imagine a certain emptying, and philoso-
phize about it to a wonderful degree. Still better known is
the meaning of the Hebrew word p^, as in that well-known
declaration, Kin p;^ V^'^S Deut. xxxii. 47, which is^ trans-
lated by the Septuagint ou^' Xoyo? xsvos ourog, i. e. this promise
shall not be void, it shall have its efficacy, or fulfilment. The
word xsvo(pcjvi'a?, therefore, means vain discussions, having no
utility, no efficacy for the production of piety, and therefore
without effect ; and is the same as asmg Xoyoij, in Eph. v. 6.
Hence Hesychius interprets xsvo(p6jvia? by fxaraioXoyia^. |But
the Apostle calls them ^sj3rfKovg, i. e. profane ^nd impious,
on account of their remarkable wickedness, and contempt of
the true and purer doctrine ; such as characterized the ques-
tions respecting Jewish rites, keeping the ceremonial law, and
other things of the same kind. And this -^^sMwikog yvwtfj^ the
Apostle opposes to ^apaxara^^jxTj or -jrapa&Tixy]. For it makes no
difference, whether we read flra^axaraa^x/j or flra^aS>jx*j, since
both have the same meaning, and both are used in a good
sense. In this place is meant, without doubt, the doctrine of
the gospel ; as is shewn by the parallel places, Ch. i. 18,
where the verb -ra^arja-sjuoai is joined with cra^a/ysXia ; and lu
Tim. I. 14.
Thus much respecting the words ; let us proceed to the
subject-matter, the context, and parallel passages. And,
first, I shall assume a point which is freely conceded by
all commentators, that the Apostle is evidently, in these
words of which I have been speaking, repeating the admoni-
tion given before in Ch. i. 4, comp. with verse 18 : for the
MS NO TRACES OP THE GNOSTICf
discourse begun in verse 3, he continues in verse 18 ; and
verses 4 — 17, are parenthetical, as Heumann, and Michaelis,
in loc. have observed after Melancthon, Oper. Tom. iv. p,
380. Perhaps, also, the opinion of Heumann and Grotius isl
not entirely unworthy of attention, that verses 20 and 21, oi
Ch. vr, were added by the Apostle, with his own hand, by
way of appendix to the epistle after it was finished, in order
to press the more thoroughly this admonition upon Timothy*
It is evident, therefore, that the words ^s^rfkovg xsvocptAiviag xai
dvri^i<t€ts *rrjg ^J^eu^wvu^ou yvwCgw^, mean the same as (A^a-oig xai
ysvsakoyims difs^oivrois in the other passage, or, as they are call-
ed, ch. IV. 7, fSs^rjkovg TLOA ygauSsig iJ^v&ovg. By if^v6oi, however*
are not meant, as is commonly supposed, fables, this not being
the pecuHar and only signification of the word, with Greek
writers : but the Apostle means, discourses, discussions, narra^
tions ; hence f^u'aoig (rsCo^Kfjutsvoi^, ii. Pet. i. 16, means, cunning
and artificial accounts; or discussions, skilfully and craftily
devised, calculated to deceive the minds of men, (Diodor.
SicuL. I. 93, calls them ii^vdovg -Tre^XarffAsvou?) which the
Apostle says that he had not used, ( IfaxoXouS^jrfavTe^ ) in
shewing to Christians the very present, i. e. efficacious
majesty of Jesus Christ ; but that he had only delivered, in
a simple narrative, what he had perceived with his own eyes
and ears. U^o&ixsiv f^us-oig signifies : to yield assent to refined
discussions ; to dehght in them, and to be absorbed in the
study of them : for this is the meaning of the phrase cr'^oo'-
gj^gjv Tivi, as Krebs, in his Obs. in N. T. e Josepho, on Acts,
Viu. 6, p. 203 s., has proved from several passages of Jose-
phus. The meaning, therefore, of m-ti 'rt^odix^w ^iAj^oig is : not
to care about these things, to shun them, to reject them*
Now it is evident that "jr^ocs'^^eiv [hu^oig xai ysveoLkoyiat^ dcrs^avro/^,
is that same iia.raio'ko'yta, to which the Apostle says, in verse
6, that some had turned aside. These, however, he calls, in
the following verse, voiioSidatfxakoi ; and by this vofAoj he means
the Jewish law, as appears from verse 8 s., where the Apos-
tle speaks of this, and especially of its threatenings against
violators of the law. See Grotius, on this place, and Heu-
-HiANN. Hence the teachers of the Jews are called fj^aratoXSyeu
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 'M^
in Tit. I. 10. — In such a train of thought as this, how can it
be supposed that there is any reference to the Gnostic philo-
sophers ; and what other persons can possibly be intended,
but Jews, and teachers of the law, and those who were stre*
nuous advocates of the Jewish religion ? A comparison,
moreover, of the words themselves by which the Apostle
describes that class of men, with other forms of expression
in relation to the same subject^ will establish the correctness
of my interpretation. For, in other places, he speaks of the
Jews exactly in the same way, and almost in the same words,
as in verse 7, where he says ; it^-n voowvres fx^TS cl Xsyoutf*, jw-^ts
'fs^i rivuv ^la^s^aiouvrai, i. e. even they themselves do not suffi-
ciently understand the things which they teach, nor can they
explain and clearly prove them to others. Now do not these
words agree entirely with what the Apostle says of the Jews,
in Rom. X. 2 ; ^5jXov ©sou s^outfiv, aXX' ou xar' ^flrlyvwfl'jv, i. e.
they are, indeed, zealous in defence of the religion and law
of God ; but their zeal is not enlightened, nor united with a
just knowledge of God and of religion. And in what res-
pect do they differ from those words in Col. n. 18, a ixij kd^
jpaxsv i^^ariuuv ? MosHEiM himself, accordingly, understands
this passage as referring to the Jewish teachers. — Not less im-
portant, moreover, is the consideration, that, of this class of
men, Hymenaeus and Alexander are mentioned by name, in
Ch. I. 20 ; whom nobody but Mosheim can readily think
were Gnostics, that bears in mind the fact, that these men
were delivered to Satan, or, at any rate, were expelled from
the Christian church by the Apostle, that they might return
to a better mind. For whether we understand these words
as referring to excommunication ; which was performed, by
Christians separating such persons from their society, and not
permitting them to enter into the public assemblies, that at
length, perhaps, being driven into the company of the hea-
then, they might repent ; or whether we adopt another, and
more probable interpretation, that Hymenaeus and Alexan*.
der were delivered over to the power of Satan, in order that,
through the afflicting of their bodies, they might return to a
sound mind, as was done in the case of the incestuous person.
i^50 NO TRACES or THE GNOSTICS
I. Cor. V. 5 ; either way it is clear, that these men Were
members of the church. For the Apostle expressly asserts,
I. Cor. V. 12 s. that it does not belong to themselves and to
Christians to judge those, who are out of the pale of the
church ; that it is enough to judge Christians ; that others are
judged by God. Unless, therefore, Hymenaeus and Alexander
had been Christians, the Apostle could not have expelled them
from the Christian church, nor delivered their bodies to be af-
flicted by the devil. — Nor ought it to be forgotten, that the
words Tous €£§»3>oug xtti y^aw^sis jxu^ou?, in Ch. iv. 7. are explain-
ed by the Apostle himself, in the next verse, as referring to tfw-
jaarix^ yi^ftvaCia ; and this, he says in verse 3 s., consisted
in abstinence from meats, and drinks, and other things of
that nature. Now to what can these things be more suitably
referred, or to what ought they rather to be applied, than to
the Jewish ceremonial law, which, it is well known, persons
of that period, and even some Christians, so strongly urged,
and recommended both by words and example ? Finally, it
is no unimportant consideration, and perhaps deserves the
greatest weight of all, that the Apostle calls those very M-i^^oj
by the name of 'lou^ajxoi, in Tit. i. 14, and uses the same verb
cr^otfg'xw, which he has in i. Tim. i. 4 ; and in Tit. in. 9, speaks
of fxw^aj ^vjTTjtfsj?, which answers plainly to §e§ri^oi jxu^oi. For
the word ^■nrr}(fsts signifies questions, refined discussions, and,
principally, allegorical reasonings. Hence <fv^r]rriTri£ means a
person, who can argue ingeniously respecting every kind of
doctrine ; and du^riTriTriS <roi>ulQvog rouTou, i. Cor. i. 20, signifies
a man accomplished in the refinement of human wisdom.
The Hebrews call such a person If^?, whence i^Jl^, mean-
ing the refined, allegorical, or mystical sense. Hence also
(fv^-y}Tri(fis, in the sense of which I have spoken ; for example, in
Acts XV. 2, where it is connected with the word tfTocCsw?, which
means altercation, as is shewn by the usage of the Septuagint,
which sometimes renders by this word the Hebrew ti. Not
only, however, does the Apostle, in the passage referred to,
speak of (xw^ag JiqtVsij, but also of yevsaXoy/ag,* xai sgsts, xa*
* TtiitAheyietf. Semler adds, 'A/awr, in Comment. Hist, de ant.
Christ, statu, p. 30- But what grounds has he for this ?
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 351
fiw»xaf vo(/>ixoLS ; in which it is very evident, that reference is
made to the contentions of the Jews respecting the ceremonial
law, and religious subjects in general. Some, however, are
of opinion, that the passage relates particularly to their dis-
putes on the genealogies of the Chief-priests and priests, to
which, according to Josephus, they paid very scrupulous at-
tention ; the Jews being universally of opinion, that the immor-
tality, and everlasting honor of their name, depended on the
genealogical tables. On this subject, see Michael is, Com-
mentationes, presented to the Royal Soc. of Gotting. during
the years 1763 ss ; p. 2 s. — Now either comparison of dif-
ferent passages, and the reasoning founded upon it, are no-
where of any weight in interpretations of this kind, or it is
evident from what has been adduced, that, through the whole
of the passage under discussion, there is no trace of the Gnos-
tic, or of any other philosophy ; but that its meaning is that
which I have assigned to it. And here 1 cannot but notice
the caution of those two distinguished commentators, Chrv-
sosTOM and Camerarius ; both of whom considered this
place as referring to the Gnostics, but only on conjecture.
Chrysostom, Op. Tom. vi. p. 531. Ed. Par. 1636, says, v Tax^-
rovTo (pYitfi, SioTi rtvss lauToOg sxaXouv tots TvudTixovs, us 'rrXsov ri 9"wv
aXXwv Mtss, " or perhaps he says this, because certain per-
sons, at that period, called themselves Gnostics, as knowing
somewhat more than others." And it is evident that he add-
ed this only in the way of conjecture, from the fact that he
explains the whole of this Epistle with reference to the Jews.
Thus, for example, he expressly says that hs^odiSadxa'ksTv, Ch.
1. 3, refers to " the Jews, who wished to bring believers again
into subjection to the law ;" (IovSoliovs, ^ouXoAts'^ou^ •n'aXiv i<Ki
Tov vo>ov sXxsjv Tovg nticfTovs) and he adds, that the Apostle re-
proves them for this in almost all his epistles. Moreover, he
thus explains jxuSoig xa< ysvsoKoy'mSj in the next verse ; fjiuSou^
ou Tov vo'fxov 9y)(j'/v, acfaye, aXXa Tag cra^a'ToiV^'^j '<«' ''■«' flra^a^a-
^a^jxara, xa< ra cra^atfrjfxa 5oy|xara. 'Eixoj ya^ ^ovs i^ lou^aiwv
&v ToTg dvovrjTois to, 'ffOMra Xoyov dvaXiVxsiv, ifa'ffirovs xai cr^ocraTr-
flroug d^i^^ovvTCLg, i'va 5^d£v ii^ifsi^iag leoXKris xctl \(fTopias do^uv
sywtfjv. " He does not refer to the law ; far from it ; but to
Sbil NO TRACES OF THE GNOSTlCb
fictions, and false doctrines. For it is known, that some of the
Jews employ their whole discourse on useless topics, reckon-
ing up their pedigree, that they may acquire a reputation for
great learning and investigation." In the same way, he inter-
prets ^sQrfKovs xa/ y^aw^sjg (jw;3-ou?, ch. iv. 7, by tols lou5aiwv flraga-
fr7]p7](fsis, — So also Camerarius, on this passage, observes, " I
suspect, also, that the Apostle here refers to a certain sect,
called Gnostics, (twv rvw(j'<nxwv >caXoufx^vwv) who are supposed
to have sprung from the Nicolaitans, and who shewed a won-
derful acquaintance with abstruse subjects." Many veiy
learned commentators have been equally cautious, in express-
ing their opinions on this subject ; among whom I think Gro-
Tius also may in a certain sense be classed, who speaks, I per-
ceive, rather in a hesitating manner at Matt. xxiv. 11. He
there observes ; " And this (the Gnostic philosophy, of which
he is speaking,) is, if 1 am not mistaken, that •4^svduvviios yvwtfj^,
mentioned by St. Paul in his epistle to Timothy." At this
place of the Apostle, however, he speaks with greater con-
fidence, saying ; " you perceive here, how ancient is the name
of Gnostics, which these philosophers, mingling themselves
with the Christian assemblies, assumed ; despising others as
ignorant persons :" though, even at the former place also, he
pronounces his opinion with some degree of confidence, in the
remarks which he afterwards makes.
l^et us now proceed to the writings of St. John, and par-
ticularly his Gospel, and First Epistle ; in which some very
learned men think that there are such evident traces of the
Gnostic philosophy, that no doubt can remain upon the sub-
ject. With respect to the former, they assert, with great
unanimity, that the whole of it was written in opposition to
this class of men ; both because it is too evident, that the de-
sign of the sacred Evangelist was to defend the divinity of
our Lord Jesus Christ against the objections of enemies, and
because he makes use of those very words, which the Gnos-
tics employed in a different sense. Among these they class
the terms Xo^oj, ^6j>), cpus, yuovoysvrig, (fwr^i^j and the phrases, '^rfog
Tov 0SOV shoLi, irXii^-rig X'ip'roz xcd akyi^s.'ia.g, and others. Objections,
however, may be urged against both these proofs.
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 353
As Ibr the first argument, that it was the design of St, John
to contend against the opponents of Christ*s divinity, i. e. the
Gnostics, I have not as yet been persuaded into this opinion
by what some learned writers have advanced in support of
it, with more ingenuity and plausibihty than correctness. For,
first, the whole tenor of the discourse, and even the first
fourteen verses, which are particularly thought to refer to
this subject, have no appearance of any refutation, or ar-
gument ; on the contrary, it is plain that it is a doctrinal
passage, in which the inspired writer, according to a method
pursued in other parts of Scripture, makes some explanato-
ry observations in regard to our Saviour, his natures, and the
union of them, by way of preface and introduction to the
subsequent history of Christ ; and clearly and minutely shews
the design of this great mystery, at that time altogether re-
jected by the Jews ; which the Christians might make use of
as well for convincing the Jews, as for strengthening their
own belief, by a certain and clear examination of the whole
nature and truth of the matter. And this was the design and
plan of the other writers also of the gospel history, though
of none so plainly as of St. John ; and yet no other, except
him, has ever been thought to have combated the errors of
the Gnostics. There is no reason, therefore, for the assertion
of some learned men, and, among these, of Schroeckh, Hist.
Eccl. Tom. n. p. 312, that this doctrinal discourse of St. John
is altogether out of place in a historical book, unless the in-
tention of it is to refute some doctrinal error. For granting,
that St. John departs somewhat from the character of a his-
torian, and undertakes the office of a teacher ; is he necessa-
rily, on that account, contending against the Gnostics, or other
heretics of that kind ? On the contrary, as I have already
said, he added these remarks for the benefit of the Jews, and
of Christians, who were not sufficiently confirmed in the faith.
And what else is it but to fulfil the office of a historical writ-
er, to relate, that the Son of God existed before the begin-
ning of the world, that he formed this whole universe, and,
having assumed a human nature, proved himself, on the earth,
by various circumstances and actions, to be the tnie God ?
45
354 NO TRACES OP THE GNOSTICS
But it will be said, that for this very reason, that 8t. John pur*
sues a more extensive and clearer plan, than the other writers
of the gospel history, it is evident, that his intention was to
put Christians upon their guard against the errors of the Gnos-
tics. Be it so. But why does he speak so much about the
Xoyog, and directly explain who he is ? Why does he not dis-
course rather about Demiurge, whom these men maintained
to be the author of all things, but inferior to the supreme
God, nay, wicked and impotent in nature ; and shew that this
same ^^jjxiou^yo?, i. e. creator of the world, is the supreme God
himself ; and that he has a Son, who partakes of divinity in
the same measure with the Father, and who may in a harm-
less sense be termed Xoyo? ; and why does he speak of this
X670? in such a manner, as if Christians had never known any
thing about any other ? Why is he silent about Aeons,* re-
specting whom the Gnostics philosophized in as trifling a man-
ner, as they did with regard to the Xoyog ; and why does he
not prove to these philosophers, that their opinion in regard
to other natures, viz. Aeons, between the supreme God and
Demiurge, is absurd and impious, and is grounded upon a false
opinion respecting the origin of evil ? I like better, there-
fore, the opinion of those, who think that it was St. John's
intention, in this work, to write a sort of compendium, (not
because there is an ancient tradition to this effect, for I can-
not hesitate to pronounce this, with Semler, in the Pref. to
his Paraph, of St. John's gospel, a mere fable ; but because
any person, who reads the Gospel, and other writings of St.
John, may easily perceive this for himself,) and to explain the
Christian doctrine somewhat more minutely and fully ; (which
* Whoever wishes to know something of the Aeons of the Gnostics,
may consult Beausobre, Hist. Crit. de Manich^e et Manicheisme, Tom.
n. Lib. V. c. 2. p. 574 ; Mosheim, Instit. H. E. maj. p. 143 s. ; and
Brucker, Hist. Crit. Phil. Tom. h. p. 647, where he thus observes:
" They are substantial virtues, which, having come out and emanating
from God, have, indeed, a divine nature and essence, yet different from
its source by a certain mode and peculiar way of existence of its own;
intellectual and immortal, and having no reference to that time which
is the continuing result of mutation. "
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 355
IS the opinion of Semler, Hist. dog. fidei, prefixed to Baum-
garten^s Polem. Theol. T. i. p. 61.) and, as there were not
only many Jews, who impugned the divine nature of Clirist,
or, at least, had doubtful and various sentiments in regard to
it, but also many Christians, who did not understand it with
sufficient certainty, that he wished to prove it by arguments,
and, at the same time, to explain the subject of his human na-
ture, and of the union of the former with it ; so that the whole
doctrine in regard to our Lord Jesus Christ might be better
understood, and be more clearly evident to all, and thus Chris-
tians might have, in this work, a kind of spiritual gift (x^^o"-
fAa flrvsufAttTixov). And this opinion, no less than that which sup-
poses St. John to have written against the Gnostic heresies,
is supported by the authority of antiquity ; and, as it has been
thoroughly approved of by men deeply versed in Greek and
Hebrew learning, it ought to be adopted by us. It may be
sufficient to mention Origen, passages of whom, as also of
other writers, have been cited by Lardner, in his Supple-
ment to the Credibility of the Gospel History, Vol. i. p. 383 s.
The Apostle, however, uses a phraseology, which bears a
strong resemblance to that of the Gnostic philosophers ! So,
indeed, some learned writers say, in order to shew that St.
John contended against that class of men. I grant it. In
the first place, however, these are single words, and particu-
lar phrases, separated from the context ; some of which I
have cited above. Now who can draw any inference from
single words, in regard to the resemblance of the whole
style ? . Many words pccur in the New Testament, which
are found also in Demosthenes, and other elegant Greek
writers. - But is the style of the New Testament that of De-
mosthenes, and pure Greek, or is it derived from Demosthe-
nes ? (Unless any one will be so absurd as to say, with a
certain writer, that the Holy Spirit had great delight in the
eloquence of Demosthenes.) There are also, in the New
Testament, entire phrases, resembling the Hebrew usage,
which are found in Aeschylus and Sophocles, and some-
times also in the same sense. But who can imagine that they
are taken from them ? — But, in the next place, it would be a
ZS^ NO TRACES OF THE 6N0ST1C3
Strong presumption against my opinion, if the words and
phrases supposed to have been derived from the Gnostics,
were entirely unknown in the sacred writings. I shall now
attempt to shew, however, that this is not the fact. If I shall
be able to do this, it will be evident, that neither are these
words derived from the Gnostic or Oriental philosophy, nor
is it aimed at by St. John in this place.
Let us begin with the word ^oyof, the origin of which, I
must freely confess, cannot be very easily explained ; espe-
cially as it is peculiar to St. John alone, among the New Tes-
tament writers. I like, most of all, however, the opinion,
that reference is made in this word to the Hebrew language.
There are some, also, who refer to the usage of the Chaldee
tongue, and particularly to the word K}^'^ ; on which subject
there has been much discussion among various writers.
The point has been certainly enforced with great learning ;
and I should be strongly disposed to agree to it, were not the.
'koyos distinguished from God, as a difterent person from the
Father and the Holy Spirit. But it has not been proved with
sufficient certainty, as some think, that the Chaldee writers
use this word in any other way, than in descriptions of God,
or of some peculiar divine revelation ; as may be seen even
by Mai. iii. 5, where, instead of " I the liord," the Chaldee
version has no^?:, my word. As it is still, therefore, a subject
of doubt, whether it was customary to use this word in a pe-
culiar manner respecting the Son of God, I would not as-
sert positively, that the usage of St. John is to be traced to
that source. See Deyling, Obs. S. T. i. p. 221 s., Carpzov,
Crit. Sac. p. 479 s., and especially John Henry Michaelis,
Diss, de n"<D'D Chaldaeorum. I should think, however, that
this appellation of the Saviour, o Xo'/og, ought to be accounted
one of those usages of speech, which were at that time, in-
deed, frequent among the Jews, but of which no examples
have reached us. But that this term Xoyoj, used by St. John,
was customary among those for whom he wrote, is evident
from the fact, that he adds nothing in explanation of it ;
which, perspicuous as he is in all other respects, he would
Qertainly otherwise have done, and not have used it as
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 35'7
a word well known to all. There are some remains, how-
ever, of this usage, in the Hebrew language ; and these I
shall now proceed to consider. It was customary with the
Hebrews to use the word ^^2^^ to express a divine person, and
particularly the Son of God, and to employ it as a synony-
mous term with 12);. I would not, however, with Deyling,
I. c. quote as an instance of this, Ps. xxxiii. 6 ; as commentators
now generally agree, that "^3*1 signifies, in that passage, the
divine decree, and that this place, therefore, ought no more
to be cited in proof of the divinity of the Son of God, and of
the Holy Spirit. I would rather, therefore, with Witsius,
Miscell. Sac. Tom. ii. p. 102, and Deyling, 1. c. p. 223, re-
fer to n. Sam. vii. 21 ; where David confesses, that all his
blessings had come to him ^^T\ "10^3 : and that this does not
mean, " on account of the promise, kindly made to me by
thee," as it may perhaps elsewhere, is shewn by the parallel
passage, i. Chron. xvu. 19, in which those same supplications
of David are repeated ; for there, in reference to the same
subject, the words are.-jnaj;; "^i^^^, instead of ^w *i^3^3, as in
the former place. It is evident, therefore, that these words
set forth the same idea, inasmuch as thev are used concern-
ing the same subject ; and that they express the Messiah, who
is sometimes called najP, as appears from Isai. xlu. 1. xlix. I.
3. LU. 13, and also from the circumstance that the Septuagint
renders "iji, in the passage of Samuel referred to, by 5ouXo^,
which is no unimportant argument in favor of the opinion
which I advance. But the sense of this word 12V is to be
determined from the usage of the Hebrew language, accord-
ing to which it does not mean the same with the Latin word
servus ; but the Hebrews call those persons the servants of
kings, whom we, at the present day, call ministers, in a very
honorable sense : this, therefore, is a title of dignity, with
which Moses also is distinguished in the Old Testament,
Josh. 1. 1, as has been remarked by Masius, in his Commentary
on this place, contained in the Critici Sacri. This circum-
stance may be urged against Geier, on Ps. xvm. 1, who sup-
poses that the word signifies an abject condition ; which is
not the fact. For i?^, like the same word in Arabic, means
358 NO TRACES OP THE GNOSTICS
properly, " to work as a laborer," as xo^riaw in the New Testa-
ment. Thus, in Gen. n. 5, nnnNn-nx t':]!^ ; iv. 2, nnn^ -r^jr ;
Prov. xii. 11. Isai. xix. 9. DWa nb;;, workers in flax. But
12^ means, further, to pay attention to, to be devoted to',
as in n. Kings, xvni. 7. Isai. xix. 23. Whence Dnn^
signifies ministers, whom any person employs for the accom-
plishment of his designs. The Septuagint almost always ren-
ders D^ _j^ by -jrar^sg ; but in Esth. ii. 18, it translates it by the
honorable appellation 91X01. The term -rar^s?, moreover, is
used in the New Testament, in the same way as on?:^ ; a
clear instance of which occurs in Matt. xiv. 2, where the 'ffaTSee
of Herod, are his friends, or ministers, called in Mark, vi. 21,
^isyKfravss. Hence the Apostles are called ^ouXoj, on account
of the august office of the Apostleship ; and SovXivsiv Kup»w,
means, to teach the gospel. Of the same force is the word
T^iTovpyhs in the New Testament, which is a title applied to
kings, who are called Xsiroup/o/ to^ ©2oiJ, and 5»axovoi, Rom. xiii.
4. 6 ; and even to the angels themselves, Heb. 1. 14 ; nay
more, even to our Lord Jesus Christ,- ch. vni. 2. 6 : and ch.
ni. 1. he is called ct^otfToXof ttjj 6^J^oXoy^a^, i. e. the interpreter
of the covenant, sent by God, in order that he might ratify
the covenant ; which titles have nothing, certainly, of an ab-
ject signification in them, and do not detract at all from the
dignity of the person who bears them. The word n.^jf^, there-
fore, means nearly the same as ^^{SD, by which very title the
Saviour is distinguished in the Old Testament. But ^«^D
means, any minister, i. e. one who manages aflfairs in the place
of another; and is applied principally to the counsellors of
princes, and generals and commanders in war, not only in the
Hebrew, but also in the other Oriental tongues. Hence, in
the Ethiopic, it signifies a president, a governor ; and is used
for app^wv in John, ui. 1, and for /jySfAwv, in Matt. xxvn. 2. For
the same reason :!xHp and n-^ij'D, Ps. civ. 4, and 124? and P'?.iyD,
Josh. 1. 1, are used indiscriminately, although it cannot be
denied, that pntjp is used by the Hebrews in a somewhat
more honorable sense. — I have made these observations
that it might be seen, that the words "^31, n.3V, and ^^)q
are synonymous, and, when used with reference to our Sa-
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 359
viour, signify the whole office, committed to him by God the
Father for the benefit of men ; and that thus the reason might
clearly appear, why the term Xoyo? is used by St. John ; and
that it might be evident, that this title was applied to the Mes-
siah in the Old Testament, and is not, therefore, to be looked
for in the Gnostic, or any other philosophy of that kind. But
as that ministry consisted principally in recovering the salva-
tion and happiness of men, to the great glory of God, and
not simply in making it known to mankind, and unfolding the
way to its attainment ; on this account, I think that the title
Xoyog refers not merely to the office of a teacher, which our
Lord Jesus Christ bore, but principally to his character as Re-
deemer, and that it means, therefore, not only a teacher, or,
as Heumann understands it, in his Explic. Libr. N. T. Tom.
Ill, p. 7, one who makes an annunciation, but the author of the
salvation and happiness of the human race ; such as n3jr is de-
scribed to be, by Isaiah, Ch. lii, and liu, and as St. John
speaks of him, when he calls him (pwf, ^wrj, x.X. And this is
particularly consonant with the genius of the Hebrew lan-
guage. For the primary and proper signification of 13*1 is
that of drawing, leading : «ind it was formerly applied, like
the same word in the Syriac, to shep erds, who lead their
flock, and to husbandmen, who draw furrows, on which ac-
count the Syriac word denotes a field, and plain ; and it thus
agrees with the primary signification of i^v. Hence "i^'^p
means properly, not a desert, but a place in which there are
no cultivated fields, but which is designed for pastures, or in-
to which a flock is led, as Reland ha^^ observed, Palaest. 111.
L. I. c. 56. p. 374. Thus Joel, i. 19, where the words nfN3
"^J'ln mean, either the cottages of the shepherds and the sheep-
folds, or rather pleasant pastures, green meadows ; " the ex-
cessive drought has consumed the places in which there are
pastures." In the next place, however, the word 13t is ap-
plied to the office of generals and kings, and also of teachers.
Hence it signifies, either to rule, govern, subject, compel, lead ;
as Ps. xvm. 48, where ^{^nn d^sj; "^t^h is well translated by the
Septuagint, xai uflroTagajXaoOg u-ff' ^fji.s, instead of which, in u. Sam.
xxii. 48, it is "'^^nili xy^v T*?0'> irai5s'uwv XaoO? uiroxorw (aou. In Ps.
360 NO TRACES OF THE GNOSTICS
XLvii. 4, and cxxxvii. 3, the Syriac word occurs in the same
sense, in reference to those who lead others into captivity,
and expresses the very difficult verb SSn, hence na^ signifies
a general ; or to teach, discourse, and also to be eloquent ;
for example, in i. Kings, v. 13, where Solomon's acquaint-
ance with natural productions is mentioned, that he could
also explain the qualities of these. See also Hos. x. 4,
and XaXsw in the New Testament, Mark, ii. 2, i. Pet. iv. 11.
Hence nnn is, in numerous places in the Psalms, synonymous
with n^in, which means the whole system of divine instruc-
tion, and in this way also Xo'yo.c is used in the New Testament,
as 1. Cor. 1. 18, Xop^ tou s'TauprG, the doctrine concerning Christ
crucified ; also Xoyog <rou X^ja'tou, Xoyo? rrjg dXi^de/ac:, n. Tim. n.
15 ; X6705 Tou koZ, 1. John, n. 14, Apoc. 1. % in which last
place XoYog Tou dsoiJ and /xa^ru^ia Tou x^itfroi; are synonymous,
and signify the Christian doctrine, and M-a^cu^srv tov Xoyov toCi
0SOU, to teach the gospel. Compare also Exod. iv. 14, and
Jer. 1. 6. Now if these significations be applied to the Sa-
viour, when distinguished by the title of Xoyoj, the reason of
so calling him may be more easily perceived ; and it may
thereby be seen, that the name is 'not to be looked for in the
Gnostic, or any other philosophy. If the observations 1 have
now made are thought, by some, not to carry with them that
complete evidence which ought to exist, when we are oblig-
ed to gather the meaning and sense from the words, as in
prominent points of doctrine, or when the context and sub-
ject-matter give no assistance in arriving at a true understand-
ing of the signification ; yet they are of some weight in es-
tablishing the interpretation for which I contend, from the
usage and analogy of languages : and this is, perhaps, all that
is necessary, in passages of this kind.
Let us now proceed to those other traces of the Gnostics,
which are thought to exist in the gospel of St. John ; in the
examination of which I may be more brief. Besides the
word Xoyoff, particular stress is laid upon the terms <P<*>s and
^w?5, which are thought to have been used for the purpose of
opposing the Gnostics. Thus Grotius observes, at this place.
IS THE NEW TESTAMEJ^IT. 36t
*• The fable of the Gnostics is refuted, that the Xo'ycs is one
emanation of God, ?w>? another, cpCJs another. St. John shews,
on the contrary, that all these titles suit Christ alone." It is
hardly necessary to say any thing in opposition to this idea,
since it is obvious, that the words opdg and ^wn savor, not of
Gnosticism, but Hebraism ; for the words D^;n and "iiK oc-
cur in numerous places of the Psalms, in the sense of felicity
of every kind, tranquillity of mind, joy, and the hope of ever-
lasting life ; as niD, b)K^, and ^K^n, are used for miseries and
calamity : for example, Ps. xxxvi. 10, where the two word§
above mentioned are connected together;* Ps. lxxi.20;
Isai. IX. 1 ; and in the New Testament, John, x. 10. And
such a Saviour is promised in the Old Testament ; that he
should be D:u "tin, Isai. xlix. 6 ; and he was acknowledged to
be such in the New Testament, Luke, ii. 32, <pws elg dToxaXu-
^j^jv ^^vwv ; and he himself, also, applies this title to himself,
John, VIII. 12, ^yw £»>» to (pwj tov xoV^ou, which words I would
thus render, *' I am that light of the world," predicted, viz.
by the prophets : and I would understand it as referring not
to the doctrine, delivered by him, but to the salvation pro-
cured by him ; as appears not only from the words that fol-
bw, «|e« <ro (pwff 7r)g ^w>jf, but by the parallel places, ch. ix. 5,
and XII. 46. And so, also, I think those words D!U ifN» ought
to be interpreted ; viz. in reference to the author of human sal-
vation and happiness ; and also (pug and ^wn in the place before
us. For these words are used indiscriminately, although with
some slight difference of meaning, which is this. The word ^wt?
signifies happiness, in such a manner as to refer, at the same
time, to the power of conferring it upon men ; on which ac-
count Christ is said to quickei;! (^wo<jfoj5rv) men, which does not.
mean, as interpreters commonly suppose, to regenerate, but to
bestow salvation ; but ^wg signifies happiness, so as to indicate.
"* The sense of this most beautiful passage is this: Thou art the
source of true and permanent happiness, and from this source every
kind of happiness abounds to us ; 7^% according to the Hebrew iffiage
means, "to enjoy."
46
vTdl^ KO TRACE3 OF Tllli GNOSTICS
at the same time, the method of obtaining it, viz. by the illu-
mination of the mind, i. e. the knowledge of God and of Jesus
Ghrist. Since these words, therefore, are used in such a man-
ner, as to be in no way applicable to the Gnostics, and since
the signification which they have is not unknown in other
parts of Scripture ; it is evident, that the use of them should not
be considered as being derived from the Gnostic, or Platonic
philosophy, as many think with Le Clerc ; and that the word
^w'^ V. 4, must not be explained according to Semler's inter-
pretation, in his Paraphr. of St. John's gospel, with reference to
" spiritual natures enjoying perpetual life, as the most excellent
species twv *avTWv, and Christ, the creator of them." It may be
further remarked, that the use of the words ^(^r, and (pdg, in the
sense of happiness, as of djcorog in the sense of misery, is con-
formable to the custom of all languages ; as has been already
observed by others, and shewn, with reference to profane wri-
ters, by Bos, Exercitatt. ad M. T. p. 52, and Elsner, Obs.
■ Sac. p. 290 s. I am very much surprised that Grot i us, who,
in other places, perceives all this perfectly well, should have
liesitated with regard to this passage. Such, however, is
usually the case with those, who go to the investigation of
any writer's meaning, when blinded by a preconceived opi-
nion.
No less clear is the matter, in regard to the word iJ^ovoysv-ng^
r. 14, and 18. Grotius is of opinion that this word, also, is
used in opposition to the Gnostics, observing, that " the
^Gnostics are in brief terms condemned, who made the Xoyo^
one, iiQvoysvyig another, and Jesus another." And yet he him-
self has well shewn, that, in order to understand this phrase,
we must recur to the usage of the Septuagint in rendering the
Hebrew Tn^, examples of which are to be found in Gen. xxii.
2. 12. 16, Amos, VIII. 10, Zech. xii. 10, &c., and Prov. iv.
"3 ; from which places it may be seen, that this word means
♦ very much beloved ;' for, in the former of them, they trans-
late it by ayoL'Xrirhg, and, in the last-mentioned, by dyairuii^svos.
This is certainly true; except that Grotius is mistaken in
supposing, that aya-riiTo? means, dear, or very much beloved ;
since it rather signifies " only ;" for, in the above-mention-
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 363"
ed passage of Genesis, kaac is called Dn^nx Tn^ |3, and it
is added, r»j3nK-'iL7K ; which would have been superfluous, had
not the whole place signified, " take thine only son, who is
also very dear to thee." This is evident, also, from the trans-
lation of Symmachus, who has rendered TTS'^ by m-ovo^, and
that of Aquila, who translates it by iMvoytvris ; as St. Paul also
does, in Heb. xi. 17. Finally, this is in accordance with are-
fined usage of the Greek language, by which an only son is
called dya1rv^rog, In reference to this are to be explained the
well-known words, in Matt. ni. 17, and Luke, ui. 22. ouVo'g
l(fTiv 6 ulo'g fAou 6 dya'ifrirog, iv w su^oxirjo'a, i. e. this is my son,
beloved as an only son. — Since St. John, then, in the use of
this word, followed the usage of the Septuagint, and it was a
common thing with the sacred writers to distinguish the Son
of God in this manner ; for what reason, I pray, should it be
asserted, that the Gnostics are condemned in this place ? The
Gnostics, forsooth, had one called Xo'/o^, another fxovoysvr^f :
St. John here mentions fAovoygviiff ; ergo
I am surprised that Grotius should consider the words *X'<i-
^ne X^^""^ '*'*' aX»3^e<aff, in the same verse, as referring also to
the Gnostics. " Here, also," he observes, " the dream of the
Gnostics is refuted, according to whom ahyj^sia was different
from Xoyof and Christ." For it is well known, that the words
non and noi* are, in numerous places of the Old Testament,
joined together, as Ps. xxv. 10, lxxxix. 15, and in this very
Ch. I. of John, verse 17 ; and that they ai-e, by a hendyadis,
for x°^P'^ dXifi&ivYi^ i. e. very true, or, perfect grace. But * full
of perfect grace,' means, very gracious, by far the most be-
nignant. But if we thus interpret these words, as we mu^t
do, according to the Hebrew usage ; how can we suppose
them to refer to the dx>j&£<a of the Gnostics ? Perhaps the
Gnostics had a x^P'^ ^i^so ?
Grotius also thinks, that, in verse 16, " St. John shews the
true use of the word wX»)pwfAa, in opposition to the Gnostics."
The Gnostics talked about a certain crXTjpw^ta, therefore St.
John, in this place, referred to the same. This otherwise ex-
cellent commentator did not bear in mind, that the Apostle fol-
lows the Hebrew use of the word nSo. which, jts I have aK
Sl'&i NO 'I RACES X)F TH.H: GNOSTICS
ieady shewn, on Col. u. 9, means either a quantity destined
for some purpose, or absolutely, which signification is not
without examples in Greek writers ; or plenty and abundance ;
and that this is the meaning in the present passage : so that
the sense is ; out of the abundance of his favors, we have
obtained very great and constant gracfe ; or, we have receiv-
ed very great benefits from him ; for this is the meaning of
p^a^ig avTi x^piTog, This same usage St. John undoubtedly had
in view, in the words 6 wv sis tov koX-^'ov tou "ffarpoc, in verse 18 ;
which phrase is thought by Grotius, and others with him,
•* to have been used in an improper sense by the Gnostics, and
here in its true and correct meaning." It is derived, how-
erep, from the Hebrew mode of banqueting, and signifies the
greatest degree of intimacy, and community of purposes.
Profane writers use the same phrase to express this idea :
see Elsner, Obs. Sac. p. 295. In this sense it is, that Laza-
rus is said, Luke xvi. 22 s. to be sv rw xoXiru) cou 'A/3^aa/x, i. e.
intimate with Abraham, or, very near to him, or, enjoying the
same happiness. And the same is the meaning, in the pre-
sent passage, in regard to the Son of God : he has the same
nature and dignity with the Father. I do not see, therefore,
\iOVf St. John is defending the sense of this phrase from the
perversions of the Gnostics ; and I am clearly of opinion,
that Grotius, and the other learned men who follow him,
would never have thought of such an idea, nor have seen any.
thing here of the Gnostics, unless they had been at great pains
to discover them.
So much in regard to St. John's gospel. Let us now pro-
ceed to his First Epistle ; of which the following places are
generally considered as having the same bearing ; viz. Ch.
n. 18 s., 22 s., and 26. ni. 4—7, iv. 1—3. I shall briefly con-
sider the principal passages. The greatest diflSculty consists
in the question, whom the Apostle means by avT/p^pitfToi and
■l^sudorf^ocprirai ; in determining which commentators diflfer, as the
terms are used in various ways in Scripture. It is evident,
however, that the dvTj'x^jrfTo^, in these passages, is diflferent
from that spoken of in n. Thess. u ; and that the ■^evSo'jr^ocpyi-
^0.1 are not the same who are mentioned in that w^ell-known
IN THE NEW TESTAMET^r. 3(i5
place, Matt. vu. 15, where we are to understand, not those
who teach false doctrines, but those who live in a manner un-.
worthy of Christ and of his gospel, as the context there evi-
dently shews ; and they appear to be the same with the 4>6u-
Su'jrctf roXoi, ii. Cor. xi. 13, who are so called, partly for the rea-
son just stated, and partly because they professed to be great-
er than the Apostle Paul, on account of some outward advan-
tages. In this place, however, it is evident that the dyn'-x^^KfToif
Ch. II. 18, and the 4/eu5o<n'/)0(p>3rai, Ch. iv. 1, are the same ; for
they are so described by the Apostle, viz. Ch. ii. 22, as dpnC-
fASvoi, on 'Iijtfoug oux gtfTiv xp'^'J'of > denying that Jesus is the Christ ;
and Ch. iv. 3, as l"-^ o^uoKoyoxlvTSg cov 'iTitfouv p^^irfTov £v (fapxi eXriXu-
^o'ra, Hot confessing that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. But
whom are we to understand as being here referred to ? Mos-
HEiM, Instit. Hist. Eccl. maj. p. 313, and others with him,
think that these two classes of men are to be clearly distin-
guished from each other, and that by the former are to be un-
derstood the Jews, who denied the divine nature of Jesus
Christ, and by the latter, without doubt, the Gnostics, who
denied his human nature ; for it is one thing, he observes, apvouC-
6ai, oTi 'I^irfoug oux IWiv o XpitfTaf, to deny that Jesus is the Christ,
and another, f*^ oixoXoysh rhv 'IvjtfoiJv X^irfrov ^v (fapxi ^X'»iXu5oVa, not
to confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. I am sur-
prised, however, that Mosheim should have made a distinc-
tion, where none existed ; for, by a comparison of both pla-
ces, it is plain that these phrases mean exactly the same thing,
viz. to deny that Jesus, the son of Mary, is the Christ, the
Saviour of the human race, sent by God into this world : for
it is evident that in Ch. iv. 3, the Apostle repeats what he had
said in Ch. ii. 22, and that he makes it a token for distinguish-
ing true from false teachers, that the former confess that Je-
sus is the Christ, the Redeemer of the human race, but the
latter deny it. What, therefore, is expressed in one place by
b dpvoufAgvoj, on li^tfoug oux Itfriv o XpitfTo?, is, in the Other, 6 f/,r) ofjio-
Xoygr Tov 'IrjCouv X^iCtov iv <fapxi iXYfkv&ora, And what difference
is there, whether I should deny that Jesus, the son of Mary,
is the Messiah, i. e. the Saviour of the human race, or, that
Jesus, who is the Messiah, has come into the world ? It is
366
NO TRACES OF THE GNOSTICS
impossible, moreover, that the Jews or Gnostics can be meant ;
for, in the first place, those avrly^pidTtn are said, Ch. ii. 19, to
have abandoned the Christian religion, ^^ -^/awv i^TjXaov ; which
is not applicable, at least, to the Jews ; and, in the next place,
MosHEiM shews, in regard to the Gnostics, (see his work,
cited above, p. 395, and in many other places,) that they con-
sidered Jesus as the Son of God, and the Saviour of the hu-
man race. This excellent writer, therefore, has allowed that
they did not altogether deny Christ's humanity. What other
persons, then, are we to understand as being here described ?
Those adversaries, truly, of Jesus Christ, who, rejecting the
Christian faith, spoke in the most reviling terms of his redemp-
tion, and of his whole religion ; and particularly those impos-
tors, who, boasting themselves to be the Messiah, endeavor-
ed totally to destroy the claims of our Saviour : so that avrU
j^pitfroi are the same as 4^u^o;)^/»(fTo», which is not only allowed
by the nature of the case, for he who is 4^su^6p^pi(rro^, a false
Christ, is also avTi;)^pid'«rof, antichrist ; but also by the nature of
the Greek language, according to which avrij^^io'TOff may mean,
one who boasts himself to be Christ, or, who assumes the
place of Christ ; for avW is so used in composition, as, for ex-
ample, avTi'Sorov, a gift, which is conferred in the place of ano-
ther. The instances cited to prove the contrary, by Brucker,
on this place, and by Calovius, against Grotius, are of no
force. And that there were, at that period, many such mad-
men, who professed to be the Messiah, I have already shewn
from JosEPeus, and others ; and it is also plain from the pro-
phecy of Christ, Matt. xxiv. 5. 24. There is no necessity
for mentioning every individual, the thing being evident ; and
this, moreover, cannot be done, as the names of most of them
have not come down to our times. Otherwise I would, with
Grotius, class among such persons Simon Magus, and Dosi-
theus, both of whom, as I have already observed, were rather
enemies of Jesus Christ, than heretics.
How Chapter ni. v. 4, is at all in point, I cannot possibly
perceive. Perhaps because the Apostle is commonly suppos-
ed to be arguing, in that place, after the manner of a refined
philosopher, who begins with the explanation of his subject ;
IN THE NEW TESTAMEIJT.
wluch he would not have done, unless his intention had been
to refute some particular persons. But who are these ? No
others, without doubt, but the Gnostics. I doubt it, however,
exceedingly. For there is, in this place, no explanation of
sin, as is generally supposed, but rather an admonition to avoid
sin, grounded upon two reasons ; the first of which is drawn
from the defilement, both to body and mind, contracted by
sin ; and the second, from the guilt of a violated law, which
accrues from it. For though I do not think there is any great
emphasis in the words, -srag 6 ^oiwv rviv af^apTjav, as Alberti, in
his Observationes, on this passage, and others are of opinion,
yet I do think that the word ajuta/jTia has here the sense of the
defilement of sin ; as is evident from its being opposed to the
words, otyvi^si Jajrov, xadus hsTvos oLyvog i(fTt. The meaning of
this place, therefore, is this : " Whosoever defiles himself by
doing what is wrong, at the same time violates the law, and
contracts the guilt of a violated law ; but that very defile-
ment, which is in sin, is a departure from the law." This
admonition is in itself so excellent and admirable, that
it cannot be thought too identical, or superfluous, even if we
do not adopt the opinion of Michaelis, Einl. ins N. T. P,
M. p. 1524. Gott. 1788,* that the design of it was to con-
fute the wickedness of the Gnostics. Verse 9, of the same
chapter, which also some think, though I know not for what
reason, to refer to the Gnostics, seems to me to be capable of
an easy application to apostasy. I approve, indeed, exceed-
ingly, of the interpretation of some very learned divines, who
understand the words xa< ou 5vvaTou afji.apTav5iv, thus; "inas-
much as he is born again, and so long as he continues in re-
generation and faith." There is no necessity for this, how-
ever, if we interpret the words, thus ; " whosoever has been
led, by the power of the divine word, to embrace the Chris-
tian religion, has known its truth, excellence, and pleasantness,
* His words are, " which seeras to he a proposition too identical, and
superfluous, if we read it without reference to any polemical design."
C See Marsh's Michaelis, Vol. iv. p. 406, Lond. 1803.— Tr. "]
368 NO TRACES OP THli GNOSTICJS
and has thoroughly felt and experienced it, will certainly not
apostatize from it, since the divine word continually exerts its
efficacy in strengthening his mind-; yea, it cannot be, that he
should abandon and abjure this religion, after having once ac-
knowledged it, for, through the divine goodness, his mind is-
so strengthened and confirmed, that such a thing appears to
be altogether impossible (d(5uvarov)." This meaning is certain-
ly not absurd, and agrees perfectly with the context, and with
the subject itself; for the Apostle adds, vn ccrsp^a aurou Iv
ca)Tu fxs'vsj. Now (f^opoL, which is the same as (ftipiiotf is ele-
gantly used, 1. Pet. i. 23, in reference to the power of the gos-
pel, or the Xo'yoj Jwv ©sou. Moreover, the power exerted
upon the mind by the truth and excellence of the Christian
religion, is proved by personal experience ; and may be per-
ceived in the fact, that so many thousands of men, of different
ranks, not only have defended it with the utmost constancy,
amidst threatenings of the most cruel punishments, but have
also, with astonishing cheerfulness, sealed the truth of it with
their blood, and with an ignominious and most excruciating
death ; and were willing to die a thousand times, rather than
abjure and deny it.
I now proceed to consider the Second Epistle of St. Peter ;
for here also, and particularly in Chapter n, traces of the
Gnostics are looked for, and of course found. There is men-
tion here made, it is said, of ■^s-oSo§i8a<fxci\oi (false teachers,), in
describing whom the Apostle uses a phraseology, different
from that which he employs in the First Epistle, and also in
the other portion of the Second, and agreeing with the lan-
guage of the Gnostics ; it may hence be clearly perceived,
therefore, that, in this chapter, , reference is made to them.
Let us consider, then, first, these i^sutJo^j^aCxaXoi, and see who
are to be understood by them ; and then examine the phraseo-
logy of tjie Apostle, and its diversity. On both these points
I shall be brief.
It is evident that these -^svSodiScLdxakoi are so called by the
Apostle, not only on account of very grievous errors, but be-
cause of their wicked life ; and that two crimes are especially
laid to their charge. The one was, in general, their abandon
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 369
!)(] morals, and dissolute and licentious mode of life ; the other,
which arose out of this, their contempt of magistrates. They
obtrude upon others, says the Apostle, i). 1, very pernicious
opinions, itapsKfa^ovcfiv aipidetg d'n'uKeias, (which phrase has been
already considered,) rejecting the Lord Jesus Christ, who re-
deemed them by his death, (tov dyopatfcLvra. aurovg 6s(fiF6rriv
apvo!;fji£vo«,) and placing their chief happiness in feasting sumptu-
ously every day, and indulging in the most depraved passions ;
V. 13. They are inflamed with inordinate lust, v. 14, (o(p9-aX-
fAoug E^ovTss f^stfToug fj^oj^aXi^og,*) and are thoroughly practised
in all the arts of heaping up and collecting money (xa.p6iav
y£yufji.voctffAsvT)v crXsovs^jajg f sxo^'rsg). And not only by this aban-
doned course of life, but also by their way of talking, carrying
the appearance of great affection and benevolence, in order
that they may make whatever they wish a source of gain, (sv
'jrXsovs^ia-^ 'n'XatfToTg Xoyoig, v, 3.) they endeavor to deceive minds
that are not sufficiently confirmed, +ux^^ acrrjpjxToug dsKsa^ovrsg^
^. 14 ; and insolently treat them, as merchandize to make a
traffic of, s^'s'opsuo'ovTai, § v. 3 ; and entice them to the farthest
and most wanton extremes of lust ; 11 and teach that therein,
* See Bos, Exercitt. Phil. p. 287 ; who admirably explains thes&
words.
t It matters not whether we read TrKisvi^Uii, or wxtan^Ui , since
both readings are supported by the authority of MSS., and allowed by
the genius of the Greek language. Comp. Wolfius, on this passage-
X if TtKtm^iat.. There is here observable a twofold hebraism ; first, in
the signification of the word Trxeovi^itt, which answers to the Hebrew
word ^V3> which means gain, and is sometimes rendered in the Septua-
gintby 3-^8ove|<at, as Grotius shews, onEph. iv. 19; Sind secondly, in
the structure of the words : for f» is for ^tal, as Grotius has also observed,
on this passage of St. Peter.
§. Compare Gaorius, on this place, respecting the meaning of this
word.
11 Instead of dt\oMUis, v. 2, we ought undoubtedly, with Grotius, to
read ct^ihytixn; in which reading the MSS. and Versions generally
agree. This great man, however, is mistaken in supposing, that uath-
yuu, Eph. IV. 19, means the beginnings, or first degrees of lewdness. For
this word always signifies violent, unbridled, and shameless lust.
Hence daxyk means one who is lustful to a shameless and rare degree :
and ti<rt\yio» is applied to a species of lust, which decency forbids nae to
ijame.
47
370
NO TRACES OP THE GNOSTICS
partly, Christian liberty consists. Comp. v, 12, and Jude,
V. 4. And, on account of this same Christian liberty, they
despise magistrates, and are not afraid to refuse obedience to
them, V. 10, pretending that Christians are not subject to hu-
man governors : and they promise things that are utterly vain,
iiifipoyxa fxaTai6<riiTog (p^syyo'fjtsvoi, v. 18; viz. v. 19, full liberty to
gratify every lust and desire, iXsu^sp/av, while, nevertheless,
they subject themselves and others to the severe and cruel bond-
age of the filthiest ((p^opa) vices. Abandoning, therefore, the
doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ, they have very grievously
gone astray, r. 15, exactly according to the plan and course
of Balaam, {o^k tou BaXaafx) who preferred (d/a-n'aw, from the
Hebrew 3n}<) the unrighteous rewards received from Balak, to
obedience to God. But as Balaam instigated the Moabites
to entice the children of Israel to share in their forbidden
lusts, and through these lusts to lead them into idolatry, and, by
this means, brought upon them the severest punishments from
God ; so these false teachers, giving Christians the Hberty of
gratifying their carnal appetites, in order to answer their own
avaricious views, have, in like manner, provoked against the
church and themselves the anger of God, and those severe
chastisements and penalties which usually follow this anger ;
which, indeed, shall not linger ; on the contrary, they are al-
ready prepared for them ; olg to x^r^Aa hitakai ovx dpysT, xai
Jj ditCSKsioL auTWv ou vutfrajsi ; r. 3»
But the question now comes, who these 4^£u5o5»5a(rxaXo(
were ? No other, undoubtedly, than the Gnostics, say some
learned writers. Now 1 will not urge too strongly the fact,
that the place referred to, in this chapter, is a prediction re-
specting teachers of this kind, who were yet to arise ; and
that the Gnostics, therefore, cannot be meant, because, ac-
cording to the opinion of these same writers, the origin of
the Gnostic philosophy is to be traced much higher than that
period, which St. Peter here predicts. At any rate it may
be seen, that if this place be regarded as referring to the
Gnostics, their doctrine had not, as those writers think, as yet
arisen, nor begun to be celebrated and spread abroad :
which is what I have been contending for. There is no ne-
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 37V
BF cessity, however, for supposing the Gnostics to be meant
W liere, as it is well known that, among Christians themselves,
I there was a great number of teachers, and of others, who
I maintained wicked opinions of this kind both by word and
example, of whom the Apostle, in this place, predicts a larger
and more conspicuous number. And, for this reason, there
are so many explanations of the nature of Christian liberty,
in the writings of the Apostles, as in i. Peter, n. 16 ; Rom.
XI. 20 ; vm. 2 s. 14 s. xiv. 16 ; ii. Cor. in. 17 ; so many
severe reproofs and threatenings, i. Cor. v. and vi ; so many
injunctions to connect, with faith, holiness and true piety of
heart and life. Jam. n ; so many exhortations to perseverance
in faith ; finally, so many admonitions to obey the civil ru-
lers, even though they were heathens and wicked men ; i.
Pet. II. 13 s. Rom. xm. 1 s. Now do these explanations, re-
proofs, exhortations, and precepts, relate to the wickedness
of the Gnostics only ? Who ever supposed that the Second
Chapter of St. James, throughout the whole of which he op-
poses men, who led a wicked hfe, refers to the Gnostics ? It
is more probable, therefore, that in this place are meant per-
sons of notorious wickedness ; who, having abandoned the
Christian faith, disseminated iniquitous opinions not only by
their example, but also by their language and system, and
enticed others to embrace and follow them ; in a word, apos-
tates, who, having abjured their faith, and Jesus Christ, lived
in a most abandoned manner, and also corrupted others ; of
whom St. John, after Peter, speaks in his First Epistle, saying
that Antichrist, of whose coming Christians had already been
warned, is now come. This, moreover, may be clearly per-
ceived from verse 20 s., where the Apostle expressly says,
that these -v^su^o^KJarfxaXoi had acknowledged and received
the truth of the Christian religion, but afterwards had ma-
liciously abandoned and abjured it. Further, it is evident
that those '\^s\)8oMa(fxa'Koi were of Jewish origin ; for St. Pe-
ter had addressed the Jewish Christians, and, in tJ. 1, he ex-
pressly shews, that now also, as had before been the case,
men of this kind should arise from among them, iysvovro Ss xai
4/£u5oflrpo(|)SiTai iv rw Xaw, ois xai iv CfAM/ etfovraj ^psudoSiSacfxaKoi. It
may be added, finally, that learned writers, even among those
35S NO TRACES OF THE GNOSTICS
who, in other respects, most strenuously contend that traces
of the Gnostics are found in tlie New Testament, and espe-
cially MosHEiM, maintain that the Gnostics were not all so
depraved in their opinions and lives, as the ^f su^o^i^aCxaXoi are
here described. Comp. Mosiieim, Institut. H. E. maj. p.
359, where he observes, that " most of them prescribed for
themselves a severe rule of living, and, by abstinence, and
various inconveniences, emaciated and tormented their bo-
dies :*' and, p. 357 s., he says, " they all certainly committed
to our Saviour the office of informing, both by words and
deeds, the souls of men, which had fallen into extreme igno-
rance of their origin and condition, and were forgetful of
God, how they might escape from the snares of the wicked
prince of darkness ; &c." Semler expresses the same opi-
nion, in his Comment. Hist, de ant. Chr. statu, p. 79 ; where
he observes, that " most of the Gnostics were strict teachers
of virtue." But if this be so, how can those -^^svdodidatfxoikoi
mean the Gnostics ? For this reason, Mosheim here agrees
with me ; for he expressly maintains, in the above work, p.
317 s., that this epistle does not speak of philosophers, nor of
those who advocated the ceremonial law, but of abandoned
Christians, " who maintained that the holy system of Jesus
Christ was the teacher of every vice and lust, and, by their
own impure lives, supported this horrible doctrine." — So
much with respect to the ■]^s\}§o8iSa<fxoikoi.
As for the phraseology which the Apostle has used in this
Chapter, and which, as has been very correctly remarked by
learned men, (as, for example, among the ancient ecclesiasti-
cal writers, Jerom, de Script. Eccl. c. 1,) differs very much
from his style in other parts, and has a great resemblance to
the Epistle of St. Jude, while this Second Epistle of St. Pe-
ter, and the Epistle of St. Jude, resemble very much the
phraseology of the Gnostics ; learned men seem to have here
needlessly sought out and devised difficulties. If it is neces-
sary, however, to assign any reason for the circumstance re-
ferred to, the most probable is, that it was in consequence of
the prophecy, and denunciation of severe punishments, con-
tained in this chapter. Now who does not know that in pro-
phecies, or severe reproofs, the style is more elevated., and
IN THE NEW tJESTAMENT; 373
sometimes also more uncommon, tlian in the simple statement
of doctrines, and systems of morals ? Who can read the
xivth chapter of Isaiah, where the destruction of the Babylo-
nians is threatened, or the reproof contained in Jeremiah, ii.
12, without perceiving that a very elevated style, and bold
figures, are used ? And from this circumstance not having been
borne in mind by some commentators, those passages have
been explained in a most extraordinary and unnatural manner.
Or, to take an example from the New Testament, who can
read the Apocalypse, and other writings of St. John, without
observing the great difference there is between them ? In
the latter, the style is simple, sweet, and flowing softly along ;
in the former, it is elevated, magnificent, and also, in some
places, repugnant to the usage of the Greek language ; and
therefore abounding in faults of expression, not to be found
in his other writings, and such as we should not have expect-
ed to find in him.
The words themselves, moreover, and phrases, which the
Apostle has employed in this prophecy, are such as may ea-
sily be accounted for, and explained, from the usage of the
sacred writers, without having any regard to the trifles of the
Gnostics. Of this kind, are, particularly, the phrase (fsipaTg ^6-
(pou Ta^rapwo'aj, leapiSi^xsv sis >:p«V<v rsrYiprifj^svovg, in r. 4 ; and ols o"
(^ocpos rov (fxoTovs ^k aJwva Tsr^^TjTai, in v, 17, and the words im-
mediately preceding, outoj £»Vi ifriyai avu^^oi, vS(psXai virh XaiXairog
iXcfuvoiLsmi. Some learned writers are of opinion, that these
phrases are either derived from the usage of the Gnostics,
that is to say, borrowed from them, or that they are employed
in opposition to them ; as Michaelis thinks, Einleit. ins. N.
T. P. n. p. 1482 s. ed. Gott. 1788.* Let us, however, exa-
mine this point. We must here bear in mind, particularly as
it respects the two first of the above phrases, an observation
of some very learned commentators in regard to certain words,
which are somewhat uncommon in the New Testament. When
the Apostles undertook to teach the Christian religion in the
Greek language, many subjects were necessary to be spoken
* [ See Marsh's Michaelis, Vol, iv. pp. 356, 356. Lond. 1802.— Tr. ]
374 NO TRACES OP THE GNOSTICS
of, with which the Gentiles were unacquainted, or which, at
any rate, they erroneously held ; so that there were no words
to express these : as, for example, when the punishments of
evil angels and men were to be mentioned. In order to ex-
press these, they were obliged either to invent new words, or
to select others, whose ordinary signification had some resem-
blance to that which they wished to express. New terms they
neither did, nor could invent ; for this is only to be expected
from great genius, disciplined by education, not from fisher-
men and illiterate persons : they accordingly selected words,
which were already well known, and employed on similar
subjects. Thus, for example, they made choice of the word
a%, which is used by the Greeks in reference to the condi-
tion of both classes of men after death : the Apostles, how-
ever, after the usage of the Septuagint, which employs this
word to express the Hebrew terms h)H^ and npSv, added ano-
ther signification ; using it, viz. with reference to the wicked
only, and expressing by it their utterly miserable condition.
But as this condition is frequently represented, in other pla-
ces, by the word * darkness,' ?o(po^, they employed this like-
wise to express the same meaning ; and added to it the word
(fsipa, instead of which, in the Book of Wisdom, xvii. 17, the
word aXutfig is used, to signify the constraint, severity, and
long duration of these punishments (for chains, and bonds,
are used by the poets to express extreme constraint,). And
as Tartarus signifies, with the Greeks and Latins, a dark and
low place, where the wicked are tormented, they according-
ly employed the w^ord rapTap'jc^, entirely divested, however,
like the rest of the terms now referred to, of the supersti-
tious meaning attached to it by the heathen ; and signifying,
to subject to the severest punishments which a spiritual nature
can suffer. Now as it was no less difficult to select these
words, so as to suit the comprehension of men, than to invent
new ones, it is evident that they were suggested not by the
genius of the writers, but by the Holy Spirit himself; and
this is certainly a strong argument for the idea, that words
themselves were communicated by divine inspiration. On
the signific^ition of those terms among the Greeks, see, be-
IN THK NEW TtSTAMENT. 375
sides Grot I us, Bos, Exercitatt. Phil, on this place, p. 285 ; on
Jude, V. 6, p. 293, and Apoc. i. 18, p. 295. There is, more-
over, some ground for the use of these words, in that ancient
opinion of the Eastern nations, that the souls of the dead
pass into a dark and low place, where there is night and drea-
ry solitude, and where past things are forgotten. This they
called by the names, biN^'j^, niDSv, in, px \n3T, n;pn, i\m, &c. ;
and the Greeks called it aSrig, or ra^prapog. Hence, in explain-
ing passages of Scripture, it is necessary to be somewhat cau-
tious ; and even in interpreting Greek words, which have the
same meaning, we must sometimes have recourse to this an-
cient opinion, if we would arrive at their exact signification.
This was the opinion of that eminent critic Vitringa, on Isai.
xiv. 9 ; and has been farther illustrated by Venema, on Ps.
VI. 6, XVI. 10, who has cited a great number of passages to
establish the point. Everard Scheid has also discussed the
subject at large, and in a learned manner, in his Diss, ad Cant.
Hiskiae, p. 27 — 43. And if ancient and modern ecclesiasti-
cal writers had borne all this in mind, they certainly would
not have looked in this place for the Gnostics ; who perhaps
used words of this sort on account of the usage of the Greeks
and Latins, who held nearly the same opinion, and used them
in a Greek and liatin sense. Neither, which is more impor-
tant, and applies chiefly to the ancient ecclesiastical writers,
would they have philosophized in so trifling a manner about
the condition of souls after death, and even respecting the
descent of our Lord Jesus Christ into the lower world.
As for the phrases,yii7a« avu(5poi, and vscpiKai ■j<ro "kaiXaifog sXauvo-
fAsva*, V. 17, these also are not entirely unknown in the sacred
writings ; the former signifying imperfection of doctrine, the
latter inconstancy in the faith. For example, in Ps. xxxvi. 9,
pious men are said to be completely satisfied with the fatness of
the house of God, and to be rather overflowed, than watered,
with the sweetest rivers of pleasures ; i. e. to be enriched by
God, here below, with the most choice and excellent gifts,
productive of the greatest delight ; for this is the meaning of
that very beautiful passage. And, on account of this plenty
and abundance of spiritual blessings, they are compared to a
376
NO TRACES OF THE GNOSTICS
perpetual and most copious fountain ; as, in Isai. lviii. U,
rn\9 i3o;-kS w d;d J<jiDp, us ir'nyri, -^v ju.ii i^iXiirsv v8up ; that
is, thou shalt be like a fountain, which emits water continually,
without cessation, i. e. a very abundant fountain ; by which
phrase is expressed the exceedingly happy condition of the
pious and faithful. So also, in Zechariah, xiv. 8, it is said
that out of Jerusalem, i. e. the church of Christ, shall flow D;p
D^^n, living waters ; which is to be understood not literally,
as Grotius thinks, but as referring to the successful propaga-
tion of the gospel. To the above place in Isaiah Jesus Christ
seems to have had reference, in John, iv. 14 ; but especially
in Ch. VI h 38, where he thus describes the happiness of a
pious man: *orajxo< h tris xoiXi'ag aurow (which, according to
the Hebrew usage, is for s^ auTou) ^suCoutfiv u^arof; ^dvros, which,
laying aside the allegory, means nothing else but this ; " he
shall be filled with the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and with a great
abundance of divine knowledge, tranquillity, joy, &c." See
Rev. XXI. 6. And therefore God himself, from whom all
these benefits proceed, is called in Ps. xxxvi. 10, D':n -^ipp,
'rTYiyri ?w»i?, and in Jer. ii. 13, and xvii. 13, D^n D^D mpp ; they
who cease to worship and reverence Him being said to leave
the exhaustless fountain, and to hew out for themselves broken
wells, D'"]3K'J ^'^ii^, which cannot hold water, and are there-
fore altogether destitute of it. Hence the mouth and law of
a wise man, i. e. his doctrine, are called, in Prov. x. 11, and
xiu. 14, D'^Ti ^ipp, because this doctrine leads to true happi-
ness ; as appears from what follows ; " by obeying which,
you will avoid all danger :" and for this same reason, piety
towards God receives the same appellation, in ch. xiv. 27.
Now it may hence be perceived, why wicked teachers are
here called by the Apostle 'Jtr.yai awdpoi ; namely, because
they themselves are destitute of those divine gifts, and cannot,
therefore, lead others to their attainment. This is shewn clear-
ly by the parallel passage, Jude, verse 12, where they are
called Scvdpa cp'^mitupiva, trees that are decaying, or, destitute
of leaves, (referring, without doubt, to Ps. i, 3.) axap«ra, dig
dieo^avovra, entirely dead and dried up, so that there is no hope
of their reviving, (for to die twice, means, to suffer a more
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 377
bitter death ; as in that celebrated passage of Phsedrus, " bfe
vidcor mori,") ^xpi^w&svra, fit to be burned, — But these teach-
ers are further called v£9sXai o-jto XaiXa-roj JXauvo'/xsvai, i. e,
clouds, which are swiftly carried along by a wind, or tempest.
Commentators differ in regard to the reason for this appella-
tion. Some are of opinion, that they are so called on the
same account for which they are termed '^'nyal awSpoi ; others,
however, think that it is because of their pride, and vain boast
of knowledge (yvwCig), as Michaelis, Einl. ins N. T. P. ir.
p. 1483. Ed. Gott. 1788.* Forsooth, because the Apostle
speaks of the Gnostics in this chapter ! But it has been al-
ready observed by Grotius, and Calovius agrees with hira,
(Bib. 111. on this place,) that those teachers are so called on
account of the wavering character of their faith ; and this is
not only clearly proved, but absolutely required, by the whole
tenor of the discourse. For what the Apostle had first said
figuratively, he unfolds more clearly and without a figure, in
V, 20, 21 ; and who else can be there meant, but those who,
having abandoned tjie Christian faith, have turned back again
to their former wickedness ? To this agree the parallel
passages, Eph. iv. 14, where the Apostle admonishes them
not to be like children, tossed and driven about by every w^ind
of doctrine, xXu^wvi^ofxsvoj xa< -rs^jips^oixsvot '^avri avi^kui Tr}S 6ida<f^
xaXias ; intending hereby, without doubt, to warn them against
inconstancy in doctrine and faith : and Hebrews, xiii. 9,
where he says, SiSa-xa-Ts -jroixiXaig xc/J ^imig jxtj <ffs^Kpi^s(f&Sj i. e.
do not permit yourselves to be carried and tossed about by
various and novel opinions. Moreover, the -^^sudoSidatfxakot, of
whom St. Peter speaks, are called by the Apostle Jude, v. 12,
vs^psXai ucro ctvs'fxwv ^ffs^Kps^o^svai ; and v. 13, d(fTs^S5 crXav^rar,
which Grotius well renders, wandering, or flitting stars ; and
says that their inconstancy is here meant. James, i. 6, is also
a passage somewhat applicable to the illustration of the phrase
under discussion. There is, therefore, no necessity for re-
ferring this chapter to the Gnostics ; and it is plain, tfiat the
*< C Marsh's Michaelis, Vol. iv. p. 365. Lpnd, 1802.— Tr. J
48
378 wo TRACES OF THE GNOSTICS
words themselves which the Apostle uses, and the whole dis-
course, are sufficiently to be accounted for from the nature
of the Greek language, and the usage of the other sacred wri-
ters;
On Chapter m, of ii. Peter, there cannot be much said ;
as even those learned writers who are most firmly of opinion,
that there are traces of the Gnostic philosophy in the New
Testament, differ in the explanation of it : some asserting,
but the greater part denying, that it is also referred to in this
place. It may be sufficient to state, that this chapter cannot
refer to any other advent of Christ, than that to the last
judgment; as has been very clearly shewn by several learn-
ed writers, and as Michaelis himself thinks, 1. c. There is
no necessity, however, for supposing, that by the lii^ieaTxrai,
whom he predicts as hereafter (i-^' £V;)^aTou twv tj/xs^wv) to arise,
are meant the Gnostics ; since at all periods impudent men
of this kind, who have derided the divine promises and
threatenings, have existed in gi-eat numbers. Such persons,
for instance, were found in the days of Noah ; and of Mala-
chi, who speaks of them in Ch. m. Will any one say that
these were Gnostics ? *
Something yet remains to be said, (that I may not be
thought to have left untouched any thing of importance,) in
regard to the meaning of the words 6 aim and 6 ap^wv, Eph.
n. 2 ; which some learned writers, particularly Brucker, on
this passage, and Mosheim, on i. Tim. i. 17, suppose, with
Jerom, to be used in the Gnostic sense in the sacred writings,
and to refer to a certain eternal, unchangeable Substance, and
Spirit of the first rank, or prince of spirits. They appear to
have been led to this idea, however, by the signification of
eternity, which is supposed to be contained in the word alav,
and of chief power, thought to be comprehended in the term
op^wv. Neither the one, nor the other, however, can be
proved either from the usage of the Bible, or that of the best
writers.
The word a«wv answers exactly to the Hebrew oSt;;, which,
by its derivation, and the constant usage of the sacred writ-
ings, means time, tlie end of which is concealed from us ;
ffrr %rr "'^»«"'^/
IN THE NEW TESTAMENl'. I( ^ *^*V]^f^<* T m .
or any space of time whatever, the length of TiF^^^SjJ'i^^aljie n^.
determined, in each particular passage, by the cdnteift,STid -^
the design of the writer. It may therefore, indeed, signify a
somewhat extended period, and even the highest extent of
duration : for example, in that phrase, oSi^-ni; ti^'i^Dt or
D^rphiy^, Ps. xc. 2, cui. 17 ; in Greek, cc-tto tcu a/wvos h)s tou
ctjwva^, or, sig tovs a/wvag rwv aiwvwv, i. e. as long as possible, or,
for ever ; Gen. xxi. 33, dSi;; S«, which is well rendered by the
Septuagint, Gsog a/wvio^. From the term by itself, however, we
cannot prove the eternity of any thing ; as appears plainly both
from the Chaldee, as Esra, iv. 15. Dan. n. 4. ^:.n ppS^rS fc{2i,p,
and also from other places, which it is unnecessary to men-
tion. A clear example is to be found, however, in Exod.
XXI. 6, where the servant who does not wish, in the seventh
year of his service, to embrace the privilege of freedom, is
said to continue a servant d'7i;;S, i. e. till the time of the year
of jubilee, or, as long as he lives. Deut. xv. 17. Those
places are principally to be borne in mind, in which n^? is add-
ed ; as, Isai. xlv. 17, i}) ^rhiyipj ?w5 f<^^ a»wvos sVi, a salvation
to endure for a very long period. Hence the D'pSi;^ of the
Hebrews are distinguished by them into njn dSij; and Njn u^ip :
on which account cclm or ccluvsg are used, in the New Testa-
ment, in reference to the N. T. times, if 6 (x^XXwv is added,
or oS lp-xpit.sm ; as Heb. n. 5, where, indeed, the words are
oixouftsvr] fji.lXXoufl'a, in the same sense, however, in which the
phrase aJwv fxsXXwv is used in Ch. vi. 5 ; and ^uvaf^sig fAiXXovro?
alutog means, the power of the doctrine of the New Testa-
ment, which is expressly termed, in Rom. i. 16, 6vmii.ig esQv\
and in Eph. i. 19, vifsp^aXkav fjisysS-oj Trig ^uva/xswj. In the same
way we are to understand a'iuvsg ^p-^piism, in Ch. n. 7, of the
Epistle to the Ephesians. Hence our Lord Jesus Christ is
called, in Isai. ix. 5, n^'^^* i* e. the founder of the future age ;
where the Septuagint has crari^f tou fAs'XXovToc: atCivog. The
same meaning is assigned by Locke and Michaelis to
Gal. 1. 4 ; so that the phrase aiwv hsdrag signifies the times
of the New Testament, and refers to freedom from the
yoke of the ceremonial law. To this, however, seem to
be opposed the words tou ^ovtoj lauTov vifBf twv a^a^^mv
380 n6 Graces op the Gilostics
7jjui,wv, which clearly shew that the expression oVwj i^sXr^Tm
«Jj/xag h TOO ^vsrfTWToj aiwvog <:eovY\po\) means somewhat more than
deliverance from the ritual law. — Now from this signification
is derived another ; that, namely, by which a/wv, and aldvzg^
al^ij; and D'dSij?, denote time and the world itself; as Joel, ii.
2, where DSi)rri-|D means, * at any time,' or, * ever :* Eccles. ni.
ll, where the Septuagint has translated word for word, tov
aiQva Uuxsv iv xapdia auTwv, but the English Version more ac-
cording to the sense, " he hath set the world in their heart :"
Heb. I. 2, XI. 3, which passages are in point, and ought not
to be thought to refer to the aeons of the Gnostics : for they
are a mere Hebraism, expressing the formation of the world,
as they have been hitherto universally understood. Hence
DSi;;p and a-zf' a'/wvo? mean, from the foundation of the world ;
Gen. VI. 4, Luke, i. 70, John, ix. 32 : and 'jfpo tC^v a/wvwv, before
the foundation of the world ; i. Cor. n. 7, Moreover, as eve-
ly period of time has its peculiar manners, vices, pursuits,
and dispositions ; hence dSi;;, or also mn, ai'wv, and ysvsa, are
used in reference both to the manner of life and conduct of
any one, as Gen. vi. 9. Luke xvi. 8, which the Hebrews other-
wise express by the term ^nn ; and also to the manners, dis-
positions, and feelings, which distinguish any particular a/'wv,
or ysvsa. The Latins use the word cetas, or seculum, in the
same way ; as, in Pliny, " seculum est, pecuniam amare ;"
and Tacitus, Germania, 19, " nemo enim ilhc vitia ridet, nee
corrumpere et corrumpi, seculum vocatur." The French use
the word siecle precisely in the same way. See Wolfius,
and the citations there made. A place in point here, is Rom.
xn. 2 ; where the Apostle says, (xii (fv(tx'»^iiaTi^sifk tuj alC)vi ro\j-
T^, i. e. do not imitate the present age, i. e. the corrupt man-
ners of this age. Therefore the words itspis'jrarrj(fars xara Hv
etj'wva Tou xotffxou tovtov, in this passage of the Epistle to the
Ephesians which I have been endeavoring to explain, cannot
possibly refer to a certain nature ; but, as we have seen, to
the manners and habits of the men of that period, who re-
j^isted the gospel of Jesus Christ, which was delivered with
su«h abundant clearness, and confirmed by so many and sig-
nal miracles. I would therefore translate the place thus :
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 381
" to whicli crimes ye also were sometime abandoned, after the
manner of tliis period," or, " as men are wont to live in this
our age." Grotius has admirably rendered it ; " vixistis, lit
mos erat plerisque."
Neither are we to imagine the idea of any great and dis-
tinguished power, to be implied in the word a^wv. For, as
Ernesti observes, Instit. Interp. p. 217,* he who possesses
d§xn, i. e. any power and dignity, though small, such as be-
longs to the lesser judges in particular towns, is called a^wv^
For every town in Judea, however small, had, like us, its %-
X0VT5J, i. e. magistrates, or judges, who took cognizance of
lesser causes, determined suits and controversies, and con-
sulted the advantage and security of their countrymen. On
the subject of these Archons of the Jews, Wesseling has
written an entire treatise, to which I would refer the reader.
It is a person of this kind that is meant in Luke xii. 58 ; and,
as Grotius has already observed, he is expressly termed x^iT^jg
in the parallel passage. Matt. v. 25. Such also was Jairus,
who, in Matt. ix. 18, is called afX"^, and in Luke, vm. 41, %-
^wv <rris (fvvoLyuyrjs : compare Markland, in his Notes on Ly-
sias.t In the same way Nicodemus, who, in John, in. 10, is
called SiSa(fxakog tov 'l(f^a'o\ is termed in v, 1, of the same
chapter, a^X"^ twv 'lou^ajwv ; in which place, as Brucker like-
wise has observed, bringing forward, at the same time, other
passages in proof of this signification, a person is meant, who
has any power whatever in ecclesiastical affairs, or, a public
teacher. And this is perfectly agreeable to the use of the
word by the Septuagint, from which, without doubt, this sense
of ci^X'^v with the New^ Testament writers was derived. For
in that version, this word is used to render the Hebrew liy,
Exod. u. 14, and pn^, Isai. xxii. 18, which, particularly in the
Chaldee, signifies any possessor and lord. Nor, finally, is it
repugnant to the usage of the best writers, who employ a^wv
in no less simple a manner. Whence it is evident, that there
* C Page 413, Ed. Lips. 1809.— Tr. ]
+ [ Lys. Oper. p. 533, Ed. Reiske, Lips. 1772.— Tr. ]
382 NO TRACES or TUE GNOSTICS
is no necessity for understanding by a^x'^^v c^j? i|ourfia^ rou ds^o^,
a spirit of the first rank, or the prince of spirits, or any thing
of that kind : but he designates by this phrase one who pos-
sesses any power whatsoever ; by which, however, I would
not be understood as taking from the devil, who, I doubt not,
is here meanf, all the power that is attributed to him in other
places also of the sacred Scriptures, and that is here ascribed
to him by the expression, t% i^ovceias <rou ds^og^ who exercises
power in darkness, i. e. among wicked men. But, on the other
hand, we must beware here of the absurdity of those who
philosophize, to an extraordinary degree, about the power of
the devil over the air, and miserably confuse themselves in
the explanation of it ; as Wolfius, and those whom he cites,
and, which much surprises me, even Grotius. Into which
error they would not have fallen, if they had attended to the
use of the word d^j^ by all the best Greek and liatin writers,
and particularly the poets ; in the sense, namely, of dark-
ness and obscurity. For example, in that celebrated passage
of Virgil's Aeneid, i. v. 415,
Venus obscuro gradientes a6re sepsit.
So also in the sacred writings, Wisdom of Solomon, xvu.
10, the Egyptian darkness is called d^^. There is no necessity,
however, for citing examples, since they are easy of access,
and this use of d»j^ is so well known and understood, and has
been so established by learned writers, that there can be no
doubt that it obtains in this place also. This is evident parti-
cularly from the fact, that the Apostle, as Luther, in his Ger-
man version, has pretty clearly intimated, immediately him-
self adds an explanation in the words that follow, viz. : tou
crvaOixaToj <rou vuv ivs^ymvrog sv roTs vhTg rr,s cMfsi^Biag^ i. e. that
spirit namelify who now particularly displays his efficacy among
unbelievers.* Whence it is evident, that d^| does not inean
* [ Luther's translation of the verse is as follows : " In welchen ihr
weiland gewandelt habt, nach dem Lauf dieser Welt, und nach dem
FQrsten, der in der Luft herrschet ; nemlich nach dem Geist, der zu
dieser Zeit sein Werk hat in den kindern des Unglaubens."— Tr. ]
KN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 383
the air, for the ah* belongs to God, not to the devil ; but dark-
ness, i. e. vUt Trig dirsiB-stas, for in the parallel place, Ch. vi.
12, and Col. i. 13, the Apostle uses the word tfxoVo^ ; but all
know that CxoVo? signifies ignorance, vice, misery. — But the
devil is called a^wv tou di^og, or, rov tfxorou^, i. e. of the wick-
ed, since he exerts his power among them, and by them ;
and this power, moreover, is not inconsiderable, not indeed
on account of the word afX""> <^i' ^outfi'a, but because of the
multitude of wicked men, who are the instruments whereby
the devil exercises his power. This explanation is so clear,
and agrees so well with the usage both of the best writers, and
of the sacred books themselves, and with the connexion of the
whole discourse, that I cannot understand how Brucker
could call it forced. Hist. Crit. Phil. Tom. vi. p. 417 s. ; nor
how those remarks can be considered as having any weight,
which he has made against it, in the Caten. Exeget. Bibl. An-
glic. Tom. iv. N. T. p. 828, and Tom. vi. p. 62. Moreover, the
words af^a/, e^outfj'ai, xotf/xox^aro^sg rou Cxotou^ tou aj'wvo^ <rou-rou, and
osufxaTixot Trig flrovrj^ioj, in this Epistle to the Ephesians, Ch. vi.
12, and in Coloss. n. 15, are explained by most commentators
in reference to the devil ; by some also, with much less pro-
bability, as meaning Jupiter, and the gods of the Gentiles,
which is the opinion of Harwood, in his " New Introduction
to the study and knowledge of the New Testament," p. 303 s.
The most learned critics, however, explain them far differ-
ently, and are of opinion that the Jewish rulers, and men yi
authority are intended. This they prove very clearly, Jlrsi,
from the context ; for, in the epistle to the Ephesians, there
is an opposition between weak men (for this is the meaning,
in that place, of aT/jt-a xa; tfa/ig,),* and dpx^'h s^ourfjaJ, xa; xotfjuiox^a-
7oPsg TOU (fxoVou^ TOU aJuivog <rourou, i. e. the powerful men of that
period, who were also distinguished for their wickedness ; and
* [ The reader will at once perceive, that the author has departed
from the correct and natural interpretation of the phrase eiT/xst kai <7«'/>|,
in this passage ; which signifies here, as in several other places, men,
and is opposed to spiritual enemies, or demons. See some excellent re-
marks in KopPE, N. T. in loc— Tr. ]
384 NO TRACES OF THE GNOSTICS
in the Epistle to the Colossians, the discourse, as we have al-
ready seen, is respecting the abolition of the ceremonial law,
a subject which certainly can have no reference to the devil :
and secondly, from the usage of speech both of the Jews, who
usually distinguished by these appellations men of influence,
kings, and princes, and also of the sacred writings themselves.
For, in Acts, iv. 23, and 26 s., oi^xH^'^^ ""' °* -jr^stf^i^Ts^oi, the chief
priests and elders, and also those who are afterwards mention-
ed by name, 'H^w5»)f, IIovtios n»XaTo^, Cuv g^vgCi xod XaoTs 'Itf^aiiX,
are called ^adikBlg r7}g 7% xal a^x^vrss. And in 1. Cor. u. 6, St.
Paul says, that he had delivered, indeed, wisdom to the Chris-
tians, but not of that kind which was possessed, extolled,
and set forth, by the a^ovrsg tou aldvog toutou, by whom are
meant, undoubtedly, the rulers of the Jews; for he adds, <rwv
xara^youfxsvwv, as before, in Ch. 1. 19, he had said, that they
were brought to nought by God. Of the number of these
was Nicodemus, and he is expressly called, in John, 11 1. 1,
a^c»r; twv 'Iou(5a»wv, as we have already seen. Precisely in the
same sense, St. Paul, in 1. Cor. xv. 24, speaks of a^x^, ^ioutfja,
xoj 66\ja,^i5, which Semler, in his paraphrase of this passage,
explains, to my great surprise, of different orders of demons.
More correct is the interpretation of Heumann, who, with
Grotius, considers the words as denoting civil magistrates,
or rather, those who have possessed power of any kind in this
world, but have abused it in opposition to our liOrd Jesus
Christ and his gospel, and have therefore been his enemies ;
an explanation quite suitable to these passages which we are
considering. Moreover, to understand xoC/jLox^aro^ss in a dif-
ferent sense, is forbidden by the usage of the Greeks, who
apply that title only to men in power. Compare Doddwell,
Diss. IV. in Irenaeum, §. 38, p. 369, and Deyling, Diss, de
Chirographi et Principum legalium abolitione, §, 15.
These are the principal places, in which some learned wri-
ters are unanimously of opinion that there are traces of the
Gnostic and Oriental philosophy ; but in which I have attempt-
ed to shew that there are none whatever. To adduce any
more, (for the multitude cited by some authors is almost without
number,) was not my design^ neither is it at all necessary ;
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 385
since these arc undoubtedly the princiipal passages, that can
appear in any degree plausible. I shall now enter into a
brief discussion respecting the Gnostics and their philosophy,
wliereby, perhaps, some light may be thrown upon what I
have already said : and I shall venture to offer my own opi-
nion, such as it is, in regard to them.
And first, let us consider the resemblance of style, which
some have thought they discovered between the sacred wri-
tings, and the language of the Gnostics ; and which, without
doubt, gave rise to the opinion which I have been refuting.
The fact itself I may concede, with perfect safety to my own
opinion : for this is not to be decided by particular words or
phrases, in which, however, the whole similarity consists ;
neither can it be inferred from them, that the inspired writers
were thoroughly acquainted with the Gnostic and Oriental
philosophy. This is just like saying that a man possesses the
eloquence of Cicero, because he has understood the art of
attaching some of his phrases, like a splendid patch-work, to
his discourse ; or that St. Paul had read Philo, or Josephus
derived advantage from the writings of St. Paul, as some sup-
pose, because both these authors bear a great resemblance to
the Apostle ! I may allow, therefore, without detriment to
my own opinion, that some phrases are used by the sacred
writers, which, in regard to sound, appear to have some re-
semblance to the language of the Gnostics. But I do not
think that the reason of*this circumstance is that which is ad-
duced by some learned men, viz. that the Apostles referred
to them : but rather that it is that which is mentioned by
Tertullian, De praescript. adv. hseret. . c. 38. and 39, bj^
Iren^us, respecting whom we shall see presently, and b)'
others, viz. that the Gnostics, in order to give a show of truth
to their notions, alluded to different places of the Apostles,
and borrowed words from them, and also the word yvuxfis it-
self, and glossed over their own opinions with expressions
from the sacred Scriptures, as impostors have always done,
and as it is evidently the fact in respect to the Koran. In
order to illustrate this more clearly, permit me to cite an
example from the Valentinian school, which was almost the
49
386 NO TI^ACES OF THE GNOSTICS
chief of the Gnostic sects ; provided that the patience of the
reader can endure the repetition of such absurdities. Others
will thus be enabled to participate with me in the enjoyment
of this feast, and to judge more certainly as to the correctness
of my opinion. In the highest heavens, v-^^it^atfi, so trifled these
veiy acute philosophers, is TsXsiog 'Aiwv, supreme, invisible,
eternal, and unbegotten ; whom they called n^oa^^^j, n^o-TraTW^,
and BC^os. With him is another first cause, "Evvo»a, and ^tyh*
He determined with himself, -r^o^aXXsiv, to produce from him-
self the beginning of all things. He cast this ir^o^okYi, as seed,
into the generative parts of 2iyii, who thence conceived, and
brought forth a son, very like his father, ofAoio^ xai IVoj, called
Nou^ and Movoysvris. This parent, as it were, and original, of
all things which were afterwards created, and, as it were,
f^o^cpwfl'js <avToff Tou 'B'Xii^wfAaTo?, produced (^^ou^aXsv) Aoyoj and
Zwi), from whom av^pcj^or and ixxX^jC/a have their origin, but
Zw^ is TO <pwg Twv dv^^wfl-wv, — Every one immediately perceives,
that these things are derived from Ch. i, of St. John's gospel.
Col. 1. 15 s., &c. ; and Iren^ us has expressly asserted it, Lib. i.
* adv. haeres.' there telling us, that the Valentinians themselves
also referred to the beginning of St. John's gospel, and to
many other places. — Moreover, this Nouj, or Movoyev^rig, as he
alone knew the if^QitMu^, wished to impart this knowledge to
the other Aeons also, but 2iy>), by the desire of the parent,
prevented him ; though, meanwhile, the rest of the Aeons
secretly wished to know the ir^oirdru^. — Here, again, allu-
sion is evidently made to John, i. 18, Osov ouSsls sw^ax^,
y.. T. X., to fjt<utfr*?P(ov X^^^^^S atuvioig (rgCjyrijxsvov, Rom. XVI. 25,
and to a<jroxsx^u]ui<(xsvov dito <rwv a/'wvwv, Eph. Ul. 9. Col. 1. 26.
— Moreover they called Nou? by the name 'ra^ itoMra^ in
which they undoubtedly referred to Col. in. 11 ; and they
said that Christ took pity on the ^v^i^^x^tfij t% avw 2o(pia£^,
wiio also was an Aeon, but out of the nX>j|9Wfjt,a, and that
he extended himself upon Horus, or . ^Tau^o^, was slain,
(dofsxTcivso'^ai) and by his own power produced a certain M-o^-
(pw«J'ic:, only, however, xar' ouo'iav, but not xara yv^rfiv, and then
returned on high. Eph. n. 14. Col. i. 20. She then sought
r§ *w^, since she had the odor of a©^a^tfja, left her by Christ
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
:i8?
and the Holy Spirit, inasmuch as she had not comprehended
To (pwf, while it was in the world. — This is an evident allusion
to John, 1. 5. — Christ was unwilling to return, but sent Ilaga-
xXrjTo?, to whose power the Father delivered all things, oVw^
£v avruToL w'avTa xtjo'^tj'? 'ra o^cctol y.ai to, do^aTa, ©^6vo<, ©soVyirsg',
Ku^io'rrjrfff — Col. 1. 16. — Such is the way in which those fa-
mous philosophers discoursed ! My readers will, without
doubt, exclaim to themselves, — Here, infelix lolium, et steri-
les dominantur avenae. If any one would become further
acquainted with these egregious trifles, let him consult Ire-
NAEus, I. c, and Tertullian, adv. Valentin, c 7 s., or the
learned Semler, who has collected them together, in his
Hist. Dogmat. fidei, prefixed to Baumgarten's Polem. Theo-
logy, T. 1. p. 147 s. Let it suffice to have adduced these in-
stances by way of sample, in order to shew, that the Gnos-
tics glossed over the wickedness of their impious and de-
testable opinions with words and phrases of sacred Scrip-
ture ; and that, for this reason, if one or two examples be
found in the Gnostics of any phrase common with the in-
spired writers, it is very reasonable to suppose, that they
were not taken by the sacred authors from the language of
the Gnostics, but by these latter from the works of the for-
mer, and turned to an improper use. There are some obser-
vations of Brucker, Tom. m. Hist. Crit. Philos. p. 299 g.,
which deserve to be transferred to my pages. He there
maintains the same opinion which I have just stated ; observ-
ing, " let us bear in mind, and well remember, that Valen-
tine accommodated this system to the Scripture doctrine of
Christ ; and, perceiving that various attributes of the divine
Aoyof are therein described, took occasion thence of convert-
ing those attributes into aeons, and emanative natures."
This distinguished man has surely not been consistent with
himself, in maintaining at one time, as strenuously as possi-
ble, that the New Testament writers oppose the Gnostics,
and yet here expressing the opinion, that the Gnostics accom-
modated their opinions to the doctrine of the former, as deli-
vered in the sacred writings.
Now from this very example, which I have cited, I think
388
NO TRIAGES OP THE GNOSTICS
every one must have perceived that which I designed, in the
second place, to state ; viz. that the system was so absurd,
that the Apostles could not deem it necessary to refute it ;
and so refined, that illiterate men, writing to illiterate men,
could not possibly treat of it. For not only was the Gnos-
tic philosophy very difficult to be understood, but it contain-
ed also an innumerable quantity of subtle trifles, silly fables,
ridiculous absurdities, foolish dreams and stories, (as Bruck-
ER himself asserts constantly, in his Diss. Crit. de Caulacau
Basilidis, Hist. Crit. Phil. Tom. vi. p. 507 s.) and unmeaning,
shocking, barbarous expressions, ixshuovros xai ^ra^aXaXovvTos m
f^fAttTa, TO, iisv ysXojTi *e*oi>]iiAsva, srspcx. 6s xXau&fAou gfJtcrXsa, ' thfe
words of a drunkard and trifler, some of them ludicrous,
and others full of lamentation,' as is the opinion of Efipha-
Nius, adv. haeret Lib. i. haer. 26. Brucker, also. I.e.;
which, to be comprehended in any degree, require an incre-
dible] amount of labor, vexation, and weariness. It can
scarcely, therefore, be understood, how the Apostles, entirely
destitute of Greek learning, and particularly of the aids of
philosophy, and dwelling upon one doctrine, delivered by
their Master, and communicated by the Holy Spirit, and, at
other times, always using both in matter and in words the
greatest perspicuity, in accommodation to the mass of the
people, could have wasted their labor in refuting absurdities
of this kind ; and should not rather have passed over, in si-
lent contempt, the novel words of that pretended wisdom,
perishing after a while by their very emptiness, and deserv-
ing pity rather than refutation. Far less can it be conceived,
how illiterate Christians, unaccustomed to those, subtleties,
and instructed in a purer doctrine, could have had any desire
to become acquainted with a system of that kind ; or, if
they had made themselves acquainted with it, could have
been led away by any wish to profess it. Neither can it be
comprehended, how the more learned and accomplished
could have done otherwise than to deride and explode this
wretched philosophy ; (as Tertulltan has done in the whole
of the Book * adv. Valentinianos,') and say to those triflers
what Balbus did to Velleius, the Epicurean, Cic. de Nat. De-
IN.THE VEVr TESTAMENT. 389
orum, 11. 29 ;* ' Salem istum, quo caret vestra natio, irriden-
dis nobis iiolite consumere ; et mehercule, si nos audiatis,
ne experiamini : non decet : non datum est : non potestis."
So full of stupidity, folly, and trifles, was the whole system !
It is very certain, therefore, at least it is highly probable, that
these subtleties were known, at most, only to learned men, who
acquired them not, indeed, for the purpose of embracing
them, but that they might hold them in abhorrence ; but that
they were in no respect suited to the mass of the people, who
were unacquainted with refinements and subtleties of that
kind, and therefore were equally unknown to St. Peter and
the other Apostles, and to those to whom they wrote ; and
that fishermen no more comprehended them, than, in our own
day, mechanics, shoemakers, and persons of that class, un-
derstand algebraic or metaphysical niceties. For even the
Apostles themselves had not come forth from the schools of
the philosophers, nor been accustomed to use words, phrases,
and sentences, required by these men to express their subtle
distinctions ; on the contrary, they were all taken from among
the common people, and were unlearned men, unacquainted
with literature, av^pwiro; aypa^jxaToj xa/ ISiCiTat :t (St. Paul alone
excepted ; and he, too, was educated in the schools of the
Pharisees, not of the Greeks, and not merely frankly con-
fessed, but joyfully boasted of the fact, that he was i<5iwT»jff rw
Xo'ywjJ i. e. unacquainted with the art of eloquence, and with
human learning ;) nor were their instructions addressed to
philosophers, but to an ignorant people, entirely unable to
comprehend refinements of this description. But let it be
granted, that, as some learned writers are of opinion, St. Paul,
at any rate, had some knowledge of these subjects, which he
may have acquired perhaps by hearsay ; yet Brucker him-
self expressly states, Tom. iii. Hist. Crit. Phil. p. 263 s. that
*' it was nothing more than superficial, and taught him, as it
were, by the way :" (" superficiaria tantum et ug h 'xapodu in-
[ Cicer. Op. Vol. ix. p. 3676, Edit, Gronov. Lugd. Bat. 1692.— Tr. ]
i Act3,iv; 13. t n. Cor. XI. 6.
d&O NO TRACES OP THE GNOSTtCS
stituta,") and he shews that those are greatly mistaken, who
would place him on the list of pMlosophers ; though C. G.
Thalemann, Diss, de doctrina Pauli Judaica, non Grseca, p.
7, thinks that even Brucker has attributed more than was ne-
cessary to St. Paul. Be it, therefore, as I have said, that the
Gnostic philosophy was not altogether unknown to him : who
can suppose, I would ask, that the Apostle, in letters address-
ed to illiterate persons, would have expressed himself so ob-
scurely, that perhaps, out of the whole number of those to
whom he wrote, there could scarcely be one who would be
able to find out the meaning, and in the least degree to see
through the fallacies, and trifling refinements, of the Gnostic
philosophers ? In refuting a system of such importance, as
this is generally supposed to have been, they certainly ought
not to have been so brief, or rather obscure, or to have only
touched upon it with a word here and there ; but to ha\»e
spoken more plainly and minutely, and explained the subject
more fully and clearly, in order that every one might perceive,
as evidently as possible, the wickedness of the Gnostic opi-
nions, and the true character of the doctrine of Jesus Christ.
This they were prevented from doing by the niceness of the
subject, which could not possibly have been comprehended
by the minds of the persons, whom they wished to instruct
in the knowledge of divine things ; otherwise they would have
done a thing very far from being useful to men, and such as
no wise person, much less an apostle, can be thought to have
committed. It was better, therefore, and productive of great-
er utility to others, silently to pass by these niceties, even if
the sacred writers understood them, than to be writing what
could not be understood. And for this reason, also, the Apos-
tles, even if they had ever so well learned, yet, in their writ-
ings, have industriously avoided new words and expressions,
invented by the philosophers, and to be borne, perhaps, in
the schools, but not at all in the instruction of the common
people ; and also all the elegance of the Greeks, which would
not have been comprehended by those to whom they were
writing : but, on the contrary, have observed the manner and
usage of the Hebrews, that their works might easily, and with-
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 391
out need of any explanation, be understood by all those on
whose account principally they were then written ; and who,
chiefly from the use of the Septuagint version, were accus-
tomed to the Hebrew mode of discoursing on divine subjects,
and to the peculiar forms of expression of the Hebrew lan-
guage. And it is, and always has been the plan pursued by
those, who write not for philosophers, but for the mass of the
people, (and such is the object particularly of those, whose
aim is to instruct the human race, and even the lowest of man-
kind, in the knowledge of divine things,) not merely to be at
no pains in regard to refinement of style, in using meanings
of words, opinions, and phrases, taken from the schools of the
philosophers, but even most studiously to shun and avoid them.
Those who do not adopt this method, certainly shew a very
great ignorance of the art of composition ; and are deserv-
edly ridiculed.
That interpretation, moreover, which finds the Gnostics
in the sacred writings, though learned, indeed, and ingenious,
yet appears altogether too refined and subtle, and evinces
a certain labor in invention and explanation, which at once
indicates artifice. Indeed it is at times utterly astonish-
ing, how harshly every thing, that has the least appearance
of probability, is made to bend to the great object of dis-
covering traces of the Gnostic philosophy : nay, how pas-
sages are forced and perverted, and the inspired writers
are made to say things, that never entered into their mind^,
and one is obliged to confess, on many occasions, that the
interpretation itself is much more difficult to be understood
than that which it explains. Now I have always been taught
to think, both by the precepts and the example of the most
distinguished men, that the highest excellence of a good in-
terpreter is simplicity ; and that the greater appearance of
ease any interpretation possesses, and the more it seems to
be of such a kind, that it must have presented itself sponta-
neously to the mind, the more true it may, generally speak-
ing, be considered. See Ernesti, Instit. Interpret. N. T.
392
NO TRACES 0¥ THE GNOSTICS
jj. 78.* — Whoever thinks, therefore, that there are traces of
the Gnostics in the passages to which I have referred, and
also in other places, appears to give an interpretation of too
refined a nature, and to bring forward a forced and labored
explanation ; w^hich, the greater appearance of learning it
carries before it, the more its truth ought to be suspected.
Fiually, a strong presumption against this method of in-
terpretation is to be found in the circumstance, that, in the
explanation of certain passages, the Gnostics are frequently
described as having held some opinion, which they cannot be
proved to have maintained by any historical evidence.
Those, accordingly, who maintain that there are traces of the
Gnostic philosophy in the New Testament writings, are very
often obliged to confess, that they cannot, indeed, prove by
history this or that opinion to have been held by the Gnos-
tics ; but that they undoubtedly did hold it, because St. John,
or some other person, refutes them. The greater portion of
these writers argue in this way : St. Paul speaks of the
Grnostics ; therefore they were at that time in existence. I
might, if it were necessary, bring examples of this : it will
be sufficient, however, to refer to Michaelis, Einleit. ins N.
T. Part. II. p. 1134, Ed. Gott. 1788,t and Mosheim, on i.
Tim. 1. 4. In the first place, however, it cannot be denied,
that these learned writers, by their very confession that they
are in doubt, and that they cannot advance any thing more
certain than conjectures, betray the insuperable difficulties
which stand in the way of their interpretation, and, in con-
sequence, reason, as we say, in a circle. And, in the next
place, this way of proceeding is completely to draw the
meaning from another source, not from the sacred writings ;
and belongs to that species of interpretation, which seeks
the meaning from things, and is employed rather about these,
than the explanation of words ; and derives the meanings of
words rather from the opinions of some sect or philosophy,
of which no trace has been left there by the inspired writ-
* [ Page 167, Ed. Lips. 1809.— TV. ]
t [ Marsh's Michaelis, Vol. in. Part i. p. 279. Ed. Lond. 1S02.— Tr.]
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 393
ors, than from the observations of grammarians, from the
usage of speech of that period, and from the words and
their meaning, legitimately investigated. The slippery and
fallacious character of this method of accommodation, (for
so it ought to be called, rather than interpretation,) may easily
be perceived by every learned and intelligent man, at least
if he is not already imbued with some false opinion, or hin-
dered by any other cause from forming a candid judgment :
and all the most distinguished theologians, and commentators
on the sacred books, have already pronounced decidedly up-
on its uncertainty, and the greatest masters of interpretation
have very clearly proved it. Finally, I will boldly assert,
that learned men would never have fallen into this opinion,
which I have attempted to refute, nor so strenuously insisted
upon it, unless they had had the Gnostics in their minds,
before they came to the task of interpreting the sacred
books. This circumstance, however, is a proof, how much
opinions, once imbibed, stand in the way of a correct deci-
sion, and, when brought to the explanation of the sacred
writings, hinder a discovery of the true meaning ; so strong-
ly prejudicing the mind, that it is blind amidst the clearest
light, and resorts to every expedient, before it permits it-
self to be shaken from an opinion, once received and che-
rished.
In conclusion, let us make a few observations respecting
the sources and origin of the Gnostic heresy ^ for, although
these may be understood, I think, from the foregoing pages,
yet it w^ould seem as if they ought to be stated, before I close,
somewhat more summarily and clearly. Learned writers ex-
ceedingly differ in opinion, in regard to the quarter whence
the Gnostics drew their opinions, and the source from which
their errors flowed. Most authors consider the fountain-head
to have been a certain philosophy, which Mosheim has dis-
tinguished by the name of the Oriental ; and even contend in
the most strenuous manner, that from this the whole Gnostic
doctrine took its rise. I have above shewn, however, and
not, I think, without good grounds, that this opinion, if not en-
tirely false, is at least very uncertain ; since it has never yet
50
394 NO TRACES OF THE ONOSTICS
•been proved by any testimony, which even has any semblance
of probability, that such a philosophy ever existed. We must
look ai'ound, therefore, for some other origin of the Gnostic
errors. And of these there were, in my opinion, more sources
than one ; as may be perceived even from the fact, that the
Gnostics, as before observed, separated into parties, widely
different, and completely disagreed with each other. It is
my opinion, therefore, that the Gnostics derived their doc-
trines from a threefold source : firsts from the Greek philoso-
phy, the Platonic and the Pythagorean, and principally from
the fictions of the poets concerning the gods and their genea-
logy, and other things of that nature ; and of this, even that
example just adduced from the school of Valentine, may serve
for a proof; secondly, from the Jewish theology, which at
that period had nearly assumed the garb of philosophy, and
chiefly from the Cabbalistic trifles ; finally, also, from cer-
tain doctrines of the Christian religion, which they mingled
with their own opinions, in order to make them more accept-
able to persons of every description. And, on this account,
indeed, the Gnostic philosophy seems to me to have been a
mixture, as it were, of Paganism, Judaism, and Christianity ;
a;nd the Gnostics themselves to have been nothing but fana-
tics, or rather, if I may so speak, to have professed a system
of naturalism and indifferentialism. As to my last observa-
tioii, that the Gnostics were fanatics, in this Semler and
MosHEiM agree with me. The former, in his Comment.
Hist, de ant. stat. Christ, p. 30, observes ; " we readily dis-
cover the uneasy earnestness, and somewhat fanatical disposi-
tion of these men :" and the latter, in his Institutt. H. E. ma],
p. 147, remarks, " the Gnostics were not indeed dull, and
entirely sluggish in their character ; but they were not, how-
ever, sufficiently sound in mind ; in a word, they were meta-
physicians, infected with a kind of fanatical contagion." No
man can be at all doubtful as to this point, who has even
slightly examined the opinions of the Gnostics. — Something
remains to be said, however, in regard to the Jewish theology,
from which, as I observed, the Gnostics partly derived their
opinions. The chief source, and the foundation, as it were, of
the Gnostic opinions, appears to have been the allegorical
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 395
mode ot'interpretation ; not indeed that in general use, but that
inferior kind, used by the Alexandrian, or Greek Jews. For it
has nothing improper in itself; and is accordingly used by St.
Paul in the Epistles to the Galatians and Hebrews, and was
formerly adopted frequently by the prophets themselvesi
And that method of allegorical interpretation which is found
in Philo, though carried to too great an extent, is not to be al-
together rejected, but deserves some toleration and excuse.
From Philo principally, the ancient ecclesiastical writers de-
rived this method, transmitted, as it were, from hand to hand :
and used it very generally : among these, Clemens Alexandri-
nus, Origen himself, and others, principally Latin writers, not
much versed in Greek and Hebrew. For they were ex-
ceedingly pleased with this method of accommodating the figu-
rative meaning of words, and of the things indicated by them,
to their prominent doctrines ; as is the case with persons,
who have no acquaintance with literature : and it appeared
to them, accordingly, to be something secret, and, as it were,
revealed from above. This very method, therefore, (which
ought to be borne in mind, and is evident from the Stro-
mata of Clem. Alex.) was called yvCitfig ; and those who
were skilled in it applied to themselves, xar' i^oxnv, the title
of yvucfTixoi, And this very circumstance was perhaps
also the reason, that Clemens Alexandrinus, throughout
nearly the whole of that excellent work, usually distin-
guished by this title pious, religious men, and the teachers of
the church themselves ; persons as different as possible from
those heretics, who presumed to call themselves Gnostics.
There have always, however, been those in the Christian
church itself, ^^ho have abused this method, and thus brought
very great injury upon the pure doctrine ; not only causing
grammatical interpretation to be neglected, and empty trifling
to be every where substituted in its stead ; (as, in more mo-
dern days, it is evident has been done by Coccei'us, a very
distinguished man, and his followers,) but also opening the
way to very grievous errors. This is plain even from the
single example of Hymenaeus and Philetus, ii. Tim. ii. 17 s.,
to whom, undoubtedly, St. Paul referred in i. Cor. xv. 1^>
S96 NO TRACES OP THE GNOSTICS
since they denied that the dead will return to life ; into whicii
error these persons and others fell from no other cause, than
interpreting allegorically several passages of the prophets
and of the gospels. Far more grievously, however, did the
Jews err ; who, as they indulged their ingenuity much more,
which was acute, indeed, but not enlightened from above,
nor cultivated by sound philosophy and letters, and too luxu-
riant, were led by the use of this method to mingle with the
pure doctrine, besides other corruptions, pernicious inven-
tions, and horrible errors. And these Jewish inventions, aris-
ing from the allegorical mode of interpretation, and other opi-
nions of that kind, peculiar to this people, if they were not
the origin of the Gnostic errors, at any rate gave occasion to
them, and were their principal source. Of this, in addition
to what I have already stated, no small proof is afforded in
the use of allegorical interpretation by the Gnostics, for the
explanation of the Old Testament books ; as Tertullia?^
tells us, adv. Valent. c. 29 : and, besides this, in the remark-
able agreement between the Gnostics and Jews as to some
doctrines ; it being evident to any one, who compares the
opinions of both, that those of the one were derived from
those of the other. If these observations which I have thus
far made respecting the sources of the Gnostic errors, are
borne in mind, the ancient ecclesiastical WTiters may be re-
conciled ; some of whom, as we have already seen, suppos-
ed the doctrines of the Gnostics to have been derived from
the Jewish fables, and others from the Greek philosophy ;
neither is it necessary to look for any other source. I am
surprised at the inconsistency of Brucker upon this subject :
for, in the passages cited above, he thinks that there is nothing
more certain, than that the Gnostic philosophy was derived
from the Oriental alone ; and yet in Tom. ni. of the work so
often mentioned, p. 296 s., where he is treating of Valentine,
who was the most virulent and wicked of all the Gnostics, he
wavers ; not rejecting the opinions of the ancient ecclesiasti-
cal writers, but saying that they all have some truth. This
inconsistency is itself a proof of a doubtful and uncertain
cause.
151 THE NEW TESTAMENT. 39T
Finally, as for the origin of the Gnostic heresy, tliis, in my
opinion, is to be traced primarily to Egypt, as late as the se-
cond Century. For there both the Greek philosophy, espe-
cially the Platonic, (ks Brucker has shewn. Hist. Crit. Phil.
Tom. 1. p. 644, and 667,) and also the Jewish allegorical
theology, if I may so term it, had many admirers and follow-
ers among the Greek Jews. In the next place, he who first
treated of the Gnostics, was an ecclesiastical writer in Egypt,
and, as he is called by Brucker, Tom. vi. p. 516, " a person
very conversant with the opinions of his own nation ;" (na-
tionis suae opinionum callentissimus,) namely, Clemens Alex-
andrinus. Finally, all the leaders of this heresy were Egyp-
tians ; for example, Basilides, Carpocrates, Valentine, and
others : as has been shewn by Semler, Select. Capita H. E.
Tom. 1. p. 41 s. ; Comment. Hist, de antiquo Christ, stat. p.
77 s. ; where he says, " it is to be observed, that the greater
part of the Gnostics were from Alexandria ;'' — and by Mos-
HEiM himself, Instit. H. E. maj. p. 148, and 326. It is not
probable, therefore, that that heresy prevailed, at first, chiefly
in Asia and Palestine, but only in Egypt. This I said was in
the time of Adrian ; though I do not mean to deny positively,
that there were some, before this period, who agreed in many
opinions with the Gnostics. Tertullian, de Praes. adv.
Haer. c. 33, has not denied this ; and indeed it could not be
otherwise ; since these heretics were not themselves the au-
thors of their opinions, but received most of them from others,
and fashioned them after their own pleasure.* I intended,
therefore, only to say this, that, before the second Century,
neither the name of the Gnostics was in existence, (for I
stated, a short time since, that those who, in the First, and
in the beginning of the Second Century, are called Gnostics
* This is what Tertullian means, when he says, adv. Hermog. c. 8.
" haereticorum patriarchae Philosophi;" which observation refers parti-
cularly to the Gnostics, and by which Tertullian means to shew, that the
heresies of the Gnostics were derived from certain opinions of the phi-
losophers. If some learned writers had thus understood Tertullian, it
would have saved many unproiitable discussions and cdntroversie*:.
398 K.O TRACES OF THE GNOSTICS
by Clemens Alexandrinus, were different persons,) nor any
peculiar sect, or heresy, pernicious to the Christian doctrine.
To this those on the opposite side of the question usually ob-
ject, that it is difficult to perceive how the Gnostics could, in
the second Century, have acquired such numbers and reputa-
tion, unless we suppose that their trifles began long before.
This makes nothing, however, against my opinion. For these
learned writers appear to have no just ground for supposing,
that the number of those who embraced the opinions of the
Gnostics was large ; since this cannot be proved by any tes-
timony from the ancient writers, who nowhere so express
themselves as to lead us to the inference, that the number of
the Gnostics was extraordinarily great. But even supposing
that it was, I do not see that this circumstance ought to present
any difficulty to the mind, or that it can prove the antiquity of
the Gnostics ; since folly, barren and obscure as it is, generally
finds more followers in a short time, than wisdom, with all its
fruitful lustre, after a long period. And even those very in-
juries which they brought upon the Christian faith and doc-
trine, in the second, and two succeeding centuries, do not
appear to have been as great as is generally supposed. That
they were severe and various ; that many who had recently
embraced the Christian faith, and were not as yet sufficiently
confirmed in it, fell into doubts and errors through the abo-
minable opinions of the Gnostics ; that the wavering were
staggered ; and that thus whole churches were thrown into
confusion ; I would not venture to deny. But that the true
faith was, every where, entirely corrupted and weakened by
them ; — that an innumerable multitude of persons was in-
duced to embrace them ; — and that the whole world was de-
filed with these iniquitous doctrines ; — as is generally sup-
posed by learned writers ; this I have never yet been able
to persuade myself to believe. There is not the least trace
of such a fact in any ancient author, nor any statement what-
ever that the number of these heretics was at all consider-
able. Neither can it in any way be conceived, how the ec-
clesiastical writers, burning, as they did, with an eager de-
sire to oppose heretics, to expose all their errors, to drive
IN THE NEW TE&TAMENT. 399
away what were plainly detected, and to refute them in the
most convincing manner, and entirely root them out of the
minds of men, could have suffered Christians to be corrupted
and led away by detestable opinions, and poisonous reason-
ings of this kind ; and would not, on the contrary, have used
every effort for averting so great a danger. Moreover, ge-
nerally speaking, (and I perceive that Semler is of the same
opinion, Comment. Hist, de antiq. Christ, stat. p. 78,) these
numerous sects of the Gnostics seem to have been of more
profit than injury to Christianity : since, like all who ever
plotted ruin to the holy religion of our Lord Jesus Christ,
they afforded a most favorable opportunity for more clearly
perceiving its truth, for embracing it more heartily than ever,
and for establishing it on firmer ground ; and thus, by the
very snares which they laid, gave this most important evi-
dence in its favor ; viz. that, in the midst of so many, and
such various and pernicious enemies, and in spite of all the
hostile attacks, and malicious insults of its assailants, it re-
mained constantly unshaken and uninjured, supported by the
divine aid, sustained by its own strength, and trusting to the
justice of its cause ; and at length victoriously triumphed
over every enemy.
HISTORY
OF THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE PROPHET ISAIAH.
BY W. GESENIUS.
Translated from the German,
BY SAMUEL H. TURNER, D. D.
PROrSSSOR 07 BIB. LEAUN. ilND INTERP. OF SCRIPT. IN THS GENERAL
THEOL. SEM. OF THE PROT EPISC. CHURCH
IN THE UNITED STATES.
51
INTERPRETATION
OF THE
PROPHET ISAIAH
I. Ancient Versions.
§ 1.
The Septuagintf together with the other Greek Versions.
The Alexandrine version presents us with the first attempt
that was made to exhibit the prophecies of Isaiah in a foreign
idiom. It deserves the most particular attention, partly on
account of the antiquity of the traditional interpretations
which are contained in it, and partly because it is the ground-
work of several other versions, as the Vulgate and Sjrriac.
The translator has probably left no other book than this, al-
though' it discovers some resemblance to the translation of the
Pentateuch.* In common with the translators of most of the
1 The expression niSO^ TTin is preserved in Kt/^io; 1»&^au^ almost
T : f '•
exclusively by this translator. In the other books, it is K(/§i»( tm fwuf
fximf or T»» ffr^ftneiv. ri'^Z'j< *s rendered eTsyJ'goir only in xvii. 8. xxvu,
9 ; elsewhere d\<ros is generally used.
Particular instances of agreement with the translator of the Penta-
teuch are the following : "^Vili >«»g<»f , a stranger, a proselyte, only in
XIV. 1, and Ex. xii. 19 ; npji |*j, jfcctTat^«/u/t««i jc«l ffm^fjta., xiv. 22, and
•Oen. XXI. 23 ; nS'K* f*"*;* tj/oi, v. 10, and Deut, xyi. 36, (elsewhere i^
404 ON THE INTERPRETATION
other books, especially the poetical and prophetic, he is defi-
cient in comprehensive and general knowledge of language,
and in giving the grammatical sense, and interpreting with
the necessary accuracy.^ Consequently, he fails in making
an adequate version of a text, which is in itself so difficult,
and the obscurities of which are increased by its want of vow-
els^ and of spaces between the words. For these reasons
difficult places are often misunderstood, (see ix. 21,) a suita-
ble connexion very frequently missed, and in numerous in-
stances it becomes necessary to express a meaning, which
has no better foundation than critical and philological conjec-
ture.
The following peculiarities of this translator are worthy
of notice.
1. He is fond of explaining tropical expressions in proper
language, although his success in thus giving the meaning is
by no means uniform. For example : i. 25, i'Sn:j~Sr, 'KOMTag
Toug ctvo/xou^, (Aq. Sym. Theod. xatftfiVspov tfou ;) in. 17, naa^
tvy mi2 "tpnp 'J^Js*, 'TOLirs'wiuidBi &£og app^outfag ^uyars^a? 2»wv ; v.
17, 0*1313 U'\tf1^ 1;;i, ^^(iy.y{h'ri(i(ivtui h ^<>]p'tfa(3'|X£'vo» (Sym. hi a/xvoj)
(«;S raufoj ; vi. 1, So^nn HK D^kSd vSi^^, xa»' crXTj^Yjj o ojxog t^j (5o'|7)5
durou* (Sym. Theod. xai Ta crpoj "To^wv aucou IcrX'^pouv cov vaov ;)
Vlh. 6, H'SdI pi rxi nx Vrmt^'^, aXka, .SouXeCSai s'xs'v <rov 'Pac'c'/v
xai rov iiiov 'PofjisXi'ou /SatfiXsa ^(p' Cfxwv ; ix. 14, pDJNI n33, fJ^eyav
xai fA»xpov, but in xix. 15, app^ijv xai rsKog ; x. 14, f]J3 in: n*n kS
is oi^t ;) rift'^Vt tk&ifJLarv^n, in i. 27, xxviu. 17, lix. 16, and Deut. vi. 25,
Itt :
XXIV. 13. Comp. also xni. 16, and Deut. xxvin. 30. Also Isa. xxxvm.
11, where the idea of seeing God is removed. Comp. Ex. xxiv. 10.
The difference between the translator of Isaiah and that of the Minor
prophets may be seen by comparingii. 1 — 4 with Mic. iv. 1, ss., and from
that of the historical books, from xxxvi — xxxix compared with 2 Kings,
xvin. ss. — A remarkable coincidence with the translation of the Psalms
occurs m xxvi. 14 : ^r^f^ry ^3 D"'X9*1j o^^* litTgoi Iv fjm aiAcrToa-ovvt, nor
I T - 'T :
can the physicians raise up [a dead person], as if it were :iD»p"' cxSl?
just as in Ps. lxxxvii. 11.
a See my history of the Hebrew language and writing, [ Gescbichte
d€r Heb. Sprache und Schrift. S. 78, 79. ]
» See, in proof of this, Gesch. der Heb. Spr. und Schr. S. 190.
OF THE PROPHET ISAIAH. 405
'"]2fiD3f01 Hi) nV31 ««< oux fc^iv og dioLtpsu^srai fte, ^ oL^miirj] f/-oi, (Theod.
xai avoiywv to CTofia xai tfrpoud-i^wv ;) x. 16, Vil^WD^ "^in, s/g ttjv
tfigv TifAiiv arifAiav ; x. 19, n>;' ]*;? *ix;&' it xuTokSKp'^ivTSs dcr' duTWV,
(Sym. TO, gViXoi-ara cwv ^iJXwv tou opu/xou ctuTou ;) xi. 4, V2 122V2, 9"?
Xoyw Toy CrofXaTo^ du<rou ; xi. 14, D"'ntB^'?a ^nD3 13;r, flrgTcwr^^tfovTai sv
vrXoioig 'AXXotpuXwv ; xiv. 9, yMi mn;;, dp^ovrs^ t^? y^S ; xiv. 12,
iriK^ |3 hh'i}f 6 'Ewtfipopog 6 "jr^wi dvaTsXXwv; xxi. 10, 'JIJ j3 'H^^nD,
Of 3caTaX£Xsj|X|xivoi xa/ oi o(5uvwf/»£vo» ; xxil. 23, xa/ Ct^Cw auTov d^ovra
(nn**) sv TO'ffCf} ieis(f> ; 24, xa/ s?cm crs-roi^wg (vSj? iSnl) s<n'' au<rov <xoig
sv^o|oj dflfo fxixpou £Wj fisyaXoy, xa< sCovrat scrjxps/xdjxgvai duT(/T
(D^Sajn ^S3 S3 ly) m^i^^ '^30 |»pn '^^ "^^ mjr'asn) D^K:fNvn ;) uii.
4, IJ^Sn, ^a^ djxa^Ti'a^ ujuowv ; LVill. 1, |n:i3 N"lp, dva/So'rjtfsv Iv iVp^uj.
As an instance of erroneous explanation, xxviii. 20 may be
given : ojjnnD niv njODni ;;"»nK^nD _j7VDn "^vp ' j, ctsvoxw^ou/xsvoj,
ou duvdjiAS&a /xd;(£(r^a<, auroj ^s d^r^evoufxfv tou y^dg tfuvax^^vai, (JSym.
sxoXo/3w&>) ydp Yj (fTpuii^vri ii£ ro fjii^ dva'jrstfsiv^ xa< »j Cxrjvii Jygvsro iig
TO ^17 EKTsX^srv.) See also xxii. 23, xxv. 4, 5, xxxu. 2, xxxvn.
27.
2. He often introduces short explanations to make the sense
•clear. For example : i. 21, "TroXig '^rio'H, (lii^v ; ) iv. 4, (twv
■jiwv xoi) Twv ^yyaTSPWv 2iwv ; v. 13, Dyi 'SjO, <5id to p^rj hdsvat
auToC'g (tov Ky'^ov) ; ix. 1, (toiJto ir^wTov cn's^J ; ix. 10, (:'«' oixooo/a^-
tfofxev ^auToij 'jry^yov) ; ix. 21, ort d/A-a (croXjo^x^o'eufl'j) tov 'IquSolv ; x.
9, XaXdvTf]5 (6u 6 Ty^yos uxoSoixyj^y)) ; xxill. 15, wj Xf°^°^ ^atftXew^,
(t^S X^^°^ dv^^wflrou;) xL. 1, (»5^s»?) ; XLii. 1, ('Iaxw/3,) 6 flrar^
jxou. . . . ('Itf^aigX,) o sxXsxro'g /xou ; XLVin. 11, oti (to £fji,ov ovojwx)
Ssprikourai ; lx. 1, (pwrt'^ou, (pwTi^ou, ('Is^ouCaXTjiw.) ; LVHl. 13,
XaXTjtfs'? Xoyov (sv ojpy^) ; lxv. 4, (didivy-rvia), see the note on this
place. — Short interpolations taken from parallel places arc
also to be found ; for example, i. 7, in the Alexandrine manu-
script, which is from i. 22 ; xl. 5, to Cwttjpjov Toy ^soy, from lit.
♦ The meaning of this addition to the text is explained in the Chal-
dee, which expresses the signification of j^g^ra in xiii. 1, xv. 1, xxi. 1,
T —
by a periphrasis: (^33) ni riNpS'NS DlSl D3 SCJD, the raising up of
ibt cup <^ malediction thai {^Babylon) may drink if.
4D6 QN THE INTERPRETATION-.
10 ; XLVii. 16, ov6s iv roircf) yr^g Cxoreivw, from xlv. 1^. Two
larger interpolations, the causes of which I am not able to
discover, occur in xiv, 20, ov t^oVov {jxarjov iv aj/xari -Trscpu^fA-svov
oux 'idToa xoL^OL^h ovruis oUds (fv stfr xa^-a^oV, and XXII. 22, >iOL' ^wtfw
qr-^v 5ofav Aaui5 aurw, xa/' a^^?<, xai oux sWaj 6 dvTiXgywv. On the
Other hand, there are also some omissions, as in xxxvi. 7, and
V, 13 of ch. xxxvu.
3. He avoids such expressions as may be thought indecent
and offensive, for which he substitutes euphemisms.' For
'example : ui. 17, rri;;" |nr\3, avaxaXJ4'£i to cx^f^a aurwv ; xiii.
16, njSjB^n DH'B^JI, xcti ras yuvaixa^ duTWv £|outf<v, (comp. Deut.
xxviii. 30 ;) XX. 4, niy ^aiiyn, dvaxsxaXufAfx^vai ; xxni. 17, nmn
'pxn noSDD Sj nw, xa/ eWai ^/AflTo^iov flratfajj Tafg ^adikslais
trriS oixovii^ivris ; XXVUI. 8, a^a g^srar TauTiiv ti^v /JouXi^v, duTo^ yd*
»j /SouXii svsxa 'fl'Xsovs^iaf. The last instance is a perfect quid
pro quo for the correct translation of Aquila, Symmachus,
and Theodotion, oVi 'jcagai di T^d-n-s^ai S'rXri^wS-Tjo'av gjuisrou. wC-rg {iri
{i^d^siv To-TTov. — The author appears also to have taken umbrage
at the cursing of God mentioned in vni. 21, and therefore in-
stead of Vn^KI oSd SSp, he substitutes xa/ xaxQg i^sTrs tov a^-
^o»Ta xa< rd ^dr^ia. (Symmachus ha«, in like manner, 9rd-
r^oL^a g»5wXa, his country's idols.) It is not improbable, in-
deed, that in this passage the true meaning may be given.
4. In explaining geographical names he is often . ignorant
and arbitrary. Thus, x. 9, nan ^shnj vh D« )jSd b'^dj'^do K^n,
")}) oux eXa/3ov tt^v ^wp^^v tijv s<jrdvw Ba^uXwvo? xa/ XaXdv7)g, (6u 6 cnJ^-
yo?wxo5f)(jL»j&>],) xa/ eXa^ov 'Apd^iav . . . . in X. 29, he connects
the words Sixty n;r3: rrai thus, *Pa/xd, flroXij SaouX ; xi. 11, onns
is here translated by Ba^uXwvia, and O'n "kdi nDHD *i;;:ipd by
difh ^Xi'ou dvaroXwv, xa/' i| 'Apa/Sia? ; xv. 1. 3K1D l^p, to t^i^oS «"^S
Mcjaj8»Ti5o5 ; in xxni. 1 and x. 14, he explains Br'B'"in by Kap^ri-
5cdv, as the translator of Ezekiel does in xxvn. 12, 25, xxxvni.
» The same effort shows itself in the Talmudists and Masoriies, and
in the alterations which the Samaritans have made in the text See my
Comment, de Pentat. Sam. p. 60. These learned Jews seem to have
considered such offensive expressions as inconsistent with the dignity
of the holy scriptures.
OP THE PROPHET ISAIAH. 407
13, but in Lx. 0, ly'Bfin nvix is leXoTn ©a^tfic, and in u. 16, lekom
^a.Xa(f(trig ; xxxvii. 13, Hijn JT^n D^IISD, *E'r(papouaj> 'Avayouyava*
yet in the Alexandrine text it is, 2s*(?a^gifA ; v. 12, p;^ '33
n^N^nj, Oil IWiv ^v Xw^a 06efxa&, Alex, ^aifxa^ ; XLIll. 3, K3D, Sovjvt;,
(but that is miD ;) xlix. 12, D'^d p«3, ^x ySj^ nsptfwv (Aq.
Sym. Theod. 2ivsi|ut.)
5. Very frequently does he show the Alexandrine and ge-
nerally the Egyptian Jew :. for, when the subject relates to
Egypt, he selects those terms which were the most usual
and expressive in that country ; and, indeed, he introduces
such where they are less appropriate. Thus in v. 10, he ex-
plains the word i^n by the Egyptian measure aprafSai s^- (see
the note ;) in xxu. 15, pon by ira^To(popSiov, (which in other
places is used for the Hebrew ryDHfh,) a cell, a treasury of the
Egyptian priests. Creuzer's Symbolik, Th. 1. §. 247, 2te.
Ausg. In xxxiv. 11, fj^u^r, a heron, is translated '{$is. The
observation is particularly applicable to ch. xix., which con-
tains a number of expressions very familiar to an Egyptian.
Thus, in v. 2, for hdSod Sk hd^oo we have vofAov i<n:l vofxov ; in
V. 6, for "iiVD nN% ai ditipv/sg tou flroTflfAou ; in V. 7, for nny, oix'f
the Egyptian word for reeds of the Nile : comp. the Heb.
m^ ; in V. 9, for '"»in, Burftfov ; in v. 10, for ^2^ 'vy, ^oiovvrsg rov
^u^ov ; V. 11 and 13, for |;>y, Tavij. He appears also in the
last passage to have availed himself of the history of Egypt,
in order to illustrate the meaning ; i^sXiirov o» ap^ovrs^ Tavsw^,
Tccci 64'W&ii(j'av 01 'ip'^ovTSs Msfjoipscijs* provided Memphis raised her-
self above the older chief cities of Egypt at a more recent
period than the other. See Diod. Sic 1. 50.
6. The translator of Isaiah has occasionally introduced in
his version allusions to relative circumstances in his own times,
and arbitrary changes made out of respect to the Egyptian
Jews and also to the Jewish theology of his day. This is a
disposition which appears to have been common to the learn-
ed of Alexandria and many others with the Samaritans®,
and which seems heretofore to have been altogether over-
* Sec my Comment, de Pent. Sam. $ 16.
408 OF THE INTERPttETATlON
looked. Thus in ix. 12, for : * the Syrians from before, and
the Philistines from behind, they devour Israel with open
mouth,* the Septuagint has : Supj'av a<f' rihis avaToXwv, xai toO^
'''EXXrjvas (Aq. Sym. Theod. tdvs ^iXjrfTjSiV) a(p* rtkm (^'uo'fji.wv,
probably in order to introduce the subjection of the Jewish
nation by the Greek dynasties of the Ptolemies and Seleu-
cidae. As in the other places where the word D^niySs occurs,
it is always correctly translated by 'AXX6(puXo», it is plain that
intention, not ignorance, lies at the bottom of his version in
this passage. According to the- translator, then, the subjec-
tion of the Jews by the Greek dynasties was predicted by
Isaiah.'' — In xix. 25, the Hebrew means : * blessed be my
people Egypt, and Assyria the work of my hands,' which the
Alexandrine translator interprets as a blessing pronounced
on the Egyptian and Assyrian Jews : ^uXoy^if^osvo? o Xaog fAou 6 iv
'Aiyu-n-Tw, xa< sv 'Atftfupjoij. As the prophets had frequently
censured in plain terms the emigrations of the Jews to
Egypt as opposition to the theocracy, (see Jer. xbii. 43,) and
as the Hellenists were generally considered by the Hebrews
as half" profane, the Alexandrine translator avails himself of
this passage, wherein Jehovah himself declares them blessed.
~^In xix. 18, the Hebrew Dinn '^y, city of destruction, as the
Chaldee also interprets it, was probably altered in the He-
brew text of the Alexandrine Jews into pnxn T;r, city of
righteousness ; and hence the translation, ^oXi^ 'Atfs^sx, which
was explained of LeontopoHs with its Jewish temple. See
Joseph. Ant. xiii. 3. § 3. — Whoever is acquainted with the
spirit of the more modern, sectarian Judaism, and with the
art with which the Jewish parties explain, and even alter, the
Old Testament to serve the views of their schools and sects,
will readily perceive what value the polemics of the Alexan-
drians may have attached to such places. The last cited al-
teration is altogether analogous to the well known Samaritan
reading of Deut. xxvii. 4.
t The Mohammedans also find in this book predictions of their ourn
prophet. See D'Herbklot, Orient. Biblioth. under Isaia.
OF THE PROPHET ISAIAH. 409
It is one consequence of the more modern Jewish theology^
that the translator sometimes speaks of demons, (xni. 21.
ixxiv. i4. Lxv. 11.) with which the age of Isaiah, properly
speaking, was unacquainted.* To this subject is to be re-
ferred, perhaps, xxx. 4, where, for the Hebrew, |;;2f:i rn o
V2K'7D> VlB^, the SeptUdgint has, on hat iv Tavsi d^fiyoi ayysXoi
•ro'vii^oi' evil angels rule in Tanis, probably, in reference to the
idolatrous worship which prevailed there, and which the
Jewish theology ascribed to evil angels. But the passage
relating to the Messiah, which in xxxviii. 11, the translator
introduces, is of particular importance, while at the same time
he removes the offensive declaration which might seem to
be implied in the Hebrew, that Hezekiah had seen God.*
For: D^'H pNj n^ n^ nxnj< ifh he has: 'OuksVj 6m iirj i'^w ro
'Itf^ttTjX sT^t yris. To see the meaning of this expression,
which is hardly to be misunderst* ;od, compare Luke, u. 30,
on hdcv hi 6(p3-aXfxoi (xou 70 tfwT^piov ffo^ ; ni. 6, 'xai o-^srou ^oLttcc
tfa^f TO tfwrri^iov rov ^sov, and Acts, xxvm. 28, Torg gS-vstfiv dirsia-
Xt] to tfwT^^jov Tou ^sov, Scc also Isa. xl. 5. lii. 10. in the Sep-
tuagint.
There are some passages where the translator has given a
Chaldee signification to HeBrew words, because, undoubted-
ly, the Syro-Chaldaic idiom which then prevailed in Palestine,
was familiar to him. For instance, in iv. 2, no^f n^n is render-
ed i'leiXait.^^st, Comp. l^^s, brightness, splendor; lui. 10, lfc«OT
• [ That the doctrine of demons or evil angels was unknown in the
age of Isaiah is a statement, which will not be very readily conceded
by those who admit the genuin,eness and authenticity of the books of
the Old Testament. The reader may find it in Deut. xxxii. 17. Ps. xc.
(Sept.) 6. xcvi. (xcv. Sept.) 5, where J'^iiu.ovott is used, and in 1 Sam-
ivi. 14, 16. xviii. 10, and elsewhere. Tr. ]
How oflFensive this language has* been thought by the more
modern of the learned Jews, is shown by the alteration of the Samari-
tan text in Ex. xxiv. 10, the Alexandrine version of y. 10 emd 11, (see
my Comment, de Pent. Sara. p. 51,) and the place in the Talmud, which
relates to Isaiah's condemnation, Mishna, Tract, Jdtamoth, iv. ^r?.
52
4l0 UN THE INTERPRETATION
xa&ttfjVai ctuTov, Comp. «3^, equivalent to hdt, to be pure. But
that this, or any other of the Alexandrine translators, was ac-
quainted with any well founded meanings drawn from the
usage of the Arabians,^ I am now obliged altogether to ques-
tion. The instance in vu. 6, which, in an earlier publication,*"
I alleged in favour of this opinion, may be differently explain-
ed ; and if, in other places, significations are to be found which
are now pecuhar to the Arabic, yet is it to be considered, that
the Alexandrian was acquainted with them as Hebrew or
Chaldee.'* See the note on lxv. 23.
The Hebrew text, from which the Alexandrine version was
made, had, almost throughout, the same readings as have been
preserved in the masoretical text. A right apprehension of
the character of this version will easily convince a man of
this. All the evident aberrations are to be attributed to con-
jecture, as, for instance, ^«j Stavarov in liu. 8, for idS, or, to other
liberties taken by the translator. In general, too, the clear
or real varieties are manifestly worse than the masoretical
text ; for example, <5w^a in vni. 20, for ^n^, after the reading
nnt^r, fAaTTjv in xxx. 4, for DJn, according to the reading D:n.
The writers of the New Testament employ, almost entire-
ly, the Alexandrine version of our prophet, from which they
make quotations w^ith various degrees of accuracy, or merely
according to their recollection. Only Matthew follows it
more rarely, (for example, in. 3. comp. Isa. xl. 3 ; iv. 15, 16,
comp. Isa. vui. 23, ix. 1, according to the Alexandrine text ;
xni. 15. comp. Isa. vi. 9), and sometimes recurs to the He-
brew text, which he explains in a different manner, probably
according to the Chaldee version then in circulation. Comp.
Matt. 1. 23, <5ou ^ cra^&svo? iv yadT^i s^si^ (Sept. XTj-vj^srar) xai ts^s-
Ttti uiov, xai xaXsVoutfi (Sept. xaktcfsis) to ovofxa aurou 'EfjijuLavou^X.
The expression xaXsVouCi for the passive xXrjS^tfsTaiis very com-
9 Gesch. der Heb. Spr.TP. 78.
1 Ubi sup.
« I To show this is the principal design of the valuable work of Ko-
i;her against Lowth, see below, $ 20, 1, note 1. For critical improve-
ment of the Greek text, see the remarks of Schleusner, in his Opu5..
efii. ad Versiones Greecas V. T. pertinent. Lips. 1813, pp. 326. ss.
OF THE PROPHET ISAIAH. 411
raon in the Aramaean, (see Gram. Lehrgeb. S. 798,) and bears
upon an intermediate Chaldee idiom. — vni. 17, aurog rag dtf&s-
vsiag TiyMv eXa/Ss xai ras v6(f ovg sf36L(f<ru(fsv' Comp. Isa. LUl. 4,
where the Septuagint expresses a sense altogether different,
and not adapted to Matthew's purpose, outo? las aixa^riag *jfA.wv
(ps'^gi, xai cre^/tjfxwvc^uvttTOT.* — Matt. xn. 18 — 21. Here Isa. xlu.
1, ss. is introduced, but very different from the Alexandrine
version, and agreeing with the sense of the Chaldee, although
not literally with our Targum of Jonathan. But that there
was a Chaldee translation approximating partly to the He-
brew text, and partly to the Greek of Matthew, is probable
even from particular explanations of words. See the Com-
mentary on xLii. 4. A similar instance is afforded in 1 Cor.
XV. 55, where Paul expresses the words of Isa. xxv. 8, jrbs
fIVjS n^rsn thus : xmsito^y] 6 ^avaro^ slg vTxog, while the Septuagint
is, xarsVjsv 6 ^avarog iVp^urfag. He takes nvjS in the Chaldee sig-
nification, as Aquila also does in the same passage. Of the
versions which have sprung from the Alexandrine, see below,
§6.
Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, of whose versions
some fragments only are extant, are more literal translators,
and confine themselves more closely to the text, than the au-
thor of the Septuagint, and no one of them allows himself such
arbitrary freedoms as are so often met with in this version.
They retain also the figures and tropes without attempting to
explain them in proper language. Their translations of some
places of this kind, which have been preserved, varying from
those of the Septuagint, have been already introduced in or-
der to afford a comparison, and may serve as examples.
* [ On this verse, see Magee on Atonement and Sacrifice, No. XLii.
p. 227, ss. In addition to the valuable observations which the reader
will find in this work, I would just remark, that, although the prophet
speaks directly of Christ as the atoning sacrifice for sin, yet his language
implies also, as the ultimate effect of that sacrifice, the removal of bodi-
ly diseases, together with every evil to which we are here subjected.
The evangelist may therefore very properly use this language in refe-
rence to the healing of diseases, although this is but a small part of the
prophet's view. Tr.'\
A:l*2 ON THE INTERPRETATION"
Pretty often they all three agree, and in sucli cases {5Jyrnma»
ehus and Theodotion follow Aquila. In other respects, the
etymological character of Aquila, which is also anxiously and
even absurdly literal, the somewhat discursive freedom of
Symmachus, and the manner of Theodotion who selects with-
out a remarkable knowledge of language, are well known.
At times, the Septuagint had given a belter version, than all its
three successors, as, for instance, vn. 16, 'fp nn«, which it ren-
ders (po(3r]j where Aquila has (uxxaivsi^, Symmachus iyxaxsTg,
and Theodotion /S^aXuCtf/j. See the note. Theodotion helps
himself occasionally by retaining the Hebrew word, as in u.
20, 'a(pa|p;ps^wa, lu. 24, (psuyiK
§2.
The Chaldee Version.
The Chaldee version of Isaiah is a part of the Targum of
Jonathan ben Uzziel, which extends through all the former
and later prophets, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Je-
remiah, Ezekiel, and the minor prophets. Its author was of
Jerusalem, and a pupil of Hillel, who was a fellow pupil of
Simeon the just, and Gamaliel, the instructor of Paul, and
must therefore have flourished a short time before the birth of
Christ.*^ Against assigning so early a date to this' work, Jo/jn
MoaiN and Isaac Vossius^^ were the first to object. They
maintained, that it was not composed until after the Talmud,
13 See Baba Bathra, fol. 134, col. 1. Succa, fol. 28, col. 1. The
saying that he received his interpretation from the prophets Haggai,
Zachariah, and Malachi themselves, (in the natural way, by tradition,)
shows, as well as other fables, the high consideration in which his work
must have been held. See Megilloth^ I. p. 3. Carpzov. Crit. Sac.
p. 450.
t 3 Jo. MoRim Exercital, Bibl pp. 321. ss. Is. Vossius de Sepluaginta
interp.Ctip.2S.
OF THE PROPHET ISAIAH. 413
Hnd appealed partly to certain fabulous interpolations, as in
Isa. X. 32 ; and partly to some representations contained in it,
which they explained as subsequent to the age of the Talmud.
In a later period, Eichhokn and Jahn have endeavoured to
place Jonathan as lovv^ at least as the 2nd or 3d century after
Christ, rejecting the accounts which the Jewish writers give
of him, or conjecturing that the Talmudists may have con-
founded the older Jonathan with some more modern writer
of the same name' . They have also questioned the unity of
this work ; and, on account of the unequal composition of its
various parts, have considered it as the production of many
of the Rabbins'".
The reasons, however, which have been alleged against
the antiquity of this Targum, are not satisfactory. " Were
it as old as its advocates maintain, (says Eichhorn,) it could
not have been unknown to the fathers; — it contains fables
which came into circulation in a later age, (see Morin, ubi
sup. ;) — it attempts to remove the Messiah from the places
which the Christians explained of him, (Isa. lhi. lxhi. 1 — 5,)
which proves that controversies against the Christians were
usual at the time of its composition ; — not to urge the consi-
deration, that a Chaldee translation was unnecessary at the
period assigned to it." The first and last of these reasons
carry their own refutation along with them : for the fathers,
generally, had no knowledge of these Jewish works ; and, the
prevalence of the Chaldee dialect in the time of Christ shows,
that such translations, which were, at the same time, inter-
pretations, were then undoubtedly necessary. That the ex-
planation of Isa. LHi. Lxm. 1, ss., which considers these places
as intended to apply to tho Mcsaifih, is set aside, is an asser-
I 4 Eichhorn, Einleit. in das A. T. 1. S. 455, dritte Ausg. [11. S. 83,
Vierte, ; 231. Tr.] Jahn*s Einleit. I. S. 192. [Part I. $ 47, p. 66. Trans-
lation. Tr."]
» ' To the same purpose Bertholdt, II S. 570. Schmidt also gives
the author the appellation of Pseudo-Jonathan^ w hich is applied to the
translator of the Pentateuch. See Chrisiologischc Fragmente, in jBtW. /.
Exeges. 1. S. 46.
4l4 ON The interpretation
tion which is utterly unfounded. In ch. Liii. it is expressly
given and with the greatest arbitrariness/^ And if this is
not the case with lxui. 1, ss., there is no reason to presume
that the omission arose from any polemic intention, especially
as it cannot be proved that the Christians attached any extra-
ordinary value to this passage as one referring to the Messiah,
although it is imitated in a representation of him which is
given in the Apocalypse, xix. 13 — 15. At the same time, the
Targumist agrees with the Christians in most of the other pla-
ces which they explained of the Messiah, particularly chaps.
Hc. XI. XLU. The introduction of the later Jewish fables would
be a most serious difficulty, were it possible to show with any
certainty the time of their origination. Morin, ubi sup., appeals
to the mention which is made of Antichrist's Armillus in Isa. xi.
4, which is more modern than the Talmud, (comp. Deut. xxxiv,
3, Pseudo-Jonathan.) But the general idea of Antichrist is
more ancient than the New Testament, and that the name
Armillus, the origin of which is unknown, must be so late, is
destitute of proof. In addition to the mark of a modern age
already noticed, I have found the following : the explanation
of Edom in Isa. xxxiv. 9, by Rome, Gomer in Ezek. xxxvui.
6, by j^^DD-^j, that is, Germany, (comp. n>jd*ij is the Jerusalem
Targum on Gen. x. 2,) and the most extravagant additions in
Isa. X. 32, respecting the army and camp of Sennacherib,
and in Judg. v. 8, respecting that of Sisera. But not one of
them obliges us to place the work after the destruction of
Jerusalem, or after the Talmud ; and there is reason to think
that the additions may be interpolations, as they are entirely
»» It was inconceivable to the author, and it must be so likewise to
every one who has really read this version, how Eichhorn, ubi sup.,
should have got this account, which has also been repeated by BsR-
THOLDT, (who, nevertheless, in his ChristologiaJiidaeorum, p. 158, ii as giv-
en a perfectly correct view,) until he found the sources of these and of the
other quotations and statements in C arpzov's Critica Sacra, p. 462. Be-
sides Carpzov, complains only on the ground of his view respecting this
perversion of the chapter applied to the Messiah, without making that
use of it which Eichhorn has done.
OF THE 4'ROPHET iSAlAH. 415
wanting in the printed text of the Antwerp Polyglot, and con-
sequently were wanting also in the manuscripts used in form-
ing that text. Until stronger proofs therefore are alleged for
the contrary, I shall adhere to that designation of its age
which is marked out by tradition, especially as the Chaldee
of this Targum is pure and similar to that of Onkelos,' the
doctrine which it contains respecting the Messiah seems to
be rather earlier than the New Testament than later, (see be-
low, or rather, comp. Isa. xlii. in the Targum with Matt. xn.
17 — 21,) and no definite trace of the government being over-
thrown appears in it, although the author has intermingled re-
ferences to his own times/^
With more certainty still may the unity of this Targum^
which almost all late critics have denied,^^ be maintained.
" The work," it is said, " is altogether unequal ; the historical
books are translated pretty literally, but the prophetical are
paraphrased, and additional ideas often introduced. This
shows the version to have been composed by various authors."
Not necessarily : for the author does certainly interpret the
historical parts of the prophetical books, (for instance, Isa*
J 7 According to Eichhorn and Bertholdt (ubi sup.), it abounds with
foreign words. I confess that I have never been able to discover this
multitude, and I find the judgment of Carpzov confirmed, who ascribes
to it " a neatness of Chaldee expression and a purity of diction, ap-
proximating very nearly to that of Onkelos, and but little inferior to
the pure and polished Chaldee of the Bible." Some Greek words are
indeed to be met with, as n>jjn fjy^i^ocv, for instance, in ix. 13, but at
most in the same proportion as in Daniel and Ezra.
> 8 I once thought that an undoubted reference to the destruction of
the temple was contained in liii. 5, where it is said of the Messiah,
t«in^i3?3 "ijDnN M2}r\2 SnnxT liw^pn n'2 ^33^ ^m :— Ae wirt &m'W
the holy place which has been profaned by our sin, and given up on account
of our transgressions. But it is more natural to consider the author as
placing himself iu the situation of the prophet, and referring to the de-
struction by Nebuchadnezzar. The passage in v. 10, v^bich incul-
cates the paynent of tythes, seems, again, to presume that the temple
was standing, and its worship &till celebraied.
1 9 Bertholdt supposes that Jonathan or the Pseudo-Jonathan lived
in the 2nd and 3d centuries, and that he merely collected together
and reduced to order more ancient fragments of Synagogue-Targums.
4lt) ON THE INTERPRETATION
xxxvi — xxxix, and the book of Jonah), for the most part, in a
simple and hteral manner, while he paraphrases the poetical
parts of the historical books, (Judg. v. i Sam. n. ii Sam. xxu.
23,) and explains the figures which they contain : so that this
supposed inequality rather seems to belong to his manner.
With regard to the degree, moreover, in which he acts the pa-
raphrast, he is not entirely uniform ; so that, for example, Isa.
1. V. xxvni. especially, are greatly paraphrastic, and other chap-
ters less so ; but it would be very unreasonable to ascribe the
work on this account, to various authors, since the same thing
is true of the Septuagint, which sometimes varies in the same
chapter, as in i, where, v, 22, the figures of silver and wine
are retained, while in v. 25, those of dross and tin are aban-
doned. This want of uniformity is rather to be attributed to
the inequality and variable maimer of the translator. But it is
said further, that " for certain Hebrew forms of speech, ex-
pressions occur in the former prophets which are not em-
ployed in the later, although the same forms of speech are
contained in the original. In the former prophets, idols
are almost constantly denominated n^dd;; mj^is, error gentium,
(i Sam. VI. 5. i Kings xiv. 9,) and enemies are named ^S^3
ii^22ii (i Kings 111. 11. viii. 46. n Sam. xviii. 19,) while
if these expressions are ever to be met with in the latter, they
are exceedingly rare indeed."^'' If these two examples could
justify any general conclusion, it would be the very contrary ;
for n^r.M (x'Dd;; is of no importance, and only occurs in i
Kings,) is also in the prophets the predominant, and probably
the only designation of idols, (see Isa. i. 29. ii. 6, 7, 18,
3 Thus Eichhorn literally,!. S.452. Or. II. S. 67.] Comp. Carpzov.
Crit. Sac. ubi sup. 8). " He has certain periphrat-es and descriptions
peculiar to himself, which he almost every where employs: as, for in-
stance, when he very often calls idols a'^O'OV »"*1.I^tO ^^^r gentium; i
Sam. VI. 5. i Kings xiv. 5; or, for the Hebrew D"'3"''1J<> enemies, uses
the phrase N':331 'Si^Uj authors of tnmities, \ Kings, ui. 11. vui. 46. u
Sam. xvm. 19, &c." But Carpzov very correctly mentions these phrases
as general expressions of the whole work, in the former and later pro-
phets; and the above conclusion, which is not Carpzov's, is undoubted-
ly drawn, because he had adduced no examples from the later prophets-
or THE rUOPHET ISaIAH. 41*?
20. XIX. 1, &c.) and K^an '7j;a the usual translation of T)h,
(see Isa. i. 24. n. 8. Lxii. 8. lxiii. 10. Jer. xliv. 30,) although
rmfD does also occur. (See Jer. vi. 25.) But, in addition
to these, other instances of uniformity are to be met
with, which are far more remarkable and conclusive. Isa.
XXXVI — xxxix agrees literally with ii Kings xvm. 13, ss«
as far as the agreement exists in the original ; Isa. n. 2 — 4
also with M icha v. 1 — 3, which is very different in the Sep-
tuagint. In Nah. i. 1, NJy? is understood of the raising of the
curse cup, as in Isa. xui. 1. xv. 1. xix. 1. xxi. 1. xxn. 1. xxm. 1 ;
^^ty\_ is rendered xrs^ in Jon. i. 3. Jer. n. 16. xxm. 1, 6, 10.
Lx. 9. Lxvi. 19. Ezek. xxvu. 12. xxxni. 13, instead of which it is
0^D-»o in Ps. Lxxn. 20, and B^^iJ^^n in Deut. x. 4.) In Isaiah the
trees, and particularly cedars, are often explained by kings and
princes, (see u. 13. xiv. 8. xvm. 5,) and in the same manner does
the translator interpret i Kings iv. 33 : " and Solomon spake of
trees from the cedar that is in Lebanon, &c." by : " he pro-
phesied of the kings of the house of David, his successors,
&c." The very extraordinary statement, that the sun should
shine 343 times 7x7x7) clearer, in Isa. xxx. 26, is contain-
ed also in 1 1 Sam. xxm. 4. And the addition also respecting
Sennacherib*s army and camp in Isa. x. 14, and that of Sise-
ra's in Judg. v. 8, (if they be genuine,) have great resem-
blance to each other. To avoid being tedious, I abstain from
introducing any other instances ; but, if some passages which
have been interpolated are excluded, I must contend, that
with the exception of unavoidable varieties in particular
parts, the whole translation shows an uniformity which proves
it to be the work of one author.
But it is proper to proceed from discussions of this nature,
which are only introductory and incidental, to the character
of this version, a subject which is particularly connected with
my purpose. If it be compared with the other Targums, it
must be placed, in respect to an exact erception and repre-
sentation of the sense, between Onkelos and the more mo-
dern Targums ; if it be compared with the Alexandrine
version, although it may probably display a more accurate
knowledge of language, yet. in consequence of a false me-
418
ON THU INTERFRETATION
thod of interpretation, it indulges itself much more largely m
arbitrary expositions, especially where chronological and
doctrinal points are concerned, and make much more arbitra-
ry paraphrases. Its character in general may be learned
from the following notices.
1. This paraphrast frequently understands his text philolo-
gically and exegetically with perfect correctness, and ex-
presses it, especially in historical discourses, with literal accu-
racy ; but where the language is figurative, he attempts, in
his paraphrastic manner, to elucidate it, either by explaining
the figures or by introducing an additional observation. For
example : i. 8, " as a cottage in a vineyard ;" the Targum
adds, " after the vintage ;" — i. 21, " harlot ;" Targ. idola-
tress ;— 1. 25, "thy lead ;" [" tin," Eng. Tr.] Targ. thy guilt :
— In n. 13, ss. all the figures are explained ; the cedars and
fir-trees are interpreted of princes, the walls and towers of
the inhabitants of towers and fortified places, the ships of
wealthy merchants traversing the seas. — In v. 1 — 6, the para-
ble is altogether removed, and in place of it a prolix inter-
pretation is substituted : — in v. 17, for " sheep," [" lambs,"
Eng. Tr ] the Targum has righteous : — in vu. 3, for : " the
Syrians stand in Ephraim," [v. 2, " Syria is confederate with
Ephraim," Eng. Tr.] the Targum is : the king of Syria is
associated with the king of Israel : — x. 14, " there was none
that opened the mouth or peeped ;'' Targ. spoke a word : —
xxu. 23, Targ. / will appoint him as a true commander in a de-
fended place ; V. 24, and on him will all the nobles of his fa-
ther's house support themselves, children and children's chil-
dreni honorable and ignoble, from the priests in the Ephod to
the Levites who play on the harp. He translates very happily
xxu. 22, " the key of the house of David will 1 lay upon his
shoulder," by : / will give into his hand.
2. But not unfrequently his exposition is altogether arbi-
trary, the grammatical interpretation is abandoned, the fi-
gures erroneously explained, and although the very words of
the text may be repeated in the paraphrase, this is done in
the most arbitrary connexion, and sometimes with an over-
whelming flood of fictitious trifling. Chap. i. 6, " from the
OP THE PROPHET ISAIAH. 419
scAe of the foot even unto the head, there is no soundness
in it ;" Targ. from the populace even to the honorable, no one
is perfect in the fear of God. (But the prophet is not speak-
ing of the immorality of the nation, but of its unhappy poli-
tical condition.) Vs. 24, '2^^ ^nj?* ["I will avenge me of
mine enemies," Eng. Tr.] Targ. Jerusalem will I comfort,
but wo to the zoicked, when I rise up to hold a court of ven-
geance on the enemies of my people. He has not understood
the meaning of DhJ, and has therefore availed himself of a
paraphrase. III. 24, ^sr nnn ^3, Targ. this vengeance will be
taken on them, because they sinned with their beauty. VII.
3, ^J3. 3WO«Bf', Targ. the remaining disciples, those who
have not sinned and those who have turned from their sins.
He takes ^33 for sons equivalent to disciples. The proper
names he frequently interprets. For example : v. 6, '?^3W,
[^Tabeal,^ Targ. he who will please us ; (comp. ii Sam. xvii.
7) :" — IX. 20, " they shall eat every man the flesh of his own
arm ;" Targ. shall plunder the treasures of his nearest neigh-
bour : — XI. 14, " they fly together on the shoulders of the
Phihstines ;" Targ. thei^ associate with one shoulder, (i. e.
unanimously, see in the iieb. Zeph. iii. 9,) in order to beat
the Philistines. It is plain, that he is only intent on
bringing in the original word, without any anxiety whe-
ther correctly or not. xiv. 14, "I will ascend above
the heights of the clouds ;" Targ. over all the people :
— xvm. 1, d;S3P Sv^X y;iK, Targ. the country, whither ships come
from foreign lands, like an eagle, flying with its wings : — xix.
10, »fl3 'DiH "^^z^ 'Wp So, [" all that make sluices, and ponds for
fish." Eng. Tr.] Targ. •TffSjSia^ k^d ynrp^ Hiiio \n2v im im
it will be a place where they make lakes, ponds of water each
one for himself : — ^xxi. 8, nnK «Jp'i [" and he cried, a lion."
Eng. Tr.] Targ. the prophet spake ; / hear the voice of the
> 1 By means of an operation of this kind, he excludes Malachi from
the list of tke prophets, since he explains the name okSo in Mai. 1. 1,
thus: KisD «1TV H^OB^ *!?pn"? '^!?SDi wiy meuenger, who is caUtd Eitti
th* scribe^
42f) ON THE INTERPRETATION
hosts, 7vho come on in their armour, like a lion : — ^xxi. 10,
'-?;^4 1? ''?i?:^?» [" my threshing, and the corn (lit. son) of my
floor." Eng. Tr. j Targ. the kings, accustomed to wage war, will
come against her, in order to plunder her, like the countryman,
who is accustomed to thresh the floor :*" xxi. 12, " from
Seir they call to me ;" Targ. from heaven he calls to me, the
idea being drawn probably from Deut. xxxiii. 2, where
Seir has been taken as the dwelling of Jehovah :— xxii. 18,
in3 nsjy -"ISH; ^^jV, [ " he will surely violently turn and toss
thee like a ball." Eng. Tr. ] Targ. ^J'Spl] i^nsjxa ni ^^p ''•yjn
^pD i?a^9 35*1 ^b^^i he will take away from thee thy turban,
and the enemy will surround thee, like an enclosing wall ;— -
XXVI II. 10, "):\ )p^^ ^p ^y*? ly '3, f/' for precept upon precept,
line upon line, &c." Eng. Tr.] To-rg. when they were com-
manded to do the law (iif), they would not do what was com-
manded them. The prophets prophesied to them, that, if they
were converted, their sins should be forgiven them^ but they dis-
regarded the words of the prophets, walked according to the de-
sire of their souls, and had no inclination to obey the law. They
expected (ID from njp) that idolatry should be established
among them, and they waited not on the service of my holy
temple. Little iyv}) in their eyes was my sanctuary to pray
THERE (DkO- Little in their eyes was my dwelling there:
— XXX. 7, n2»^ on ^n-* nxrS ^^tfn^ pS, [ " therefore have I
cried concerning this, their strength is to sit still." Eng. Tr. ]
Targ. therefore I struck (as if from n;jp) many of them dead,
armed men sent I upon them ; for which translation no found-
ation is discoverable. Further examples may be seen under
nos. 4 and 6.
3. For the most part he retains the geographical names, like
Onkelos, and seldom substitutes the modern terms, but then
3 2 It is necessary expressly to warn every one who wishes to consult
this Targum nor to trust the exceedingly bad Latin translation in the
Polyglots. This verse, for example, is thus translated : reges, qui con-
sueti sunt ad ineundum proelium, venient contra eani: ut diripiant earn,
sicut plaustrum artificia ad triturandam aream. The Chaldee is : p^^D
»;«nN n; a^npS jD^sn *n3«3 *<33oS Thv t^^".«3;jp wi^^S r?w«^
OF THE PROPHET ISAIAH. 4Qi
he is often correct. Examples : |^v, xix. 13, and xxx. 4,
OJKO ; -Y-, XIX. 13, D^3D, {Memphis) ; |^'3, xxxiii. 9, Nah. i. 4,
]2nD, BatancBa, (see the note on ii. 13 ;) ^^p, xi. 11, S^3 ; and,
not unsuitably at least, ojn, xxx. 4, Djgrin {Daphne). Al-
though he translates '^i3 in xi. 1 1 by nn, /nf/m, it must be
remembered, that by the ancients Ethopia and India were
often interchanged in common life * * * t — Occasionally,
he has rendered a geographical name as an appellative, as he
has also done with the names of persons. See lx. 6.
4. I^ike many ancient translators, (the Alexandrine and
Saadias particularly,) he very willingly rejects those anthro-
popathic terms, [in other words ; expressions used in relation
to the Deity which are founded on human analogies. Tr.]
and other language zohich might give offence : both of
which appear to him inconsistent with the dignity of God,
and of the Holy Scriptures. Examples : i. 18, God says,
" let us reason together :" Targ. 'P'JfJ.. j? p;^^^ ask of me : —
iii. 17; he " will discover their secret parts;" larg. remove
their glory. Comp. xxviu. 7. 8. — vi. 1, " his train filled the
temple :'* Targ. the temple was filled with the splendor of his
glory : — v. 6, " a live coal in his hand, which he had taken
with the tongs from off the altar ;" Targ. in his mouth was an
oracle which he received from the divine majesty (Shecinah,)
on the throne in heaven above over the altar : — x. 6, the rod in his
hand, instrument of his indignation ; Targ. the messenger sent
by him, for a curse against them. — Neither does he bear with
the exoression, to see God, (see above, p. 409), but substitutes
for it in xxxvni. 11, / shall appear before God. So also i. 12.
5. Another characteristic of this version is, that it intro-
duces additions to the text, some ot which, as connected with
its paraphrastic manner, have been exhibited under nos. 1 and
3. Among these additions, there are some which are con-
stantly recurring, as r.i^ ^p-;, the prophet saith, xxxv. 3. xlvui.
16, LViu. L LXL 1. Lxn. 10. lxui. 7. Less frequently they are
longer, as in x. 32, that relating to Semiacherib's army drink-
ing up the Jordan, &c. See above.
t [ Three lines are here omitted. Jr.]
4^3 ON THE INTERPRETATION
6. Much more abundantly than the Alexandrine translator,
does he arbitrarily introduce into his paraphrase views which
belong to a later period than that of his author; Rabbinical
sayings, and the Jewish theology of his own time, and often in
such a way as to show too clearly the Rabbin of the Phari-
sees, and the learned scribe. Examples : i. 15 ; " when
ye spread forth your hands;" Targ. when the priests
spread forth their hands to pray for you / as if the prayer
of the priest alone could in general prevail with God : — ^v.
10 ; he adds here : on account of the sin of not paying the
iythes : — ix. 15 ; here, in place of " the prophet that teach-
eth lies," and who " is the tail," he substitutes, the scribe who
explains falsely, (How confident was this learned scribe in
the correctness of his own interpretations ! And how charac-
teristic of the different periods of prophecy and of Rabbi-
nism, that the author of this gloss makes a false prophet, and
the translator a false interpreter, the tail, in other words, the
very lowest of the people!) In general scn'6fi5 are promis-
cuously introduced, especially for prophets. — xxvui. 7 ; in-
stead of, " priests and prophets err through strong drink
* . . . . they err in vision, {prophesying,) they stumble in
(pronouncing) judgment, the Targum h-diS, priests onrf scribes
are intoxicated with old wine they are turned to de-
licate food, and err in pronouncing judgment. (Thus the
translator every where brings the charge of luxuriously fur-
nished tables against the Rabbins.) — Better still in v. 8, " their
tables are full oi filthy vomit, there is no place more ;" Targ.
all tables are full of unclean and abominable food, there is
no place where there is not some plundered good thing. (It
was necessary that the offence which the laity must have
taken at such unlawful and extravagant indulgences of the
Jewish clergy should be removed, especially since swines'
flesh on their table was sufficiently obnoxious.) See also
XXIX. 10, XXX. 10. A strong trace of national pride appears
in translating ** the stars of God" in xiv. 13, by the people of
God^ suggested perhaps by the antecedent representation in
Dan. vui. 10.— In vi. 1, instead of " the year that king Uzziah
diied," he has, with Saadias and others, the year that he became
OF THE PROPHET ISAIAH. 423
LEPROUS ; — in x. 32, he has in mind the fabulous account of
Abraham's deliverance from a burning furnace, in which he had
been thrown as a destroyer of idolatry ;* in xxvui. 1, he intro-
duces the earthquake under Uzziah, in xlix. 15, the golden calf,
in LXi. 1, Elias. — ^Amongthe points of Jewish theology which
the author has incorporated in his version, the views which he
gives respecting the Messiah are of real interest and impor-
tance in reference to the history of Jewish doctrines. He in-
terprets numerous passages of the Messiah, and for the most
part, in harmony with the New Testament.'" " The branch
of Jehovah," in iv. 2, he explains by the Messiah, (no doubt
according to the phraseology in Jeremiah and Zachariah, see
the note on that place ;) " the fruit of the earth," (land,) by,
those who keep the law ; and v. 3 runs : who is written for eter-
nal life, sees the consolation of Israel : that is, the time of
the Messiah, (comp. Dan. xn. i.) — ix. 6, is thus translated : he
takes the law upon himself in order to keep it perfectly, (Matt.
V. 17.) and he is named on the side of him,\ whose counsel is
wonderful, (on the side) of God:^ a hero remaining for
ever, from whom much felicity will come over us in his days. —
XI. 1, ss. According to this passage, the spirit of prophesying
{v, 2.) rests on the Messiah: he will slay (r. 4) with his
speech the wicked Armillus (the Antichrist,) really righteous
men will surround him, {v. 5.) — In xiv. 29, he understands the
Messiah by the cerastes that should spring out of the serpent's
root, (that is, the son of Jesse,) and also in xxvin. 5, by Jeho-
* [ Two lines omitted. Tr. ]
a 3 The greater part of these, together with those which Jonathan
translated from the other books, may be found in Buxtorf. Lex.
Chal.etTalm. Col 1269, ss.
t [ Literally, from the Chaldee : and he is named from before Mm,
&c. Dip I p. Tr.]
a 4 The word iffhvit God, in this passage, may, according to the usage
of the language, be taken as the object, and then the Messiah will be
called Gorf. But this would be altogether at variance with the Jewish
theology, and to this, in all the elevated representations of him, (see
Bertholdt, Christologia Judseorum, § 22,) it will be difficult to adduce
one parallel instance.
424 ON THE INTERPRETATION
vah Iiimself, who should be an ornament of the people.^ —
The " servant of God," in xLn. 1, he explains of the Messiakf
(»ry'2fp ^n^j?), and almost all in the future, exactly as in Matt,
xii. 17 — ^21, (see my commentary,) so that he considers this
place as prophetic of a Messiah, who should be the comforter
of the poor, and the instructor of the heathen. In the same
way does he explain " servant of God," in xtin. 10, which, in
other places, he interprets of the people, and often in the same
section. So especially, in the celebrated passage lu. 13 — lui,
where what is said of the depressed state of the servant of
God is referred to the people, (lii. 14, lhi. 2, 3,) and what
is announced respecting his elevation, or at least what he thus
considers, is applied to the Messiah, (lii. 13, 15. lii i. 4, ss,)
The grammatical interpretation is here deserted more than in
any other place ; and that most celebrated chapter ^ ap-
pears in reality to have been, in the time of the New Testa-
ment, a very important source of views relating to the Mes-
siah. He illustrates thus: * Israel, indeed, was long poor and
despised, and waited long for the Messiah (lii. 14. liii. 3),
but he will come, will scatter the heathen (lii. 15), will asto-
nish the kings, and Israel will flourish and bloom before him,
like a tree by the water brooks, (liii. 2 ;) for he will intercede
for the sins of the people, and God will pardon them for his
sake, when the people become obedient to his instruction (v,
4, 6, 7). He builds up again the holy place, which was polluted
3 * Whether by anointed of Israel, in xvi. 1,5, he means the Messiah,
is uncertain, since this expression is elsewhere used of earthly kings.
2 Respecting Jonathan's interpretation of this passage, see Di< Wette
de morte Jesu Christi expiatnria, pp. 70. ss. Respecting the more an-
cient Jews, who, according to the accounts of the more modern, have
explained this section of the Messiah, see, as a supplement to the literary
history of chapter liii, wnich is given in my commentary, (Th. 3. S. 160,
ff.) ScHOTTGEN deM«^ssia, in liis Horae Heb. et Talmud. V. II. pp 181,
ss., EisEiVMENGt.R entdccktcs Judenthum, II. S. 757, Hulsi- Theologia
Judaica, pp. 321, ss. That the idea of a suffering and dying Messiah can,
in no way, be derived from this place of Jonathan, as Staudlin, (G6t-
TiNG. Theol. Bibliothek, Th. 1. S. 241,) and Bertholdt, (Christologia
Judaeorum, $ 29,) suppose, has been shown by De Wette, nbi sup
Oomjiftre also his Bibl. Theologie, ^ 201.
OP THE PROPHET ISAIAH. 435
by our sins (5) ; he leads the princes of the nations to slaugh-
ter (7), and the wicked into hell. The remainder of his peo-
ple he purifies, and expiates their sins (10). Then they live
long in Messiah's kingdom, see sons and grandsons, are deli-
vered from the dominion of the heathen, become victors over
their enemies' (11, 12). In v. 5, the discourse is expressly of
his doctrine : through his doctrine are we made abundantli/
happy, and when we obey his zoords our sins xoill be forgiven us,
Comp. XLii. 3, 4, and xi. 2. In this and in the intercession
for the people which is ascribed to him, we have evidently
the prophetic and high-priestly offices, which, together with
the kingly, the Jews thus attached to the character of the
Messiah, and which, in the epistle to the Hebrews, we find
committed to Christ. — Other references to Jewish theology
are the mention of the second death in xxri. 14, which the
damned undergo in another world, (comp. the Jerus. Targ.
on Deut. xxxm. 6. Rev. ii. 11, and Wetstein in loc, xx. 6,
14. XXI. 8.) ; the explanation of xxv. 33, by hell, (Gehenna) ;
and the frequent mention of the Schecinah (nJOB'), xl. 22*
Lvii. 15, and elsewhere.
The text, which Jonathan had before him, was on the whole,
the masoretic, and with this text he agrees also m the vowels,
the cause of which mriy be, that the authors of the points were
led by the paraphrjases, or that the same interpretation which
they exhibit was established as early as the time of Jonathan.
Yet there are also varieties both in the consonants and vowels.
For example : ni. 12, D^i^^ ; Targ. xjin 'y^, creditors, (as if it
were d\'j) :— ni. 6, nW'^o; Targ. nva^D, after the reading,
rh^'o^ : — XIX. 18 ; here at onnn Tjr, for which also onnn y^; is
read, both readings are expressed ; 3"inpS xTPj^-n wmi n^3 ^r^')\>^
the city [Bethshemesh], city \ house], of the sun, (Heliopolis),
which will be destroyed, — from Din, the sun, and D"»n, to de-
stroy. The explanation is founded on Jer. xlui. 13, and al-
though it may have had a controversial bearing against the
Alexandrine Jews, (see above, p. 408,) yet it lays the founda-
tion for other results. — u. 6, S^yf\ n^3 ^rpv_ rsmm ^2, [" there-
fore thou hast forsaken thy people, the house of Jacob." Eng.
Tr.] is translated in the Targum, thus : you have deserted the
54
4^
UN TilE INTERPRETATION
dreadful one, the strong, zoho delivered you, house of Israel. It
is probable that after ^r^V he read ^iiv, (comp. Deut. xxxii.
15,) which reading would give a very suitable sense. How-
ever, he has elsewhere allowed himself too great liberties, to
permit us to attach much weight to this supposition.
From what has been said, it is evident, that this version,
although of real advantage, should be used with great cau-
tion, and it appears to me that Dr. Rosenmiiller has depend-
ed too often OB its interpretations.
That there must have been a Jerusalem Targum on the
prophets, is plain from a fragment, which Bruns in Cod.
Kennic. 154, found on Zech. xii. 10. Whether this is the
same with that which Asseman deposited in the Vatican libra-
ry, I am unable to determine.
The Syriac Version.
Among the old versions, the third place in point of time
belongs to the Peshito Syriac, which, resting on the authority
of the two last, and, moreover, conducted by more correct
principles of interpretation and translation, meets the de-
mands of a correct and faithful translator far better than
those, and nearly in the same manner, as Symmachus and
Theodotion. The author translates from the Hebrew text,
not without knowledge of the language, with selected use of
the Alexandrine version, more rarely of the Chaldee, but
frequently also independently of both, agreeably to his own
feeling and judgment. Where he does not happen to follow
the Septuagint, he preserves the figures and tropes, and from
arbitrary introduction of opinions he is freer than almost any
other ancient translator, so that the name of Peshito, that is,
OF THE I'ROPHET ISAlAU. 427
ihe simple and faithful^" is most appropriately^applied to his
work. Since also the cliaracter of both tongues favours
this close approximation, the imitation is sometimes to be
called masterly. As a proof of what has been said, so far
as this may be shown in particular instances, the reader is re*
ferred to,
1. Some places where he has openly followed the Septua-
gint, even in cases of free and somewhat arbitrary translation.
Compare in the Hebrew, Septuagint and Syriac, the following
places : i. 22, 25. n. 20. ni. 17. vu. 20. ix. 13. xxx, 4,
20. Lui. 2.* — Still, in such cases he much more frequently
abandons the Alexandrine version : see v. 17. vi. 1. ix. 8,
10. x. 14, 16. XI. 4, 14. xxn. 23. xxvni. 8. xxui. 17. He
preserves the expression to see God in the two places (i. 12.
xxxvni. 12.) where it occurs. Yet he agrees with Theodo-
tion, for instance in xxvm. 6.
2. Less observed is his agreement with the Chaldee, which,
3 7 In the place of this usual interpretation, which, we shall see is
also the correct one, Dr. Bertholdt (Einieit. 11. s. 593) has brought
forward another, according to which it signifies the extended^ commonly
•used, and is equivalent to koivi], vulgata. He adduces the Chaldee ex-
pressions, t3icy3 jnjQj common custom, tJv.i'B Vlf commonmanner. But
in the alleged cases the idea of simple lies at the bottom of the word,
as Buitorf has expressly remarked in his Chaldee Lexicon ; and, which
is chiefly important, this change of the idea is inappropriate in the pre-
sent instance, since t3^{£'»3 is constantly used of literal interpretatJons
of Scripture, in opposition to the Medrashin, allegorical and B*ysticai
interpretations. This is its meaning in this case, as is shfw'n also by
the use of the cognate words in the Syriac and Arab'-; languages. I
agree entirely in the remark of the same author, (3. 694 — 5 ) that the
version is to be ascribed to the third, or probably to the second century
after Christ.
* [ In the original these references, and others in this and the two fol-
lowing sections are given in full, in the oriental languages. From the
difl&culty of procuring suitable type for the Syriac and Arabic, and be-
cause the Hebrew and Greek quotations would be useless without the
Syriac, I have been obliged to content myself by referring to thepla-
*.-es. Tr. 2
428 UN THK, INTERPRETATION
as we shall see below, is real dependence. See, for example,
in Hebrew, Chaldee and Syriac, in. 3, 16, xxn. 5, xxni. 10.
xxvn. 8, nNpND3 ; Targ. ivith the measure wherewith thou mea-
surest, will they measure to thee, (see Matt. vn. 2, and Ljght-
FOOT in ioc. Mark, iv. 24,) Syr. with the measure wherewith
thou measurest, wilt thou judge him. xxv. 7. xxvni. 28. liv. 7.
LVii. 8. Lvm. 3. Lxi. 8. lxvi. 18. — But that the Syriac trans-
lator really had the Chaldee version before his eyes may be
inferred with some probability from the following examples.
The difficult clause in xxxni. 7, D^s*")*;: jn [ " behold, their vali-
ant ones ;" Eng. Tr. ] is rendered by the Syriac : if he sho7u
himself to them. It is evident that he has interpreted dSk"^x
by D"? Tiii'^ii for dhS riN^»s;, but this gives us only the /rs/, not
the third person, and the Syriac translator does not allow him-
self such arbitrary changes without reason. This is to be
traced to the Chaldee. Here the version is pnS ^SjnK, which
should undoubtedly be read in the first person, jinS '^jpn ; but
the Syriac translator read it, as it stands in the Polyglott,
\inh '''^iJ^ii, and consequently rendered it also in the third per-
son. See also xxii. 6, 24.
3» Where he translates independently, he often follows in
difficult places exegetical conjectures, which have no further
authority; but, in some cases, they may really be called
happy. — Examples of independent exposition are as follows :
m. 24, ^'.J'np, their purple blue, — (he combines it with r^S^n).
V. 2, 4, Siliqu(S, caroh fruit ; (to suit the context he chooses
a contemptible species of fruit, scarcely fit for cattle. See
LuV. XV. 16. Sept. dxxv^ag : — ix. 5, he commutes pxp with
pW I — XX VIII. 10 ; here the paronomasia is followed up, and
the translativin \^ filth upon filth, (as if i^ were equivalent to
71^12:,) vomit ypan vomit. Sometimes he omits words which
are difficult, or at least difficult in the connexion in which
they stand, or which appear to him superfluous ; as, for in-
stance nnx in XXI. 8, and the repetition in xxi. 11. —A truly
happy exposition is that in x. 27, broken is the yoke from the
fat steer. See my commentary on this place. — xxvii. 25,
with the steps [ " sole " Eng. Tr. ] of my feet; Syriac, with
OF THE PROPHET ISAIAH. 4*29
iht hoofs of my horses. — He has also occasionally supposed
Syriac idioms to be found in the Hebrew, and translated ac-
cordingly. Thus XIV. 12, ^nw-{3 ^Vn, ["O Lucifer, son of
the morning," Eng. Tr. ] he translates, howl in the very dawn.
His mind dwells on the idiom nj.'^ |3 in the same night, Jon.
'v. 10, i^a-» i'^ in that very day, l^^-» J^ in the same hour,
Comp. Deut. x\iv. 15. Prov. xn- 16.
To the question which has been so often asked, and which
has not been answered on internal grounds, whether the author
of this version were a Jew or a Christian, 1 can confident-
ly reply, at least in reference to the translation of Isaiah, in
favour of the latter opinion.^ In support of a Jewish author
no reason is alleged which can be considered as satisfac-
tory, while in some places the Christian appears very plain-
ly. Although he generally follows his text step by step,
yet there are some translations which intimate the belief to
which he was attached. The most important is vn. 14,
where he translates r\rhy, young woman, the mother of Em-
manuel, by virgin, while, in all other places where the samd
Hebrew word occurs, he gives the term which corresponds
with it, (Gen. xxiv. 43. Ex. n. 8- Ps. lxvhi. 26. Cant. i. 3.
VI. 7,) as the Chaldee also does in this passage, &<npSij;. Also,
rr^^J, in Gen. xxiv. 16, he translates by tne same term. In
like manner h^ in ix. 6, used of the Messiah, he renders by
the word God, just as the Arabic translator ; and in lh. 15,
like Jerome, he makes the servant of God purify and expiate
the sins of the people (with his blood) ; nr, Syr. Xot^, Vulg.
asperget — lhi. 8 : )df, in reference to the servant of God,
is rendered t-j him, so that he appears as an individual and
not as a collective body. The same interpretations are found
again in Jerome and the (Christian) translator of the Arabic
in the Polyglots ; so that we see, that the Christian transla-
tors have not indeed allowed themselves such gross altera-
3 • For a Christian origin, see Kirsch Praef. ad Pent. Syr. S. 6>
Be«tholdt's Einieit. n. S. 596, 598 ; for the Jewish, R. Simon, Hist>
Crit. du V. T. p. 272. Rotterdam, 1685.
430 ON THE INTERPRETATION
tions as meet us in the Septuagint and Chaldee, while at the
same time, in classical* places, they have maintained the
claims of Christian doctrine. In the Psalms, the views of
the translator appear in the circumlocutory interpretations of
the titles, which are arbitrary and Christian. See Ps. u. vu.
X. xvni. xxii.
Besides the internal evidence, the fact that this version
was, in a very early period, the generally acknowledged
church version of the Syrian Christians, comprehending all
parties, confirms the opinion that the author was a Christian^
In addition to which it may be urged, that formerly the Sy-
riac language appears to have been employed exclusively by
Christian writers, and that not the least trace of its use
among the Jews is discoverable- Its literal simplicity, which
Simon considers as a mark of its Jewish origin, (where he
seems to have had Aquila principally in view,) leads rather
to the opposite conclusion, when the connexion between the
Septuagint, the Targum of Jonathan, and Saadias on the one
hand, and between Symmachus, Theodotion and Jerome on
the other, are attentively considered. The literal simplicity
of this Christian translator is, moreover, essentially different
from the syllable numbering manner of Aquila and of the
Venetian translator. But that an occasional consultation of
the Targum is no proof that the translator belonged to the
Jews, is abundantly clear even from this translator of Isaiah,
who never grants them, in doctrinal passages, the least influ*
ence. And yet even Jerome did not disdain to avail himself
of Jewish instructors. — If no more definite grounds for the
Jewish origin of this version in the other books can be ad-
duced, (and I doubt whether this be possible,) even the act
'^iommodating views of Eichhorn must be given up^ ; and^
* [ This word is technically applied to passagesL which are considered
as prominent in reference to any particular point. Tr. ]
a 9 EicHHOR> (Einleit. S.482, \\\. S. 133,] §250) endeavours to dis-
tinguish the various books, appropriating them to various authors, and
Dathe (Praef. ad Psalt. Syr. pp. 23, ss.) suggests a proselyte as the
translator
OF THE PROPHET ISAIAH. 431
when we consider the similarity of the Chaldee and the Sy-
riac, the supposition of a proselyte from Judaism is altogether
unnecessary.
His text varies here and there from the masoretic, but the
variations are never superior to that text. In general the con-
trary is the case, as in viu. 20. x- 9. xvi. 1. luI. 7. xxviu. 26.
XXV. 8. In the last text, he expresses the word nyjS twice
with different meanings, thus : to victory for ever. It is fre-
quently the case, that where many critics, particularly Lowth
and Koppe, have been anxious to discover variations, none
such are to be found. For instance in xiii. 10, Dn'S'pP, [ " con-
stellations thereof," Eng. Tr. ] is rendered their hosts or
powers* Here Koppe conjectures that the translator read,
°D'':!'r!» whereas he considered D'^t?^ as the name of a star,
and his hosts or powers is the Chaldee kw S^n of Dan. iv.
32, the 5uvajxsiff tou ou^avou of Matt. XXIV. 29. — The text of the
translator himself differs occasionally in ^ the citations of
Ephraim the Syrian from that of the Polyglots, because he
sometimes rather follows the Septuagint, and sometimes ra-
ther the Hebrew text.""
§ 4. . „
Latin Version of Jerome.
The same select use of the earlier translations which is
made in the Syriac, and particularly of the Alexandrine and
three other Greek versions contained in the Hexapla, we find
in Jerome, and in addition also to this, oral instruction com-
municated by Palestine Rabbins,^^ For this reason his exposi-
tions very frequently agree with those of the later Rabbins :
3 See G. L. Spohn CoUatio versionis Syriacae, quam Peshito vocant,
cum fragmentis in commentariis Ephraemi Syri obviis. Spec. I. Lips.
1785. Spec. II. Vitebergee, 1794, 4to. Both together comprehend
Isaiah.
31 Geschichte der Heb. Sprache und Scrift. S. 92.
432 on THE INTERPRETATION
however, he does not on that account abandon the cause o{
Christian doctrine any more than the Syriac translator, with
whom he agrees most accurately in the places which have
been before adduced. For instance vii. 14, noS^, virgo, see
my commentary on this place ;) ix. 6. S«, Deus (of Christ) ;
LU. 13, nij asperfrtt ; lhi. 8, idJ j^jj ^^s;; i'^sp, propter scelus
populi mei percussi eum. With the well known character of
this version, and the abundant use which is made of it in the
commentary, it would be unnecessary to illustrate what has
been said by examples. But on the commentary of Jerome,
compare § 7, 2.
§5.
.Arabic Version of Saadtas.
The celebrated Rabbi Saadias Gaon, who died A. D. 942,
after he had been since 927 principal of the Jewish acade-
my at Babylon% was the first who composed a grammar of
the Hebrew language. He was also the author of the Ara-
bic Pentateuch printed in the Polyglots, and of a version of
Isaiah which, in its whole character, agrees most accurately
with that of the Pentateuch.^ Through the laborious exer-
tions of Dr. Paulus, this version has been given to the
world, from the only known manuscript extant, which is pre-
served in the Bodleian liibrary at Oxford. Cod. Pocock. No.
32. Uri catalog. Cod. Heb. No. 1 56. It is printed under
this title: R. Saadiae Phijumensis Versio Jesaiae Arabica,
cum aliis speciminibus Arabico-biblicis, e manuscripto Bod-
leiano nunc primum edidit, alque ad modumchrestomathiae
Arabicae biblicae glossario perpetuo instruxit, H. E. G.
Paulus. Fasc. I. continens cap. i — xxxvm. Jenae, 1790.
3 2 WoLFn Biblioth. Heb. T. I. pp. 932—936.
3 3 On the identity of the translator of the Pentateuch and of Isaiah,
seeTvcHSEif in MiCHAEtisNeue Orient. Bibliothek. vm. S. 76, ff.
I
OF THE PROPHEF ISAIAH. 433
Fasc. II. continens Jesaiam jam totum, ex ii aliis versionibus
prophetae specimina exhibens. 1791, 8vo." The work, ori-
ginally written in the year 1244 in Hebrew letters, often
without diacritical points, and not unfrequently erroneous, is
published by the editor in the Arabic character, and provid-
ed with the vowel points. If, in a work involving very many
difficulties, the editor has left much to be wished for in refe-
rence to the explication and right understanding of the text,
yet in a first publication this is not to be severely found fault
with. There is in this edition, and especially at the begin-
ning, so much of this kind, that the reader stumbles at every
step, and a reference to the many improvements at the end
of the second part, which yet are not sufficient, is hardly to
be expected of him, and therefo/fe a new edition, corrected
and improved as far as possible, is much to be wished for.
It should be accompanied by an accurate punctuation and a
Latin version, as it is difficult now and then to understand
the meaning.^
In general, as far as regards apprehension of the sense,
the version, in an exegetical point of view, follows closely
that interpretation of particular places which originated from
the Jews and was admitted by their expositors. Consequent-
ly it has a frequent affinity with the Chaldee and the later
Rabbinical commentators, although it possesses much thought
and originality. In respect to giving the sense, it often takes a
3 4 Many improvements in the text, and in the explanation contained
in the subjoined notes, may be found in Eichhorn's Bibiiothek. Th. in.
S. 9. flF. and 455, fF. Others, with remarks in other respects important,
are contained in Michaelis Neue Orient. Bibiiothek, Th. viii. S. 75, IT.
The publication of Ch. Dan. Breithaupt (Commentationis in Saa-
dianam versionem lesaiae Arabicam, fasc. 1. Rostochii et Suerini, 1819,
pp. 96, 8vo.) consists of an introduction and merely some improve-
ments and observations of another kind on chaps, i — ni. A new edi-
tion however is promised. (Comp. Algem. Zeitung. 1819, No. 269.)
RosENMiJLLER, in his Scholia, has certainly done more than any other
writer, although constantly, and even in the first chapters, where so ma-
ny have gone over the ground, a gleaning still remains- Sese, for ex-
ample, the note on i. 7.
55
434 0.M THE INTERPRETATlOxN'
free paraphrastic course, explains tropes, does away aiithro-
popathic expressions, indulges in numerous additions, and
changes the old geographical names for new. AH this I
^all now endeavour to evince by some examples.
1. This translator explains tropes and figurative forms of
speech, or softens them by circumlocutions. For instance,
in 1. 21, nJU is translated idolatress ; i. 8, jr^ ^h standing for
the city, merely Zion, but, when it stands for the nation, as-
sembly, people of Zion, xvi. 1 : — i. 10 is thus translated: ye
tuho are like the rulers of Sodom — ye who are similar to the
people of Gomorrha : — v. 11, 'y\j?yz% [ ' I am full," Eng. Tr.] ;
Ai'ab. / consider it as too much : — ni. 6, nxin nSi!0?3n, [" this
ruin," Eng. Tr.] ; Arab, this poor people : — vni. 1, iyiJ.« D;^n5,
[" with a man's pen," Eng. Tr.] ; with the usual writing : —
x. 15, ]y'vh ni^p onn^, ["as if the staff should lift up (itself,
as if it were) no wood," Eng. Tr.] ; Arab, as if the lifting
up of the staff did not proceed from him, namely, from him
who raises it. Sometimes he adds the particle like as. See
11. 21. xiv. 3. Moreover, he is not always uniform, and some-
times preserves such expressions unaltered, as in ix. 14,
|iDJNi n33, [" branch and rush," Eng. Tr.] ; Arab pond and
palm twig, ^^ (only by an everted arrangement ;) or selects the
trope somewhat differently, as in ix. 6 ; on whose head the
government rests, where his mind is dwelling on a crown.
2. He removes anthropopathic expressions or softens them.
I. 15, ^^4? Q')):^, [ " I will hide mine eyes," Eng. Tr. ] ; Arab.
I will shut up my compassion: — v. 18. nnp^J} N3-oS ["come
now and let us reason together," Eng. Tr. ] ; Arab, come on
until we meet one another : — vi. 1, his splendor filled the tem-
ple ;— XIX. 1, Sp_ 3r Sjtr njS mn;, [ "the Lord rideth upon a
swift cloud," Eng. Tr. ] ; Arab. God covered his word in swift
clouds :~xxx\\. 16, 17 "iji ^3 7, ["for my mouth it hath
commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them," Eng, Tr.] ;
3 5 Dr. Paulus ^ives a different punctuation to one of the words, and
translates : jugulwn et ulcus (capitis aut faciei) ; but this gives no intel-
itgible sense.
OF THE PROPHET ISAIAH. 435
tie with his zvord-gives command respecting thcmy and his angel,
he makes them together. Like a king he casts lot respecting
fhem and divides it among them. Thus, in the manner of the
later Jews, he makes God's angel or word (i<Jr2'D) instead
of himself to be engaged in the work of creation. Comp.
also XXVI. 21. XXVIII. 3, where word of God \s used for Je
hovahf and xxv. 10, for hand of Jehovah. For father of men"
applied to God, he uses creator, lxui. 16. lxiv. 7, for arm of
Jehovah Lxiii. 12, power of God, while on the other hand in
X. 2, the trope short hand of God is retained, probably because
it was used in the Arabic, and, as a trope, without being of-
fensive. In L. 5, instead of, " the Lord God hath opened
mine ear," the Arabic is, God has before instructed me in the
matters. Comp. yet i. 12, 18, 20, 24. — Like other translators,
he supposes indecorous expressions to be inconsistent with
the dignity of Scripture, and removes them. For instance,
111. 17, n^y: \r}m, [ " will discover their secret parts," Eng.
Tr, ] ; Arab, he will bare their parts (or sides) :^-Lvn 8 ; here
for n\Tn t ["where thou sawest «7," Eng. Tr. ] he leaves
an empty space : — and in xiii. 16, he expresses at least the
milder reading of the Keri ru^Diyn.
3. His additions are similar to those of the Chaldee inter-
preter, and are very frequently intended to designate a
change of the party speaking. For example, lvui. 1, he
(God) spake to me : — v. 3, in the beginning, thei/ say ; and
before the last member, O prophet, answer him : — lx. 8, then
will J say : — lxhi. 1, then will it be said. See u. 10. viii. 19.
Lxu. 1. Lxni. 11. Others are of less frequent occurrence.
One which is more doctrinal is in xlu. 19, where to the
words explained of the Messiah, who is deaf — if it be not he
to whom I send my messenger, (i. e. the Messiah,) immediate-
ly he adds in a parenthesis, zy/ien I shall have sent him to them,
(the people), thereby retaining the suggestion that this mes-
senger is a personage whose coming was still to be expect-
ed.^ — On the other hand, he has also again omitted what
3 6 Dr. RosenmflUer, on XLii. 19, considers these words as anintff'
436 ON I'riE IN^'ERPRKTATION
appeared to him to be superfluous, as, for instance, tlie im-
pressive repetition in li. 15, 17, and frequently.
4. Like the author of the later Targums and of the Samari-
tan version, mstcdd of the old geographical names he intro-
duces the more modern terms which were in use in his own
day, and is very often correct. Thus, for example, jsf 3 is
Batan(Ba, u. 13 ; u/^r^^'^2Cercusium, x. 9 ; r>3 Ahhysinia, xi.
II. xvn. 1; D'.IV? ^r^ ^^* •^^^•''■^j xxvn. 12; jnTpi^ Sebaste.
X. 9 : others are not unsuitable, as D^'i^, Cyprus, xxni. 1 >
(see my Lexicon on this word ;) jn^, the capital city of Cho-
rasan, xxxvn. 12, (see the Commentary in loc. :) DJn, a city in
Egypt, xxx. 4, (see Comment. ;) uS3, a city in Mesopotamia,
X. 8, (see Schultens ind. ad Vit. Saladini on the word Racca ;)
dVj[ XI. 11, and xxii. 5 ; '^r^ Hamedan^ i. e. the chief city of
Media, xni. 17, and xxi. 2 ; 5<5*^* a city in Arabia, lx. 6, (see
AfiALFED-ffi Arabia, cur. Rommel, p. 30, 42 — Some others,
however, are very erroneous, as d^n Armenia, vn. 5. ix. 11,
(comp. Gen. x. 22,) where the similarity of the name has
given rise to the mistake ; njn Antioch xi. 11 ; also, "yw^ in
vn. 18, XI. 11, XX. 4, while Mesopotamia constituted only one
part of the Assyrian empire. But he is not uniform, and
sometimes explains "\r^^N by southern Mesopotamia, vn. 20,
vm, 4 ;t oV^n^ he sometimes translates by dwelling of peace,
^LX, L or city of peace, xl. 2, which is of some importance in
potation hy a Christian hand, and translates them, sane misi mm ad ilium,
according to which the advent of that messenger is presumed to have
taken place. But interpolations made in this work by a Christian wri-
ter are quite improbable, and the translation given above in the text is
undoubtedly AVell founded, since \a^ for tehen, used of the future, is a
very common meaning, and then the preterite must be taken by the
future completed.* Thus, for instance, when you shall ha ce come together
wilhher, (Thousand and one nights. No. 162, in Michaklis' Chrestoma-
thy, third edition, edited by Bernstein, p. 188,) or, I will come to you,
lohen that one shall have come before, (DscUauhari in GoLius, col. 54,)'
in both which places, the Arabic uses the same word.
* [ In the original, it is futurum exacium. By this the author means
what Webster calls the Prior-Future, indefinite. Tr. ]
i [ An omission of one or tw^o lines in this place is caused by the dif-
ficulty of printing the Arabic words. Tr. 1
OV THE PROPHET ISAIAH.
437
reference to the etymological interpretation. The word \if'V:']i^
he renders sea in n. 16, xxui. 1, 10, 14. lx. 9, agreeing with
the Targum, but in Gen. x. 3, he translates it Tarsus.
5. Not unfrequently does he make an attempt to retain
the Hebrew words themselves, or with slight alteration, in
the Arabic, which to his ear is generally euphonic. See i. 8,
9, 12. n. 3. V. 2, and compare Gen. xlix. 11. Sometimes
the exposition acquires in this w^ay additional force, as in i. 7,
where on? nDSnoa is translated like the rushing course of
streams,
6. Interpretations which correspond with those given in
the Targum and by the Rabbins are constantly to be met
with. Thus, for example : vi. 1, in the year when King Uz-
ziah became leprous : — ^xxi. 5, |iO *n^'p, and they anointed
a king from them ; comp. Abarbenel, who explains jiD,
.'ihieldf by king, and Aben-Ezra who refers it expressly to
Darius : — v. 24, fro?n the ornament of the people to the orna-
ment of the priests, who take charge of the basins, and to the
ornament of the Levites, who sing hymns. See above the
Chaldee and Syriac. — xxiv. 15, onxs, Targ. when light
comes for the righteous ; Saadias, when his light will appear ;— -
XXVI. 3, "^IiDD '^2f;, the creatures who are supported, i. e. who
need support. In this way is the word nv"; explained b}^
Jarchi. Comp. ix. 4, with his note. — Ungrammatical con-
nexions of words occur also, as in Jonathan ; thus in xxii. 3,
nDJ|inK/pD nn^, 50 that they are bound by one 6 ow, as if the
reading were, nn^; r\p^p, Comp. vii. 21. On the other
hand examples of meanings peculiar to the author and very
suitable will be found in abundance in my Commentary.
Various readings in the consonants will probably not be
found, provided the reader be thoroughly acquainted with his
manner, and constantly keep it in view. In the vowels there
are sometimes variations. See xmx. 37, where instead of
T33 he reads yj3.
438 OS THE INTERPRETATION
§6.
Versions which have sprung from the Alexandrine,
'%
Of the versions founded on the Alexandrine, all of which
were composed by Christians, and may be made very ser-
viceable in the criticism of the Septuagint, on the prophet
Isaiah it is only the Latin, as far as it remains, the Arabic,
the Armenian and the Georgian, that have appeared in print.
Omitting the two last, which are not accessible to me, nor do
I sufficiently understand them, I shall confine my remarks to
the first, in reference to its critical relation to the Septua-
gint.'^
1. It is well known that the old Latin version, antecedent
to the time of Jerome, was lost, with the exception of such
books as were incorporated in the Vulgate. From the high
estimation, however, in which the Old Testament writer un-
der consideration was held, such a multitude of quotations
from him according to this version is to be found in the early
fathers, that Sabatier, in his important collection of fragments
from them and from other manuscripts,^ was able to restore
three fourths of the whole book, 1000 verses out of 1293,
which is not the case with regard to any other book of the
Old Testament. This version follows, as is known, the text
of the Septuagint which existed before the time of Origen, or
3 7 The most important of these versions that have sprung from the
Septuagint is undoubtedly the Hexaplar Syriac, of which the Ambro-
sian manuscript, which in the Norberg copy has but lately been used
by MiDDLEDORPF, (cuTse Hexaplares in Jobum, 1817, 4to.) contains
Isaiah. The Ethiopic is in the British Museum, and contains, along with
the canonical Isaiah, the manuscript of Lawrence, from which The, As-
cension of Isaiah was printed. See Praet. p. v. It follows the Alex-
andrine recension.
3 8 Petri Sabatier Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versionis antiquae,
seu vetus Italica et caeteras quscunque in Codd. MSS. et antiquorum
libris reperiri potuerunt Romis, 1743. T. j. — iii. Fol. The version of
Isaiah is in T. ii, pp. 515—639.
OP THE PROi»HET ISAIAH. 439
what was called the xoivr] or vulgate, and therefore agrees for
the most part with the Vatican text of the Septuagint, which
comes nearest of all to that of the xo<v>).^ On this account it is
able, from its close literal manner, to afford important service
for the restitution of the ancient readings. Thus, for example,
in Lx. 5, something is missed in the Septuagint which should
correspond with the word mn:i. Theodotion has, xai XH^^V '•>
and that it should also be so read in the Septuagint is shown
by the Old Vulgate, et gaudebis, and also by the Arabic. It
contains, too, all the additions of the Alexandrine version
which are not founded on the Hebrew text, as in i. 21. iv. 4.
ix. 1, 21. XXX. 4, XL. 1, 5. xLii. 1. Lxv. 4, which, in part, as
XL. 1. 5, are not found in the copies that have been affected
by Origen's revision Traces of the influence of Christian
dogmatic or polemic theology I have no where found, and,
were they in general circulation as early as the time of the
translator, there was indeed no opportunity for it, since in the
Septuagint according to the ^oivr] all the places which were
formerly brought into consideration, as ix. 6, lii. 13. liii. 8,
have entirely perished. The occurrence of virgo in vu. 14, is
not to be taken into account, since this is the natural transla-
tion of "B-apSsvo?. In some places vi^hich have been misunder-
stood by the Arabic translator, he has given the sense more
correctly, as, for example, in xxvi. 14.
2. According to the subscription of the Paris manuscript, the
Mrabic translation'm the Paris and London Polyglots, in Isaiah,
as in the prophets generally, was composed by an ecclesiastic
of the Alexandrine church, whose age cannot be ascertained
with certaity.'^" But the manuscript was written A. D. 1584.
In reference to his age, thus much only can be said, that he must
have written when the Arabic language had excluded in
3 9 Rob. Holmes, Praef. ad ed. Oxen, lxx Interp. 1798, fol. Cap. 2.
No. 2.
* See GabrielSionita in the preface to the Syriac Psalter, Paris,
1625, Alder's Bibliscb. Kritische Beise, S, 208.
440 OS THE INTEKFRETATION
Egypt the Greek (and Coptic), or had begun to exclude them,
so that such versions had become necessary for the use of
Christians ; in other words, somewhat after the 10th century.*^
At that period the patriarch of Alexandria, Etychius, son of
Patrick, wrote a history of the world in Arabic, and afterwards
many Christian writers in Egypt made use of that language,
for instance, Elmacin. The Arabic diction of this translator
seems at times to approximate to the vulgar dialect, as when
he usually begins his version of the books with the form : we.
begin the translation ofMalachi, c^c, for : / begin. If we were
better acquamted with the history of the lessons and portions
of the Bible used in the Greek church, (of which further be-
low,) we should probably be able to arrive at some conclusion
respecting the age in which he lived.
Pecuhar to this version, at least in Isaiah, in its external
form, is a threefold division, each of which appears continu-
ously in the same text. In the first place, Isaiah, as well as
the other prophets, is divided into a number of sections,"^ of
which Isaiah contains thirty, the portions being in general
very badly divided, as no other principle seems to have been
kept in view, except that of giving to each a nearly equal
number of verses. Thus, for instance, number 2 begins
with n. 10, (number 3 is wanting,) number 4 with vu. 3,
number 5 with ix. 1, number 6 with x. 22, number 7 with
xm. 11. Better is that division, which however is confined
to the beginning of Isaiah and to Daniel, which designates
the oracles or visions, for instance, number 2 at n. I, number
3 at VI. 1, number 4 at vii. 1, number 5 at xni. 1, number 9
at xix. 1, number 10 at xx. 1 Beside these two divisions," ||
there is also another of a liturgicaj kind, which is peculiar to
Isaiah. Very frequently we meet with express indications
by means of titles thrown in, that here a (church) lesson be.
gins, with which an outhne of the contents is usually given ;
* J Renaudot Hist. Patriarch. Alexand. Jacobit. pp. 367, 418.
* Tbe Arabic word is, in the Polyglot translations, incorrectly ren-
dered text.
I
or THE PROPHET ISAIAH- 441
sometimes the festival on which the lesson is to be read is
also mentioned, but never how far it extends. Yet this is,
as I conjecture, only omitted in the impression in the Poly-
glots, The following may serve as specimens of such ti-
tles: 1.21, Lesson, wherein the prophet's amazement at the
city of Jerusalem and its changts is i^ontained, and what
should happen to it and its inhabitants i^ mentioned / — in. 16,
Lesson, containing the prophefs denunciation against the in^
continence of the women of Zion. Such are found too in m.
1. V. 1. VI. 1, IX. 8. X. i, &c. with the addition of the fes-
tival before vu. 10, thus : Lesson for the festival of the birth
(of Christ), containing the prophefs message to the house of
David respecting the birth of Christ ; — before xl. 3, Lesson
for Si, John's day ; — before lvu. 3, Lesson for the Sunday — ,
where something seems to be wanting ; — before lx. 1, Lesson
for Easter Sunday.'^ There are also other titles, which con-
tain notices of the contents together with historical and doc-
trinal explanations. Por example, in xxv. 1 : thanksgivings
4 9 As it has been ascertained, that definite portions for the festival
were earlier in use than for all Sundays, this directs us to that earlier
time. Of the portions above referred to, two, namely vii, 10, ss. and
^L. 3, ss., agree with the usage of tlie Western, that is, the Gallicaa
«hurch, which we learn from a Lectionariiim G&llicum of the seventh
century, (See Mabillow, Lib. 2. Liturg. Gallic. Paris, 1782, ed. ii.
Paris, 1729, pp. 106, ss. and comp. Thameri Schediasma de origine ^
dignitate pericoparum, Jenae 1716, pp. 102, ss.,) and xl. 3, ss- with our
^wn portion in the Epistles.* The Section lx. 1 ss,, on the other hand,
\vas read in the Galilean chufch on the festival of the Epiphany, and
tiii., moreover, on Good friday. With respect to the reading of de-
finite portions of the gospels in the Greek church, the chief places may
be found in Chrysostom, Homil. xi and lvu on John, and in Leo
Allatids as quoted by Thamer ubi sup. p. 66. Respecting those from
ihe epistles, I am not able to obtain any further accounts. The consecu-
tion of the lessons in the first chapters of Isaiah shows that they must
Slave read all the books of the Bible in continuous euccession. But ge<-
«erally in the history of liturgies these circumstances are not to be dis-
covered.
* [ The author refers to the portions appointed to be used by th«
fiUtheran church, which ar^ marked also in some e4iti(Mis of the Ger^
aian Bible. Xr. ]
^6
443 ON THE INTERPRETATION
of King Hezekiah to the Lord on account of having conquer'-
ed ; — ^xxxi. 1 : prophecy respecting the Jews, who went doivn
to Egypt ; — xxxiii. 7; prophecy respecting the King of Mosul
(Assyria), on the victory of the King of Babylon over him,
and how he would take the kingdom from him ; — xxxv. 2 : ex-
hortation of the prophet to the weak, and annunciation of the
coming of Christ ; — xlii. 1 : prophecy respecting the Lord
Christ ; — Lii. 13 ; prophecy respecting Christ, of his crucifix-
ion, and of the forgiveness of sins. In these additions the
translator has availed himself of the traditions of the eastern;
Greek church.
With respect to the internal character of this version, it
expresses, as might be expected from a work composed iq
Alexandria, the recension of the Seventy which was in ge-
neral use in that church, and agrees therefore for the most
part with the Alexandrine manuscript, which seems to have
been derived from the Hexapla, in opposition to the Vatican,
which is closely allied to the Ko/vii.'*^ But the copy used by
the translator must have approximated more nearly still to
the Hexaplar text, since he frequently shows a closer affinity
to the Hebrew than the Alexandrine manuscript, in which
be often agrees with the excellent Hexaplar Codex Marcha-
lianus,'^^ In particular, he fills up many chasms in the Sep-
tuagint, following Theodotion, as Origen also does in the
Hexapla. But in these cases, I am not able to perceive
that he has gone back to the Hebrew text itself,''^ which at
that period was seldom done by Christians, or rather not at
all, but merely that he has limited his sources to as complete
a Hexaplar copy as could be procured.
As agreement with the Alexandrine manuscript is uniforrp
and habitual with him, I think it preferable to give some ex-
amples in which he has varied from it, and scenes to have ap?
4 3 See Holmes, Praef. ad Pentateuchum, (prefixed to the first volume
pf his edition of the Septuagint,) Cap. 2. No. 2, 3.
4 4 See Stroth in the Reportorium fUr Bibl. und morgenlancjiscl^
I^Ueratur, Th. 8, S. 189.
4 5 See RosENMiiLLER Scholia ip Jes. on xlv. 9.
OP THE rilOPHET iSAlAH.
443
J>roachccl nearly to the Hexaplar copy. Thus in i. 22, he wants
the additional clause in the Alexandrine manuscripts, ai iroXsis
u^wv flTu^/xau^oj : — X. 14, besides the words which are contained
in the Vatican and Alexandrine manuscripts, xa< 6w sCtjv og (5ia-
(psu^sTai jxs, ^ oLVTsi'ffr} fjto'i, he expresses also the addition of Thoo-
dotion founded on the Hebrew, xaj'dvoi'/wv ro tfrojuka xal Ct^ou^i^wv.
"I'heodoret, 0pp. T. n. p. 244, has also the same. — xni. 31 ;
here the usual text of the Septuagint has a chasm : xccl oux gtfTi
Tou timt. ... for the Hebrew r*T>nDn mn px. The conjec-
ture of Lambert Bos that fAsn/aj is the true reading is strength-
ened by the Arabic : no one remains on their traces. What
he found in his Greek copy corresponding with in;?in::, I do
not venture to deterjnine, probably ^v ToTg 'ix^sdi, so that vnj^vn
was expressed, as in Prov. v. 6. — -xxi. 1 : here the usual text
for D^ *i3ir3 K»'D is, ro o^afxa TTjg sPTjfxou. Only the Cod. Mar-
chaL adds, ^ccXaddvig, and thus also the Arabic : prophecy to
ihe inhabitants of the desert near the sea. And the same read-
ing is also to be found in the Old Vulgate, visio deserii maris,
and in the commentaries of Theodoret and Procopius. — ^xxj.
13 ; the usual text is : ^v rw (5^|xcJ eC-^'t'^a^ xoi/xijS-rr, ^ Iv vfi 65w
AatSoiv, where both the tense of yoiiLri^-fig and the particle -^ are
unsuitable. Only the Cod. Marchal., Mediol in Sabatier, and
Gyrill of Alexandria (0pp. T. n. p. 312.) connect them and
read xoi/xti^Vt;. Thus also the Arabic, which besides places
here the words cfa^' sfxoi o»xsi from v. 12 : dwell with me in
the wood, thou wilt rest in the evening on the way to Dadan.
The Vulgate is still more accurate, according to the Hebrew :
i?i saltu ad vesperam dormietis, in via Daddn. — xlv. 9: here
the Septuagint is quite arbitrary : rroTov j3i\riov xarso'xsuafl'a ws
crrjXov xs^aiidus J M o cc^or^jwy d^or^iao'cj tyiv yr^v oXrjv t'/)v vj/xs^av
(probably conjectural from xxvni. 24.) The Arabic is, accord-
ing to the Hebrew : wo to him that quarrelleth with his ma-
ker, and doth not know that he is made of a potter'' s sherd. The
first member is according to Theodotion *, oua/ o x^miusvog ilsto.
coy ffXas'tfovTog auro'v ; in the second the intermediate Greek ver-
sion, (probably Symmachus, Aquila,) is lost to us, for Theodotion
also has here, dporpMv rovs dporpil^vrag <niv y^jv. — lxvi. 17 ; here the
Hebrew *]inD nnx nnx is expressed in the Septuagint merely by
4i# ON THE INTERPRETATION
h ToTs rpo^-upo/j, which the old Vulgate gives in the words, i«
liminibus. The Arabic follows a more complete text : before
the doors, and in the enclosed hedges, (septa sacra ?)-^-'TW
place LX. 5, has been already touched on above, when treating
of the Vulgate. — ix*. .6 : This is a case, worthy of notice, where^
a Christian doctrine, the divinity of Christ, is brought before
us. In this text, where the Vatican, followed by the old Vul-
gate, reads, very widely different from the original, xai xaXsu
Tai <ro ovo/xo^^ cturou, ixsyaXyis /SouXt^j ayyskos' ct|w Y^^ ^^p^VTjv iifl
roOff apxovra^, xal vyisiav ctuTw^ this Arabic version follows, as inf
general, the Alexandrine text : xaki(fst to &vo|xa avrou, jxe/aXiiffy
l^ov\^S ciyyskoeiy ^auy-atfTof, tfu|x/3ouXo&, «<''X"P°^ (^^)? i^ou(fia(fTr\g^
ot^wv iipriVTigy irarri^ vov /xsXXov-to? diwvo^. 'Eyoj ya^ a^w ^i^^vtjv xai
vyiav dvrov, which, through its exceedingly great completeness
and the union of the old reading with that of TheodotioOy
cannot at all be denied to be of Hexaplar origin, only instead
of iV^upos it expresses ^sos t^fx^pk. This reading, in whicb
^sos is plainly introduced, (for 113^ Sx is expressed by it^x^fosr
Ifourfiarfcin^,) is found in the Aldine and Complutensian texts,,
and with the fathers, who strenuously defended it, and cxie^
out against the Jews for corrupting the text.^**
♦fl Thus it is cited in the epistle of Ignatius (o the AntiocKJanSiT
cap, 3/ Irknaeus adv. Haeres. iv. 66 : et vocabitur nomen ejus, ad*
mirabilis, consiiiarius, Deus fortis cet. Eusebius Demon. Evan g. vii. p.
208, edit, Rob. Stefh., accompanied, however, by the observation, thai
it stands so only in some manuscripts. After Ire has quoted the ver-
sions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotiour be proceeds thus : iji'ii
*R0fetien<fmi*i viirl tow h^vfos Hk 9nfiix,tt^ <^<' ov anfiaiirtmi o 3-j(5;. T16X'
X«;^eu yatg tJJc yfa^'^t roiJ »\ htl too 3-»ey xemfvev, kha ti ToiifxiTd ^«'^*ff
iluioie$( nra.ftixin:ritr aart J*i«t' ret.6r)ts tj»c ^»»Iic it*t_^io( ^a^o/n^iTtfi te ytf'
tn^h ifJih TTAlS'ioi' fijutli Tdtvvv hu«, dr i/uaiprotfjitv,' ^tor J'vr«'rc>ytffJi>ivti/»f'
♦•r. In his commentary on this place he merely mentions the old coBOk
mon reading. Theodoket 0pp. T. ii. p. 235, edit, Schulze : «/t« T«r
iltfJtttTetv TO fAil^ov, Qtof lax^f^i' Tcuto eTi KttKWfyirtattt ht tetpl rer 'A«y-
Xay, Iv^fls S'vtATCK {}i>fAmtv<rav' Kilrm J'l Treipx <r» 'E^p-tim ixytfiei^' to /i
T^h S"Mf, ««t4 T»r Tovrav *f/x»iUAV' to y»^ /uiS-' nfAih o ©lof ^V-fitfJutitvix
xttfAtroy, iuTut ^/AMitvTctr.
• [ CoTELERlus, Ed. Ant. 1700, vol. il. p. 110, This ir one of tbr
supposititious epistlei . Tr. ]
OP tHE PROPHET ISAIAK, 445
Some instances of evident variations I should prefer as-
cribing to a somewhat free translation. For example, in vii.
20, the Septuagint, accordmg to the Alexandrine manuscript,
is, £v T^ ^u^w Tw fAsyaXw^ xai fjLSfXES-utffA^vw ; the Arabic, with his
great sharp rasor. This is an explanation of the poetic fh
gure, (which may have been interpreted by xxxiv. 5,) and is
found also in the Syriac, according to Ephraim's reading,
(fAr^JTfju, sharp,) in the Ghaldee, and in Saadias. — xxu. 3, o»
akovTSs (fxkri^dg ^g^sfisvoi liCr Arabic, and those who fall (name-
ly, into their hands,) zoill be harshly bound. — Sometimes he
entirely misunderstands the Greek text, an instance of which
occurs in xxvi. 14, imp" kS d^nsi, <aTPo< ov fxoi avatfT-^couCj. Here
the Vulgate has correctly, neque medici resuscitabunt (sc. mor-
tuum), but the Arabic version is, the physicians do not stand
up : a Greek gloss must therefore have been introduced, which
expressed the Hebrew imp', (perhaps by dvatfT^ovTaj.) In
other places his reading is no less erroneous than that of the
common text. This is the case in v. 17, where the Hebrew
D'^HD nnin is expressed by rag i^rj^iovs twv airgiXTifAixgvwv, (of those
who are taken or carried away,) which certainly can hardly
be right and founded on the Hebrew text. And the Arabic
is no better; the fragments of the threatened ; and the trans-
lator may have had before his eyes the reading in bad Greek
dweiXiiiui^vwv, (which occurs in the Cod. Alex.,) and have deriv-
ed it from d'jr'sjXc'w, which could give no such form, as it must
have made d'rsiXoufji.svwv. The true reading is, as I conjecture,
dflrnXsijXft^vwv, (which might easily be corrupted into difsukruu^s^
vwv, especially, if read according to the itacism,) from d'j^a^
Xg/(p6j, to wipe away, to destroy. The Septuagint translators
use this word in three places for the Hebrew nnn, (Gen. vi.
7. IV Kings, XXI. 13. Isa. xliv. 21,) from which they have
here deduced D'HD, which they may have read as if it had
been pointed D^np."'
4 7 BocHART, who, in his Hierozoicon, T. i. p. 524, edit. Lips., has
examined this place, wishes to read u7ra.\u<pofiiivav. In reference to the
verb this is admissible, but he gives no reasons for tlie alteration, and it
i« too remote from the letters of the word !n question. Rosenmullek
446 ON THE iNTERPRETATlDar
II. Interpretations of the Christian Fathers
AND OF the Jewish Rabbins.*
"Eotpbsitions of the Fathers.
Before the time of Origen, we find nothing in the father^/
except some occasional observations of a doctrinal kind, in-
tended to illustrate the places which are referred to the Mes-
siah, and these observations are generally of a polemical cha-
racter^ aad directed against the Jews. See the introduction
to ch. vii."^ From the age of Origen, whose works on Isaiah
arc almost entirely lost,"*^ to the middle of the fifth century^
endeavours to defend the usual reading : " instead of the allegorical^
the translator has given the proper reading, understanding by fat ones,
or furnished with marrow, (dTID.) rich persons carried away to foreigrt
countries." According to Schneider (Griech. WSrterb. lu 158,) aa-«/-
KiiufAyfii h derived also from aTf-toAo), equivalent to aTrti^u, to drire'inio
slrails^ io embarrass, and the Arabic translator may have used the pre-
sent reading, if he had had this derivation and meaning before his eyes.
But the knowledge of an ancient and unusual term is not to be taken
for granted in a translator of so modern a date.
* There is a very accurate list of the older commentaries uiitil the
year 1754 rn Calmkt's Bibl. Biblioth., and another in his Difctiopary of
the Bible.
4 Through tte limited diffusion of the N. T., and on account of
the very frequent discussions with the Jews, the most aricierit Chris-
tian writers attach an exti'aord'nary value to the proof-places from thd
O. T. See J. G. RosENMiJLLERi Hist. Interpretationis librorum sacro-*
rum inecclesia Christiana, Tom. i. p. 231, and compare Cramer, His*
toria sententiarum de sacra libronim V. T. auctoritate ad Chrislianoa
spectante. Lips. 1819. 4, Comment. 1. p. 32.
* t He had written on Isaiah in the three methods which were usual in
his time, that is to say, a commentary in 30 books, extending to xxx. G.,
Scholia, (o-»fi«»(ri/c,) and 25 Homilies. Some of the last are still ex-
tant. See Origenis Opera, Edit, de la Rue, T. hi. Orig. Comment.
Edit. HuET. Rothomagi, 1668. Hieron. Praef. ad Jes. He is, most
probably, the source from which many interpreters have drawn, and
or THE PROPHET ISAIAH. 447
(for after this period interpreters merely compiled from the
works of their predecessors,) we meet with a small succes-
sion of commentators among the fathers, all of whom unite
in making the received version the subject of their interpre-
tations, and, with the exception of Jerome, in betraying an
almost total ignorance of the original" text. They find, also,
numerous definite prophecies relating to the' New Testament
and later Christian periods, and add to the historical sense an
allegorical and mystical one, which they, in a greater or less
degree, consider as the principal meaning. In the interpreta-
tions advanced remarkable agreement appears conspicuous in
all these commentators, because the later made so much use
of the earlier.''^ Still, however, their importance is not con-
fined to the aid they afford to the history of interpretation,
and to the materials which they add to the documents of the
times ; the modern critic may discover among them grains
of gold. With regard to the more remarkable proof-places
which relate to doctrine, it is necessary, in addition to those
writers who are professedly exegetical, to examine also the
dogmatic and apologetic works, because such places are
generally treated in them much more extensively.
1. Among the Greek Fathers the first who followed the
steps of Origen was Eusebius, whose 'X-n-o.avTjjAaTa hg 'Hrfaiav
was first made public by Montfau^on/* He had the Hexa-
pla before him ; he compares very largely Aquila, Symma-
chus, and Theodotion with the Septuagint, and connects the
particularly Jerome. — Olher expositors, now lost, are, Didtmus, who
explained xl — lxvi. in 18 volumes, and Apollinarics, who merely gave
brief views of the contents, (See Jer. Praef.) also Eusebius of Emesa,
and Theodorus of Heraclea, who are cited in the Catenae. See Mont-
FAUCONT, Coll. Nov. Patrum, T. n. p. 350.
4 « See, for example, Cyrill, Theodoret, Jerome, Ephraem Syrus,
on^vi. 1, 3. vii. 14, where the agreement is almost verbal. Coiiip,
Note 58.
4 Bern, de Mostfau^on, Coll. nova palrum et Scriptorura Graeco-
rum (Paris, 1706, ii Tom. fol.) T. i. p. 357 ss. with an introduction.
Very many passages are also illustrated in the Dempnstrntio Evapgeliv
^a, especially in the 7th and 9th books.
448 ON THE INTERPRETATION
literal interpretation with the ailegoriGal, although he pro-
fesses to consider the former as his principal object.^ Some-
times he coincides with Jewish interpretations, as, for ex-
ample, on vn. 8, and at others he controverts them, as on
V. 20. Like most of the fathers, he is fond of tracing in his-
tory the accomplishment of every portion of predictions how-
ever minute, and-hence the real historical point of view is, of
course, entirely lost.^^ The commentary of Eusebius is very
extensively used, and is in fact transcribed in an exposition of
1 — XVI, attributed to Basil the great, who died in the year
io Jerome, on xviii. 1, says of him ; "Eusebius of Caesarea, after
he had pledged himself in his title to give a historical interpretation,
runs out into various senses, and upon reading his work, I found it very
different from what the title promised. For whenever history fails him,
he passes on to allegory, and connects subjects which have no affinity in
such a way, that I am surprised at his joining together in a novel man-
ner of discourse stone and iron in one " mass." In truth, however,
Jerome himself does not succeed much better ; only he generally makes
a distinction between the literal sense and the tropical.
* 1 Wherever any thing occurs which relates to destruction, he un-
derstands it of the Roman devastations under Titus, as in i. 5 ss. xix. 2,
refers to the introduction of Christianity into Egypt, and the difficulties
and contentions which arose ; vi. 9, 10, to the obduracy of the Jews in
the time of Christ. In the present day, we should certainly consider
many of these applications as irrelative ; as, for example, that of in. 4,
to the childish folly of the Rabbins and Jewish leaders, that of xviir. 1,
(after Symmachus,) to the Jewish emissaries and proselyte-makers, that
of XIX. 1, to Christ's journey into Kgypt, where the light cloud is the
body of Christ himself born of the virgin. Some of these interpreta-
tions, however, contain historical information of real utility. Thus, from
XLiv. 5, we learn, that the Gentile Christians, when they suttered mar-
tyrdom, were accustomed to give themselves scriptural names ; from
XLix. 23, that the secular officers of the provinces, who had formerly
persecuted the Christians, then, at the emperor's command, bent them-
selves and bowed the knee in the churches with profound humility, and
were attentive in supplying the wants of the spiritual. — It is not unim-
poi'tant in reference to the history of doctrines, that no mention is made
of the Trinity in vi. 3, the threefold repetition being understood as indi-
cative of emphasis. [ And as this repetition may very well be thus ex-
plained, (comp. Jer. xxn. 29. Ezek. xxi. 27,) the omission to notice the
doctrine of the Trinity can hardly be adduced as evidence that Eusebius
did not believe it. That it was the doctrine of the church i?i his day ts
wodeniablc. Tr ]
t
Of TU£ PROPHET ISAIAH. 449
"^79.* The genuineness of this work, however, which in an
early period was doubted, has been denied in our own time
for reasons of no slight weight ; and both on account of its
tediousness and of its contents, which are, for the most part,
of a moral and allegorical character, it has but little valuc.^
The interpretation (l^/x^jvsia,) which Chrysostom has left of
the first eight chapters is preferable, to which may be added
six homilies on vi. 1.^ The commentary of Cyrill of Alex-
andria, who died in the year 444, is not so tiresome as that
of the same writer on the Pentateuch, but, notwithstanding
all its prolixity, (it occupies a tolerably large folio volume,) it
contains but little that is really solid and to the purpose. Yet
be has not altogether neglected the literal explanation of the
Septuagint, (which he seems to have cited according to the
text antecedent to the time of Origen,) and the grammatical
application of the Jewish history ; but of the other versions
he makes no use at all.^ But all the other writers in the
Greek church are inferior to Cyrill's cotemporary, Theodo-
RET, who was suspected of heterodoxy, and who died in the
year 457. The substance of his commentaries on Isaiah has
been published by John Sirmond from the Catenae, yet so
that some parts of them seem to belong to Theodore of
Mopsuestia.^* The reader will find here all that can be ex-
* [Cave, in his literary history, vol. i- p. 239, says^ about the year
370. Tr.]
5 2 See the writer of the CatenaR, John Drungar in Montfauqon'»
Nova Coll. r. n. p. 351. Then, particularly Garnier's Praef. in T. i.
Opp. Basilii Mag. p. 47 — 63. The exposition is in T. i. pp. 378 — 617,
Opp. Edit. Garnier.
S3 See Tom. i. p. 1016, T. v. p. 127, Edit. Savill. [T. vi. Edit.
Mont. ] Some of the homilies are considered as spurious. See SixTi
Sinensis, Bibl. s. iv. p 326.
5 4 CyRiLLi Alex. Opp. T. ii. Edit. Aubert (Lutet. 1638, fol.) Com-
pare RosENMiJLLKRi Hist. IV. 142 ss., Schroeckh's Kirchcngeschichte
xvM\. S. 327. He generally coincides with the Vatican manuscript
against the Alexandrine, as, for example, in that principal text ix. 6,
whereby he loses the important proof-place for Christ's divinity.
« 5 Sec Theod. Opp- Ed. Sirmond, T. it. and Edit. J. L. Schultzt
'Halae, 1770, 8vo.) T= ii. pp. 165—400. Compare Cayc, Jlist
57
450 ON THK INTERFRETATIGN
pected, in a commentator on the Septuagint merely, and in
the condition of biblical interpretation at that period ; viz.
historical and philological illustrations drawn from the other
books of Scripture, analogous figures and scriptural represen-
tations, and frequent comparisons of the other Greek ver-
sions. The ?iuthor confines himself to the Alexandrine text
of the Septuagint, refers to the Hebrew only in difficult and
classic places, (see p. 105 on ix. 6 ;) but sometimes he uses
even the Syriac, as, for example, on vui. 21. (Comp. also on
Dan. viii. 23.) That in certain places, however, as vii. ix.
XI. uii. no historical interpretation is to be expected, but only
a prophetical one, is in no degree surprising. — The commen-
tary of Procopius of Gaza, a teacher of eloquence in the
-6th century, brings into one view the best of the old Greek
expositors, and may therefore be called a Catena, although he
adds also original observations. It is of importance for the
criticism of the Septuagint and of the other Greek ver-
sions.*^ Of the later catenae on Isaiah nothing has been
printed.^''
2. Of the Latin church, we have only one single commen-
tary extant, that of Jerome, in IS books, written in the year
410. See on vi. 1. But on account of its copiousness, and be-
cause it is the only one which goes back to the Hebrew text.
Lit. Scrip. Eccles. p. 225, and Schultze's Praef. ad T. i. The
complete commentary is to be found, according to the notice con-
tained in catalogues, in some Italian libraries, and yet the Halle editor
troubled himself to no purpose, either to get possession of it, or to obtain
any certain account of it. See Praef. ad T. n. pp. 8— 11. Respecting The-
odoret as an interpreter generally, compare Rosenmttlier, ubi sup. iv,
p. 38ss.
s « Procopii Gazaei variorum in Esaiam prophetam commentario-
rum epitome, Graece et Latine edit. Jo. Curtkrios, Paris. 1580, fol.
comp. RosEKMULLER ubi sup. IV. p. 234 ss., Sghroeckb, XVII. p. 530,
Simon Bibl. crit. (Amstelsd. 1708, 12mo.) T. i. p. 179, and Lettrcs
chobies, iv. p. 122 ss.
See the notices in Fabrich Bib. Graec. voL vh. cap. 17, p. 764.
Respecting a catena of John Drungar, (^laaffn: tji; Afovyyaflms,) set
MoNTFAucoN, Collect. F&tv. li. pp. 350, 353 •
OF THE PROPHET ISAIAH. 451
it is the most important of all.® Much of it is borrowed from
Eusebius, and in part hterally translated,^ and probably much
more from Origen. He adds the commentary to his own
translation, which he had published before, and which he
illustrates, philologically, historically and tropologically. The
philological or critical part of his illustration consists in this,
that he often gives the variations in the Septuagint, in the
three other Greek translations, and in the old Vulgate, and then
goes back to the Hebrew for explanations, which are certainly
of very unequal tenor and value. He is particularly remark-
able for frequently advancing the most forced etymology of
proper names, in order to support a mystical signification.^'^
5 8 It is in HiERON. Opp. T.v. Edit. Francof. T. iii. Kdit. Martianjei,
T. iv. Edit. Vallars. Compare (Engelstoft) Hieronymus interpres,
criticus, exegeta, apologeta, cet. (Hauniae, 1787, 8vo.) pp. 129 ss., from
which the view given by ^osenmijller, ubi sup. m. pp. 345 ss., is taken,
and my Geschichte der Hebr. Sprache, S. 92. Jerome mentions as his
predecessor in the Latin chur .\ (Praef. ad Jes.) th - martyr Victorinus,
whom he names as not eloquent, but learned, etsi imperitum sermone,
non tamen scientia. i
5 9 Comp. Eusebius and Jerowe on i. 8, 17, 21. iii. 4, 12 v. 13. vi.
11. vn. 15, 18. XI. 3, 7. xn. 1. xvii. 1, 6. xix. 1, 12, 18, 19, 23, &c.,
M0NTFAU90N, in his notes on Eusebius, has noticed many places.
6 Some examples of good and important philological expositions are
the following: On the word ny|-| in i: 1. '* Nou solum autem hicpropheta,
sed et alii, cum habeant in titulo, visio quara t i' Esaias sive Abdias,
non inferunt qiiiae viderint, v. o. vidi dominum Sabaoth, cet, sed quae
dicta sunt, narrant, id est : * audi ccelum et ausculta terra.' Prophet®
enim prius dicebantur tirfenfcs, cet." He means to say, that u-v^^ does
not apply merely to visions, as in ch, vi. but also to oracular declara-
tions. See afterwards on the paronomasia in v. 7, on vik> >»»> for
land in xiii. 5, and S^n '^^ *'''^- ^1' ^^r Babylon. But along with these
illustrations we find others so wretched and doubtful, and only half true or
not at all so, as to raakehisstatementsof but little value. Thuson vii. 12,
he says : " Juxta Hebraei sermonis ambiguitatera pro non tentabo Dom-
inum possit le^i non-ezaUabo Dominum. He refers to a commutation of
nOJ *"<^ ^flSfy ^° ^'"' ^"^J ^^ ^^^^ explains alma by " virgo abscondUa
et secreta, quae nunquam virorum patuerit aspectibus, sed magna pa-
rentum diligentia custodita sit ;" contrary to the usage of language and
from a false etymology, although admitted by modern writers. Ifirome
proceeds further: "Lingua quoque Punica, ae de Hebraeorum fonti-
bus manare dicitur, proprie virgo alma appellatur," Importance has
452 O^ THE INTEnrREtATlOTsr
In a historical point of view, he has this great fault, that hef
can scarcely ever place himself in the circumstances and feej
the relations of the period of which he is writing, that he con-*
siders every place as if it were disjoined from the others, en-*
tirely confounds delineations of the present and predictions
of the future, and is too much inchned to refer the latter to re-
mote periods." He frequently adds, moreover, illustrations
and traditions, which had been communicated to him by his
Rabbinical instructor, and which are found again in the Rab-
bins, as a proof of a constant tradition.''^ From his remarks
been attached to this remark, but let us read further: "Et ut risum
praebeamus Judffiis, nostro quoque sermone alma sancta dicitur, omm-
Mm pene linguarum verbis utuntur Hebraei. Ut et illud in Cantico
Canticorum de Grajco <|>c5«toj» (pnD{<> m- 9 ) id est ferculum sibi fecit
iSalomo, quod et in Hebraeo ita legimus. Verbura quoque n»ga5[»j^3
!Zeph. ni. 18. those that are removed, ] etmensuram (n'l^B'P. o, measure,)
Hebraei eodem modo et iisdem usurpant sensibus" (?). Compare xin.
1, on X5i^73» which he translates ont*5, because itconsistsmerely of burden-
some predictions, and such as bring- destruction ; also others of the same
sort. The remark which is made on ii. 16. is given merely as Jewish
opinion, but certainly it is without the least weight : <' Hebraji putant^
lingua propria sua mare tarsis appellari, quando autem dicitur jam, non
hebraico sermone appellari, sed Syriaco. Comp. f'j*; .
Unfortunate etymologies are these : *' Mizraim, d-ht^ova-tt, iribulans,
XIX. 1 ; Memphis, I.e. os, ex ore^ ("cj |^, readmemp/ii;) Canaan, commotio
or quasi respondens, xix. 18; Hierusaletn^ i. e. visiopacis, i. 1; Basan,
i. e. etia-x'JV}!. Many of these are probably taken from Philo's significa-
tions of scriptural names, which Origen and Jerome afterwards trans-
lated. See my Geschichte der Hebr. Spr. S. 83. They are too poor to
be attributed to Jerome's Hebrew teacher.
Jerome has, moreover, written the Hebrew words in Latin characters,
and hence some editions have attached an erroneous punctuation to the
Hebrew writing. See Simon, Lettrcs choisies, T. r. p. 301, and com-
pare ep. 20 ad Damasura.
« » Thus he refers i. 5 — 7 to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, n-
8, to the condition of JElia Capitolina, the corrupters of wine, i. 22, to
the Pharisees and heretics ; the new judges, i. 26, to the Apostles; ii.
4, to the peace which prevailed in the Roman empire at the time of
Christ. Comp. Luther's judgment respecting such historical exposi-
tions, in $ 9. So much less value should we attach to his opinion with
respect to the arrangement of the Collection. See Einleit, S. I&. [ § 3. 1
fl2 Se^ on I. 10. VI. 1. vii. 8. xiii. 10. xiv. 19, xx. 6. Something of
this sort is found in Eusebius, for example, on vn. 8. But when there is
I
at TftE fROPHET ISAlArf.
45S
ulso which relate to geography and antiquities, most valuable
information may be obtained.*^ But altogether insipid is his
allegorical and mystical interpretation, (" tropologia,") the
greater part of which he probably borrowed from Origen, re-
specting the value of which he expresses, with his usual in-
consistency, very different opinions, but which nevertheless
he seems to estimate very highly, and to consider as the most
important.^* His mode of treatment also is very dissimilar.
Sometimes he gives almost exclusively historical interpreta-
tions, as, for instance on xui. 14, and sometimes nothing but
tropological, as on xix. ; so that the reader can hardly believe
that he has only one writer before him. A multitude of these
interpretations relate to views and circumstances, which be-
long to events connected with Christianity .«*
any opposition to Christian vieWs, he contends the point with earnest-
ness. See, for instance, ii. 22. ,
8 3 See on dx^ in xix. 7, on ^u^-oc in xix. 10, and on the state of Baby-
lon in xni, at the end. On the other hand, it is extraordinary that he
should identify Rebla in xiii. 1, with Antioch
« * l^raef. ; *' Post historia) veritatera spiritualiter accipienda sunt om-
nia: et sic Judaea et Jerusalem, Babylon et Philistim, Moab et Damas-
cus, ^gyptus et desertum mare, Idumaea et Arabia, ac valiis Sion vel
vallis visionis et ad extremum Tyrus et visio quadrupedum (xxx. 6.) in-
telligenda sunt, ut cuncta quaeramus in sensu: et in omnibus his, quasi
sapiens Faulus Apostolus jaciatfundamentum, quod non est aliud, v as-
ter Christum Jesum." On xiv. 1, 2, he calls the historical interpretation
which he had given, an ea^g of dust in the manner of the serpent, " in
modum serpentis terrain comedo.^' On the contrary, xui. 19, and vii. 11,
he expresses himself thus: " Legi in cujusdam commentariis hunc locum
per allegoriam extenuatam, sed nos elixas agni carnes non comedimas,
verum assas: et quae in nobis possint omnes voluptatum siccare pituitas,
re sacramentum fidei nostrae, dum plus sapimus, quam oportet sapere,
negligamus."
6* The firebrands in vii. 4, show him the wisdom of this world,
philosophy and hereby, the euH of which is burning ^in hell); in vii. 6,
Marcion is denoted, who wished to set the son of the^oorf God ("7K2£3)
••: IT
for his Christ, but whose attempt proved abortive. By Egypt in ch.
XIX. we are not to understand the country of that name, for then much
of the prophecy would not be appropriate, as, for instance v. 24, but it
should be explained of the wicked world and sinful spirit o£ the age.
454 ON THE lNTERPRETATlQJ<f
3. On the Syriac version we have a commentary in the
same language by the celebrated Ephraim, the Syrian, who died
A. D. 378.^ Although his expositions are brief and not in
all respects complete, yet, so far as relates to a correct appre-*
hension of the historic sense, he is far superior to his prede-
cessors in the Greek church, which no doubt was greatly ow-
ing to the superiority of the translation that was the subject
of his commentary. Like Jerome, he usually gives, in the
first place, and where the passages do not relate to the Mes-
siah, simply the historic sense, to which he then adds the pro-
phetic. Some examples from Vn — ix^ may be sufficient to
show his manner.
On the words in vn. 15, " before the child shall know to
distinguish between good and evil, the land shall be forsaken,
&c." he comments thus : " also the land was really forsaken
by the two kings. But he rather intends to declaie, that the
country, that is, the Jewish nation, was forsaken, previously to
the time when the son of Mary was able to distinguish good
from evil." Herehejias in mind the fact, that the Jews were,
at the time of Christ's birth, in subjection to the Romans, and
obliged to pay capitation-tax.
On VIII. 1, " write thereon with a man's pen," (in the Sy-
riac, '* a man's writing/') he remarks : " that is, not with
writing which is hard to be read, but make the strokes dis^
tinct, so that they may be clearly seen ; thus write it with a
man's writing, that is, such as shall be clear and intelligible to
every man." *
On V. 4 : " Before the. son of Isllah shall be old enough to
call father and mother, Tiglathpileser shall come, and put to
death Rezin, king of Damascus, and in a short time, in the
days of Pekah, will lead away captive the Samaritans."
and the light cloud r. 1, of the body of the holy virgin Mary» which
carried Christ, in ord " lo conquer them.
c The commentary on Isaiah may be found in T. n. pp. 20 — 97 of
the edition of his works by the three Maronites J., S., and St. Ev. Asse-
kjlk, and JPetek Benedict, published at Rome, 1732 — 46, in 6 vols. fol.
The Latin translation is in the second volume by the last named scholar,
and is rather a free paraphrase. With a ^ood deal of extraneons matter.
OF TU£ PROPHET ISAlAH. 455
On IK. 6 : ** A child is born to us, a son is given to us." — •
Although some parts of what is here said" (meaning, of what
follows,) " apply to ilezekiah, yet there are other parts which
are not applicable to him. And even in those which do ap-
ply to him, there is reference to the mysteries of his Lord,
who should appear in his land." Afterwards, on the appella-
tion, prince of peace : " this applies to Hezekiah, on account
of his mildness. The increase of his government refers to the
prolongation of his' life (Is. xxxvui. 5.), and the perpetuity of
peace applies to our Lord (Christ).
V. 7 ; " Even for ever. This is to be understood as in the
salutation, let my lord, the king, live forever." See Neh. n.
3. Dan. n. 4. He means to say, that it signifies a long time,
and is not to be taken literally.
From the total want of all definite principles of interpre-
tation, the reader will find, along with these interpretations
jof the better class,* some others which are certainly of the
most extravagant kind. For example, he refers the moun?
tain, mentioned m ii. 2, to Golgotha, consecrated by the death
of Christ, the union of the wolf and lamb, in xi. 6, to the
Christian church, the wolf denoting heretics, and xi. 7, to the
common enjoyment of the body of Christ in the eucharist,
— " The lion eats straw like the ox : this teaches us, that the
righteous along with the sinful will eat of the living body on
the altar."
In this commentary fragments of other Syriac interpreters
are occasionally interpolated, as, for instance, that of St. Ja-
cob in VI. 7. These are usually in'the spirit of the interpre-
tations last quoted.^'
* [ The looseness of the author's principles on the subject of pro-
phecy, would lead him to consider as most correct, those illustrations,
which limited the prophet's views to events nearly or quite contempo-
raneous with his own age. This remark may serve as a caution to the read-
er, and dispose him to qualify some of the author's observations. Tr. ]
• T la what spirit the Abbot Joachim, who died A. D. 1202, and who
was so renowned for his apocalyptic dreams, and the holy Thomas
A<ltjisAs must have commented on Isaiah, may be judied- of from the
45<J ON THK JHTEHrRETATlON
Rabbinical Expositions.
A second class of the old expositors is formed by the Rab-
bins. Although these writers began to be distinguished and
flourished principally from the 12th to the 15th century, yet,
in addition to their own views, they contain ihose of the
more ancient interpreters, as is proved by the coincidence of
their illustrations with what the fathers have occasionally
given from Jewish expositions. All of them are superior to
the fathers as grammatical and historical commentators, and
the weak and exceedingly tasteless allegorical and cabbalisti-
cal manner of expounding which distinguished the earlier
ages, begins with many of them to give place to an improved
system of interpretation/'
1. The way to such a method of explaining scripture was
opened in the latter half of the li2th century by the two co-
temporaries, Jarchi (Rashi) and Aben Ezra, both of whom
composed complete commentaries on the Old Testament.
The.former^^ adheres closely to the Chaldee version, which
is generally his guide in showing the sense. He gives also
historical illustrations, and for the most part follows those,
however insipid, v^hich tradition had sanctioned. As he was
a strong Talmudist, these were very familiar to him, and he
does not rise above them. He frequently gives the corres-
known character of these men, their education, learning, habits of
tliought, and whole mental constitution. The exposition of the former
was printed at Cologn in 1577, 4to, and that of the latter at Lyons in
1531.
« 9 See particularly Aben Ezra's Preface to the Pentateuch, and
compare Simon's Hist. Crit. du V. T. L. in c. 3.
6 His work is coiitained in Buxtorf 's Rabbinical Bible (Basil. 1618,
1619, 4 vol, fol.) aloog the margin of the Hebrew and Chaldee texts.
It was printed also at Thessalonica in 1600, and at Verona in 1661.
OF THE FROPHET JSAIAH. 457
ponding words in his vernacular tongue, the French, which,
as they are written in Hebrew characters, are often extreme-
ly puzzling. *° He is also in other respects sometimes ob-
scure, so that the very careful Latin translation which has
been made of his work, and which is accompanied by learn-
ed annotations, is a very acceptable assistance.'' — Far supe-
rior to him is Ahen Ezra^^ in respect to independence of
mind, freedom from prejudice, correct exegetical views, and
thorough knowledge of the language. Although he does not
reject the use of traditional interpretations, and generally
touches the prejudices of his people with caution, yet every
where the reflecting grammatical and historical interpreter
shows himself, and as such he stands unrivalled in his nation.
He is acquainted also with the Arabic language, which he
often happily employs to throw light on the Hebrew."^
As no accurate representation of the different character
of these commentators can be obtained from the quotations
6f particular passages which are made in the commentary
that follows this introduction, I will here present to the reader
the most important remarks of both on chap. vi. 1 — 6, and
vn. 1 — 9, in order to enable him to make a comparison.
Jarchi.
VI. 1. The year of Uzziah's death is the year in which he
became leprous. God sat on his throne in heaven, and his
feet were placed upon the ark of the covenant in the tern-
10 For example, TB^ID poser, JJ'JirtD and 1^31 rt3 tisohs, l3Jty"i:JX
engraissant, jyifl'^3 brosses.
7 « R. SALomoNis Jarchi, ''^-> dicti, commentarius Hebraicus, in
propbetas majores et minores, ut et Jobum et Psalmos, Latine versus at-
que notis criiicis et philologicis illustratus, a Jo. Frid. Breithau1»t
Gothae, 1713. 4to.
7a Printed in Buxtorf's Bible vol. m. fol. 511 — 520 after IsaiaH;
also separately at Venice in 1526, fol., and at Basil in 1619.
7 3 He is not here, however, to be implicitly trusted. J^ee on v. <?,
and comp. in. 9.
58
458 ON THK interpiie'i;atk>n
pie. He sat to pronounce sentence on Uzziah. — '2. The Se-
raphim stood S^sp, that is, in heaven, )\ in order to serve
him. The covering of the feet was done from modesty, that
the whole body should not be exposed. — 3. One cried to the
other : that is, they gave each other (the more exalted angels
gave to the lower) the permission to begin, that one should
not begin before the other, and the burning be faulty. (In
the Synagogues something like this took place.) The three-
fold holy is to be illustrated after the Targum. — 4. nT^j* is
used for the posts, because they were measured with the cu-
bit, rvpv. The quaking of the threshold refers to the earth-
quake which God sent in the time of Uzziah, (Zech. xiv. 5,)
as a punishment on account of his sins. — 5. ^n^Dn:, comp.
Judg. xui. 22. Zeph. i. 11. Of unclean lips, that is, defiled
by sins. — 6. nsx"^ and •']?f*i occur here, and in i Kings xix. 6,
in Elijah ; in other places it is written with w. Whence comes
the -a ? This is used in Isaiah and Elijah, in places where
they bring unfounded accusations (N^noSn delatoria) against
Israel. Wherefore God spoke to an angel : ' smite (vi^'^)
the mouth of this prophet.' Hence the y (! ! !). — 7. The
touch with the coal must be chastisement. But what was the
prophet's strength, that the coal, which the angel was obliged
to take up with the tongs, could be applied to his mouth with-
out injuring him ! In Tanchuma it is : stronger than the an-
gels are they who do his word, these are the prophets. — 8.
Whom shall 1 send ? I have, saith God, sent Amos, but the
Jews called him a stutterer, because he had a stammering
tongue. (See Rashi on Amos vii. 14.)
vu. 1. Why is the genealogy of Ahaz placed here ? The
scripture intends us to understand, that God has delivered
him on account of his pious ancestors. Because he himself
was irreligious, he is not mentioned in v. 2, but the house of
David, — 2. r\ry^ is feminine, in reference to noS?. He was
the more terrified, because he had already sustarned a defeat.
See n Chron. xxvni. 6. It is said in Bereshit Rabba, that
the unproductive trees are more agitated than the fruitful.
—3. ii'2 aiB?^ iNB^, the remainder, who will become converted
OP THE PROPHET ISAIAH. 459
by means of Isaiah, they shall be my children. Fuller* s field;
after Jonathan. The Rabbins say, that Ahaz humbled him-
self before Isaiah, because he had covered over his head
with a fuller* s lie strainer. Sanhed. fol. 104, 1. — 4. "^OBfn,
that is, be at rest, like wine on its lees, {'"^^^* "iV,) — 6. nr^^p3»
we will excite them by war, n:;?*pD3, we will make it even,
like a plain, (nrp3,) that they, like us, may be subjected to
one king. Ben Tabel : according to Jonathan, the son that
pleases us ('Sx did) ; it may also be explained thus : who is
not good in the sight of God. According to the Gematry?
Tabel is Albam, equivalent to kSd"«, thus : the son of Remlus.
— 8. For the computation of the sixty-five years see the
commentary in loc.
Aben Ezra.
VI. 1. The ancients tell us, that death is here put for leprosy,
and understand it of the leprosy of Uzziah which was inflict-
ed on him as a punishment for burning incense. But it may
be explained, according to the literal meaning of the word,
of Isaiah's beginning to prophecy in the last year of Uzziah's
life : and then this will be the first prophecy. The train is
that belonging to the throne, for it is usual with kings to
spread long vestments over their thrones. — 2. Seraphim
(burning ones) : these are so called, because they burned his
mouth. )h SV3p is equivalent to r^r around him, on the right
and left, as is the practice with great kings. The covering of
the face is to be taken as that of the feet in Moses, (Ex. xxxiii.
22.) it is a mark of honour. — 3. It must not be concluded
from r?! ha nr, that there were only two of them ; there are
many. The threefold repetition signifies, that they constantly
thus cried, as in Jer. vn. 4, xxn. 29, mn^ hyn and yij«
are three times repealed. — 4. It is to be observed that u^^^i^is
in the past time, and Ji-p; in the future, as is usual with He-
brew writers, for the sake of elegance (?). — 5. *n^DiJ is syno-
nymus with ''Pf^^h He applies the phrase, of unclean lips, to
the people, who were impure in language and conduct. — 6.
460 OS THE INTERrREf ATION
s]^ with Kamei^'Chatuph from =)^j?, c|iri from *)*j?. Pure, not
ordinary fire, was upon the altar. — ^7. The sin of the prophet,
which was expiated, consisted of sinful words, since he had
spoken as men of the world. — 8. ijS iV 'o is spoken by Je-
hovah to the Seraphs ; hence the plural u*?. — ^We see also
from what is said, that this must be the first oracle, because
before it the prophet was unclean.
vii. 1. hy vh refers to Rezin. Comp. ;:;. 3. — % Ephraim
stands for the kingdom of the ten tribes, because the kings
were originally taken from this tribe. — 3. Shear Jashub is the
name of the prophet's son, as I explain it, (lyiQX njsrxD.) The
derivation of pa from yn is ungrammatical, — 4. '^pii''7 (•^*^^«)
means : remain on thy lees ; but "io'^>n [Milel) has the signifi-
cation of, watch, preserve. — 6. The son of Tabeel : some say
that this stands for xSd-), but this is trifling. The truth is, it is
the name of some Syrian or Israelitish nobleman.
This may be sufficient to show% how little honour it does to
the taste and judgment of the Jews, when they prefer the su-
perstitious and often trifling Jarchi to the clear thinking and
investigating Aben Ezra.
3. Much more extensive than both these writers is the com-
mentary of D .viD KiMCHi on the prophets.^* He flourished
about ten years later, and endeavours to unite the most im-
portant matter of both his predecessors. To grammatical il-
lustration he adds various meanings, and introduces prolix
^controversial questions, without any connexion, on points of
history and doctrine. His work contains also several polemic
places directed against the Christians, whom he calls D^rp, he-
retics, against whom he probably inherited a hatred from his
father, Joseph Kimchi, who was the author of many contro-
versial works. These places are usually suppressed in the
printed editions by the censor, and in manuscripts they are
"7 4 His commentary is printed in the Rabbinical Bibles of Bomberg
and BuxToRF, on the margin of the text. Wolf has given a list of the
various editions. See Bibl Heb. T. i. p. 301. A Latin translation of
the Commentary on Isaiah by C«sar Maxajtimeus appeared at Florence*
?n 1774
p
or THE PROPHET ISAIAU. 461
in part erased, both by the Christians through polemic zeal,
and by the Jews themselves through fear of the inquisitorial
and other persecutions. Such places in Isaiah are, ii. 18,
where the Christians are called idolators, because they wor-
ship the image of Christ; xxv 3. xxvi. 5. xxxiv. 1, ss. lxui.
1, ss., where Edom, devoted to destruction, is explained of
Rome, the chief city of Christendom ; xlix. 6. lui. 1, ss. vii.
14, ss., where the reference to Christ is opposed; lavi. 17,
where the self-consecration of the idolators is applied to the
sign of the cross made by Christians, who are also identified
with the eaters of swine's flesh. It is, at the same time, evi-
dent from this, that his exposition must, in part, have deserted
the station of history. In the philological observations of his
father, the Arabic is frequently employed.
In proof of what has been said, it may be proper to intro-
duce here some of the places which are entirely suppressed
in the printed editions. On xlix. 6, he remarks thus : " With
regard to the Christians, who explain this verse of him that
was crucified, saying, that he is a light of the nations, because
he hath enlightened the eyes of the nations even to the ends of
the earth ; tell them, that if he were a God he had not been
a servant. As it is further said, my God is my strength^ he
had no strength of himself, and consequently was not God.
And how has he also enlightened by his faith the eyes of the
nations to the ends of the earth, while a large proportion of
the nations remain who have not received his faith, the
Israelites and Ishmaelites." The Pisaro edition adds : and
again, as he says, God is his strength, to deliver him from the
hand of his enemies, lo ! he has not been yet delivered, nor
preserved from the power of his enemies, who aimed at his
life, and brought evil upon him.
7 5 PococKB has pointed out and supplied these places, as far as re»
lates to the prophets, partly from the edition printed at Pesaro in 1515,
and partly from two Oxford manuscripts. See Not. ad Portam Moais,
pp. 318 — 343. In the editions and in other manuscripts the Persians and
Samaritans are sometimes introduced instead of the Christians and Ma-
Hommcdans
40^ ON THE INTERPRETATION
On Liii. 1, [lti. 13,] it runs as follows : To the Christians,
who explain this of the crucified, you must answer, — how can
k be said : he shall be blessed, exalted and extolled, and very
high ? As man he was not elevated and exalted, [ except on
the wood to which he was fastened ;* ] as God he was so from
the beginning. But it says also ; )D^ ;rij, (r. 8.) Here it
must mean i^, for loS is equivalent to '-nS, and plural/^ — It
is ; he shall see posterity, {v. 10.) As man he had no posterity ;
and if this be interpreted of the divinity, and posterity be ex-
plained by followers or disciples, this is contrary to usage, for
disciples are never called sons.'' But God has no posterity.
Further we read : he shall live long (ubi sup.) As man he
did not live long. But could it be said of him as God, that
long life should be granted him as a reward ? does not his life
continue from everlasting to everlasting. — Lastly, {v. 12 ;) he
made intercession for the trangressors. But were he God
himself, to whom could he direct his intercession ?
The same bitter and open hostility to Christianity is found
also in the commentary of Don Isaac Abarbenel, compos-
ed about the year 1496,'^ the most extensive and also the most
* This clause is wanting in the Pisaro edition.
7 6 KiMCHi, forgetting himself, contradicts this remark in another
work. See his Heb. Gram. fol. 266. pag. 1. Ed. Venet. 8.
7 7 Maimonides very justly opposes this, appealing, among other ex-
pressions, to this, D'X'^jn ''}2f sons of the prophets. See Pococke
ubi sup. p. 433. The very same trope is used, when, in the present day,
Christians are called in the East, [ -^vj.aa».+)) cjj^Ji,/o oo« ] those who
are of the rare of Christ. See Steph.'Schultz in the Collection of
Travels, by Paulus, vu. p. 49.
7 8 On Abarbenel, see the article Abrabanele. by J. M. Hartmann in
the Hall. Encyclopadie, i. s. 150 ff. The commentary on the prophets
was printed at Pesaro in 1520, fol., and at Amsterdam in 1641, fol. under
the title: '7X32"13i< pnr |n . . . "l^HrD D^HN D'i<'3J hp B^n'S. A
Latin translation by Jo. Henr. Maids appeared at Frankfort in 1711,
4to., and an earlier one at Amsterdnm in 1641, fol. Only the veiy rare
edition of Pesaro contains the passages against the Christians, (see de
Rossi, Bibliotheca Judaica Antichristiana, p. 7, ss.) in opposition to
which many writers, as Dantz, Constantine L'Empereur, A. Pfeif-
FEE, and others, have defended the more ancient, and often unhistorical
'doctrine and interpretation.— An examination of all the places of Isaiab
OF THE PROPHET ISAIAH. 463
tedious of all. Peculiar to him is that tiresome manner, like
the scholastic writers, of throwing in, at every chapter or sec-
whicb are applied by Christians to Jesus and to Christian doctrines, with
the view of showing their irrelevancy, is contained in an exegetical po-
lemic work, which goes through the whole of the Old Testament with
this design. It is entitled : Sepher Nizzarhon jashan, and is containf-d in
Wagenseil's teia iyrnea SatantB^ AUdorJi, lt>81, pp. 78 — 111. Where it
opposes, by appealing to the connexion, the historical references to Jesus
and his death in certain places, as vii. 14, ix. 1, ss. xi. 1, ss. lii. 10 — liii.
12, it will have the historical interpreter on its side,* and it is often suc-
cessful agninst the arbitrary expositions of Christian cotemporaries,
who, for example, found Jesus pointed out in xxv. 9, xxvi. 9, lu. 1, xlv.
1, (in Coresh,) lix. 20, lxi. 1. We find here again also some expositions
which are given by the fathers : for example, the government on his
shoulder in ix. 6, explained of the cross which Christ bore, as in Cyrill;
XXXV. 10, XLix. 13, of the Christian souls delivered from hell by Jesus,
and others of the same kind. In short, as far as this controversial work
maintains the defenj^ive, it is tolerable, and keeps to the point of history.
But when it attacks, the reader scarcely knows w heth< r to believe his
eyes. It must, however, be confessed, that, as to the principle, the fathers
have done no better, and such self-defence and bitterness are at least ve-
ry readily to be accounted for in a people reduced probably to despera-
tion, (the work seems to have been composed in Spain,) by the priests
and inquisition. Thus mx '^ "• ^^t ^^ explained of the man, who an-
T T
nounced himself as a God, and who should no longer be trusted; v. 8,
of the monks (o'n^J* hald-headtd,) and priests, who seized all the land
• T-
to themselves, and v. 11, of the gluttony of the monks in their monas-
* [ It will undoubtedly have on its side the German neologist, and the
infidel of every name and country, who would undermine Christianity,
by injuring the credit of the writers of the Old Testament, and t)y weak-
ening our faith in the inspired assurances of the prophets, that God would
send a spiritual deliverer for 'he benefit of mankind ; but the man, who
receives the doctrine of inspiration, and believes in the divine origin of
the Gospel, will not very readily admit a principle, which takes it for
granted, that Christ or his Apostles or both have either mistaken or per
verted the meaning of the Old Testament writers. — It may be expedient,
although it can hardly be necessary, again to remind the reader, that the
author rejects the doctrine ol inspiration, and that his philosophy will
not allow him to believe in miracles. The translator supf)o&es it prefera-
ble to give the sentiments of his original, with this accompanying caution,
than to omit a note which contains information not accessible to an Eng-
lish reader. Tr. ]
4454 ON THE INTERPRETATION
tioii, a multitude of subtle questions, which he then an-
swers largely enough. The Arabic commentary of Tan-
chum of Jerusalem on the prophets, from which P<jcocke
and especially S* hnurker have given specimens, which
make us wish to possess the whole, is yet preserved in
manuscript at Oxford."^ We have therefore no other wri-
ters to mention, except Salomo bkn Me lech, who, in his
Michlal Jophi,"° gives almost exclusively grammatical and
lexicographical expositions, which are generally taken
froni Kimchi's works. But for this very reason, and on ac-,
count of the brevity and precision of his statements, he is ve-
ry useful. The best interpretations of Jarchi may be found
in abundance in the Postillae of Nicolads de Lyra, who
died in 1340, where they are introduced and employed. Of
this work Luther often availed himself. A late German
translation, according to the expositions of the Rabbins, has
been lately presented to the pubhc, by a learned Jew, David .
Ottenzoser.^*
teries. V. 18, is pleasantly enough interpreted of the bell ropes. From
his modification of some places, for example, in chap. n. 1, it may also
be really conjectured, that the author was not serious, and that he had
no other design, than to subject to the severest ridicule the explanations
which were then current in the church.
1 9 See Uri catalog. Bibl. Bodlei. p. 16. Compare also Pococke in
many of his writings : viz. Commentary on Joel, Hosea and Micha;
miscellaneous notes ad Portam Mosis; — ScH^URRER, Dissert Phil.
Crit. pp 45,324, also, Specim. Tanchum. Hieros. Tubingae, 1791, 4to.
— Pococke intended to give an edition of the whole commentary.
8 Sal bbn Melech Michlal Jophi, Const. 1685, fol.
y'aS T"Opn HJB^D Knrsn 03*13, t^^t is: the book of Isaiah, translated
into German and explained, by David Ottenzoser. Printed at Ftlrth,
in the year .>f the, world 5567, (A. D. 1807,) 8vo. The commentaries of
.Tarchi and Kimchi accompany it.
V^ or THE ^
OF THE PROPHET ISAIAHi VJ N I V E £#Mr ^ '
Modern Translators and Expositors,*
Among the commentators who belong to the period of the re-
formation, we wilhngly assign the first place of all to Luthbr.*
His translation of Isaiah first appeared alone in 1528, then in
1532 along with the other prophets, and in 1534 in the first
edition of his complete bible.'^ He did not himself pub-
lish a commentary on it, but some sheets of college notes
taken during his lectures were prepared for the press in 1534,
by one of his hearers.'^ The notes are brief, chiefly of a
* Those translators and expositors, with whom Isaiah forms only a
part of a work on the whole bible, shall be designated by an asterisk.
«2 Der Prophet lesaia, Deudsch. Wittemberg, b. Hans LufFt. 1528. 4.
In the preface he speaks as follows : " We have indeed taken all possi-
ble pains in order that Isaiah should speak good plain German, althotigh
it is with difficulty that he can be made to do so, and has strongly re-
sisted our efforts, for in the Hebrew he was very eloquent, so that it is
with great labour that the unbending language of the Germans can be
made to accommodate itself to his style. "t The text is accompanied
by some short notes in the margin. — The complete edition bears this
title: Die Propheten alle deudsch D. Mart. Luth. m. d. xxxii Witten-
berg, durch Hans. Luft. fol. Respecting the changes it has undergone,
see Palm's Geschichte der Luth. BibelUbers. S. 366. Considerable altera-
tions were introduced in the complete edition. Thus in v. 1 : ich wilt
meinen Vettern, for meinen Lieben; in xl. 31 : wcrden mit Krafftveren-
dert, for kriegen neue Krafft.
» 3 It is to be found in German in Th. 6, S. 1, ff. of the Halle edition.
On the arrangement of the prophecies of Isaiah he says, S. 9: "But he
t t As this passage is, of course, in old German, I subjoin the original,
that the reader who understands the language may form his own judg-
ment. " Wir zwar haben miiglichen vleys gethan, das lesaias gut klar
deudsch redet, wiewol er sich schwer dazu gemacht, und fast gewee-
ret hat, denn «rist ym Ebreeischen fast w^ol beredt gewesst, dasylira
^ie ungelenke Deudsche zunge saur ankomraen ist," Tr. ]
59
466 ON THE INTERPRETATION
practical kind, and he abounds with digressions on his ikvour-
ite subjects ; some chapters, however, he treats more parti-
cularly. The allegorical interpretation he decidedly rejects^
and only gives one specimen of it in Chap. vi.-^More exten-
sive and more learned, but at the same time rath* doctrinal
than historical and philological, are the commentaries of two
other fathers of Protestantism, Zwingle^'' and Calvin.^^ Yet
is not attentive to order, so as to give to each particular portion its pro-
per place and with its own chapters and pages; one is so intermingled
with another, that much of the first portion is introduced in connexion
with the second and third, and the third is treated of somewhat before
the second. But whether this is to be ascribed to the person who col-
lected and wrote out the prophecy, (as appears to be the case with the
Psalter,) or whether the author himself has so framed it as to make it ap-
pear that time and causes and persons have occurred in the order spoken
of, which time and causes may not be cotemporaneous or in proper
order, this, I must acknowledge, I do not know.'' * Also, S. 12 ; re-
specting the means of understanding the author : " Whoever attempts to
explain this prophet, must be conveisantin two things, fnthe first place,
he must possess a thorough and fundamental knowledge of the Gram-
mar, which I candidly confess I have not yet acquired, and wherein
many distinguished teachers in the church, as Augustin and others, have
been deficient. The second particular is an acqunintance with sacred
history, which is still more necessary; and therefore, if only one of
these two acquisitions can be made, I would prefer the latter." This
observation he illustrates by the example of Augustin, who, by means
of his acquaintance with history, has succeeded better than Jerome,
Avho, with his knowledge of the language,, treats the history somewhat
negligently.
S4 ZwiNGLiiContemplationesIsaiaj prophetae, Turic. 1529, fol. Also,
Opera, Turic. 1544—45. T. ni.
3 5 Calvi:!^! Commentarii in lesaiam prophetara. Primum coUecti
* " Aljcr die Ordnung halt er nicht, dass er ein jegliches du seinen Ort
undraiteigenen Kapiteln undeBliittern fassete,soridern istfast gemenget
durch einander, dass er viel des ersten Stuckes under das and ere und
dritte mit einftihrl, und wol das dritte Stiick etwa ehe handelt, als das
andere. Ob aber das geschehen sey durch den, so solche seine Weissa-
gung zusammengelesen und geschrieben hat, (als man im Psalter achtet
geschehen zu seyn,) oder ob er cs selbst so gestaltet hat, darnach Zeifj
Ursachen und Personen sich zugetragen haben, von einem jegJichen
Stuck zu reden, vvelehe Zeit und Ursachen nicht gleich seyn no^h
Ordnung haben m^gen, das weiss icb nicht."
OF THE PROPHET ISAIAH. 467
With respect to a knowledge of Hebrew, not one of these men
had made such advances as are requisite to communicate in-
struction to posterity. More important were these studies in the
view of Oecolampadius''*^ and Brentz ;* '^' and Sebastian"
MiJivsTER * and Wolfgang M eusel (Musculus,) among the
Protestants, and V atablus * of the Catholics, availed them-
selves of their acquaintance with the Rabbins, in order to cir-
culate the interpretations which they contain among Chris-
tians.^'' About the same time, Castalio * ^ at Basle gave to
the world a translation composed in good Latin with some
annotations, and the Portuguese prelate Forerius ^" an exten-
sive commentary, and for that age valuable and learned.
2. The commentary of Caspar Sanctius^* is the only one
belonging to the early part of the 16th century which de-
serves to be mentioned. But towards the middle of it ap-
peared Hugo Grotius* and Louis de Dieu,* two equally
celebrated expositors, who opened the road, each in his own
way, to a more learned, enlarged, and liberal method of inter-
pretation : the former by an unprejudiced treatment of the
Old Testament, with the same correct spirit and elegant feel-
ing which are applied to the other classic writings, from
which he adduces the most appropriate parallel places ;^^) the
opera N. Gallasii, deinde locupletati cura ipsias auctoris. Ed. iii.
Genevae, 1570, fol. It was reprinted in 1583, and in the Amsterdam
edition of iiis works, 1671, T. iv.
3 a Hypomneraata in Esaiam. Basil, 1525, 1567, 4to.
8 7 Jo. Brentii Esaias commentariis explicatus, Francof. 1550. Also
Opp. T. IV. p. 124, Tubing. 1675, fol. See a conjecture of his on ii. 6.
8 8 Seb. MiJNSTER in the Critici Sacri. Mosculi Comment. locu-
pletissimi et recens editi in Esaim prophetam. Basil. 1570, fol. The
notes of Vatablus are in Rob. Stephens' edition of the Vulgate, 1557,
and also in the Critici Sacri. The last contain brief but very useful
glosses, in the form of scholia.
8 8 Biblia, interprete Seb. Castalione, una cum ejusdem annota-
tionibus. Basil, 1531, fol. The notes are in the Critici Sacri.
9 Franc. Forerii, Lusitani Olyssiponensis, Coxnmentarius in Es.
Venet. 1553, fol. Reprinted in the Critici Sacri.
1 Casp. Sanctu Commentarius in prophetas majores et minores.
Antwerp. 1621, fol.
9 3 HcG. GROTiiannotationes in V. T. Paris. 1644. They ar^ also in
46h ON THE interpretation;
latter by careful grammatical and philological investigation oi*
particular passages, accompanied by a learned and judicious
use of the cognate dialects, especially the Syriac and Ethio-
pic.^^ The most important interpreters, until the middle of
the 17th century, are to be found collectively in the Critici
Sacri,^^ and are embodied in one continuous commentary in
the publication of Matthew Poole.^^ As far as relates to
the extensiveness of the selection of notes, the latter work is
the richer of the two.
§ 10.
It cannot be stated without regret, that the course thus^
opened by De Dieu and Grotius was pursued in the 17th cen-
tury, by a much smaller number of interpreters than could be
wished, and might have been expected. Among the great
oriental scholars, who, from that period, adorned the reformed
church, from the time of Edward Pococke and Samuel Bo-
chart to that of Albert Schultens, no one has chosen Isaiah
for the especial subject of a work, although excellent ma-
terials may be found in Bochart's writings to illustrate this
the Critici Sacri ; and Calovius, who, in his Biblia lUustrata, took the
useless trouble to controvert at length whatever they contained in oppo-
sition to Lutheran orthodoxy, has introduced Ihem into his work. A
new edition appeared, under the superintendence of Vogei, and D5der-
i.EiN, in which Isaiah is to be found in the third volume, with some ad-
ditional remarks by Doderlein, in a separate auctarium, 1779, 4te.
3 LuD. DE Dieu animadvers. in V. T. libros omnes. Lugd. Bat-
1648, 4to. It was afterwards reprinted, with his observations on the
New Testament, under the title : Critica Sacra, Amstelod. 1693, fol.
The notes on Isaiah are in {)p. 190 — 243,
9 4 The Critici Sacri (London, 1660, 9 vol. fol) contain, in the fourth
volume, the notes on Isaiah of MOnster, Vatablos, Castalio, Clarius,
FoRERifs, Drusius, and Grotius : most of whom have been already no-
ticed. Clarius is not of much importance; he generally contents
himself with transcribing Miinster. Drusius has given a collection of
the fragments that remain of the lost Greek versions, which afterwards
MOiNTFAU^ON made the groundwork of his own publication.
9 5 Matthjei Poli Synopsis Criticorum alioruraque sacrae scriptura
interpretun> et coramentatorum. Lond. 1669, 4to, Franco^ 1679, fol.
Y. Voll. T=aiah is in volume lo.
OP THE PROl'HET ISAIAH. 469
prophet, and a series of valuable observations on him has
been left by Schultens.* ^ Whatever, in addition to these,
was published in complete works previously to Vitringa's, is
not of great consequence. John Cocceius* ^- is indeed often
happy in his philological illustrations of particular places, and
in this respect he deserves praise ; but, in consequence of his
notorious attachment to a system of interpretation, which is
perpetually discovering types and prophecies, and which is
every where prominent in his work, is at present scarcely to
be read with pleasure. Of Sebastian Schmidt,^* an inter-
preter by no means to be despised, properly speaking, only
notes taken on the delivery of his college lectures have been
printed. The critical notes of Louis Capel adhere, for the
most part, to the various readings which he supposed to be
discoverable from the versions, as in a late period those of
HouBiGANT and Lowth,^ The commentary of Varenius,
Professor at Rostock, who died in 1684, which contains some
useful collections, is by no means an agreeable work, in con-
sequence of its scholastic method, and the introduction, with
tedious prolixity, of matters unconnected with his subject.*"**
9 6 Alb. Schultens. animadvers. philol. et criticae ad varia loca,
V. T. Amstelod. 1709. It was repriated, together with other writings,
under the title: Opera minora, I ugd. Bat. et Leovardiae, 1769, 4to.
The observations on Isaiah are in pp. 252 — 292. In this work Schultens
made great use of the Arabic language to illustrate Hebrew words and
phrases, although he generally adduces passages from the grammarians
and prose writers: indeed, no acquaintance at all with the Arabic poets
is discoverable in his work. The philological interpretations which he
thus deduces, he places in contradistinction lo those which the tradi-
tions of the Rabbins had preserved. In his later works he speaks of
these observations as of a youthful publication, and does himself retract
several of them: however, it is often superior, for natural and unforced
interpretations, to the other.
8 7 Jo. CoccEii 0pp. Amstelod. 1701, fol. T. n.
• 8 See. Schmidii Commentarius super illustres prophetias lesaiae,
Hamb. 1702, 4to. It is edited by Sandhagen, during the life and with
the permission of the author.
9 8 LuD. Cappelli Commcntarii et nota) criticae in V. T. Amstelod.
1689, fol. pp. 492—520.
I August. Varenii Comment, in Esaiam, ed. Jo. Fecht.Up3. 1708,
4to.
470 ON' THE INTERPRETATION
But the publication of Vitringa's commentary constitutes an
epoch in the history of the interpretation of this prophet.
This work alone is of far more weight than the earlier expo-
sitions and a large proportion of the later. He is certainly
attached to the Cocceian method of interpretation, and the
frequency with which he shows when and how far the predic-
tions of the prophet come down into modern periods of his-
tory, even to the middle ages, the interpreter of the present
day will find it necessary to pass over ; yet this weakness of
his times* is abundantly redeemed by his superiority in other
respects. The sense of every passage and of every difficult
word is weighed by the assistance of a remarkable knowledge
of scriptural language and of antiquities in general, by the use
of all the literary preparation that his age could furnish, to-
gether with a carefulness and extent of examination which is
often astonishing. Greatly worthy of attention also are his
collections of historical notices relating to foreign nations,
against which many of the prophecies are directed. On ac-
count of his views above mentioned, and because he has made
but little use of the dialects, and in general only where they
had been already compared by others, his value has often been
estimated too low ; but not a few biblical critics^ who look
down upon him with arrogance, would have done better to
avail themselves of his labors, which could not but have been
advantageous to their own."'
• [ This is another ilhistration of the author's views and feelings on
the subject of prophecy, which the reader is prepared to receive with
caution. Tr. ]
1 1 Camp. Vithing^ Commentarius in librum Prophetiarum lesaiae,
Lcovardifp T. i. 1714 T ii. 1720. fol. Editio nova, Basil, 1732, 2 vol.
fol. -Another iibpression was given at Herborn, 1715, and another at
Tubingen, 1732. A German translation, from which all the useless mys-
tical interpretations are expunged, w^as made by Ant. Friedkich Bijs-
CHING, with the title: Camp. Vrrni gje, Auslegung der Weissagungen
lesaiii. Th. i. with a preface by Mosheim. Halle, 1749 ; Th. ii. 1751. 4.
The author was professor of Theology at Franeker, and died in 1722.
See the funeral oration on him by Schultens, prefixed to the first volume.
OF THE PROPHET ISAIAII.
471
§ 10.
Since that time but little, comparatively speaking, has been
effected in forming a collection of rich exegetical materials.
It was reserved for the last twenty or thirty years of the 18th
century to interpret the prophet, and the Old Testament in
general, with feeling and taste, and in a manner worthy of the
eastern poet ; to treat the places applied to the Messiah, with
a reference to genuine points of history, and to show that a
considerable part cannot possibly look beyond the cotempo-
raries of Ahaz and Hezekiah.* For this period also it was
reserved by profound and learned philological investigation to
settle the meaning of words, especially in difficult places, by
the aid of the dialects, for which Vitringa had done nothing ;
but which were shown by N. W. Schroeder, in a splendid
specimen, to contain treasures that might be applied to the
explanation of the prophet.
1. Cotemporaneous with Vitringa was J. H. Michaelis,*
who published his valuable notes in the margin of his Hebrew
Bible, printed at Halle, and which is particularly useful for the
accurate references which it contains to verbal and real pa-
" [ The imperfect and erroneous view which the author had formed
respecting the character of the Hebrew prophets (see Einleitung. $ 7,)
would lead us to expect that he would endeavour to connect the pro-
phetic representations of Isaiah with cotemporaneous persons and
events. It is easy to perceive that the tendency of such an eifort must
be, to sap the foundations of revealed reli^io^j by destroying our faith in
prophecy. But this " word, spoken by holy men of old as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost," is too " sure" to be weakened by any at-
tempts, and constitutes one of those proofs in defence of revelation,
which time, that covers other subjects with obscurity often impossible
to be removed, only serves to render more striking and conspicuous.
See some good remarks on prophecy in Jahn's Introduction to the Old
Testament. Part u. ^ 73—88, pp.394— 331. Tnj
47S ON THE INTERPRETATION
rallelisms."^ The commentary of Le Clerc*"^ is not so va-
luable on the prophets as on the historical books ; but Cal-
MET***^ contains a very laborious, although not a critical, col-
lection of historical materials. The critical notes and conjec-
tures of HouBiGANT*"^ are characterized by boldness, injustice
to the received text in favour of the versions, and want of
grammatical acquaintance with the language, w^hich is often
conspicuous. Robert Lowth"^ also is frequently not less
bold as a conjectural critic, although his work on Isaiah pos-
sesses distinguished merit for elegant and poetical discern-
ment. Himself a poet, endowed with true classical taste and
feehng, he considered our prophet, and generally the Old
Testament poetry in this view, which, since the time of Gro-
tius, had been again altogether neglected ; but afterwards,
principally by means of Herder, became current in Germany.
The notes relate in part to history and antiquities, in part to
doctrine, (without derogating from the claims of the church
system,) and in part to criticism. In this last department he
ventures to introduce a multitude of alterations in the text,
partly according to various readings supposed to be derived
from the old versions, and partly from conjectures of his
own, and of his friends. Dr. Jebb and Archbishop Seeker.
How unimportant and unnecessary these emendations so
called were, is shown in a very profound manner by Ko-
1 ea Biblia Hebraica, ed. J. H. Michaelis, Halae, 1720. The notes
are on the margin of the text.
1 3 Vetoris Testamenti prophetae ab Esaia ad Malachiam usque ex
translatione .To. Clerici, cum ejusdem commentario philologico etpara-
phrasi in Esaiam, Jeremiara, ejus Lamentationes et Abdiam. Amstelod.
1731, fol.
1 4 Aug. Caemet Conlraentaire literal sur tdus les livres de Pancien
el noaveau Testament', Paris, 1724—26.
I 5 C. Fr. HouBiGANT Biblia Hebr. cum not. crit. et vers. Lat. Fa-
lis. 1753, 4 vol. fol. The notes were reprinted at Frankfort in 1777, in
in 2 vols. 4to, under the care of C. F. Bahrdt. Those on [saiah are in
V ol. II. p. 543, ss.
1 6 Isaiah- A new translation, with a preliminary dissertation, and
notes critical, philological and explanatory. By Robert Lowth, D. D.
Lord Bishop of London. London, 1778, royal 8vo.
OF THE FROPHET ISAIAH. 4715
CHER,***' a learned Swiss, educated in Holland, who, treading
almost in the footsteps of Buxtorf, will not deviate a hair's
breadth from the masoretical text, while at the same time he
gives many useful illustrations. Koppe"^ soon gave to the
world a German translation of Lowth^s work with additional
notes of his own, critical and expository, far superior to those
of his author. Here and there they justify Lowth's decisions,
and exhibit some illustrations and criticisms, which, although
more cautious than his, are still however often inadmissible.
What Koppe has afforded for the higher criticism of Isaiah,
has been already partially touched on, (Einleit. § 3, 3.). He
first directed our attention to the necessity of denying, on
historical grounds, the genuineness of many pieces ascribed
to this prophet. But as in his division of the whole work
as collected together he goes too far, and often proceeds ar-
bitrarily, his criticism wants a firm support, and the collec-
tion appears to him as a loose intermingled heap composed
of disjointed fragments taken from the works of various po-
ets belonging to various periods. Although this hypothesis
will appear unfounded in proportion as it is examined, yet
many modern writers have adopted it without any limitation.
The Clavis of Paulus"^ contains ideas for historical inter-
pretation much better digested and very appropriate, but
still the number of persons acquainted with the Shemitie
languages who would accede to its philological interpretation
107 Vindiciae S. textus Hebraei Esaiae adversus D. Robert! Lowthi
criticam, a Da v. Kochero.. V. T. et ling. Orient, profess. Bernac,
1786, 8vo.
1 8 D. Robert Lowths, Lordbischofs zu London, Tesaias, neu flber-
setzt, nebst einer Einleitung und critischen philologischen und erlaa-
ternden Anmerkungen. A. d. Engl, (by Richerz). Mit Zusatzen und
Anmerkungen von J. B. Koppe, Prof, zu Gottingen, B. 1—4. 1779 —
81. 8vo.
1 9 Philologischer Clavis (iber das Alte Testament fflr Schulea und
Acadamien. lesaias. 'Von Hein. Eberh. Gottl. Paul^js, Jena. 179?
8ro.
60
474 ON THE INTERPRETATlOiV
is yet fewer. The scholia of Bauer,"" and the work in the
exegetical manual of Augusti and Hopfner,"^ are among
the most useful of those modern helps which have appeared
up to the present time for cursory reading. The former of
these works especially, although a hasty composition, like
most compositions of this author, shows every where his cor-
rect and striking discernment. But all the above mentioned
expository writings are far exceeded by the commentary of
Rosen MULLER, a second edition of which, revised and im-
proved, has lately been published."^ In the first notes select-
ed from the works of Grotius, Dathe, and J. D. MichaeHs are
principally conspicuous, and with much that is valuable in
the first part, it wants completeness in the last, (Ch. xl —
Lxvi.) In the second edition, which may be considered as
an entirely new work, the author very frequently goes back
to Vitringa, employs his materials, often introduces him in his
own words, and has secured for himself great merit in the
history of interpretation, by exhibiting almost throughout a
very learned critique and comparison of the ancient versions,
abundant quotations from the Rabbins, especially larchi, (we
should greatly have preferred A ben- Ezra,) and from Jerome,
particularly where he follows his Hebrew teachers. Per-
haps indeed the author has too often followed such tradition-
ary interpretations. Some historical and critical views pre-
sented in the earlier edition are more satisfactory to me, than
those adopted in this, as, for example, in ch. vu. When the
author notices the conjectures of Lowth and Koppe, he often
1 1 Jo. Chu. F'. ScHULzii Scholia in V. T. continuata a G. L. Bau-
15R. Vol. viu. pp. 173 ss. and vol. iy. 1794 — 5.
I 1 1 Exegetisches Handbuch des A. T. ftir Prediger, Schullehrer und
gebildete Leser. FUnftes und Sechtes Sttick, enthaltend den lesaias (v.
J. Chk. VV. Augusti). Leipz. 1799.
• 1 i Ern. Fr. Car. RosesmUlleri Scholia in Vetus Testamenturn.
T. III. lesaiae vaticinia coniplectens. Sect. 1. Lips. 1791. Sect. 2, 17&3.
Sect. 3, 1793. — The new edition bears the particular title : lesaiae va-
ticinia annotatione perpetua illustravit E. F. C. RosEWMiJLLER, Vol. u
Lips. 1811, <on the general title page, 1810.) Vol. ii. 1818. Vol. iii.
1820.
or THE PROPHET ISAIAH. 47^
rejects them in the words of Kocher. The well known prin-
ciples of philological interpretation which he pursues in res-
pect to the analogy of scriptural language with the usage of
the cognate dialects, which are the only correct principles,
contribute to increase the superior excellence of his work ;
and indeed nothing else could be expected from the scholar,
whose acquaintance with the Shemitic languages is learned
and comprehensive.
2. The number of translations, especially in German, which
the present period produces, is very great, and although they
are generally accompanied by some critical and exegetical
remarks, it is only in a few that these remarks discover pro-
found investigation. Before the appearance in German of
the work of Lowth, translations had been made by Vogel,"^
Struensee,'" Waltiier,"^ and J. D. Michaells.*"° The
latter follows a multitude of critical and exegetical conjec-
tures, which are now for the most part abandoned, and is
destitute of force and dignity of language ; but his remarks
for the unlearned abound with observations very acceptable
even to the learned interpreter. Moldenhauer""' translates
with little taste, and his interpretation contains httle that can
be called his own.
11^ Geoug Joh. Ludg. Vogel's, Beysitzers der phil. Fac. zu Halle,
Umschreibung der Weissagungen des Propheten lesaias. Halle, 1771.
8vo.
» 1 4 Neue Uebersetzung der Weissagungen lesaia, Joels, Amos, Oba-
dia und Micha, nach detn Heb. Text, mit Zuziphung der Griechischen
Version, von Chr. Gottfr. Sthuensee, R cior der Domschule in Hal-
berstadt. Halberst. 1773. — He attaches far too great value to the va-
rious readings supposed to be suggested by the lxx.
1 1 fi Die Weissagungen des Propheten lesaias, Obersetzt von Joh.
Heinr. Waltheh, Repetenten zu Gottingeii. Mit einer Vorrede von
ZACHAiiA. Halle, 1774, 8vo.
1 1 J. D. MiCHAEi.is deutsche Uebersetzung des Alten Testaments,
mit Anmerkungeri ffir Ungelehrte. Der aclite Theil welcher die Weissa-
gungen lesaia enthalt. Getting. 1777, 4to. Respi cting the alterations
of the text, see the same author's Orientalische Bibliothek, Th. 14.
1 1 7 Uebersetzung und Erlauterung des Propheten lesaia. Ent-
worfen von D. Joh. Hei.v. Moldenhacer, Pastor am Dom in Hamburg,
auedlinburg, 1780.
4:'76 UN THE INTERPRETATIOK
Metrical versions, but too free and modernized, with over
bold critical improvements, borrowed in part from Lowth and
Koppe, have been published by Cuhe"'^ and Kragelius.''°
The works of Seilkr'^' and Holster'^' are altogether adapted
to practical purposes. The translation of Hknsler'-^ is har-
monious, without being too free, and the notes and views of
the contents comprise many just and well-founded remarks.
It is surprising that Hensler, a divine in other respects pretty
free from prejudice, should have shown but little congeniality
with the correct critical views of this book, and that he
should have opposed them on such weak grounds. Au-
«usTi,'23 in his translation, opposes with reason the practice,
which, during the latter part of the preceding century, had
become prevalent, of translating in a modernized manner and
in Iambic verses, and therefore chooses on the other hand
simple prose ; yet he has probably attended too little to the
harmony, and to a thorough investigation of difficult places.
In the latest work of Ek huorn on all the prophets,'-' Isaiah
is divided into not less than 85 of their oracles or fragments, and
' I 8 tesaias metri'^ch ttbersetzt mit Anmprkungen, von Joh. Dav.
CoBE. Th. 1. Berlin, 1785. Th. 2. 1786, 8. (It is incumplete, extend-
ing no further than the 39th chapter.)
1 I » lesaias, Erstrr Theil. Neu tibersetzt und critisch bearbeitet von
Gebh. Ki agelius, Prediger in I.ippstadt Bremen, 1790. 8.
12 lesaias aus dem H^braischen tibersetzt und mit Anmerkungen
er autert von D. Geo g Fkied. ^ eile . KHangen, 1783. 8.
• 2 1 Die pro|)h'-tische Schrift des lesaias, ein Lieblingsbuch Jesu.
Ton R. Holster, Hanover, 1819. 8.
12 2 lesaias, neu tibersetzt mit Anmerkungen von Ch ist. Gott.
UiLF Hknsle , Pntf. dcrTheologie zn Kiel. Hamburg und Kiel, 1788.
'2 3 Die Schriften dps Allen Testamf^nts. Neu tibersetzt von J. C.
W. AuGisTi nd W. iM, L. de Wette. Vierter Bd. Die Propheten.
Heidlebf-rg, 1810. 8. The translati<m of Isaiah is by August!. See the
exegetische Handbuch mentioned above, No. 111.
124 Die Hebraischen Propheten, von J G. Eichhorn. G (tingen,
B. 1, 1816. B. 2, 3, 1819. 8. For the places of Isaiah, see the list at the
end of the third volume. The genuine pn^phecies of Isaiah had been
published before by the author in Jusxi's Blumen althebrdisclier JDicht-
iunst, Gicsscn, 1803, the text of which is here reprinted.
I
OF THB PaOPHBT ISAIAH. 477
these are ascribed to various authors and times, and arranged
according to the editor's hypothesis, for the most part in pur-
suance of the hints of Koppe. With the text are connected
notices of the contents and historical remarks, which present
the point of view in which the translator has considered them.
The view given of the prophetic oracles in this work is in
general quite characteristic of the author. According to it
we have here for the most part no predictions of the future,
but poetic descriptions of the present and even of the past.'^^
In the German translation of Dbreser with remarks, the au-
thor has availed himself of the progress made by the investiga-
tions of Protestant writers only so far as they supported the doc-
trines of his church.'^ Among the Latin versions of late date
those of DoDKRLEiN '2 and Da the ^^ deserve a conspicuous
rank, and are similar both in respect to manner and prin-
dples. Both these translators are strictly careful to express
the sense of the original according to the genius of the Latin
language, and at the same time never to paraphrase. Both of
them also give some exegetical and critical remarks, which
contain much valuable matter, although they both constantly
alter the text and often without necessity.
3. It is proper to mention here those writers who have
sought to acquire reputation by exegetical and critical exami-
nation of particular places, or of certain portions of the whole.
To the -latter belongs particularly the Hollander Greve, who
had formed the plan of a complete commentary, but has yet
13 s See fhe Inirodiiction to chaps, xxviii — xxxiii.
13 6 Die lieiligp Schrift des A. T. 4te.i Theiles Ister Band. Von
D. Th. Ant. Dereser Frankf. am Mayn. 1808.
127 Esaias, ex recensione textus Hebraei ad fidem codd. manuscrip-
torum et versionum anti<^«aium Latine vert it notasque varii argument!
aiibjecif Jo, Christoph. Doderlejn, D. Altorfi, 1775. Ed. 2 1780.
Ed. 3. 1789. 8vo.
1 2 8 Prophetae raajores ex recensione textus Hebraei et versionum
antiquarura Latine versi, tiotisque philologicis et criticis illustrati, a Jo.
Avo, Dathio, Tbeol. D. et Prof. Lips. 1779. Ed. 2. 1785. 8vo.
I
478 OS THE INTERPRETATION
only published a work on chaps xl — lvi.^^^ In the introduc-
tion, he states his objections to the view, maintained by Ger-
man critics, that certain parts of Isaiah are not genuine. He
also proposes a metrical scheme of his own, which rejects
the present punctuation and rests upon a system of the author's
invention having a closer connexion with the Arabic ; and, to ac-
commodate to this system when it will not suit the Hebrew text,
he introduces a multitude of arbitrary alterations. Among the
philological and exegetical observations on particular places, the
works most distinguished for learning and happy conception of
the author's idea are those of Hoheisel,^^" Schelling,^^* and Ar-
?fOLDi :*^^ those of Schleusner^^^ and Mossler^^" are less so. The
12 9 Vaticiniorura Jesaise pars continens carmina a cap. xl. usque
Lvi. 9. Hebraica ad numeros recensuit, versionem et notas adjecit C.
J. GuEV ,Lin^. Orient et Antiq. Tad. Prof. Ordinarius in Acad. Francq.
Accedit interpretatio Belgica, 1810. in long 4to. Conip. Allgemein.
Lit. Zelt. 1816, Supplementary pages, (Er^^anzungs Blatter,) no. 1. As
early as the year 1793, the author announced an extensive work,
in 3 or 4 quarto volumes : Programraa editionis vaticiniorum Jesaia?
novae. Daventriae, anno CID'dCCXCV.
» ^ Car. Lud. Mohi isel. Prof. Gedanensis, Observationes philologi-
co-exegeticae, quibus iion nulla S^vtvohtsl Esnias loca ex indole linguae
S.,ex accentuatjone Ebraeorumetantiquitatibusillustranturet exponun-
iiir. Gedani, 1729, 8vo.
1 3 I Animadversiones pliilologico-criticae in loca difficiliora lesaiae,
q«ibus praestantissimorura interpretum sententias exponit; suam novam-
que proponit Jos. Frid. Schelling, Superintendens Schorndorf. in
iluc. Wirtemb. Lips. 1797, 8vo.
1 33 Alb. .1 AC. Arnoldi Observationes ad quaedam Jesaiaeloca. This
is a new year's P o^ram of the University of Marbura:, 1796. 4to. Un-
fortunately, it only treats of three places, i. 8, 28. n. 6 , but these are
•examined with that profound investigation and- learning for which the
author is distinguished.
J 33 Beitrage zur Erlauterung der Weissagungen des Prophelen le-
saias, von D. Joh. Fki.ed. Schleusner, in the Analekten ftt'- das Stu-
dium derexeget. undsystemat. Theologie, edited by Keil and Tzsch'R-
NER. B. 1. H. 2. S. 1, ff. (Leipz. 1813.) They extend through chaps.
1 XXIX.
1 3 4 Chr. GuiL. Mossler novae locorum nonnuUorum Ie.«aiae expli-
catu diffioiliorum interpretationis periculum. Viteb. 1808. 4to. It com-
prehends the first five chapters.
OF THE PROPHET ISAIAH. 47^
most profound philological investigation, applied principally
to Isaiah, is undoubtedly to be found in Schroder's mono-
graphic on Is. ni. 16, ss. ; the next in Martini's work on
chap. LIU', with whom also St hnurber*^ and Aurivillius
must be mentioned, as accurate and able interpreters of par-
ticular places. The latest specimen of a translation, accom-
panied by a historical exposition of a popular kind,^^ may in-
deed contain much that is original both in respect to language
and history, but proportionably less that is well founded and
w^orthy of the present advanced state of interpretation.""^
I 3 5 Besides the Programs to be mentioned on xv. we may notice al-
so the brief significations which are contained in some academical the-
ses : Theiium inauguralium pars philologico-critica, praef. Schkurrkk,
1783, 1788. 4to.
13 6 Reden und Lieder aus dem lesaias, theils ganz, theils nach ihren
schwersten Steilen tibersetzt und erklart, alle aber nach ihren geschicht-
lichen Beziehungen dargestellt. Nebst einem Anhange aus dem Buche
der Weisheit. Freyberg, 1815 8.
I 3 y A large and very minute list of old writings and dissertations
on particular places, for the most part small and of little value, may be
found in CALHaT'e Bibl. Biblioth. S. 414 if.
TREATISE
ON THE
USE OF THE SYRIAC LANGUAGE.
BY
JOHN DAVID MICHAELIS.
Translated from the German, by
JOHN FREDERICK SCHROEDER, A. M.
AN ASSISTANT MINISTER OF TRINITY CHURCH, IN THB
CITT or NEW-YORK.
61
PREFACE.
The following pages are extracted from the Preface to Mi-
CHAELis' Syriac Chrestomathy. This Preface was first pub-
lished with the Chrestomathy in the year 1768 ; but it appeared
at Gottingen in the year 1786, corrected, and enlarged by the ad-
dition of the author's valuable notes.
It is entitled : " Johann David Michaelis Abhandlung von der
Syrischen Sprache, und ihrem Gebrauch : nebst dem ersten
Theil einer Syrischen Chrestomathie ;" John David Michaelis*
Treatise on the Syriac Language and its use ; together with the
first part of a Syriac Chrestomathy. The first seven sections of
the work are <ievoted to the following subjects :
§. 1. View of the" Syriac Language in general ;
§. 2. Chaldee and Syriac are the same language ;
§. 3. Syriac and Chaldee differ chiefly in the alphabet ;
§. 4. It would be advisable, to commence the study of the
Oriental Languages with the Syriac, and to learn it
before the Hebrew.
§. 5. "The Syriac is the easiest among the Oriental Languages,
and the Hebrew the most difficult. The causes of this.
§. 6. The Arabic is more difficult than the Syriac. The causes
of this.
§. 7. Is it easier to learn the Syriac or the Chaldee ?
The next seven sections, from the eighth to the fourteenth in-
clusive, are devoted to the use of the Syriac Language. In the
§. 15th, the author shows, that " Models of Poetry or Taste are
not to be sought for in Syriac ;" in the §. 16th and §. 17th, he
gives a " View of the Chrestomathy," and the " Contents of the
first part" of it ; and in the §. 18th, he concludes with a very fa-
vourable Account of Castell's Syriac Lexicon.
The accompanying pages are a translation of the seven sec-
tions, which relate to the Use of the Syriac Language.
New.York, June 29, 1829. The Translator,
§. I. The use of the Syriac Language for the illustration of
the Hebrew.
§. II. The use of the Syriac Language, particularly in regard
to Hebrew Grammar.
§. III. The use of the Syriac Language, in elucidating the
phraseology of the New Testament.
§. IV. Of books written in Syriac : and of the use of the Sy-
riac New Testament.
§. V. Some account of the Syriac Version of the Old Testa-
ment.
§. VI. The use of the Syriac Version of the Old Testament.
§. VII. The use which may be made of other Syriac works,
particularly those published by the Assemans.
THE USE OF
THE
SYRIAC liANGUAGE,
§1.
The use of the Syriac language for the illustration of the
Hebrew.
The first and most usual object that is proposed, in learn-
ing the Syriac language, is derived from its illustration of the
Hebrew. It is not necessary for me here to say all that
might be said, since I have already stated the prominent to-
pics, in the forty-first and forty-second paragraphs of my
View of the means which are employed for acquiring a know-
ledge of the Hebrew Language ;* and I must request that
these paragraphs be re-perused. I deem it necessary, how-
ever, to subjoin to them the following.
1. I have there indeed already observed, that the Syriac is
less used than the Chaldee and the Arabic, for the illustration
of the Hebrew ; and hence it readily follows, that any one,
* [ The title of this work is : " Beurtheilung der Mittel, welche man
anwendet, die ausgestorbene Hebraische Sprache zu verstehen." It
was first published in the year 1756, when the author had resided at
Gottingen ten years, devoting his chief attention to Hebrew Philology,
and the works of Albert Schultens. See Eichhorn's Biblioth. der Bibl.
Lit. B. III. pp. 862. 863. Tr. ]
486 THE USE or the syriac language, §. I.
^^ho learns this easy language in any degree of perfection,
can obtain from it more that was previously unknown ; and in
the explanation of the Scriptures, he can so much the more
frequently have the advantage of something new.
It is only necessary, to take particular notice* of some of
the reasons, why so little has hitherto been derived from the
use of a language as easy as this is.
The following is one. The Jews, our first teachers in He-
brew, understood the Chaldee, as it occurred in the Targum,
xmd applied it to the Hebrew. Some of them, under the do-
minion of the Saracens, spoke the Arabic as their vernacular
language ; or, as learned men, they understood and used it.
But, though they must have understood Syriac books, they
could not read them, on account of tlieir peculiar written cha-
racter ; and they were not interested in these books, because
they were for the most part the productions of Christians.
Thus hey did not use the Syriac ; and most philologists
among Christians tread in the footsteps of these their precur-
sors. Some few, who rose above the character of mere
imitators of the Jews, and among such I would name the ve-
nerated St;HULTENs as one of the most conspicuous exam-
ples, had unhappily too little knowledge of the Syriac, and a
predilection for the Arabic, which this language can readily
exCite among its votaries, by its beauty, and the charm of its
compositions : for, that beauty and poetry do not enter into
the commendation of the Syriac language, I shall evince in a
following* page.
In the second place, most students acquired their know-
ledge of Syriac, as I have already stated in the work before
referred to, merely from the New Testament, without ever
veading the Version of the Old. Now it is scarcely practi-
cable, so to learn a language from the New Testament alone,
that it may serve as a literary resource, independent of its
* [ In the author's work, from which the present Treatise is extract-
ed, may be found a section ( §. 15. ) entitled : Models of Poetry or Taste
nre not to be sought for in Syriac. Tr. ]
THE USE OP THE SYRIAC LANGUAGE, ^. I. 48T
connexion with the New Testament ; for there ocrur too
few words, and what is of importance here, very few names
of the works of nature and art. The Old Testament is, in
this respect, of a character entirely tht' < | posite, and to a re-
markable degree more rich in its vocabulary.
In the third place, there has been, for fifty years past, a
want of such books of inter st, written in the Syriac lan-
guage, as we may now own and use. And if any one de-
voted much attention to the language, he was obliged, if he
had no access to manuscripts, to avail himself chiefly of the
Versions of the Old and New Testament. Now it is easy to
perceive, that from these alone the language cannot be ac-
quired, in that extent and copiousness, which is practicable,
if, as is the good fortune of our age, one has ly ng before
him, and can make use of the Oriental Library of the truly
excellent Joseph Simonius Asseman (so replete with important
and various extracts from Syriac books), the admirable Sy-
riac Martyrology, ^nd the Syriac Works of Ephrkm Syrus.*
Should even the same word occur in these books and in the
Bible, it is not the same to the reader ; for he here meets
with it in a varied connexion, from which he can ascertain its
meaning, and not unfrequently with certain characteristics,
whereas, if a Hebrew word were extant at the same time in
Syriac, and the Syrian had retained it in his translation, I am
none the wiser for reading it in his version, than if I had pre-
* [ The titles of these three valuable publications are :
1. Bibiiotheca Orientali& Clementino-Vaticana,recensensMpuuscrip-
tos, Codices, Syriacos, Arabicos, Persicos, Turcicos, Hebraicos, Sa-
raaritanos, Armenicos, ^thiopicos, Graecos, iEgyptiacos, Ibericos, et
Malibaricos, ex priente conquisitos, coraparatos, avectos, et Bibliothe-
cae Vaticanae addictos recensuit, digressit, &c. Auctoritate, Jussu et
MunificentiA Clem. XI. It was published at Rome, 1719—1728. in 4
vols. fol.
2. Acta Sanctorum Martyrum Orientalium et Occidentaliura, &c.
/2o?ne, 1748. 2 vols. fol.
3. Ephr. Syr. Opera, in six vols, fol., published at Rome in the years
1732—1746. See Watt's Bibiiotheca Britannica. Tr ^^
i
488 THE USE OF THE SYRIAC LANGUAGE, §, I.
viously read it in Hebrew. It stands in the very same con-
nexion, and thus is no further illustrated.
Here then the Syriac supplies us with records of great ex-
tent, from which we may elucidate the Hebrew, and which
are not in use, because the public has been in possession of
them but a few years. It is not the fate of learning, that very
prompt use is made of the treasures, which enrich her. A
book is printed, and lies long upon the shelf as an ornament
not in use ; for it does not immediately serve the purpose
of the learned ; and too little indeed was he favoured by
fortune, that could buy it. How commonly does this occur !
It is a chance, if within a hundred years of the printing of an
old outlandish book, any one can guess all, for which it might
be useful, and of which the editor perhaps never once
thought. In some cases this always remains undiscovered ;
and the book is lavished, as those blossoms, which nature de-
signs only to change again to garden-mould, after they have
for a short time exhibited their beauties.
It is true, that Rome long since had these treasures in her
Vatican Library : and I may with justice call this city the
special seat of Syriac learning. But the best votaries of Sy-
riac there do not occupy themselves, with a reference to He-
brew ; and they generally use their Syriac learning for a
purpose, different from that of us Protestants. For as a
great part of the Syrian church has submitted to the See of
Rome, and efforts are made to gain the other also, it is ne-
cessary, with a view to be well versed in the usages, the li-
turgies, the antiquities, and the history of the Syrian Church,
that an acquaintance be formed with* their own writings. At
Rome, therefore, the Syriac is pursued, almost after the same
propensity, which Virgil ascribed to the Romans of old :
Tu regere imperio populos, Rornane, memento.
And it is important, in some measure to retrieve in the East,
what seems to have been lost in Europe. In this manner is
the Syriac, as to the actual knowledge that is obtained by its
study, an important part of Roman learning ; and such is the
tHE UbE OF THE SYKiAC LANGUAGE, §. 1. 4SU
niaiiiier of its occupying those engaged in it, that they littlu
think of making it ilkistrate Hebrew words.
2, From the Syriac, we may not only derive much more
for the elucidation of the Hebrew, but often somewhat more
certainly, than from the Jewish Chaldee with which we are
acquainted.
The former of these two propositions I have already casu-
ally treated.* We have far more books of every kind in Sy-
riac, from which we may learn this language to a much
greater extent ; and more words, phrases, and constructions
are to be met with, in so varied a connexion, that it is easy to
determine with certainty their true sense. This is not the
case in regard to the Chaldee, where our limited reading is
restricted to the versions of the Bible.
From this very difference arises the second claim : that the
elucidations of the Hebrew from the Syriac are often more
certain, and carry with them greater conviction, than those
derived from the Chaldee. I can at least say, that as long as
I have illustrated an obscure Hebrew word merely by the
Chaldee, and miss that word or its signification in Syriac, I
am not without sensible fear, lest I should go astray. We are
acquainted with the Chaldee, T excepting Daniel and Ezra),
only from the writings of such Jews, as undertook to translate
and explain the Hebrew Scriptures ; and they lived pretty
long, somewhere between four and ten centuries, after the
cessation of the Hebrew language. They introduced into
their Chaldee many words, which, as learned men, they had
obtained from the Hebrew Scriptures ; just as the Christian
Church has enriched other languages with Latin and Greek
words. And they gave them, in Chaldee, that meaning, in
which the Rabbins had properly or improperly understood
them in the Bible. I am not certain then, whether this or
that particular word of the Hebrew Bible, which I meet with
in Chaldee books, was at any time a part of the vernacular
language of the Chaldeans, or was only introduced into it by
r See vV 4. of the work fiom which this Treatise is extracted. Tr. "^
490 THE USE OF THt: SYRIAC LANCxUAGE, §, J.
the Rabbins ; and whether it owes the meaning, which Jew-
ish writers give it, merely to their exposition of the Hebrew
Scriptures, or to the existing usage of the Chaldec. But 1 am
safe from this twofold apprehension, as soon as I meet with
the word in Syriac, in that sense ; for it was not spoken, as a
half-learned language, by Rabbins, but as a native tongue, by
such as were not at all concerned with the Hebrew Bible, or
at least too seldom, to acquaint themselves with its unknown
words, and to employ it in the acceptation, which exegesis
required.
Whenever therefore, I meet merely in the Chaldee, with
a word or alleged sense of the Hebrew Bible, that is not
found in the other Oriental Languages, I have misgivings on
the subject. And I am afraid, that it may be a word, not
nurtured in its parent's arms, but in the schools ; and that the
Rabbi took it from the Bible, well or ill interpreted by him,
and trans-ferred it into the Jewish Chaldee. 1 am at least
very distrustful, if I do not meet with the word in the Syriac.
But as soon as this is the case, I am freed from my apprehen-
sion, and 1 think I am no longer about to move in a circle, if
only I illustrate the Hebrew that is not clear to me, by meaiiiS
of the Chaldee and Syriac.
I will endeavour to make this more intelligible by an example,
where the mere Chaldee is doubtful to my mind. The words of
Isaiah, Chapter XIV. ver. 23. nb*y^rT J<DKtOD!J H^'riXDKDI
•• : - J--: : - : T • •• r :■
are most generally translated I will sweep it with the besom of
destruction* The Chaldee, Syriac and Vulgate here led the way
of the modern versions ; and I have nothing whatever to say,
in opposition to the sense, which is afforded b)^ this translation.
It is my wish only, that an explanation of the Hebrew words
J<DNt? and NDKtpO, which occur no where but here, should
be obtained from the passage, independently of the other Orien-
■'* Supplementa ad Lexica Hebraica, p. 995. In lliese Supplemeiita may
be found many other examples, where fve must remain in doubt, if we
are acquainted with the signification of r word merefv froni the ChaK
THE USE OP THE SYRIAC LANGUAGE, §. I. 491
'^a\ languages, so that the noun may mean besom, and the verb
^weep. The Chaldee alone very promptly offers this to me : for
Ihere tO^?'tp signifies to sweep, and KD^tO^D besom, both
from D'p (Urt, and tO^tQ to cleanse from dirt.* Can I
with safety rely on this ? May it not be the case, that this
Chaldee word is merely Rabbinic, and originated from the
fact, that certain Rabbins interpreted the unknown Hebrew
noun and verb, by besom and sweep ? If it be so, I should
^rgue in a circle, in case I proved the sense of the Hebrew
word from the Chaldee : for in the Chaldee, the Rabbins mere-
ly so used it, because they believed, that it was to be so un-
derstood in the Hebrew !
I am free from this uncertainty, as soon as I find the same
words in Syriac with the same meaning. But should that not
be the case, my distrust in regard to the mere Chaldee is in-
creased : and although I do not contradict it, yet I follow that
sound logic, which it is so .difficult to find, among most of
those who interpret the Hebrew Scriptures.
Shall I mention one other example, where I decide, with
more confidence, against the mere Chaldee ? Cocceius, a
man truly great in philology, who has furnished us with by
far -the best Hebrew Lexicon hitherto extant, (I make an ex-
ception, however, in favour of Castell, for in the Hebrew his
is better still, although it is not used), would translate nT\^
0*^5 in Isaiah I. 22. po/?i.5fMW5 circt<mcisw5 C5^ ag^wa. The
expression is indeed peculiar. I understand it to be Wint
adulterated t with zuater ; but to circumcise wine with water
sounds to me, almost the same, as if I heard of Jewish infant-
Ijaptism. Cocceius, however, took this sense of the word
from the Chaldee, where certainly ?71J2 is the same as ^?1D
to circumcise. But as long as I discover this word, neither in
* [ See Buxtorf's Lexicon Chald., Talmud., Rabbin., Col. 847, on the
Chaldee words cited; and Gesenius' Hebr. HandwOrterbuch, on the
word j<C3XD and his Commentary on Isaiah, xiv. 23. Tr. ]
t [ The German epithet here used by Michaelis is getau/t, which sig-
fies baptized, as well as adulterated; hence his play upon the word, at the
cfose of the sentence. Tr.']
492 THE USE OF THE SVRIAC LANGUAGE, §. 11.
one of the other Oriental Languages, nor in the Syl'iac, whicir
appears in other particulars to be the same as the Chaldee,
I believe that ^IID to circumcise, is no word of the Chaldees
themselves, derived from the parent stock ; but that it is
merely a w^ord of the Rabbins who spoke Chaldee. And I
believe, that it was formed by them from this passage of
Isaiah, because they did not know what ^JlD ineant, and re-
presented it as well as they could by 7^D. In short, it is not
ancient Chaldee, but modern and Jewish ; and consequently,
it is of no service for the explanation of a passage of Isaiah,
But, on the other hand, if ^cn 2o in Syriac also signified to cir-
cumcise, the views of Cocceins would have had somewhat
greater probability.
§. II.
Tlie use of the Syriac language, parhcularly in regard to
Hebrew Grammar.
In the application of the Syriac to the Hebrew, we mmt
bear in mind, not merely words and phrases, (the contents of
the Lexicon,) but principally the Grammar of the language.
Here also the Hebrew cannot well dispense with the aid of
the Arabic and Syriac, because the Hebrew Bible is far too
inconsiderable, to admit of a complete grammar being formed
from it with sufficient accuracy. For, to give an illustration
of the case : — if a certain alleged grammatical rule or excep-
tion depended only on a very few examples, and as to these,
there was a possibility of giving a different analysis of the
word, or of reading it in a quite different manner, the inquiry
would be suggested : Is the alleged rule, exception, or ano-
maly, well founded, or only imagined ? And this case is of
frequent occurrence in Hebrew Grammar, which appears to
some a mere assemblage of exceptions. In such a case, we
cannot well decide on any thing, without adopting the aid of
the other Oriental Languages, of w'hich we know more than
THE USEOF THK SYRIAC LANGUAGE, §. 11. 491^
ottlie Hebrew. Jf these recognize just such a grammatical
deviation, it is thus rendered evident, that this has been adopt-
ed in the Hebrew ; and it explains the example stated. But
if such is not the case, the contrary continues probable, until
it is shown, (at least by a sufficient number of undeniable ex-
amples, that is to say, such as cannot be otherwise explained,)
that the Hebrews actually had such a rule, or exception, or
anomaly.
Even the well-known rule, which is found in all grammars,
that Vav and Yod, if they quiesce, may be omitted ; or, that
they may be inserted as matres hctionis, (so that we have the
liberty of writing the same word both in full and defectively)
is called in question by critics ; some of whom are of opinion,
tliat all these differences of orthography are not grammatical
license, but errors of the transcriber. The Syriac language
here turns the balance in favour of the grammarians, and
against the rectifying critics -^ for in the records of Palmyra I
discover, that the same word is written, sometimes in full,
and sometimes defectively.
The Hebrew Grammar occupies, to a certain extent, a mid-
dle course between the Arabic and Aramaean. Where the
consonants, the most important part of the language, are con-
cerned, it appears in general somewhat more hke the Arabic
than like the Aramaean ; but this is not the case without de-
viation, and we may err, if we reject a Hebrew anomaly,
with which the Arabs wTre unacquainted.
I will adduce an example, in which this happened to my-
self. The J^un paragogic of the Hebrews after the Future is
well known. And it is still more common in Arabic, where
there is inflected a. future paragogic, which is so entitled. But
the Hebrew grammars generally state, that beside this, there
is also, although not often, a paragogic Nun suffixed to the
* [ Hoffmann (in his Syriac Grammar, Lib. i. Cap. i. §. 12.2.) give&
examples in proof of this. He says, however, that the occurrence of the
malres lectionis is more frequent in modern than in ancient Syriac ; and
he accounts for the fact, by ascribing it to the inflnenre of the Greek
language, TV. "]
4&4
THE USE op THE SYRIAC LANGUAXiE) §. Ih
Preterit. Most examples of it are erroneous ; and those ad-
duced are only the result of perplexity, because it was found
impracticable, to explain a certain obscure word, but by taking
away something at the commencement, rejecting it from the
middle, and suffixing it at the end.
The word P-J^ 7.t I^eut. viii. 3. 16., to be met with twice in
the same chapter, is at least an appropriate instance of this
anomaly. But, because I did not meet with any example of
a paragogic Nun after the Preterit, in the other Oriental Lan-
guages, I suspected this also, and 1 intended to omit it in the
future editions of my Hebrew Grammar. 1 would have ven-
tured to change the vowel-points of the only example, and to
express it in the Future pj^*!^ • The Future was not indeed
quite appropriate to the context ; but in this too, I adopted an
expedient, to aid it, and to translate : which thy fathers loould
not have known. This opinion did not last long. In Syriac
writers, that had not hitherto been printed, I met with what
grammarians keep out of view, that instead of aX^i) may
be inflected also ^a!s»^'^^ : for instance, in Asseman's On-
aital Library , T. i. p. 235. .aXiiA , or to take an example
N •
i\ *
found in this Chrestomathy,* p. 78. *ar::) \.£i . From this fact!
I concluded that the Chaldees do the same ; and in the Tar-
gum of Jerusalem and the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan, in-
stead of ^7^ vv^e often find f l^r- Then I began to think, that
the same might once have been the case in Hebrew.
* [ The extract in the Chrestomathy is from the Chronicle of Dio-
mjsius, in Asseman's Oriental Library, T. i. p. 411. In the Author's Sy-
riac Grammar, §>. 43., there are further examples. Tr. ]
i [ The use of the Paragogic Nun of the Preterit is well known in Sy-
riac; for in the Preterit of almost all verbs, some of the persons appear
with it. See Hoffmann's Syr. Gram, Lib. ii. Cap. i. §. 53. Annot. 3. In
Chaldee also it is to be met with, as the author states ; for instance, in
the Targum, it occurs three times in a single verse. Ps. lxxvii. 17. Eich-
HORN, (in his Einleitung iiis A. T. B. i. $. 11. pp. 76. 83.,) looks upon
the Nun paragogic of the Hebrew as an archaism; but Gbsenius, (in his
LehrgebHude der Hebr. Sprache. $. 78. Anmerk. 2.,) expresses a different
opinion. Tr. "}
THE USE OF THE SVRIAC LANGUAtiE, §.11, 4!^^
Ill regard to the vowels and diacritical marks, Hebrew
Grammar derives more illustrations from the Syriac, and but
few from the Arabic. The probable cause of it is this : that
after the Babylonian captivity, the Aramaean was for several
centuries vernacular among the Jews who dwelt in Asia,
and continued for a long time to be their learned language.
It was no wonder then, if they at this time pronounced
the Consonants of the unspoken Hebrew, according to
their living language, that is, Aramaean ; and were un-
acquainted with the ancient pronunciation, which, as I ap-
prehend, may have approached more nearly to the Arabic.
At the present day, almost every people in Europe pronounce,
according to their own native language, the Latin, which was
written with consonants and vowels : the Itahans pronounce
in a peculiar manner ; the Germans and the French also ; and
the English depart very widely from them all. If it occurred
to the Jews, therefore, a thousand years or more, after the
total extinction of the Hebrew language, to add to the He^
brew text the present vowels and diacritical marks ; it can
scarcely be supposed otherwise, than that, from their igno-
rance of the long lost ancient pronunciation, they would have
adapted their native language to the Chaldee or Aramaean.
And that is not merely probable a prior e, but I can prove it.
When I issue my new Hebrew Grammar, on which I am now
occupied, and which is to be reprinted in a form, entirely dif-
ferent from the editions of 1745, 1768, and 1778, there shall
be given illustrations of the fact.
My late revered father, in his Dissertation entitled Lumina
Syriaca pro illustrando Ebraismo (Halle 1756),^ derived
many grammatical elucidations from the Syriac ; and as I
have made his Syriac Grammar the ground of illustrations for
my Chrestomathy, I hope that no one may have this Syriac
Grammar, without connecting with it the above-mentioned
Dissertation.
* [ This Dissertation may be found in Pott's Sijlloge Comnieritt. Theffff'
P. I. p. 170. ss. Tr. 1
4^0 THE USE OP THK SYRlAC LANGUAtrK, §. II J.
§. III.
The use of the Syriac language, in elucidating the phraseology
of the New Testament,
The second use of the Syriac regards the Greek of the New-
Testament, which is so replete with Oriental phraseology.
Cases of this are generally called Hebraisms ; and I will not dis-
pute about this word, since undoubtedly no man understands so
much of the ancient Hebrew language, that he can with con-
fidence deny it any expression of another Oriental language.
It may have been Hebrew, without occurring in the small col-
lection of Hebrew books now extant. But Christ, whose
words are translated in the Gospels, and the other Jews of
his day did not use, as their vernacular language, the Hebrew,
but the Chaldee or Syriac. And many of the peculiar Greek
phrase.5 of the New Testament will be in vain sought for in
the Hebrew Scriptures ; j^et they are to be met with in
8yriac.
I have been marking, from time to time, in my New Tes-
tament, such Syriac phrases, and shall perhaps publish them,
when the collection is more enlarged. Should 1 not have time
for this, there will at least be found after my death, on the
margin of my copy of Wetstein's New Testament, what I
have thus collected out of Oriental as well as Greek writers,
that has not been taken notice of by others. I made use of
Wetstein's margin, because this kind of collection, on ac-
count of its similarity to his notes, seemed there to be most
appropriate.* I will, however, adduce one or two examples.
The New Testament says sometimes : to taste of death ;
* Something of this may be found in myEinleitung ins N. T., ilntro-
duclionto the New Testament, ] §. 20. ; in the fourth edition, pp. 145 — 149.
[ The corresponding reference, in Bishop Marsh's Translation, is Vo/
J. Pt. 1. Ch. IV. Sect. y. pp. 135—139. Tr. •]
THK USE OF THE SYRIAC LANGUAGE, §. III. 4Wt
lor instance, in John vm. 52. Hebr. ii. 9.* Because this is
not customary in the Greek, and is as httle in accordance
with our living languages, as they do not imitate the expi'ession
of the Scriptures, the learned have found in the taste of death,
according to their pleasure, emphases, mysteries, and depths.
At one time, it describes the easy and rapid transition of
death ; and at another, the bitierntss of its taste ; then again a
third found in it a deep theological sentiment or allusion, be-
cause our first parents brought death upon themselves and all
of us, by eating of a forbidden fruit, that was pleasant to the
taste. In this emphasis and allusion to a mere scriptural nar-
rative, we may truly be astonished to find, that the phrase is
nowhere in the Old Testament ; and this very deficiency
might have been enough, to prevent the interpreter's explain-
ing it merely by the emphatic word, a Hebraism, But we
may find it in the Syriac and Arabic writers ; the former of
whom are more nearly allied to the New Testament, because
Jesus and his Apostles spoke Aramaean.
In AiSEMAw's Oriental Library, T. i. p. 51. the Edes-
senes say: ^^^^-2 -a^-^ ZUj f^alo ^yw but one
death awaits us, which we must taste,'\ that is, we can die but
once. Here is the same expression, except only, that we see
whence it is derived. A passage of Ephrkm is more explicit,
in his Commentaty on the book of Genesis, Tom. i. p. 46. where
he makes Lamech say ; Before that comes to pass^we shall die, and
escape the misery ( l^i^^ ^ Sflp Q Ja:s) by the cup of deaths
which 7oe must taste. They imagined, therefore, that Death
held in his hand an empoisoned cup, which mortals were
compelled to drink: in the same manner, perhaps, that
* L The passages of the New Testament, in which the phrasp ytCofAAt
QAvdrovfto tasU of deatk, occurs, are the following : Matt. xvi. 28. Mark
IX. I. Luke IX. 27. John viu. 52. Hebr. ii. 9. In Hebr. xi. 5. also,
where the Greek is wh ihh bdrarov, not ste death, the Syriac is 1^21 as5
^^2 p' "<^^ ^^^^(^ of death. Tr .]
+ f FJterallv : One d^ath it btfvre. usy which tee shall tii,^e. Tr, \
m
4JJ8 THE ¥SE OP TBE SYRFAC LANGOAGE, §.111;
iQther nations are accustomed to furnish him with a fatal shatit,
the Jews with a sword, and the common people in Germany
with a scythe. Thus, too, may we understand the expression
of Christ, when he so repeatedly calls the death which awaited
him, a cup which he must drink.
There may be a doubt, perhaps, whether the Syrian Chris-
tians did not obtain these expressions from the New Testa-
menty somewhat in the same manner that our German, and to
a still greater degree the English language, have acquired
many Scriptural phras(\s, because some people are desirous at
all times to speak according to the Scriptures, or as Swift * has
it, in his satire on the Puritans, according to their father's will.
This cannot, indeed, be confuted from the Syriac alone^
because our Syriac writers generally are Christians : though
the contrary may still be probable, on this account, that the
New Testament must have received the expression from some
other language, and Christ must have received it from the
common language of the Jews. The Arabic here furnishes
Us with new aid, from the circumstance that it exhibits
to us, as evidences of the expression, ancient poets who
Avere not Christians. An Arabian bard of pagan times,
whose poem I have transferred from Schultens' Gram-
mar into my Arabic Chrestomathy, [ see p. 77. ] f says :
(jX-4 J^-i ei--^-^ //"L-^ L«iw-X-5— ;:i
w6 must give the Hudailites the cup of death to drink ; and
ScHULTENs cites, (p. 442. of his Arabic Grammar,) a corres-
ponding passage.^:
• Tale of a Tub, p. 115. of the first volume of Swift's Works, accord-
ing to the Hawkesworth edition of 1760.
t Professor Adler, in Nonnulla Malthasi et Marci enunciata, ex ndolc
tinguae Syriacae explicata, p. 13. states some further examples of Arabic
phrases, which give appellations to Death, from drinking or intoxication^
Some of these 1 think inapposite.
^ [ A similar phrase is often found in Rabbinical writers. Thus: All
the children of the world NniDl NDi7C3 V 't-' taste the tasle of death.
Dr. Gill (in his Comment, on Matt, xvi. 28.,) quotes, in proof of this,
Zohar on Gen., fol. 2:, 4. and 37, 1. and on Exod., fol. 19, 2. and on
Numb., fol. 60, 4. and 61, 2. 4 \ and Midrash Kohelelh, fol. 83, 2. He
refers also to Berestiit Kabba, Sect, 9, fol. 7-3. 4., and Bpxtorf (in \rh
THE USE OF TH£ SYRIAC LANGUAC^S, §. HI. 4H!^
"St. PauPs expression, ii. Cor. xii. 7., the angel or messenger
of Satan, to buffet me, the best interpreters understand, as re-
ferring to a bodily disease. It is not my purpose at this time,
to explain it from the opinion of the Jews, who ascribed every
disease to some evil spirit, and regarded all these spirits, as
subjects and messengers, or angels, of the Angel of Death,
who in particular is called Satan. It is «ow my intention
only, to supply a very similar Syriac expression, which I have
met with in Asseman's Oriental Library, T. i. p. 215.^
where a transcriber, in the subscription of a book, says
that he wrote it at a time when he was sick ; which is in
Syriac, when I received buffetings on account of my sins : — ■
I . \.. ^ . . •
The verb (fxavSaki^u, so common in the New Testament,
and of which I made mention some time since, 'm the Pro-
gram * to my Lectures on the Septuagint, pp. 20. 21., may
be here introduced ; as I then expressly deferred what may-
be better stated while I am treating of the Syriac, than when
speaking of the Septuagint.
The noun (fxavdakov is sufficiently explained by Commenta-
tors, and good Greek writers were not unacquainted with it.
It properly signifies : the loose and lightly set small stick of a
trap, which, at the slightest touch, suffers the weight resting
Lexicon Chal. Talrn. Rabb.) gives the words of the citation. Dr.
Paulds (in his Commentar fiber das N. T., Vol. ii. Absch. lxxvii.) adds-
the following passage from JalktU Chadasch, fol. 69, 2.: "There are
thirteen who taste not the taste vf death : Enoch, Eliezer the servant of
Abraham, Methuselah, Hiram king of Tyre, Ebed-Melech the Ethiopian^
Pharoah's daughter, Serah the daughter of Asher, the three sons of
Korah, Elijah, Messiah." Tr. ]
* f The title of this work is : Joh. Dav. Michaf.lis Programma,
vjorinne er von seinen Collegiis Uber die lxx. DoUmetscher Nachricht giebt,
und zugleidi das aste von diesen Collegiis Uber die Sprilchwdrter Salomoni^
ankiindigt. Gdtlingen, 1767. octavo. Program, in which he gives an ac-
count of his Lectures on the Septuagint, and at the same time submits
the first of his Lectures on the Proverbs of Solomon. See Rosesmullek
Handb. fUr die Literal, der bibl. Krit. und Exeg, B. ii, Abth. i. Absch. £.
St. 3. at the close. Tr. ^
506 THE USE OF THE SYIllAC LANGUAGE, §. 111.
on it to fall ; and in a general sense, the trap itself may bfe
called (Txixv^aXov. The verb (fxav8aki^(^ derived from it, is not
deduced from classic authors ; but it must, according to its
derivation, be the same as the phrase, to set a trap for any
one, or to catch him with it, or, if the trap itself be in the
Nominative, fhe trap cavght some one. The pure Greek was
still less acquainted with this verb in a moral acceptation.
In the New Testament the noun and verb are often met
with, and perhaps not at all times in the same sense. We
cannot properly call it a Hebraism, as we do not in one in-
stance find the verb, in the whole Greek version of the cano-
nical books of the Old Testament.* The Book of Sirach is the
first that has it, Ch. ix. .5. xxui. 8. xxxn. (or according to
others xxxv.) 15. or as others have it 16. or 19; but still the
New Testament may hence derive much for its elucidation.
The last passage of 8irach requires more illustration that it
gives ; and in the two preceding, the word is used of a more
particular catching, and placing of the snare. In the New
Testament, on the contrary, it most generally occurs in such
a manner, that (if I may be permitted, on account of the am-
biguity, to retain the Greek word,) by scandalizing, inconsi*
deration seems to be alleged, rather than wickedness and de-
sign* it does not, so to speak, set a trap, but only permits
something to lie in the way, over which a person may fall.
It herq seems to be the translation of the Syriac \\ AiD Z j >*
i . . . . . : " .' ..
which pnmarily, in its proper signification, means to fall, but
then, to fall away from a religion, be it true or false ; to he
irritated dt any thins;, and on this account, to break off from
fellowship^ with him who does it. I will adduce some exam-
ples from my Chrestomathy. At page 43, it is related, that
the King of the Homerites desired and received from Alex-
andria a Bishop, before the decree of the Council of Chal-
cedon, which condemned Eutychus, was recognized at Alex-
* I have since, however, found one example of it in a canonical book.
Dan. XI. 41 ; but that I could not have known in the year 1768, for Da-
niel in the Version of the lxx. was first published at Rome in the }np«r
.177^
THK USE or tHE SYRIAC LANGUAGE, §. Hi. 5W1
Bftdria ; but this Bishop soon died, and as this Council in the
mean time was there recognized, and Theodosius was pro-
scribed, on account of the, faith, and because he would not
subscribe to it, the King of the Homerites was displeased
OOl 4-s( ^j&jdZJ ), and would not receive any Bishop
from Alexandria. It may be remarked, that the word is here
used, not of an apostasy, but of an affront, on account of which
the Homerites separated from a Church, regarded by the wri-
ter as heterodox.
Bishops were introduced among the Homerites, in violation
of the usages of the Church, and without being consecrated
by Bishops ; see p» 45. The author greatly disapproves of
this ; and he thus writes of those who disapproved of it, as
well as himself: " but many ( a^ .•-^Zf ), did not regard
this as an ordination, and did not recognize them ; upon which,
there arose a great schism." In this passage, it might be
thought, periiaps, that the Syrians may have derived from
the New Testament, their signification of the word, because
it occurs in an ecclesiastical sense : but in p. 97, ^OwaJlO
fallen, has the same sense as ansrered, displeased.
This gives, it is true, to most passages of the New Testa-
ment where (fxavSaXi^M <)ccurs, no other sense than they al*
ready have among commentators : but still it illustrates them,
and evinces, that this verb had acquired, in ancient Greeks
and even with the Septuagint, a signification so unusual.*
At direct variance with it, is a common pulpit observation,
that [ the German word ] drgerti [ to offend ] does not mean
to irritate a person, but to make him drger [ worse ], or to cor*
rupt his principles. This is a w^ell meant moral and etymo*
logical reflection on the German word : but it is unwarranted
* [ A very full investigation of this subject may be found in Johan-
SIS VoRSTii de ffehraismis N. T. CommeiUarius, Pars i. Cap. in. 9. pp. 8T
—105. of the edit. Lipsiaei, 1778. IV. ]
J(te THE USE OP THE SVRIAC LAIfGUAGE, §. Uh
in the Greek, which actually says with a Syriasm, to provoke
one to anger, to irritate. And I must ascribe it to a happy
accident, that in the German there is found a word, which so
well expresses the sense of the Syro-Greek, although the Ger-
man Translator knew nothing of the Syriac.
One particular passage of the New Testament, however,
seems to be still more indebted to this interpretation from
the Syriac, and to be, for the first time, by means of it, ren-
dered intelligible and consistent. In Matt. xvni. 1 — 10. the
subject is pride, and the severest curse is denounced against
those, who offend one of the least ; but of this it is said again,
verse 10., take heed that ife despise not one of these little ones -:
just as if to offend and to despise were the same, or that to
offend was a consequence of pride. This removes a great
obscurity in the passage, as long as to offend is taken, in the
usual ecclesiastical sense, of setting a bad example. But as
soon as we understand by 'i-navdoChi^u, to provoke one in such a
manner, that in anger he xbithdraios himself from us ; yes,
and apostatizes from Christ himself and supply* the narrative
from Mark ix. 33 — 50, all is then clear. As the disciples of
Jesus disputed by the way, wh() among them should be the
greatest in his kingdom, Jesus places a little child in the midst
of them, takes it up in his arms, and says, if they do not be-
come as this child, they cannot enter into his kingdom ; and
whosoever shall receive one such child, or the least disciple
of Christ, in the name of Christ, and for his sake, will have
received Christ himself John ventured in reply, to make a
suggestion to this effect : his master Jesus spoke somewhat
too indefinitely. ' Many strangers called upon his name.
He himself, and his fellow-disciples, had in short met with
one, who prayed over those who were possessed, and wished
to cast out the evil spirit in the name of Christ ; but they
* I refer to my latroduction to the New Testament, $. 96. pp. 910—
915. In the third edition, §. 120. pp. 772—774. [ In the fourth edition
§. 121. pp. 879—881 ; and in Bishop Marsh's^ translation.. Vol.iu.Pt. i.
Ch. u. Sect. ». pp, 0—9. Tr. 1
TUE USE OP TflE SYRIAC LANGUAGE, §. IV. 503
forbid him, because he was not in fellowship with them ; and
yet he supposed, that Jesus would not disapprove of their
conduct/ Upon this, Jesus answered : he did greatly disap-
prove of it. At least, this man could have been no adversa-
ry of his, but must have been a worshipper. And whosoever
held in contempt only one of the least of his disciples, and
injured him, and provoked him,, on that account ; he would
have severely to answer for it. If such an one, only an
humble disciple, as was that individual of whom they spoke,
should by their opposition be alienated from faith in him ;
one of the greatest sins would have been committed. Here,
to provoke, to alienate from Christ, and to despise^ are: very
nearly allied to each other.
§IV.
Of Books written in Syriac ; and of the use of the Syriac
New Testament.
The third use of the Syriac language consists in this, that
it puts us in a situation, to read and understand a number of
useful books, which are written in it.* This is generally the
object for which we learn a language ; but we are apt to pass
by this in regard to the Oriental Languages, at one time, be-
cause we design merely to use them for their illustration of
the Hebrew, and our intention leads us no further than this :
and at another time, because in these languages, (excepting
a version of the Scriptures, or Liturgies,) very little is extant
or known. The latter is not the case, in regard to the Sy-
riac language. Independently of a complete Version of the
whole Bible, and even of the Apocryphal Books, we are of-
'* [ An Essay on the Literature of the Christian Syrians, ( Ueber die Lit-
teratur der christlichen Syrer,) by J. F. Gaab, is inserted in Pauios'
Repeitorium fQ.r biblische widmorgenl&ndischc Lilteralur, VoLin. pp. 358
s?. of the edit. Jena,, 1791. Tr. ")
504 THE USE or THE SYRIAC LANGUAGE, §. IV,
fered a valuable library of important, and for the most part
unexamined works, most of them indeed as yet in manuscript^
but some in print, and I would add, (lest the latter should be
thought single sheets,) even folio volumes.
Among these works, it is true, the version of the Scrip-
tures holds a very dii-tinguished place, on account of its criti-
cal and philological use ; and an omission would be discover-
ed here, if I did not make particular mention of it.
In regard to the versions of the New Testament, I shall
readily be relieved from the necessity of this, as I should be
compelled to repeat what .1 have treated at length on this
point, in my Curat in versionem Syriacam Acluum Jpostoli-
corum, cum consectariis criticis, de indole, cognationibuSy et
•iisu versionis Syriacae tabularum novi foederis, (published in
the year 175;>),* and also in the second edition of the Intro-
duction to the New Testament, §§. 24 — 31.1"
But I must say something, in regard to the version of the
Old Testament, at least as preliminary, and defer the proofs
of what 1 state. Those, who have hitherto attended my
usual College Lectures, which I read on some one or other
chapter of the Bible, will readily recal to mind the proofs.
If 1 have time, I will on some future occasion gather them
from these Lectures, where they lie scattered, and transfer
* [ This valuable work is a small quarto of two hundred pages, pub-
lished at Gbttin^en, in the year above mentioned It contains : $. x.
interpretations of the Grtek text derived from the Syriac ; $$. ii — vi.
a critical examination of the Arabic Version uf th Epistles, ai the Acts
of the Apostles, edited by Erpenius, and a comparison of this version
with the Syriac ; §. vii. a collection of readings in ihe Syriac not noted
by Dr. Mill ; $§. vni — x. a comparison of the Syriac and Latin Ver-
sions; §. XI. a list of Greek MSS. allied to ^he Syriac ; $. xii. a view of
the peculiar readings of the Syriac ; §. xiii. remarks on Wetstein's want
of due care in examining Greek i\tSS. Tr. ]
t In the fourth edition, more shall be stated on the value of this
version; but [ cannot designate the parasjraphs, because so much of the
work is not yet printed. [ The author wrote these words in 1786, and
in 1788 the /oMr//i edition of his work was published. The passage re-
ferred to is ^§. 53—60. pp. 361 — 409; in Bishop Marsh's Trans. Vol. ii.
Pt. I. Ch. vu. Sect. 11— )x. pp. 4—51. Tr. ]
%'HE USE OF THE SYRIAC LANttUAGE, §♦ V. 505
diem to the critical Dissertations, which I propose to
■\yrite,* on the causes of the various^readings in the Hebrew
Bible.
§. V.
l^onie account of the Syriac Version of the
Old Testament.
The Syriac Version of the Old Testament is of great un-
■portance, and pleases me more than that of the New. It is
incorrectly stated by some, that it was made from the Greek :
as fkr as I have hitherto examined it, sometimes casually at
isolated passages, and sometimes in my critical lectures on
entire chapters, I find it throughout, immediately translated
irom the Hebrew text.t In the readings of the Hebrew
text which it expresses, and in the interpretation which it
gives of Hebrew words, it is very often different from the
S.eptuagint : and in each chapter where I have instituted a
.epmparison, 1 have found several such differences. I would
offer to give examples, from any chapter that might be se-
lected ; but it is the less necessary, because my reader may
find them, in the printed critical Lectures on the 16th., 40th.,
and UOth. Psalms.
* This is now out of the question; but some of the kind alluded io
will be found in my Introduction to tfie Old Testament, if I live to finish
it. [ Of this work, only a small part ever appeared. It is the first por-
tion of the first volume, published at Hamburg in the year 1787, com-
prising Introductions to the Book of Job and the Books of Moses. It
contains 352 pages, small quarto, and is written in German. The au-
thor died four years after its publication ; in the year 1791. Tr. ]
t [ This is also asserted, in express words, by Gregory Barhe-
BRAEus. See AssEMANS Oriental Library, T. ii. p. 274, and Abulfhara-
G^os' History of the dyrmties, p. 100, together with tlie internal evi-
dences adduced by Eichborn, in his Jntroduclion to the 0. T, Vol. u,
5.253. Tf.]
64
"^Q^ .THj: USE or TH|2 SYRIAC LANGUAttE, §. V.
I do not deny, that the Syriac Version not unfrequently
agrees also with the Septuagint ; but that is not to be wonder-
ed at, and is no objection to what I state. No two transla-
tors always read or interpreted differently from each other ;
and just as well do I discover, that the Syriac accords, some-
times with the Chaldee, and sometimes with Symmachus,
or other Ancient Versions.
Nor will I deny, that the Syriac translator had at hand the
Greek Version of the Scriptures, and may have taken much
from it ; and I should wonder if he had not done so, as the Greek
language was so much spoken in the cities of Syria, and in-
deed yet further in those of the Euphrates, and in Edessa. I
do this, even in the German translation of the Hebrew Bible,
in which I am now occupied.* In the preparation for it, I
consult, not merely the Greek, but at the same time the other
Ancient Versions, as often as I find it necessary ; and in the
execution of it, I look into Luther's Bible, to borrow from it a
happy expression, when I am in want of one ; but still I trans-
late from the Hebrew. Just in this manner, I imagine, the
Syriac translator acted, in regard to the Septuagint.
Some of the more remarkable coincidences, between the
Syriac Bible and the Greek, did not however proceed from
the original translator, but from a supposed improvement^
which Jacob of Edessa undertook, at the beginning of the
eighth centuiy, and of which important notices may be seen
in the Journal des S^avaiis.'t As far as my observation ex-
tends, the Syriac accords with the Greek, more frequently in
Ezekiel, than in the other books ; but I do not know the cause
of this. I have observed the same also, in regard to the Pro-
verbs of Solomon, yet with the particular and unexpected
circumstance, that the Chaldee Version follows the Septua-
gint still more ; so much so, that in my notes of readings to-
* [ Michaelis made this observation in the year 1768 ; and the next
year, a part of his very able German Transh'iion of the Bible was first
. published. The entire work, in part improved and enlarged by the au>
t%. ihor^afterward appeared, between the yeaj-s 17'73 and 1793. Tf. 1
t Tlie dmn^dum ^ditioa, OcWber }7Q^, Vol i. pp. 67—99,
THE D3E OP THE SYRIAC LANGUAGE, §. V. 507
ward the middle of this book I find, in those readings of the
Hebrew text which they translate, that the Septuagint is more
frequently accordant with the Chaldee and Syriac, than with
the Vulgate.*
It seems, that the books of the Old Testament were not all
translated into Syriac by one hand ; for example, the transla-
tor of the books of Moses appears to me a diiferent person
from him, who furnished the Syriac Bible with the books of
Chronicles. This may have a bearing on the preceding ob-
servation. Now and then I discover traces of the religion of
the translator, which indicate a Christian and no Jew. A
Jew by religion would not have employed the Syriac, but
the Hebrew letters, and would have used the Chaldee Tar-
gums more copiously, than is obser\'ed in most books of the
Syriac Old Testament. This a Jew by birth would have
done, if even he had been converted to Christianity. If there-
fore most books of the Syriac Bible thus evince, that the in-
terpreter had no acquaintance with the Targums, I then think,
that the translator! never was a Jew by birth.
In the Polyglots, the Syriac text is not the best, but often
very incorrect. The fault of this cannot be ascribed to the
• When T wrote this I was unacquainted with a Treatise by Dr.
Da THE, De raliorif conscnms versionis Chaldaicae el Syriacae proverbio-
rum Sitlomonis, Lipsiae, 1764, in which he makes this observat on, and
states as the cause of tfie fact, that the Chaldee translation was made
from the Syriac, and afterward only altered in some places by the JewsL
This subject I must defer, and treat of it in my Introduction to the Old
Testament.
+ [ The religion and nation of the Syriac translator are unknown,
KiRSCH, in the Preface to his edition of the Pentateuch in Syriac, (pp.
II — vui. of the edit. Leipzig, A. D. 1787), presents a brief view of the
different opinions on the subject, and adds also some judicious observa-
tions. He argue*, that the author of the Syriac Version was a Syrian.
According to Richard Simon he was a Jew; that he was a Jewish Chris-
tian is maintained by Dathe ; and in the- opinion of Bertholdt and
our aqthor, he is to be regarded as a Christian. Gesekius, in the Intro-
duction to his Commentary on Isaiah, Th. ii. $. 12. 3., (or pp. 429. 43Q.
oSlhis volume,) maintains the last opinion. Tr. 1
i>08 '^'^^ ^^^ ^^ ^'"^ SYRIAC LANGUAGE, ^> V.
editor solely, although it is certain, that Gabriel Sionita vma
by no means an Asseman ; and for the publication of the Sy-
riac Bible he brought neither the skill, nor even the care requi-
site, which might in some measure have supplied the want of
karning. But the fault is pai'tly to be ascribed to this : that in
the execution of the work, there was unfortunately employed
a very faulty manuscript. Dolath and Rish, Yud and Nun,-
especially in proper names, are often evidently altered. How
frequently does this deviation give a sense, not all accordant
with the Hebrew text ! Although the faults are not limited
to these few letters ; yet I mention these only, because they
are very frequently committed. But I have also found at
times, in using the Syriac Version, that it rhust be printed in-
correctly, and even so much so, that I can readily conjecture
the true reading.* That word conjecture may indeed excite
some suspicion, whether I may have guessed rightly : but if I
add that I have at times confirmed my conjecture, on com-
paring Ephrem, and have found the reading which /conjec-
tured, the text with him, or where the text was faulty and-
printed according to the Polyglots, still illustrated by him,
this may in a measure call forth a favourable prepossession.
I do not readily venture a critical conjecture ; but if, sa to
speak, it obtrudoe iteolf upon me, T adopt it.
From what has thus far been said, it follows, that whoever
reads the Syriac Version of the Old Testament, not merely
for the acquisition of the language, but w ould apply it to a
critical use, or judge of its interpretations of the Old Testa-
ment, he will do well, at least wherever any thing appears to
him obscure or doubtful, to examine the various readings of the
Syriac Version, which are to be found in the sixth volume of
the London Polyglot. I have commonly found among these
* in (lie Polyglot' BiUe which my reveVeid fatter left me, t somelftoes
fend, written on the margin, his conjectural emendations of tlie Syriac
text; apd I regard these conjectures in the main as probable, and most
of them astf«e.
f HE USE OF THE SYRUC LANGUAGE, ^. V. 509
what I sought for, bat liot always ; on many occasions EpHnEitt
has had it, and other conjectures remain as yet mere conjec-
tures, that is, without evidence.
Of how great importance Epiirem Syrus may be to a
sehalaFj who desires to read and use the Syriac Version, WJr^
reaider may have already observed ; but in regard to hi^
Works, I shall soon speak further. It is my intention herfe, ta
{Joint out only a few other helps, which the scholar, \^lKy
wishes, if I may so speak, to exhaust the uses of the Syriac
Version, must employ.
Of some books of Scripture we hate Arabic Versions,
which are made from the Syriac ; of this character is the
Arabic version of the book of Job, which is printed in the
Polyglots, and in great part the so called Maronite Arabic
Version of the Psalms.* Whoever compares these with the
Syriac, will sometimes be enabled to understand an uncommon,
and on that account obscure or doubtful Syriac word, with
more correctness, or at least with a greater degree of certainty.
This is particularly useful, in regard to the names of animals and
plants ; for these words have heretofore been very little un-
derstood, because we have no works on Natural History, in
Syriac as we have in Arabic. Gabriel Sionita was accus-
tomed to translate them, so to speak, without the least regard
for the public, as it casually occurred to him, and as he under-
stood the Hebrew word to which the Syriac answered, from
the Vulgate, or from a Hebrew Lexicon ; just as if the Syriac
* [ The Author here inserts a long note, on this and other Arabic
Versions of the Psalms, which it is thought proper to omit.
It may be well to state, however, that the Arabic Version of the
rsalms, in the LoN'DON Polyglot is formed from the Oreek, and not
from the Hebrew, as alleged by Baumgarten in the Hallischerx Bihlio-
thek.
The Maronite Arabic Version of the Psalms, our author asserts in the
omitted note, was formed, not from the Greek, but from the Syriac. See,
to the contrary, Rosemijller's Handbuch filr die Literatuf dcr bibl.
Kritik und Exegese, B. ui. Abth. 5. Absch. 3 ; also EicHHOfeu's Einleit.
ins A, T. B. ii. Kap. m. «S. 297, and his Reperlorium^ Th. iv. Abh". in,
510 THE USE OF THE SYRIAC LANGUAGE, §. VI,
translator must have understood the Hebrew word, in that
manner which prevailed in Gabriel's day. Castel , whose
Syriac Lexicon I estec m very highly, and regard as the most
complete portion of his Heptaglot Lexicon, h ;s indeed correct-
ed many of these faults, and translated in his Lexicon different-
ly from what occurs in the Latin Version of Gabriel Sionita :
but words from natural history are still the very poorest part
of his Dictionary. Here then the Arabic Versions sef m to me
to be of great use. They were made at a time, when both
the Arabic and the Syriac were vernacular and living lan-
guages, in Syria, Mesopotamia and Assyria ;* and when we
might expect, that the translator knew, which plant or animal
was called by this or that name in Syriac, as it was a common
appellation ; and in Arabic we are still less exposed to error.
The Latin Version, which accompanies the Syriac in the
Polyglots is not to be trusted ; and it has been made, neither
with the necessary skill, nor even with proper care.
§. VL
lilt use of the Syriac Version of the Otd Testament.
. The use which may be made of the Syriac Version is
partly critical, in the proper acceptation of the word, and
partly exe^etical.
The critical is afforded, if we collect from this version the
various readings of the Hebrew text which it expresses. It
furnishes us with a great supply of these, hitherto not known
* It may be objected, that in this case no Arabic Version would be ne-
cessary. On this account I would state, that in cities where the conquering
nation, the Arabian, prevailed, there the Syriac langua;je gradually sunk
more and more into disuse ; and that as the Christians who resided out
of the above-mentioned provinces used the Syriac language in divine
worship, this language became unknown, at an earlier period, out of
Syria, Mesopotamia and Assyria. This rendered Arabic Versions of the
existing Scriptures necessary, before the Syriac vfholly ceased fo be ft
liviog^languaj^e.
THfi USE OF TH£ SYftlAC LANGUAGE, §. VI. 5ll
und still less examined, and many of them important. Some-
times it confirms the common reading of the Masorites, in
opposition to other Ancient Versions, or to the Samaritan
text ; sometimes it contributes by its oVn, to set forth other
readings of the Masorites. To what deference it may be
entitled in either case, I cannot now inquire.
The exegetical uses I value far more highly, in regard to
the Syriac Version of the Old than of the New Testament:
and for this reason, because in the Old Testament there is
more obscure, that stands in need of explanation. This is the
case particularly, if obscure Hebrew words are translated by
the Syriac interpreter, who might know much more concern-
ing them, than we in Europe, after the lapse of so many cen-
turies. I have treated of this, in my Fiew of the means^ to ac-
quire a knowledge of the Hebrew language, § §. 22. 23. 24., to
which I now refer, to save repetitions. Here, and as far as
it relates to the signification of particular words, the Syriac
Version (on account of its age, and because its author spoke,
as his native language, one that was allied to the Hebrew,)
has in a degree, the authority and credibility of a witness.
The case is different, as soon as the question is, whether this
or that meaning is to be adopted in a particular passage point-
ed out ; for the question, in this case, is merely logical, and
can depend neither on witnesses nor authority. Yet still an
Ancient Version may possess another kind of merit ; which
is, that it may elucidate an obscure passage of the Hebrew
Bible, the sense of which at least modern commentators have
misapprehended, and give an explanation that was not thought
of, and which on close investigation may prove true. It is
indeed merit enough, if this true explanation were to be met
with only in a degree, and it gave us a hint, which led us
further. I must acknowledge, that I have not unfrequently
been indebted to the Syriac Version for something of this
kind, and lest the supposition should arise, that it always con-
sisted in trifles, I will give an example ; a^d doubtful as it is,
on account of a double reading, no friend of Christianity, no
intelligent skeptic can regard it among trifles.
If we understand Isaiah xxv, 7. according to the usual in-
i>ii^ THE OgE PI- TBie ^VflUC LANGUAGE, §* Vi.
terpretatipn,* in which ^ 72 is ^o swallow up, £0^7 <Q co^er,
and niDpp « 'Cfli/, then there arise phrases, the unfitness of
which might convince toy one, that Isaiah ha4 in view ^pr
thing of the kind, Wha.t expressions ! The Loud will swaU
low up the face of the covering, that is covered over all people,
and the vail that is spread over all nations. What is aface of
the covering : a covered face ! some may reply. But how then
qan it be spread over the people ? We cover a face, but we do
not cover it over other heads. What an idea, to swallow up the
vail j or if you will, destroy the vail, or cast it into the seal
liUTHER had too nice a sense of the proprieties of the Ger-?
man language, to have translated this : he used other words,
and thus softened the hardness of expression, which he dis-
covered.! The moderns have brought to the interpretation of
the Scriptures more learning, but not equal taste. If we com^
pare them with him. he appears to be an intelligent man, who
had good taste, but was bold in translating, and attributed to
his author his own sentiments ; while all learned Commenta-
tors appear to be, I dare not say what, but only the contrary
of the excellencies just commended.
I shall not adduce all that has been suggested, with a view
to give a tolerable sense to the w^ords of Isaiah ; for how
w^ould it comport with a preface to a Syriac Chrestomathy ?
The only suggestion that I can make, before I proceed to the
svibject itself, is that all difficulties vanish, if instead of Dl /|1
we read with the Syriac, Chaldee, and Symmachus t3'7t!^.
For as the verb ^^2 signifies to smite (and particularly so
'^ [ In the text of our Knglish Bibles, it is thus : '• And he will destroy
in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, and the
vail thai is spread over all nations." In the margin, we read swallow up,
jjjstead oi^ '• destroy," and covered instead of " cast over.' Tr, ]
i [Luther's words are these: Vrnf er wird auf diesem Berge das
Hilllen icegthun, damp alle VGlktr verhRllet sind, und die Decke, damit alie
Ileyden zugedeckl sind; i. e. And on this mountain he will remove the
vail wherewith all people, are vailed, and the covering^ wherewitk alli
nations are covered. Tr. ]
THE USE or THE SlTKIAC LANGUAtJE, §. VI. 513
211 Syriac), and T|D^ is used in reference to anointing kings,
we may actually translate very handsomely, and agreeably
to the context : The Lord will smite the face of the tyrant,
who rules over all people, and is anointed Lord over all na-
iions : he will smite death for ever. Here Death would signi-
iy the universal tyrant over all people ; and as to jlDDD,
which 1 translate Lord, or more strictly, unctio ad magistra-
turn, we need only be informed, that magistrates in the East
assume as a title the ahstracta generis fejuinini.* I regard
this reading as any thing but substantiated, yet as I have men-
tioned the readings of the Syriac translator, it may serve for
an example. I proceed to what I particularly propose to
say.
I will, then, not change the Hebrew text at all, but take it
as it stands in our printed Bibles ; and the Syriac Version of
the words : CD^l:in"S3"Si; HD^D^n riDD^Dm first put
me in the way for a better explanation. The Syriac
translator renders them, almost retaining the Hebrew words :
LiM^Hi S^ .^ and the offering which is slain for t all peo-
ple* The Hebrew words may by all means signify this ;
TjD^ to pour, to shed, is the common word among the He-
;brews, that is used of drink-offerings, and in Arabic it is ap-
plied to offerings in general, without this restriction. For
* [ On the use oi the feminine e^stract in Syriac, see Hoffmanw's Sy-
riac Grammar, Lib. iii. Cap. i. $. 110. Tr. ]
i L The words ^sli \^}^ may be traHslated in behalf of, as in Acts
sxvi. 1. Agrippa said unto Paul, Thou art permitted to speak
«^ A^^ ^^V ^1. in behalf of thyself Tr. ]
65
614 THE USE OP THE SYRIAC LANGUAGE, §. VI-
cA..M\.^ signifies he has offered, (J\mm.^^MxJx
an offering, and c5\-*— wx-S the blood of the offering.
y
The very Syriac u iXI^.^ to offer seems to be the same as
this, and a mere transposition of letters. As soon as the
Syriac translator suggested to me this thought, it occurred,
that I might permit Dl7 to remain in the former part of the
verse, without a single alteration of the reading, but in the
sense which it has in the Chaldee, Syriac and Arabic, io de-
vote. Then Isaiah is made to speak of an ofiering for all
people, and of one, who was made a curse for all nations ;
and this in a very appropriate connexion. He had just been
speaking, at least as I understand him, of the fall of Baby-
Ion, and had connected with it the happy period of the New
Testament, which he delineates as a feast unto Zion, pre-
pared for all people. Then follows, that with the offering
for all people, Death also shall be destroyed for ever ; that
is, his power shall be taken from him, and immortality shall
be restored. Is not this almost as express a prophecy of
Christ, as that in Chapter liii., and without the least
violence to the words ? To present it at one view, I will
translate the 6th. to the 8th. verse, according to the interpre-
tation, which I am accustomed to give in Lectures, and to
establish by proofs, on account of its departure from that
which generally prevails : —
Jehovah will prepare on this mountain a feast for all people,
a feast of costly meats and of wine, the fat of which shall be
pure marrow, and where casks of wine shall be emptied.
And he will smite on this mountain the visage of the curse, that
has been cursed for all people, and the offering that is offered
for all nations. He will destroy death for ever, and Jehovah
will wipe away all tears from all faces.*
* [ Our atithor adopted this version, almost word for word, in his Ger-
wiftfe translation (jflAe Bible, Vol. via., containing a Translation of
THE USE OF THE SYRIAC LANGUAfc^E, §• VI. 515
In respect to this value of the S} riac Version of the Old
Testament, I have often regretted, that it could not be had
for the use of students, in a cheap edition. The diminished
price of the London Polyglot, which has hitherto cost fifty
or sixty, and now may by chance be had at public sales for
twenty Rix dollars, will suit a scholar here and there. Yet, on
account of its size, it is not a book to be read in Universities.
Two days previous to my writing this, 1 have receiv-
ed the Syriac Psalter, which Professor Dathe has pub-
lished at Leipzig. I consider it very useful, and we should
have advanced further in Oriental learning, if, instead of the
numerous editions of the Syriac Kew Testament, there had
sooner been in existence a manual edition of the much more
instructive Version of the Old Testament. Upon the first
inspection of this Psalter, I see one thing which 1 could have
little desired ; it is the Latin Version, which makes it unfit for
a manual in colleges, and renders the student remiss. The
Syriac language is almost too easy, for any -one to require a
translation ; it must therefore be for the use of those, who
desire to learn no Syriac at all, and yet wish to read what is
contained in the book. Since I have read the preface, I am
feitisfied with the translation ; yet with the feelings of one
who cannot alter it.
Isaiah, and a Commentary on the text. Rosenmuller ( in his Scholia
in V. T. Pars ni. Vol. ii.) translates : " Et abolebit in monte hoc spe-
ciem operimenti operientis omnes populos, et velamen expansum super
omnes populos " Gesenius ( in his Version of Isaiah ) says : " He des-
troys on this mountain the vail ( Schleyer ), which covers the face of all
people, the vail ( Hillle ) which vails all nations." AuGtJSxi and De
Wette ( in their Translation ) render thus : " And he removes from
this mountain every appearance of the vailing ( Verhilllung ), the vail-
ing, which spreads itself over all people, and the covering ( Dec/i^ ),
■ivherewith all nations are covered." Tr. ]
,>16- THE tSE OF THE SYRIAC LANGUAGE. »^. V*/.
§. VIL
The uae which may he made of other Si/riac Works^ particular ii^
those published by the AssEiAANS.
Beside the Version of the ScriptureSy^ of which I have ne-
cessarily treated more at length, the Syriac language offers us
a very large store of valuable works, for the most part in<
manuscript, but some in print.
Joseph Simonius Asseman, (Europe has not heretofore
recognized a scholar as accomplished in the Syriac lan-
guage,) gives in his admirable Oriental Library an account
of these, and sometimes extracts also from them. Some of
the smaller works he has even published entire.
Another very important contribution is made by the
works of Ephrem Syrus, pubhshed at Rome in the year
1732 — 1746 ; but without some knowledge of Syriac, all
hope must be relinquished, of becoming acquainted even
with the subjects of which Ephrem treats, by the aid of the.
accompanying Latin translation of the work. This transla-
tion, which did indeed proceed from an Asseman, yet not
from Joseph Simonius, but his nephew, Stephen Evodius
Asseman, is exceedingly loose. Sometimes the translator did
not understand the Syriac ; and in other places, which are so
easy, that one cannot go astray, he is so unfaithful, as to write
differently from what is found in the Syriac. Here he omits
what Ephrem says, and then he adds what the author never
thought of; and all this so paraphrastically, that we do not
read Ephrem, as much as Asseman.
This Asseman published the Jlcts of the Oriental Martyrs, in
the year 1748, which I highly value, on account of its Syriae
text, and 1 mention it among the most valuable works. It is not
my intention, however, to give an account of books, but of the
use to which they mny be applied. General and Ecclesiasti-
cal History, the Geography of Asia, and certainly the Inter-
pretation of the Scriptures, as far as I have been able to
THfc USE OP THE SYRIAC LANGUAGE, §. VU. 517
observe, "will profit most largely, from the perusal of these
works.
1. The Profane History of Asia has already acquired much
new light, by means of what has hitherto been published of
Syrian affairs. If space admitted, I might establish this, by
the additions which I have noted, in the sixteenth volume of
the Universal History (pp. 413 — 431. of the Qerman transla-
tion), and which I mention, because they are derived merely
from my Syriac and Arabic Chrestomathy. This portion of
the Universal History is, however, one of the good parts of
the work, and is probably the production of Sale, the best
contributor to the Ancient History ; a circumstance which I
must state, because my additions certainly could not do much,
if they should be added to the miserable Continuation of the
Universal History, which is regarded in England as a Book-
seller's publication, that gives bread to hungry authors. That
in this compilation, there is something to be improved or
added, need not be wondered at. Or I need merely mention
the 46th. page of this Chrestomathy, where is printed the
Edessene Chronicle. Together with the notice of the Edes-
sene kings, extracted m Asseman's Library, it is the most con-
siderable portion of the materials, which Bayer* used, in his
Historia Osro'ehna et Edessena ex nummis illustrata. And in
regard to all this, these few sheets, which I publish under the
title Chrestomathy, are a very small part of the stores in His-
torical materials, that are to be found merely in Asseman's
Oriental Library, from which General History might obtain
very great additional accessions, although Asseman did not
write with a view to it, but to Ecclesiastical and Literary
History.
How important would be the use of Syriac, if we had more
entire works in that language, especially if they were histori-
cal. I will only mention one, a part of which we possess in a
condensed form, in Arabic and Latin. Grrgory Abulpha-
* [ This is Theophilus Siegfrid Bayer or Baier ; and his very valu-
able work referred to, (see Watt'? Biblioth. Britan.) was published A. P
1734, in 4to. Tt. 1
518 THE USE OP THE SYRIAC LANGUAGE, §. Vlls
BAGius <whose History of the Dynasties Edward Pococke, in
the year 1663, published in Arabic, with a Latin translation,
and which is as yet one of the chief sources of Asiatic history,)
is the same person, whose life is to be found in this Chrestoma-
thy, at page 81 :* G.iEooRY Barhkbraeus, primate oj the JacO'
bite Christians in Chaldea and Assyria, The work was origi-
nally written in Syriac, and was entitled iiojrbA^ii>
£^:Ol .t It will be found in the notice of his writings,
at page 112. numb, ^j^^i^i- e. 19). The Arabic is merely
a translation, or rather, a general abridgment of it,
which was made by Barhkbhaeus himself, a short time before
his death, at the request of certain Arabians ; and he devoted
not more than a month to it, as is related in his Life, at p. 105.
of this Chrestomathy. But the Arabic Version, if 1 may so
call it, does not by any means exhaust the uses of the original
Syriac work. This consists of three parts, which Asseman
entitles : 1. Chronicon Patrum et Regum ; 2. Chronicon Patri-
archarum Antiochice et Jacobitarum ; 3. Chronicon Primatumf
Patriarcharum, et Maphrianornm Orientis, The Arabic
wholly omits the last two parts, which indeed generally relate
to Ecclesiastical history, but often comprehend particulars
connected with General History ; and it contains the first
only, and that never entire, for Asseman states', that the Sy-
riac here comprises far more than the Arabic abridgment.
Asseman's words are : sed et prior pars, quam idem auctor
Arabics postea publicavit, et Pocokius latine interpretatus est,
MULTo PLURA continet, quam historia dynastiarum, sive facta
Arabum et Mogulensium spectes, sive res Christianorum in
Thracia, in Syria, in Mesopotamia et in Perside,
How much would be gained by Asiatic history (which is so
* [The extract, containing the life of 4v.^fis!^a.ol > is from
As3BMan'9 Oriental Library^ T. ii. pp. 248 fF. Tr. ]
+ [ That is : *• History of the times." Tr. }
TUfi USB OF THE SFAIAC LANGUAGE, §. VII. 519
greatly interwoven, in the middle ages, with that of Europe,
particularly of Byzantium, of the holy wars, and of the Rus-
sian that is now coming to light ;) could we but read this au-
thor in the original, and without abridgment ! Among all the
Syrians, with whom we are acquainted, he is by far the most
learned man. He collected the materials for his history, in
places where now ignorance prevails, from the treasures of
ancient Libraries, which have probably been long since de-
stroyed, and particularly, as he says himself, from Syrian,
Arabian, and Persian writings, belonging to the archives of
Maraga, in the province of Adorbigan. And, moreover, in
his Syriac Preface, he declares it to be his chief object, to
preserve to posterity the remembrance of what occurred in
his time and that immediately preceding. This gives his work
a still greater value, for Gregory Barhebraetjs lived, just at
one of the most interesting points of time, from A. D. 1226 to
1286, under the great Tatar conqueror, Hulak ; and as his
predecessors lived to see the conquest of Jenghiskan, he lived
to see Hulak, a brother of Mangu, restore at Bagdad the em-
pire of the Califate. He was himself a resident in those
countries, which were the theatre of this great revolution ;
and as he was primate, he had the honour of seeing and being
established by this great king, the very name of whom (to
the humiliation of historical science, and of all thoughts of
posthumous renown,) many an accomplished historian has not
once heard !
Of this work (the manuscript of which is reposited in the
Vatican Library, and has been used with so much advantage
by Asseman in his Oriental Library,) I have spoken the more
fully, because I desire, that the scholars of Germany may use
it, not as a printed book, but by means of a copy in Libraries,
I have some hope of this, which rests upon the deep interest
which his Excellency the Prime Minister, Baron von Munch-
HAUSEN* manifests in our university. This eminent promoter
* [ The University of Gottingen long flourished under his auspices ;
for the space of more than thirty years, he was entrusted with its interests
as Curator; but, two years after the hope of Michaelis had been ex-
b20 THE USE OF THE SYRIAC LANGUAGE, §. yiU
of the sciences is engaged, in making one of the most impor-
tant contributions to historical knowledge in Germany, and
obtaining in manuscript, for our University, the Syriac Origin
nal of the Chronicle of Barhebraeus. Should this succeed, it
shall be my first concern, in the subsequent* parts of this
Chrestomathy, to print, as specimens, some of the most re-
markable passages of the Syriac Work, which are not found
in the Arabian Version, and consequently could not have
hitherto been used by our historians. My wish extends indeed
much further, and I would publish the entire work with a
Latin Version ; but this depends so much upon the will of
booksellers, on the taste of the public, which alone engages
publishers in such an enterprise, and on my life, health, and
circumstances, that I will not now promise any thing. But
this is certain, that what I cannot do, will be done by others
after me.t
pressed, the great patron of learning was no more. He died A. D. 1770.
See the Co;jversations-Lexicon (in German, an English translation
of which is forthcoming at Philadelphia, under the title: American En-
cyclopedia,) Art MOnchhausen. Tr. ]
* [ These were never published. But, as a substitute for them, we are
furnished with a Syriac Chrestomathy by Gustavus Knoes, which is
derived in great part from valuable manuscripts. It first appeared at
Gottingcn, in the year 1807. Tr. ]
t The whole aspect of things. has been changed since the time when
the above was written. The venerated Winckelmann, who would have
been useful in obtaining the copy from Rome, was assassinated, and thus
all failed. But new hopes have arisen. Prof. Bruns found the same
work in the Oxford Library, transcribed it, and printed a specimen of it
in the year 1780, under the title: Dc rebus gestis Richardi Angliae regis
in Palaestina. Exccrptum ex Gregorii Abulpharagii Chronico Syriaco.
Edidit, vcrtit, illustravit Paxil Jac. Bmns, LL. D. Oxonii, 1780. Since
his return to Germany, he has offei:ed an edition of the entire work. It
is very desirable, that it should be obtained by subscription or limitation.
The ordy evil is, that as soon as a particularly useful work, which proba-
bly a thousand persons would procure if it were out, (I think such might
well be the case, as a far greater number of this Syriac Chrestomathy is
already disposed of, and it was long since printed for the second time))
has been printed by limitation, the limited copies become rare ; not
Trom scarcity, for they are to be bought afterward at double price, but
THE USE OP THE SYRIAC JijANGUAGE, §. VlJ. 521
3. Ecclesiastical history has already acquired very impor-
tant accessions, merely from Asseman's Oriental Library, We
cannot peruse Beausobre*s Histoire Critique de J\1anichee et du
Manicheisme, without remarking, how much light is shed on
the history of Manes by a single line of the Edessene Chroni-
jcle,* and what Beausobre in other respects owes to Asseman.
From the same work are derived some of the most important
additions, of which Mosheim availed himself, as his guides in
Ecclesiastical History. And yet Mosheim, from his ignorance
of Syriac, could make only an imperfect use of Asseman's
work ; for although Asseman annexes a Latin translation, and
one indeed that is correct, to the Syriac passages which Mos-
heim cites, he that reads the text will discover more, than
one whose attention, while he reads the Latin, is distracted by
'the intervening lines which are unknown to him.
But many resources, that might contribute much to Eccle-
siastical History, have not hitherto been used at all. The
third part of the Syriac Works of Ephrem, which is almost
entirely directed against heretics, may, notwithstanding its
declamatory tone, and its want of solidity, shed much new
light upon the History of Polemics. I have found this parti-
cularly the case, in regard to the Manicheaxis ; and I think it
^certain, that Beausobre might still receive considerable ac-
.cessions from Ephrem. On this account, I propose to print
something relative to this, in the future portions of my Chres-
tomathy. I shall make no mention of Asseman's Acts of the
Martyrs : for while in the history of the martyrs there ap-
pear to be many fables, yet every one acquainted with Ec-
clesiastical History knows, how important they are, on ac-
from indifference, and because no one has " public spirit," as the English
call it, to promote what is useful. I could wish, for the best interests of
Oriental and Historical literature, that I might be put to the blush by the
result, and reduced to the necessity of recalling my censure; with plea-
sure would I do so.
* It occurs in the Chrestomgithy, at p. 52. [ The extract in the Chres-
tomathy is from Asseman's Oriental Library, T. i. p. 387 ff. Tr. ]
522 THE USE OP THE SYRIAC LANGUAGE, §. Vll.
count of the truth contained in them, which a critical eye can
readily discover.
To Ecclesiastical History appertains, among other particu-
lars, what is called historia dogmatnm. This is indeed not as
important to us, as to the Roman Catholics, because we do
not establish our faith upon the authority of the fathers, or of
an ancient Church ; but it is still important to us, in regard to
the Canon of the Scriptures. As in my Introduction to the
JsTew Testament, I have now and then derived something
from the decision of the Syrian Church, on those Books that
are called in question, I must here correct an error which I
have committed. I stated, p. 1899,* that Ephrem Syrus did
not cite the Revelation of St, John, in those places, where
Lardner, from his ignorance of the Syriac language, and his
reliance on Asseman's translation, thought they were to be
found cited ; and this is and continues to be the truth. I
said, p. 1901, that no passage occurred to me, where Ephrem
cited the Revelation, (I had not indeed perused his work for
this purpose, but made extracts from it), and I intended to
give a probable proof, that he did not regard it as authentic.
But this will not now hold true ; for at p. 332. of the Second
Part are the decisive words, which I here arrange in the po-
etic form, as they are metrical :
* [ The author here refers to the second edition of his Introduction.
In the /ourf^ edition, (§.278. pp-1605. 1606.) he corrects his error;
gives a German translation of Ephrem's words ; and with great respect
quotes Hassencamp. He says, p. 1605; "Ephrem Syrus, of whom J
" believed in my second edition, that he had never cited the Revelation, bc-
" cause I found, that the passages quoted by Lardner were insufficient, has
" indeed cited it, and even as a divine book. In the second part of his
" Syriac works he writes, ( p. 332. ) expressly : ' John saw, &-c.' "
The words here given in Italics are omitted by Bishop Marsh in
his Translation. See Vol. iv. Cb. xxxni. S. iv. p. 495. of the Lond.
edit, 1802. Tr. ]
THK U5K OP THE SYRIAC LANGUAGE, §. VII. 52^
[oilLp 01^^ [ocn u^^^ci\
that is, Joha saw in his revelation a great and wonderful book,,
written by God, and sealed with seven seals. M. Hassencamp
has pointed out the passage, in his work* against my Intro-
duction, and in the preface, he has declared his -purpose to
make, from the Syriac Fathers, a collection of that kind,
which Lardner has given us from the Greek and Latin,
The materials for such a collection are not indeed as impor-
tant, as those which Lardner had before him ; because we
now have no Syriac writers so old, and as testimonies, almost
all relates to antiquity. But I expect something more from
the collector than from his precursor ; for Lardner was a
mere compiler, who always deserved the thanks of his read-
ers, when he abstained from giving them opinions, and
grounds for deciding : and in this Hassencamp is his opposite.
If Lardner's errors are to be attributed to his advanced age,
in which he continued to write, Hassencamp has the advan-
tage of being young. In short, I include such a collection
among the uses, which Ecclesiastical History and Doctrinal
Theology may derive from Syriac records. This impartial
notice must not be regarded as a singularity in me. I am
displeased with no one, because he differs somewhat from me
in opinion, and writes against me ; nor yet, because he disco-
vers a remarkable passage, which I did not discover. The
belligerent manner of some scholars induces me to think it
necessary, thus to apologize for my favourable notice of M.
Hassencamp.
* [ Anmerkungen fiber die letzten Paragraphen des H. Hofrath Mr-
chaelis Emleitung ins N. T. ; Marburg, 1767. Tr. ]
534 THE USE OP THE SYRIAC LANGUAGE, §. Vll.
3. The Geography of the East derives endless profit from
the Syriac writers, particularly those of the middle and early
ages. I need only mention the two geographical tables of
the Monophysite and Nestorian Episcopal sees and monaste-
ries, which are found in the second and fourth volumes of As-
seman's Library : and yet they do not by any means contain
the whole of what is geographical, nor do they cite ali^
as we may learn from Asseman. I am at least indebted to^
them in this respect, that I discover much which before was
obscure, in ancient geography, particularly that of Syria,-
Chaldea, Mesopotamia, Assyria, Media, and Persia ; and I
avoid the false steps of my predecessors. I have often stat-
ed, that if errors or uncertainty prevail in Boch art's Gee-
graphy, neither is this to be accounted to the disparagement
of Bochart, nor is what I* say more correctly to be accounted
to my praise, but that the latter belongs to the good fortune
of our day, which in truth I value as a sufficient recompense.
Bochart wrote before these Syriac records were in prints
and he could not predict what would be contained in them.
This is sometimes the case with Cellarius also, in his An-
cient Geography ; though in general he was ignorant of that
only, which he might have learned from Asseman, if he had
lived in his day ; and he commits few faults of his own.
The views of Cellarius were indeed far more correct than
those of Bochart, who was partial to a hypothesis chosen al-
most by an absolute decree, and was far too etymological*
The Rector of Merseburg appears in the character of the
judicious man, and the Frenchman, who was advanced at
court, is the etymologizing pedant : and still, (with what in-
justice !) Bochart is valued in Germany more highly than
Cellarius. Yet while Cellarius discovers a Syrian city, Ma-
gog, which is nowhere to be found, but which it was thought
Pliny mentioned in his Hist. Kat. L. V. c. 23. ,t and the ex-
*[ Our author here alludes to his work entitled: Sper/degium Geo-
graphiae Hcbraeorum exlcrac post Bocharlum, Goetting. 1769. 1780. S
vols. 4to. Tr. ]
+ Bnmhycen, quae alio nomine HierapoUs vacatur, Syris vero Magog.
THE USE OP THE SVRIAC LANGUAGE, §. VII. 525
cessively sceptical Harduin did not doubt of this, but was
more inclined to think of Gog and Magog ; on the contrary,
it immediately follows from Ass e man's Library, that we must
read Mabog, and have no thought of Magog : for «. ^<. O ^ ^
IS the city of Hierafolis* in Syria.
The only writer, who has hitherto employed these records
for a geographical purpose, is Dr. Bu^^cHl^G, in his Description
of Asia, It is not yet to be had in book-stores ;t but as I am
in possession of the first sheets of it, I can state, that AssKMA»^i's
Oriental Library is one of the best and most advantageously
applied resources of this Geography. Dr. Bushing's purpose
is properly the Geography of modern times, and the present
condition of the earth ; yet he has much of what relates to the
middle and the early ages. If I would treat of these in refe-
rence to the Scriptures, how much aid do I then derive from
* [ This is the city which contained the celebrated temple of the
goddess |^\V?^ ^^ I A">^i^ Xhartho or Theratbo ; and it has
had the following names :
1. In Syriac «,y>022o Mabug ;
2. In Arabic ^sy^^J^^lm^ Jo Manbodg, from which, by an ea-
sy change of letters, may have originated,
3. In Greek and Latin Bambvce.
4. It was afterward called Hierapolis, ('lega'To^/f, ) the Holy
City ; and
5. Its present name is Mabug, which is pronounced Mambedge.
See MiCHAELis' Lex. Syr. on the words ^.^OSio and j ^^^^ '^
See also Malte-Brun's Geog. Vol. n. P. i. B. xxvni. Ruins of Hiera"
polis. Tr. ]
t Itis evident, that this must be understood of the year 1768, and not
of 1786, as the second edition of the work may have already been in a
great measure disposed of. [ An English translation of Dr. Busching's
Geography was published in England, in the year 1754, 6 vols. 4to.; and
an English Translation with 36 maps, which I now have before me, af-
terward appeared. Lwid., 1762, 6 vols. 4to., Tr. ]
526 THE USE OB' THE Sl'RIAC LANGUAGE, §. VII.
Syriac ! The Syrian Zobah of David has been dihgently
sought for, and nowhere found ; but at last, from mere con-
jectures, and moreover in opposition to the whole connexion
of history, it has been placed on this side of the Euphrates.
They were the records of Syria alone, that ever taught me, this
was a kingdom, the chief city of which was Nisibis ; for such
is the Syriac L ^ O t. •*
I have as yet spoken only of one book. It is not necessary
for me to remark, that out of the Jets of the Martyrs also,
geographical knowledge may be obtained ; and how much
must be expected, if we acquire more Syriac works, particu-
larly that above mentioned of Gregory Barhebraeus !
Geography becomes possessed of those regions, in which
the Syriac language was formerly spoken, if we find the pro-
per names of Countries, Cities, Rivers and Mountains, writ-
ten in Syriac letters. As long as we are acquainted with them
in European letters, we are often in danger of making two
cities out of one name that is differently written. And two
actually different cities, the names of which do not admit of
being readily confused in Oriental orthography, but from the
imperfection of our alphabet, when they are written in Euro-
pean letters, sound nearly alike, may be regarded as the same.
At another time, we mistake an Oriental name, if we have it
before us, merely in our own orthography : as many know, it
must have happened in regard to Jocheh's learned Lexicon,
under the article Hebedjesu, where is given a Syrian city,
called Saba ; but no one would hence suppose that this city
was written y£^Ojf, and revealed to us that Zoba, H31V.
with the king of which David w aged such dreadful wars.
** See my treatise De Syria Sohaea, which was read before our Society,
on the 16th of November, 1765, and shall appear in the second part of
my Commentationes Societati Scientiarum oblalae. [ The Syrians and Arabs
call it — .Aill^aLt A and /J^»^-^•^•A^■', iVetsiiin and iVafsiAiw, from
which the Greeks have derived lSi<ri0i(, on Coins Nesibis and according
to Stephens Nax/,/?/?. See Gesenius' Hebr, Dent. Handw. n3fy- Tr. ]
THE USE OP THE SYRIAC LANGUAGE, §. VII. 527
4. The Syrian Interpreters of the Scriptures appear to me,
to be worthy of regard. From my own use, I am acquainted
only with Ephrem f for the others are not in print, and I
possess no manuscripts of them. But I will describe his work,
according to my view of it. '
We shall generally in vain consult him for elucidations of
Hebrew words, and particular philological observations ; be-
cause he comments on the Syriac Version, and not on the
original text. What is valuable therefore in jERtuwE, and
what Ephrem, by means of his native language, might have
more fully effected, he has not effected. On the contrary, in
a favourable point of view he is the opposite of J; aoME. As
the latter seems to love truth almost solely for philology, and
to reserve nothing for the explanation of the subject that is
homiletic or allegorical ; Ephrem is judicious in this respect,
and sometimes acute ; no friend of miracles, and still less of
fables. And in the prophecies, he is free from the propensity
of endeavouring to find Christ every where, even when not
the subject of prediction. A disciple of Cocceius, therefore,
would not be satisfied with him ; but that is no disparagement.
I will give one or two examples of his way of thinking.
He thus understands Genesis iv. 1. I have borne a man-child
unto the Lord. This is incorrect : for l.^i.— JSO—^ must
be the accusative, on account of the Hebrew.t But yet
I commend him, because he was not disposed to ascribe to
Eve the knowledge of the whole doctrine of Christ.
Chap. VI. 4. he calls the sons of God, ^m,J^m^'A^^ judges.
He had previously explained : the sons of Seth, which are the
people of God, In the second interpretation, did he refer to
* [ This celebrated Syriac author lived in the fourth century. He
was commended in the loftiest terms by the Greeks, Latins, Copts and
Armenians ; and was entitled by the Syrians Master of the World. See
Hoffmanh's Prolegomena to his Syriac Grammar, §. 2. N. J. Annot. 3.
Jr.]
t [ : mnr'n^ B^^N '•nop is the Hebrew ; and the Samaritan is
IT • V V -J* It
precisely the same. Tr. 1
528 THE USE OF THE SYRIAC LANGUAGE, §. Vll.
Psalm Lxxxii. 6. ? He is not willing that giants should be
found in this chapter, and to get rid of them, he assumes, that
the posterity of Cain, who inhabited an unproductive region,
were diminutive, and therefore the well-grown posterity of
Seth seemed to be giants.
In Chapter vni. 14. he makes the observation, that as early
as the time of Noah, the Solar year, consisting of 365 days,
seems to have been known ; for on the 17th. day of the second
month the deluge began, and it ended on the 27th. of the same
month, in the year following. If then we reckon :
days,
from tlie 17th. of the second month to the 16th. of
the same in the following year, by the lunar year, 354
and thence to the 27th - - - 11
the result is just - - ^ - - 365
Whether the suggestion be true or not, it evinces no or-
dinary genius. Another might perhaps have said more pro-
perly, God afforded the means of discovering the true year,
but Ephrem gave rise to the suggestion.
In Chap. X. 9. we recognize the Mesopotamian, who thought
more favourably of Nimrod, than other Commentators are
accustomed to do. No one interprets the 10th. and 11th.
verses better than he. Ephrem was at home in this country,
and was acquainted with the common and the ancient names
of cities.
In Chap. XV. 1 — 7. he so writes, that we must believe, by
righteousness he understands as much as a merit : faith was
reckoned to Abraham as a merit, and was rewarded by God
with the performance of such great promises.
He suggests, at Chap, xxvui. 12., very judiciously, the lad-
der has no appropriate signification, but is introduced, that the
angels may ascend and descend upon it : yet these angels are
a representation of divine providence in behalf of Jacob.*
* L The Author adds some further observations, derived from Ephrem,
which it is thought proper to omit. Some ^^examples of his mode of
interpretation are given above in this volunje. See pp. 454. 455. Tr. jj
THE USE OF THE SYRIAC LANGUAGE, §. VII. 55J9
These examples may very well suffice, to excite to the study
of the Biblical Interpretation of this Father. But I wish we
liad several other interpreters, whom Asseman mentions, and
who might in part be of more importance than the ascetic
Ephrem.
MosHEiM, in his InMituliones Historiae Ecclesiasticae, p.
208,* writes of Theodore of Mopsuestia, (who is mentioned
in this Chrestomathy, p. 4. t ) : *' Theodori Mopsuesteni opera,
quamvis post obitum maximorum errorum accusatus sit, aut
prorsus periisse, aut inter Nestorianos hodie tantum Syriace
legi, dolebunt cuncti, qui vel ea considerarunt, quae Photius
ex illis retulit." [ Although Theodore of Mopsuestia, after his
death, was accused of very great errors, the loss of his works,
or their existence at present among the Nestorians in Syriac
only, is lamented by all, who have paid attention merely
to what Photius has cited out of them. ] And he writes,
at p. 211: if — "Nemo iongius in reprehendendis Origenis
sectatoribus progressus est, quam Theodorus Mopsuestenus,
qui .... etiam in commentariis suis ad veteris Testamenti
vates, ex antiquiori historia oracula eorum pleraque declarare,
ausus est." [ No one went further, in censuring the fol-
lowers of Origen, than Theodore of Mopsuestia, who .... in
his Commentaries on tlie prophets of the Old Testament, did
not hesitate to explain most of their predictions by ancient
history. ] It may well be the case, that Theodore goes too
far, by not interpreting of Christ certain passages which ac-
tually relate to him, so that he may be regarded as a Judaizing
interpreter. But a Christian expositor, who in a certain de-
gree thinks with Grotius and Le Clerc, and is of so re-
mote a period, may teach us much that is unknown ; and he
is better than a Jerome. Perhaps he has not gone too far, but
* [ The passage is to be found in Mosheiai's Eccl. Hist. Cent. v. P. ir.
Ch. II. §. X. ; in the Hclmstadt edition (A. D. 1764), at p. 186. Tr. ]
t [ This mention of Theodore occurs in the " Epistle of Simeon,
Bishop of Betharsama, concerning the Nestorians." found in Assemak's
Oriental Library, T. i. p. 346 fF. Tr. ]
t [ See Mosheim's Eccl. Hist., Cent. v. P. ii. Ch. iii. §• v. ; ia the
Helvtst, edition (A. D. J1764),. at p. 189. Tr. ]
67
530 THE USE OF THE SFRIAC LANGUAGE.
while innocent is accused by those who are uninformed, as
Mosheim seems to think.*
^ [ The character of Theodore of Mopsuestia, as a Commentator on
the Scriptures, is given by Dr. J. G, Rosknmuller in his Hisioria Inter-
pretationis Librorum Sacrorum, Vol. iii. pp.250 — 265. of the edit. Leipzig,
1807. On the subject of the Literature of Syria in general, Hoffmann
wrote an Essay (which appeared in Bektholdt's Theological Journal,
T. XIV. pp. 225 — ^291.) entitled : Kurlze Geschichte der Syrischen Litlera-
tur. Brief History of Syriac Literature. On the History of the SyriMc
Language also, he treats at large, in the valuable Prolegomma which ac-
company his Grammar. Tr. ]
THE STRIAC LANGUAGE.
APPENDIX,
BY THE TRANSLATOR.
531
The best elementary works, for the study of the
Syriac Language.
Until the commencement of the sixteenth century, the
Syriac Language had been httle studied in Europe; but
since that period, it has engaged the attention, and been illus-
trated by the publications of very numerous and able writers.
Among the elementary books, which have appeared, the
following may be regarded as particularly valuable to the Sy-
riac student.
I. Grammars.
1. Henry Ofitz's Syriasmus, Leipzig and Frankfort, 1678,
4to.
It is highly commended by HoPFMAifN, ( Gram. Syr. Prolegg.^. 5. 2, )
as excelling all that preceded it.
2. John David Michaelis' Grammatica Syriaca, Halae,
1784.
This is little more tbau a. revised edition of the Syriasmus of Chris-
tian Benedict Michaelis, the author's father. The work is not a
mere compilation, as most publications of the kind, but is original, and
the result of indefatigable labour. Its copious Paradigms of verbs and
nouns are very useful. The volume is a small quarto, pp. 299.
3. Andrew Theophilus Hoffmann's Grammaticae Syria-
CAE LiBRi III. Halae, 1827.
No other Grammar of the language will compare with this. Hoff-
mann occupies, in Striac, the place assigned to De Sacy in Arabic, and
to Gesenius in Hebrew Literature. To the Syriac student, no
other elementary work can be as valuable. It is a quarto volume,
pp. 418.
532 THE SYRIAC LANGUACTE.
IL Lexicons.
}. Edmund Castell's Lexicon Syriacum.
It originally appeared, as part of the Heptaglot Lexicok, which gc
nerally accompanies the London Polyglot, and was published at Lon^
don, 1669. Dr. Castell was aided in the execution of it by Bishop Be-
VEKIDGE.
2. John David Michaelis' edition of this work.
It was published in a separate form, at Gdttingen, 1788, and is enti-
tled : Edmundi Castelli Lexicon Syriacum, ex ejus Lexico Heptaglotto
seorsim typis describi curavit atque stia adnotaia adjecit Joannes David
MicHAELis. It consists of two volumes 4tG., pp. 978.
S. Charles Schaaf's Lexicon Syriacum Concordantiale,
• , Lugd. Bat, 1708.
This admirable work contains all the words of the New Testament,
and at the same time numerous other words and phrases, belonging to
the Syriac and its kindred languages. It has also very useful indexes,
in Syriac and Latin. Hoffmann ( in his Gramm. Syr. Prolegg. §. 5.
3. ) says of this Lexicon : It can scarcely ever fail the student of the New
Testament.
4. Etienne Quatremere's Syriac Lexicon.
This indefatigable student has for some time contemplated a Lexi.
con. He has examined, with this view, all Syriac works now in prints
and some MSS. also ; he has visited the rich treasures in the Oxford
library and the Vatican : and the result of his labours will, no doubt-
be a far more complete Syriac Lexicon than any extant.
III. Chrestomathies*
L JoiiN David MicHAELis' Syriac Chrestomathy, Goitin-
gen.
It was the original design of the author, to issue this work in parts.
The first Part, however, is all that appeared. It is a small octavo vo-
lume ; and comprises a Treatise ( in German ) on the Syriac Language and
its use (pp. I24.small 8vo. ), and a Syriac Chrestomathy (pp. 118.). The
first edition of the work appeared at Gottingen, in 1768 ; and the second
edition, containing some additional notes to the Treatise, was published
at the same place, in 1786.
THE SYRIAC LANGUAGE. 533
EiCHHORK (in his Allgemeinc Bibliotkek der Ubl. Litt. B. i. SS. 144
—148.) gives a brief notice of the second edition of the Treatise ;
and a critical examination of certain passages in the Chrestomathy
was published by J. F. Gaab, in Paulus' Neues Repertorium fUr bib-
lische und morgenldndischt Litteratur, Th. iii. Abh. xi. S3. 366 —
378.
2. George William Kirsch's Syriac Chrestomathy, Ho-
fae, 1789.
This is an octavo volume, including a Chrestomathy, and a Lexi-
con. The Chrestomathy, highly commended by Hoffmann, is derived
chiefly from the Chronicle of Barhi braeus. It has other extracts
also from this author's writings, and from those of Ephrem Syrus. The
Lexicon is very useful.
A brief notice of the work is given by Eichhorn, in his Allgemeine
Bihliothekderbibl. Litt. B. n. SS. 548—550.
3. GusTAvus Knoes' Syriac Chrestomathy, Gottingen,
1807.
On this valuable work, derived chiefly fromMSS., see above, p.
520.
4. O. G. Tychsen's Elementale Syriacum, Rostock, 1793.
Beside a Chrestomathy (pp. 112. small octavo), and a Glossary (pp.
113 — 169 ), this work contains' a comprehensive Grammar, of which
EicHHORN ( in his Allgemeine Bibliotliek der bibl. Litt. B. viii. S. 699. )
says : " To this Grammar, which consists of only 31 pages> we may
with strict propriety apply the adage Short and Good,'^
The work is accompanied with nine well-executed plates, contain-
ing various specimens of Syriac MSB., transcribed at Rome by Ab-
ler. It comprises 28 specimens ( pp. 32 — 82 ) of pointed Syriac,
and a number of Extracts ( pp. 82 — 1 12 ) not pointed. The volume
contains 169 pages, and is perhaps to be preferred to any other manual
of the language.
Many new works, relating to the Oriental Languages in
general, and to the Syriac in particular, have recently appear-
ed. The importance of these languages seems to be more
and more discovered ; and the sentiments of Professor Lee
of Cambridge (in the Preface to his admirable Hebrezo Gram-
mar, pp. xvu — XIX.), it is hoped, will soon become the prevail-
ing sentiments of those who profess to be expounders of the
Sacred Volume. " To expect fully to make out an Oriental
ii'M THE SYRIAC LANGUAcf.
book, such as the Bible is, without the assistance of Orien-
tal learning, is, in my estimation, a perfect absurdi-
ty The names of Pococke, Castell, De Dieu,
Schultens, Schroeder, and others, will ever be revered by
those who appreciate the Holy Scriptures They have
left behind them enough to convince every candid mind,
that there are in these dialects treasures innumerable, which
have escaped their observation Generally speak-
ing, he who is best acquainted with these dialects, is by far
the most likely person to be a successful commentator on
the Hebrew Scriptures."
INDEXES.
I. Texts illustrated.
II. Words and Phrases explaiked.
III. Authors and Books quoted.
IV. General Index of Matters,
537
INDEX I.
TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE ILLUSTRATED.
GsNESis. Page.
IV. 1 527.
VI. 4 527.
VIII. 14 528.
X. 9. 528.
XV. 1—7. .... 528.
XXVIII. 12. ... 528.
XXX. 14 158.
Leviticus.
XI. 29 s 154.
XIX. 19 158.
Df,utsko>-omy.
vut. 3 494.
16 494.
Judges. •
IX. 8— 15. . . 220.248?.
TI Samuel.
VII. 12 173,
XII. 1—9. . . •. . 233.
Psalms.
XXII. 32 247.
XXXVI. 9 375.
10. ... 361.
ex. 1 188 ss.
— 2 197.
CXXXVIT. R. . . %i7.
PnovERBS. Page.
vn.22 166.
Isaiah.
I. 22 491.
VI. 6 , 164.
XIV. 23 490.
XXII. 22. .... 204.
XXV. 7 611 ss.
6—8. . . . 614.
L.5 '435.
Lii. 13— LIU. 4. . . 424 s,
Lvin: 11. . . . . 376.
Jeremiah.
xLix. 1. 2. ... 21J.
Joe I..
1. 19 359,
Amos.
IX. 11. 12. . . '. 199s.
Jonah.
IV. 6 158.
Zkchariah.
XIV. 8 37^>,
08
538
INDEX OP TEXTS ILLUSTRATED.
Malachi. Page.
11.7 345.
Matthew.
(
V. 19,20 209.
— 25 s 247.
VII. 15 365.
21 209.
vin. 17 411,
XI. 11. .... 184.
— 12 185.
XIII. 3. .... 234.
3ssi-. . 218.228.231.
24 ss. . . . 228.231.
31.47. . 202.228.231.
44 261s.
52. .... 205.
XV. 5 340.
XVI. 28 497 ».
xviii. 1—10. . . 502.
23 ss. . . . 172. 232.
34 246.
XX. 1 1 s 259.
XXI.28SS. . . . 229.
31 209.
33 250.
xxTi. 3. .... 258 s.
4. .... 250.
10 238.
12 ss. . . . 239 s.
13 238.
xxiii. 13 209.
XXIV. 32 215.
XXV. 1 202.
30 238 s.
Mark.
IV. 30 s 217.
— 33 234.
IX. 1. . . . 179. 497 s.
— 33—50 . . . 502.
XII. 34 185.
XIII. 28 215.
Luke.
I. 33 188.
Luke.
F&Se-
I. 53 347.
V.36 215.
VII. 28 184.
VI n. 10 236.
IX. 27. . . . 179.497 s.
— 62 205.
X. 11. 203.
XI. 5 ss. . . . . 217.
— 22 331.
XII. 16 225.
41 215.
XIII. 7 255.
19. .... 217.
XIV. 21. 23. . . . 248.
XV. 3 215.
— 21 250. '
— 22 ss 250 s.
XVI. 22. . . . . 268.
22. 23. . . . 364.
XVII. 20. 21. . . . 182.
XVIII. 2 217.
9 225.
10 ss. . . . 225.
XIX. 13 250.
— 17 ss. ... 268.
— - 27 .... 246.
xsi. 29. .... 215.
XXII. 16 207.
xxm. 42. .... 179.
John. *
1. 14. 18. . . 362—364.
HI. 1 381.
VII. 38. .... 376.
vm. 12 361.
44 337.
——52 497 s.
X. 6 222.
xriii. 37. .... 181.
Acts.
V. 17 288.
VII. 16 167.
xm. 34. .... 186 s.
35—37. . . 186.
XV. 5 288.
INDEX OP TEXTS ILLUSTRATED.
539
Romans. Page.
IV. 17. . . . . . 301.
V. 7 167.
X.2 349.
X. 6. 7 167.
XII. 2 380.
1 Corinthians.
I. -17 347.
— 20 350.
VIII. 1 345 s.
xn. 12— 27. . . . 216.
xiii. 1 339.
XV. 3 329.
— 24—27. . . . 190 ss.
— •28.* 192 ss.
— 29. . . . . . 195SS.
2 Corinthians.
XII. 7. . . : . . 499.
GulItians.
V.20 289.
VI. 16 ^, 329.
EPHBSIANS.
II. 2. . . . 378-^84.
— 12. ..... 185.
IT. 16 343.
VI. 12 383 8.
Philippians.
111.16 3«9s.
Colossi AN 9. Page.
I. II. . . . 322-344.
11.15 383 )».
1 Timothy.
VI. 20. . . . 344— Q52.
Hebrews.
n.9 497 s.
ni.l 358.
— 12 195.
— 15—19. . . . 194 6.
IX. 9 215.
XI. 3 301.
— 5 497.
XII. 26 210.
2 Peter.
I. 16. ..... 348.
II 368—378.
II. 1 289,
HI. 378.
1 John.
II. 18 s. 22 s. 26. . 364 ss.
III. 4. . . . . . 366 s.
— 9 367 8.
IV. 1—3 364 ss.
INDEX II.
WORDS AND PHRASES JEXPLAIIVED.
Hebrew and Chalde£. Page.
np3i< - - ^ - ^ ^ - - - 154.
2nx -------- - 370.
y^l ------- ^ - *369.
pjj --------- 35.
I^T - . . . 357.
rj^T -^ - - - . ^ - - - 380.
Dl'n - . - - 178.
biVn 512.
iflDin 154-
inn 152.
N0X13 490.
DX'P 491
^rr-'p^D "^^i-
J^niDT «DpID |^l3;;t0 - - - - 498.
nj^n" 494.
^j^-^^ - - 200.
-,3^ ......... 340.
ri^ 154.
5i? - • 152.
nDD :• - - - 158.
nxoS - - 154.
ID' aSlHD 491.
.|T- T
^no " - - - 491s.
Xt3.^pp .--"---. 490.
,sSd' ----- ^ - . 36?.
Hebrew and Chaldee. Page.
^xSd - - - ■ 358.
ffD 183,
n3DD -------- 513.
NVO 179.
TT
I Paragogic - -^ - - - - - 493.
N^3J .-..'.•--. 30.82.
•T
^DJ - - - 613.
yJ- - '■ 154.
nj12f - -. 526.
nXT 341.361.
TT
nSlf^ 164.
nJl?V^ 158.
O^W - - - - ^12'
riDtirin - - 154.
Arabic.
JL^^T 222.
ei- i.-:^ ^^ L-^ 498
0\-—**^«-i2k and its deriVa-
lives 514
^yk.J^Ji.AOi .... 526
INDEX OP WORDS ANIX
Syriac Page.
^^A^2| 500SS.
j2al»^ \,sbb 497s.
}1a*^-.:SO-.^ 527.
«.^0^10 v.. ..525.
Nun Paragogic 494.
i.m:^-> *»5i4.
Y^^l^^A 526.
I-Lol ii.
\a^Ai3 494.
^Xilfl ,ik
^^V-O A.' ik
Gruek.
'AyaTTdot 370.
^Ay^dufA.uroi 321.
"A(r«c 374s.
A»g 3S2s.
Ai/ji* Kcti fl-sc'gl 383.
A/iroc 216.
Aifg«(r/c 288 s.
Aleiv 378 ss.
''AvaaTHva.i 177.
AirT»5rc<rc9-/f 238.
'AtTlx^irot 364 ss,
^Amit^u<pot 35 .s.
'A^X.'^i Kal i^ovaUt 334. 383.
'Ag;t» 68s.
"Ag;^** 378. 381 ss,
'A<riKytiit 369.
Baa-ixtiA 181.198.210.
B«ri\ii<t Toy eicD 209
PHRASES JOXPIiAINElJ. .">41
Greek. ^ag^-
Bx<rikti(X, Tm cv^ittuv., 185.
BafftXiua-ui 207.
BlX^OfAXl 185.
TtuofAu.1 o344.
Tiv(i/uut BavATov ' 496 S.
Tv^a-ic 344 ss. 395.
Tg4/ufjia.'T* 321.
As 194.
AMajtc 204.
^ta<pBo^ti 186.
'Efie^ofi^«ff/c«la f^38.
'E8f/« 337.
"h-tiDj 194.
Eif TOK cclutat 188.
EKXiKTxi .-... 260.
'EAc^aTtya.. 341.
'E/c/.ir«»JtT3ti . i 378.
•Ezr«/vf« 340.
^f.irecKi^uro 201.
RirtfAvbtuv 220.240.
^'E^X.'^fiiivov iig T«K 0(1-
fthtiav 179.
^F.VityytKi^ofiitvoi 185.
Zo^oc 374.
Z»»'.... 360ss.
QitVu etTiOt. . 309.
Qfohay'nt 320.
ayyiy^cev 336. 339.
X«v(Ji'/o» 34 note.
Kctvonjt<5f 34.
KaVtoK 34.
Y^ant^gt^vjoi 342.
Y^tKKvifxivovi 247.
K«A4iv«f 167.
K8»o« „ 346 s.
A&yoi. .. 216. 221.223. 356 ss
A«/<rjjf 204.
Mixxins 167.
MiK iK<fxivo,uiyav 301 .
Mj»iroTe 236.
Mi*g^TSgOC 182.
Moioytyic- 362 s
N8?8X«t/ vttO XaihciTroe
(KavnfAtvai 375. 377
542 IJIDEX OF WORDS Aj\I>
Greek. Page.
tiwi^tt and -biiat^K.,. 526.
'O our tie TOV KdKTTOV
TOW T*Tgof 364.
'0§% 341.
"OffAi 187.
'Ot«v. 194,
nag /gir'xAa 215.
Ha.^a$o\i^ 215. 221 s.
notgacToo-zf 327.
Tla^*\atiu04vev 211.
Tlatgoi/nta ,...,.. 222.
n«f 192.
TltS'ctktai 161.
Il8g*T!* TXC T'iJC 166 S.
Uiiyai 'i'wS'got 375 s.
nhtovt^ix 369.
nx»5a/uct 332. 363.
Tou ©sow 207.
HviuMa 333.
nox«T«7«.. 184 s.
rigo^ufi/oy 240.
n^otri^tn T<y/ 348.
ngo4.»T«c 30. 53. 82.
ng«T«t 329.
2«5| 328.
SitstvcTaXiffl) 499 ss.
iKMiSiXiv ih,
2k/x 334.
IkvKov 331.
2o«})»«t x*^^*''i*>- •' ^8. 310.
'^iro^x 380.
2To/;t«'* 328 ss.
2w^«T»T>)f 350.
'SvKctyaiyut 331.
Swxov ib-
SeTjUai 334.
Trf jUM <})a<vo^iey«t 301.
Trt o»T«t «6-
iyy'iKtov 339.341.
PHRASES EXPLAINED.
GnEEK. Page.
TagTsfgoo) 374.
T/At» 339s.
Tdre 195.
*</o«rc<j)/tf . 308. 319 ss. 327. 346.
Tii^atK 308 s.
ibm 360 ss.
Xs/^d>gst4>o>'.. 333.
y^o^i\yia> 342 s.
'¥ivS'oSiSet<TK*hoi 368 ss.
'^tvSo'r^<i<^yrtti 364 ss.
'ariHi 187.
Latin, French, German
AND English.
Abstracta feminini . . . « . 603.
J^.tas 380.
Apocrypha 35 s.
Argern 501..
Buffet 499.
Canon and canonical. 33 s. 36. 39.
Cup of Death 497 ss.
Despise 499 ss.
Flesh and blood 383.
Hebraisms... 499. 501.
Honor and honoro 340.
Mabog 525.
Methodists 115.
Messengers of Satan .... 499.
Offend 499ss.
Parable 215 s.
Peshito 427.
Prophet 30.53.82.
Saba 526.
Scandalize 499ss.
Seculum 380.
Si^cle ih.
Taste of Death 496 ss.
548
INDEX III.
AUTHORS AND BOOKS QUOTED.
Abarbanel^ Praefatio in Josuam ; 82.
AbuipharagiuSi Chronicon Syriacum ;
204.
' Historia Dynastia-
rum ; 505. 518 s-
Acta Sanctorum Martyrum; see As-
seman, S. E.
Adler, Norinulla Matt, et Marci enun-
ciata ex indole linguae Syriacae
explicata ; 498.
.Mian, de Nat- Animal. ; 337.
.^chines. Opera ; 185.
Mberli, Observationes ; 367.
American Encyclopedia ; 520.
AquUa, Greek Version ; 363. 411.
Arnold, Hist. Eccles. et Haeres. ; 278.
Asseman, J. S., Bibliotheca Orienta-
lis ; 487 494. 497- 499. 505. 516.
518 s. 521 524. 529.
r— S. £., Acta Sanctorum
Martyrum; 516.521. 526.
Atliantsius, Synopsis S. S. ; 36.
Athenaeus, Deipnos. ; 309.
AttUy Commentary ; 338.
Au^tisti, Einleitung ins A. T. ; 12-
German Version of the Bi-
ble ; 515.
uiugustine. Opera ; 33S.
de Doctr- Christ. ; 7-
Barhebraeus, see Abulpharagius.
Barre, de La ; 130.
Bartolocci, Bibliotheca Rabbinica ; 29.
Basnage, Histoire des Juifs ; 62.
Baiier, Abridgment : 12
Baumgarten, see Hallischer BMio'
thek.
Bava Bathra, see Talmud.
Bayer or Baier, T. &., Hist. Osro6hna
et Edessena ; 517.
Bayle, Diction naire ; 122. 149.
Beavsobre, Histoire critique de Manl-
ch^e ; 277. 354 521.
Bengd, Gnomon Nov. Test. ; 177-
198 204. ,
Bertholdt, Einleitung in die Schriften
des A. und N. Test ; 12. 43 49.
507
Daniel; 11.
r- Theological Journal ; 530.
Bibliotheca Orieutalis, see AsseTnan,
J. S.
Bignon, Jerome ; 121.
Bochart, Sam., Geogr. Sacra ; 144 as.
149. 524.
Hierozoicon ; 129.
134. 150 ss 157.
Phaleg, 119 s. 149.
Bomberg, Daniel ; 88. ,
Bos, Exercitat Phil. ; 344. 346 362.
369. 375.
Bossuet, 9.
Bourdelat ; 125 s.
Brentz, Jo., Esaias commentariis ev
plicatus; 467.
Brucker, Hist Crit. Philosoph ; 62.
278 s. 283. 295. 298 s 300 303 s.
307. 309 s. 315. 354. 37a 383. 387 s
389. 397
M4
INDEX OF AUTHORb AND BOOKS QUOTED.
Bruns, 86 s (see KenriicoU-,) 520.
Brynneus ; 167.
Bilsching, Geography ; 525. Descript.
of Asia ; ib.
Buxlorf, Lexicon Chald. Talmud.
Rabbin ; 35 94 491 498 499-
J., Tiberias ; 29 93,
Ca/met, Com mentaire; 472
Calovius, Biblia Mlustrata ; 468.
Calvin, Commentarii in lesaiam pro-
phetam : 466.
Camercr, Tii6ologischen und kritis-
chen Versuchen ; 39.
Cameron, John ; 1 12.
Cap I, Commentt. in V T ; 469.
Carpsoo, Introiiuctio in V T ; 10.
Crit. "^acr. ; 356.
Cassiodorus ; 7.
Castalio, B'blia, cum annotatt. ; 467.
Casiell, Lexicon Heptagl. ; 35. 491.
510. 532.
Cdlar'ms, Geograph Ant ; 524.
ChriMian Observer ; 104.
Chronicon Syriacum, see Abulphara-
gius
Chrifsostem, Opera ; 351.
Cicero, Orator; 309
proQuintio; 340
pro Roscio Araerino ; 340
Epistt ; 340
de Nat. Deer ; 398.
Clarius; 468
Clement of Alexandria, Stromata ;
282 288 300 305 s 312 317 319.
321 345 s. 395
Chricus ; see Le Clerc.
Cofrei'S, Opera; 251 469 491.
Lexicon H*br ; 491-
Compton, Blshftp ; 122.
C'>ncil. C rlhas ; 31.
Conversations-Lexicon ; 520.
Cotta; 34
Cyprian, Opera ; 287.
Oyril, Opera ; 35
Dalhe, PsaUer Syriac ; 515-
^de ratione consensus Vers.
Chald. et Syr. Prov. Sol. ; 607.
r edition of Walton's Prolegg. ; 8.
De Dieu, Louis, Crit, Sacra ; SOU.
Animadvers. in V
T.; 467 s.
Demosthenes, Opera ; 184.
de Corona ; 340.
Dempster, Thom.ns ; 110
De Wette, Lehrbrech der hist- krit.
Einleit. in die Bibel ; 22. 29 43.
German Version of the
Bible; 515.
Archaologie ; 49. 64.
Deyling, Obss. Sacr. ; 328. 333. 3&S
s. 384.
Dietelmaier, Hist, dogmatis de de-
scensu Christi ad inferos ; 160.
Doddwell, Diss, in Irenaeum ; 384.
Doederlein, Instit. Christ. Theol;
211.
Drilk, Dissert, de ratione hist. Cano-
nis scribendae ; 34 s.
Drvsius, Parallela Sacra ; 103.
Da Bosr, Pierre, 109. 122. 132 s.
Du Fresne, Glossarium ; 34.
Eichhorn^ J. G., Einleitung ins A.
T. ; 10 s. 19. 22. 23. 26. 29. 30. 43.
48 s. 63. 70 s. 88 s. 96. 494. 505.
509.
Einl. in die Apokryphischen
Bucher des A. T. ; 12.
Einl. ins. N. T. ; 13.
edit, of Simonis' Hebr.
Lexicon ; 30.
AUgemeine Bibliothek ; 30.
485. 533.
Repertorium; 19. 47. 48.
509.
— Historische Untersuchung
tiber den Kanon des A. T. ; 17—
104.
Eisner, Obss. sacrae; 182. 300. 362.
364. 340.
Ephrem Syrus, Opera ; 487. 508. 516.
522 527.
Commentary ; 497.
527 s.
Epiphanius, Haereses ; 35, 281. 388.
Ernesti, Instit. Interp. ; 381. 391.
N. th. BibL ; 318, 333. 336.
NDEX OF AUTHORS AXU BOOKS QUOTED.
545
IJmesli, Xenophont. Memorab. ; 342.
Opuscula Oratoria ; 320:
Eunapius, JEdes] 308.
Eusebius, Hist- Eccl. ; 67 84. 86.
284 s. 291. 304 s.
Fraep. Evangel-; 41. 82.
95.
^TvoiuYHfAsLTA ; 447.
Fabriciiis, Codex Pseudepigr. V. T. ;
36.
Fessel, Adv. SS. ; 200.
Forerius, Comment, in Esaiam ; 467.
FoTster, J /?., Epistolae ad J. D. Mi-
cbaelem ; 148.
Flick, de Cura vet. eccl. circa Cano-
nem ; 34.
Gaab, J. F., Ueber die Litteralur der
Christ Syrer ; 503.
Geier, Comment, in Psalmos ; 357.
GeUius; 310.
Gesenius, Gescljichte der Hebr. Spra-
che und Schrift ; 22 s.
Hebraish-Deutsches Hand-
worterbuch; 30. 491.
Commentar fiber lesaias;
491. 507. 515.
Lehrgebiiude der Hebr.
Spr. ; 494.
Gibbs, Translation of Gesenius' He-
brew Lexicon ; 30.
Gill, Commentary on tlie Bible ;
498.
Glass, Philologia Sacra ; 189.
Gray, Introduction to the Old Testa-
ment and Apocrypha ; 14.
Gregory, Translation of Lowth's Prje-
lecttones ; 22.
Grolius, Annotationes ; 348. 352.
362 SS. 369. 375- 377. 381 s. 384.
467.
Illtnlein, Manual ; 13.
Hallischtr Bibliolheki 509.
Hammond, Annotations on the N. T. ;
277.
Dissert. dc-Episcopatu; 277.
Harwood, Introd. to the N. T. ; 383.
Hasse, Aussichten -,11.
Hassencamp, Anraerkk. tiber die letz-
ten Paragraphen des H. Hofr. Mi-
chaelis Einleit. ins N. T. ; 523.
Hazercamp, edition of Josephus ; 61.
73. 76 SS.
Heidegger, Enchiridion ; 7.
edition of Walton's Appa-
ratus ; 8.
Heliodorus, iEthiopica ; 338.
Herder, Briefe das Studium der The-
ologie betrefFend ; 10.
Geist der Hebr. Poesie ; 10.
189.
Hess, Ueber die Lehren, Thaten,
und Schicksale unsers Herrn ; 182.
201.
Heumann, Explic. libr. N. T. ; 359*
384.
Historia Dynastiarum, see Abulpha-
ragius.
Uody. de Bibliorum Text. Origina-
lib. ; 47.
Hoffmann, Grammat. Syr. ; 493.
494. 513. 527. 529. 531 s.
Geschichte der Syr. Litte-
ratur; 530.
Hoogeveen, Doctrina Partic. Grae-
car. ; 194.
Horace, Satires ; 329.
Home, Introduction to the Critical
Study of the Holy Scriptures; 14.
22 s. 49. 102.
Hornemann, de Canone Philonis; 41
s. 50 52. 54 s.
HoUinger, Thesaurus Philologicus ;
8.35.
Houbigant, Bibl. Heb. cum not. crit.
et vers. Lat. ; 472.
Hudson, edit, of Josephus ; 61.67.
76 ss.
Huet, Origeniana ; 128. 136.
Hug, Einleitung in die Schriften des
N. T. ; 13.
Irenaens, adv. Haereses ; 281. 290.
305. 386 s.
Isocrates, Opera ; 320.
Jacob of Edessa ; 506.
09
54ti
,. IJNOJJX Oi; AXJTHUKi5> AiSt> BOOKS UDOTliO.
John, Einleitung in die g&ttlichen
Bacher des A. B. ; lis. 22 ss. .26.
43.49.
Arcbaeologia BibI, ; 6*2.
Jamhlichus, de Myster. ^Egypt. ; 299.
Jerome, Latin Version ; 431 s.
de Scriptor. Eccles. ; 281.
372.
Opera ; 36. 61 90 6.
Jocher, Lexicon ; 526.
Jonathan, Btn Vzziel, Targinn ; 412
ss.
Jonsius, de Scriptor. Hist. Phil. ;
322.
Joseplms, deBello Jud. ; 29.60. 172.
175.290 296 334 s
Antiqq. Jud.; 29. 61.69.
73. 76 ss. 200. 288. 290. 295 s. 300.
320 s.
• contra Ap. ; 31. 45. 65. 76.
77 ss.
Journal des Sgavans ; 506.
Justin Martijr, Apology ; 291.
Keil, C. A. T„ Opuscula Academica;
171. 175.
Kennicolt, Dissert. General. ; 86s.
Kirsch, edition of the Syriac Penta-
teuch ; 507.
Syriac Chrestoinathy ; 533.
Knapp, edition of the N. T. ; 103.
Knites, Gustai\, Syriac Chrestoma-
thy ; 520, 533.
Koppe, J. B., Nov. Test. ; 30. 171.
Krebs, Observatt. in N. T. ; 185. 320.
336. 341 s. 348.
Coranientar. ad dec. Rom.
pro Jud. ; 288. 330. 340. 343.
Kypke, Observatt. in N. T- ; 193.
336.
Lanigan, Institutiones Biblicae : 14.
Lardner, Supplement to Credibil. of
Gosp. Hist.; 34.281.355.
ie Clerc, Veteris Testament! prophe-
tae ; 472.
Xe Couteur ; 132.
tee, Professor S., Hebr. Grammar;
533 s.
Leo, Christopher, Translation of Ge
senius' Hebr. Lexicon ; 30.
Leusden, Philologus Hebraeus ; 8.
Lighljoot, Horae Hebr. ; 174. 203.
Locke, on the N. T. epistles; 379.
Loesntr, Obss. in N . T. ; 185.
Lokman, Fables : 216.
Lowth, Praelectiones ; 10. 22.
Translation of Isaiah ; 472.
Luther, German Version ; 465. 512.
Larger Catechism ; 184.
BLiius, J. IL, Abridgment of Bo
chart's Hieroz. ; 157.
M Uc-Brun, Geograph. ; 525.
Maagey, edition of Philo; 51.
Markland^ Notes on Lysias; 301. 337.
381.
Marsh, Bishop, Translation of Mi-
chaelis' Einleitung ins N. T.; 12 s.
496. 502. 504. 522.
Masius, Joshua illustratus ; 357.
Massuet, Diss, in Irenaeum ; 305.
Melavxthon, Opera ; 348.
Melito, Epistle to Onesimus ; 84.
.\ieuschen, Nov. Test, ex Talmude,
&c. iliustratum ; 62.
Meusel, Comment, in Esaiam prophe*
tam; 467.
Michnelis, J. D. Einleitung in die
gottl. Schriften des A. B. ; 11. 23.
505.
Kinleitung ins JN.
T. ; 12. 104. 281. 296. 303. 367.
373. 377 s. 392. 496. 5()2. 504. 522.
edit, of Lowth's
Praelectiones; 22.
— '■ SpecilegiumGeogr.
Ht br. exterae ; 148. 524-
'- German Version of
the Bible ; 506. 514.
Arabic Chrestoma-
thy ; 498.
526.
525 532.
de Syria Sabaea ;
Lexicon Syriacum ;
Abhandlung von
INDEX OP AUTHORS AND BOOKS QUOTED.
541
♦3er Syrischen Sprache ; 481 —
534.
JVfichadis, J. D. Gramraatica Syria-
ca; 494.531.
Syrische Chresto-
mathie ; 483. 494. 500. 617. 521.
532.
Supplementa ad
Lex. Hebr. ; 490.
Commentationes ;
311.351.526.
Crit. Collegium
fiber die drey wichtigsten Fsalmen
von Christo ; 186. 505.
Program ma, uber
die Lxx. Dollmetscher; 499.
Cuiae in Vers. Sy-
riac. Actuum Apost. ; 504.
Beurtheilung der
Mittel, die Hebr. Spr. zu verste-
hen; 485.511.
Dissert, de j^-^q'q
Chaldaeorum ; 356.
Lumina Syriacapro
illustr. Hebr. ; 495.
1 edit, of the He-
brew Bible ; 471.
Middleton, Bishop, Doctrine of the
Greek Article ; 181.
Morin, Stephen ; 109. 132. 138.
MorUy, George, 121.
Miische, Bibelfreund ; 184.
ItfoiAetm, Instil utt. Hist Eccl. raaj.;
277. 279. 282 ss. 290 Q»3 310.318
354. 365 s. 372. 394. 397.
, Diss. ad. H. E. pertinent.;
278.
283 529.
392
Instit H E. aut. et rec. ;
-, Commentary ; 316 s. 378.
de rebus Christ, ante Con-
stant •, 315.
Milnchhausen, 5l9 s.
Monster; 467.
M&nthinge, Kurtze Anm. zu dett Psal-
iaien: 189. 199.
CEcolampaiHus, Hypomnematain Esa-
iam; 467.
Opilz, Syriasmus, 531.
Origen, contra Celsum ; 61. 290. 312.
Opera; 37. 8&s.
Owen, Modes of Quotation ; 104*
Paulus, Reperiorium ; 43. 603. 533.
' Commentar Uber das N. T. t
499.
Philostratm, Vita Apollon. Tyan.-;
309. •
Plato, Opera ; 195.
I'liny, Hist. Nat.; 308.310.
Pococke, edit, of Abulpharagius' Hist*.
Dynast. ; .518.
Polyhius; 289.
Porphyry, Vila Plotini; 308.
Pott, Sylloge Commentt. TheolJ.',
495.
Prideaux, Connexion; 29.47.204.
Pseuilo-Jo alhan, Targum, 74.
Qu tremtre, Syriac * exicon ; 532.
Raphe!, Annott. in N T. ex Xenoph. ;
182. 194.
Annott. in N T.;ex Ariano ; 194.
Reland, Palaestiiia illustrata ; 359.
Perry, Key to the N. T. ; 14 s.
Philo, Opera; 41s. 172. 193. 296-
298 s. 300 336.
de Vita Contempl. ; 44 s.
de Monarchia ; 53.
de Legibus special. ; 53 s.
Q,uis rerum divin. haeres, sit ;
54 57. 58.
de Praemiis; 54.
AUegor. ; 54. 55.
de Gigant ; 54. 57.
de Plant Noe ; 55. 56. 57.
de congressu quaer. erudit.
gratia ; 55 57.
de Vita Mosis ; 55.
de Mundi Opif ; 55.
de migrat Abrah ; 55. 67. 5&.
Resipuit Noe ; 55.
de Somniis ; 55. 56 58.
de eo quod Deus sit inamutab. ;
55. .5P.
548
INDEX OF AUTHORS A'ND BOOKS QLOTED.
Philo, de Confus. lingg. ; 55. CC 57.
58.
.. de Temulent. ; 55-
de Mutat Norn ; 56 57. 5S.
de Cherub. ; 56.
de Profugis ; 56. 58.
de Agricult. ; 57.
1 Quod a Deo mittitur somnia ;
57. 58.
de Ebrietate ; 57.
Schinigen, Horae Hebr. ; 332.
Schoder, F. J., Specim. Hieroz., ex
Boch. ; 157 s.
Sfhroeckh, Hist. Eccles.; 278. 353.
S(:hulle7is. Proverbia Salom. ; 345.
Gram. Arab.; 498.
Segrais; 159.
S'tm/er, Apparatus ; 10.
. Hist, dogmat. fidei; 278. 355.
jReus5, Opuscula ; 197.
Rivet, Andrew; 113. *
Jioos, Lehre and Lebensgesch. J. C. ;
178,
Rosenmulkr, E. F. C, Scholia in V.
T.; 11.515.
Handbuch fiir die Lit-
teratur der bibl Kritik undExegese ;
49. 499. 509.
edit, of Lovvth's Praelec-
tiones; 22.
roz- ; 157.
edit, of Bochart's Hie-
J. G-, Historia Interpre-
387.
Comment. Hist, de ant. Chi
tationis; 530.
Buffin, Expositio Symbol i ; 35.
Saadias, Arabic Version; 432 ss.
Sanchoniathon ; 147.
Sanctius, Comment, in prophetas;
467.
Sarrau, Claude; 107. 121.
Saumaise; 121. 124.
Schaaf, Lexicon Syriacum Concor-
dantiale; 532.
Scheid, Diss, ad Cant. Hiskiae ; 375.
Scheffer, J., 159.
Schmid, C. Fr., Hist, et Vindicat.
Canonis ; 46. 86.
Enarratio sententiae Flavii
Josephii de libris V. T. ; 75.
Schmidt, J. C, Einleitung ins N. T. ;
13.
Schmid, Seb., Commentarius super
iliustres prophetias lesaiae ; 469.
Schmiicker, Translation of Storr's
Theology; 39.
^chnurrer, Animad. ad qiiaed. loc
P.'salmoi'. : 195.
Statu ; 303. 350. 372. 394. 397. 399.
— Paraph. Gosp. of St. John ;
354. 362.
Select. Capita H. E. ; 278. 397.
Abhandlung vonfreyer Unter-
tersuchung des Kanons; 35. 37.
Shlegel, Parallela Sacra ; 104
Simon. Hist. Critique ; 8. 9 61 147.
Reponse aux Sentt. Theol. de
Hollande, 163.
Simonis, Lex. Hebr ; 30.
Sionita, Gabriel ; 508 s.
Sijtus Sinensis, Bibliotheca Sancta:
7. ' *
Socrates, Hist EccL ; 34 321
Spittler, de usu versionis Alexand.
apud Josephum ; 66. 75.
Spizelius, InfeVix Literatus; 108. 110.
122.
Stesichorus ; 224. 226-
Storr, G C , Obss. Gram. ; 173. 179.
181. 185 190 ss. 195. 200 211.
Opusc Academ. ; 176. 193.
198. 2O2.'^05 207 212
Biblical Theology ; 39 102.
Ueber die eilteste Eintheilung
der BUcher des A. B. ; 43.
Slroth, Uebersetzung des Eusebius;
84. 87.
Stuart, Moses, Passages cited from the
O. T. by the writers of the N. T. :
102.
Suetonius, Vespasian ; 175.
Augustus ; 340.
Suicer, Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus ; 34.
Suidas; 34 s.
Snrenhwius.Bi^hti YidrsthXetyne: : 104.
INDEX or AUTHORS AND BOOKS t^UOTED.
Mi)
6mft, Works ; 498.
Stfmmaehtcs, Greek Version ; 363. 411 .
Sj/nodus Laodic. ; 34.
Tacit s, Historiae ; 172. 175.
Gerraania ; 380.
Talmud, Bava Bathra, 94.
Sanhedrin, 62.
Midrash Koheleth ; 498.
Tcrtvllian, de Praescrip. adv Haer. ;
291 306 385 397.
adv Valentinianos ; 387 s.
396
adv Hermog. ; 397-
Thalemann, C. G., Diss, de doctr Pau-
li Judaica, non Graeca ; 390.
Theodore of Mopsuestia ; 529
Theodoret, Opera ; 81 322.
Tfieodotion, Greek Version ; 179. 187.
411.
Thomasius, J, de Originibus Hisl.
Phil etEccles. ; 277.
Tobler, Gedanken und Antworten
zur Ehre J. C. und seines Reichs;
297.
Turner, S. H., and W. R WhitUngliam,
Translation of Jahn's Einleit ins
A. T ; 22 ss- 26. 43. 49.
Ttjcfiscn, 0. G., Elementale Syria-
cum; 533.
Universal History, (German Transla-
tion of); 517.
Upham, Translation of Jahn's Ar-
chaeologia ; 62.
Valenus, Notes on Euseb Hist Eccl. ;
88
Varenius, Commentt in Esaiam ; 469.
Voter, Commentar tlber den Penta-
teuch ; 11.
Vmema, Commentt. ad Psalmos ; 375.
Veron; 115 s.
Vetahlus;Am
Viczti, Abridgment of the Hierozoi-
con of Bocliart; 157.
Virgil, ^neid ; 382. 488.
Vitringa, Obss. sacr. ; 305.
Cominentary on Isaiah ;
318. 375. 470.
Vorstius, de Hebraismis N. T. ; 501.
Vossius ; 9.
JValch, Hist, of Heresies ; 278.
Walton, Prolegomena ad Polyg.
Lond. ; 8. see Heidepger, Dathe.
Wallher, Officina Biblica ; 7.
Walt, Bibliotheca Britannica; 487.
517.
Wets!ein,]Sov. Test.; 171. 174. 185.
496.
Whiston, Authentic Records ; 47.
WliitlhiirJiam, W. R. and i>. H. Tur-
ner, Translation of Jahn's Einleit.
ins A. T. ; 22 ss. 26. 43. 49.
Winckdmann ; 520.
Witsius, Miscell. sacr. ; 357.
Wolf, Curae ; 320. 322. 332. 336. 339.
369. 380. 382.
Wall, Christ., edition of Blackwall's
sacred Classics ; 203.
Woods, Lecture on Quotations of the
0. T. ; 104.
Xcnophon, Cyrop. ; 343.
Memorab. ; .344.
Zohar; 498.
Zonaras ; 34.
Zoroaster; 147.
Zurich Library ; 30 s. 42 44 50 s^
69.
Ziiitt^le, Contemplationes Isaiae pro
petae; 466.
r>r>(>
INDEX IV
GENERAL INDEX OF MATTERS.
Abarbanel, Commentary of, when
composed, 462. lis character, 462
—464.
Abulpharagius, Gre^^ory, account of
him and of his writings, 518 s.
.Why the time when he lived was
peculiarly interesting, 519. The
valuable libraries from which he
obtained the materials of his His-
tory, it. The three parts of which
it consists, 518. His assertion, in
regard to the Syriac Version of the
Old Testament. 505. When and
why he composed an abridgment
of his History, in Arabic, ib. The
time occupied in making this
abridgmefit, ib. The manuscript
copy of the original work, in the
Vatican, used by Asseman, 519.
Why a copy of it for the Universi-
ty of Gottingen, proposed by Ba-
ron von IMtinchhaussen, was not
obtained, 519, 520. The printing
of the entire work proposed by
Prof. Bruns, 520. Where he made
his MS. copy of the work, ib. (See
Bruns.) Edw. Pococke's edition
of the Arabic abridgment, 518.
See Pococke.
Mneas, landing of, in Italy, 159 s.
Aeons, of the Gnostics, waiters who
treat of them, 354.
Atexandtr. not to be classed among
heretics, and why, 289. Case of,
considerec^, 349,
Alexandrian Christians, their admira-
tion of the Apocrypha, 31. 33.
Alexandrian Version ; See Septua-
gint.
Amos, his prophecy ix. 11 s. consider-
ed, 199. 200. See Miuor Prophets.
Angels, ministry of, 268. Whether
they were worshipped by the Es-
se nes, 355. 356.
Aniiochus Epiphanes, his intolerant
edict, 41.
Apamaea, 167.
Apoca.ypse, difference of its style
from that of the other writings of
St. John, 373.
Apocalypse of Elijah, cited by St-
Paul, 31.
Apocrypha, when added to the Greek
Bible, 32 Some of them, in a
translation, very early in the hands
of the Egyptian Jews, 48. Why
translated into Latin at an early
period, 33. Cited by St Paul, 31.
JNot cited by Philo, 59- What
books are to be so called, in the
opinion of Josephus, 75. Not al-
lowed to be read in public, 35.
Canonical authority attributed to
them by Councils, 33.
Apocryphal, meaning of, 36 s.
Apostles, make a distinction between
GEiSBRAL IjSDEX UF MATTEKfii.
551
, Canonical and Apocryphal writ-
ings, 32. Unlearned men, 389.
Apostolic Fathers, and the Apostles
atid Ecclesiastical Writers, repre-
sented as making- no distinction
between various pseudepi^raphs,
and the canonical books of the O-
T.,3!.
Aquila, character of his Version of
Isaiah, 411 s.
Arabic Latr^uage, the vernacular lan-
guage of some Jews undrr the Sa-
racens, 486. Compared wiih the
Hebrew, 493. Its illustrations of
Hebrew, fewer than those derived
from the Syriac, 495. Used in il-
lustrating the Greek of the New
Testament, 498.
Versions, why useful, 510.
Necessary at an early date, ib.
Fersiom of the Psalms, notice
of, 509.
Version of the Prophets, in the
London and Paris Polyglots, found-
ed on the Alexandrian, 439.
Fersion of Job, made from
the Syriac, 509.
Version of Saadins, notice of,
434. Follows Jewish interpreta-
tions, 433. Its characteristics,
434 ss.
Aramaean Language, when spoken
by Jews, as their vernacular lan-
guage, 495. Spoken by Christ and
the Apostles, 497. iS early allied to
Hebrew, 493. Its influence on
Hebrew, 495.
Arisieas, his account of the Septua-
gint Version, 47 s- See Septua-
gint.
ArnoUi, his opinion respecting the
Gnostics, 278.
Arlaxerxes Longimanus, why Jose-
phus closes the Canon of the O.
T. with his reign, 68.
Asseman, J. S., bis Oriental Library
commended, 487, 516. 521.
' S. E., his Acts of the Mar-
tyrs valuable, 516. His translation
of Ephrem censured, ib.
Assumption of Moses cited by St.
Jude, 31.
Auguti, J. C. W., character of his
Handbuch des A. T., 474. Of his
translation of Isaiah, 476.
Aufiustine, cliaracter ol bis Doctrina
Christiana, 7.
Auririllius, character of, as an inter-
preter of Isaiah, 479.
AniheAicily, of the Books of the Old
Testament, 21 ss. Evidences of it,
24 s.
Bnmbyce ; See Mabog.
Barhebraeus, Gregory, see Ahulpharu-
gius.
BarucA, held a place in the Canon of
Origen, 88.
B>uer, G. C, notice of his Scholia,
474.
Bava Bathra, see Talmud.
Bayle, blunders of, relative to Bo-
chart, 122 149.
Bible, Introductions to ; See Intro-
ductions^
Versions of; See Arabic, Sy-
riac, &c.
Polyglot : See Polyglot.
Bochart, his birth, 110. Ancestry,
ih Education ilO S5. Character,
140. Acquirements, 141 Person,
139. Controversy with De la
Barre, 130 s. Correspondence
with Morley, 121 s. Dispute with
Veron, 115 ss. Journey to Swe-
den, 124. Visit to England, 113.
Settles at Caen, 114. Publishes
his Sacred Geography, 119 s. In-
vited to Ley den, 121. Sermons
on Genesis, 118 s. Minor Writ-
ings, 136. 158 ss. Plan of a Scrip-
ture Natural History, 158. Merits
as a writer, 160 ss. Ditliculties
caused by the death and removal
of his colleagues, 132 s. His death,
137 s.
Bombcrg, Daniel, first introduced the
552
GENERAL INDEX OF MATTERS.
present division of the Books of
Scripture, in his edition of the
Hebrew Bible, 88.
Bossuel^ suppresses S'raon's History
of the Old Testament, t).
JBourdelal, physician to Christina,
Queen of Sweden, 125 s.
Brucker, his theory in regard to the
Gnostics, 279 His definition of
their JEom, 354
Brum, his discoveryof the Chronicle
of Barhebraeus in the Oxford Li-
brary, 520. His publication of a
specimen of it, ib. And proposed
edition of the entire work, j6
Brynaem, corrects errors of Bochart,
167.
BUsching, his use of Syriac works in
his De-i-ription of Asia, 525. His
Geography translated into English,
ib
Cam, literary society and academy
of, 129.
Calmet, notice of his Commentary,
472.
Calvin, character of his Commentary
on Isaiah, 4t)G s.
Canon, the acceptation of the word
among early Ecclesiastical Writers,
34 s. 37 Consequences resulting
from its unsettled meaning, 37.
Why the word ought not to have
been used in reference to the O.
T-, 36. Determination of its mean-
ing, 38 s. Closed by the Jews un-
der Artaxerxes Longimanus, 68.
Of what it consisted in the time of
Christ and the Apostles, 95 Settled
after the Babylonian Captivity,
98 Contains the books of our pre-
sent Bibles, 96. The Jews of Egypt
are sources of information concern-
it, 42 s. The Jews of Palestine
also, 60 ss. Of the Egyptian and
Palestine Canon in general, 39 s.
Arc one and the same, 41 ss.
Whence this results, 42. The Ca-
non of Philo. 59. That of the Sad-
duceesand Samaritans, 60 s That
oftheTherapcutae, ib. The Epistle
of J« remiah never a part of it, 89.
See Josephus, Origen, ^1elito, Philo.
Canonical, meaning of the word, 34.
The same as inspired, 35.
Carpsov, character of his Introduction
to the Old Testament, 10.
Castelt, his Hebrew Lexicon the best
extant, 491. His Chalnee Lexicont
when and where published, 532.
Aided in its execution by Bishop
Beveridge, ib. See Michaelis, J. D.
Celene or A) amaea, 167.
Cellarius, his views more correct than
those of Bochart, 524. Less valued
than Bochart, in Germany, ib.
Chaldaisms, abound in Jeremiah and
Ezechie!,21.
Chaldee Language, our reading in it
limited, 489. When the authors,
extant in it, wrote, ib. How foreign
words were introduced into it, ib-
More used than Syriac, in illustra-
ting Hebrew, 485.
Charenton, decree of the Synod of.
130.
Chrestomalhies, Syriac, notices of the
best, 532 s.
Christ, his sutFerings before he enter-
ed on his kingdom, much insisted
on by himself and his apostles, 176
— 178. In what respect he suc-
ceeded to David's place, 198. His
proof of the Resurrection, 62. His
discourse on pride and offending,
502. The passage of Isaiah xxv.
6 — 8. interpreted of him, 513 s.
His vernacular language, 497. See
Churrh of Christ.
Christians; See Egyptian,
Chronicles, the two books were only
one at first, 87. Closed the Canon
of the O. T., 70. They are not
mentioned by Philo, 58. No di-
rect quotation from them in the
N. T., .102. Are used by Josephus,
80. Are found in the Canon of
GENERAL INDEX OF MATTERS.
553
Melito, 84. Of Origen, 87. Of
Jerome, 91. And of the Talmud,
94.
Church of Christ, its nature and pro-
gress, 235.
Citations, see Quotations.
Clement of Alexandria, his testimony
as to the period when the Gnostic
heresy prevailed, 282. Thoroughly
skilled in Oriental learning, 283.
Character given fo him by Euse-
bius, 305. His silence respecting
the Oriental philosophy, ib.
Clement of Rome, cites the spurious
Ezechiel, 31.
Cocceius, character of, as a critic, 469.
491. His Hebrew Lexicon next
in value to that of Castell, 491
His translation of Isaiah, i. 22. ib.
Colossians, Epistle to, scope and
meaning of the first two chapters of,
322—344.
Conjecture, Bochart charged with an
excess in the use of it, 164. J. D.
Michaelis' conjectural reading of
Deut. VIII. 3. 16. And of Isaiah
XXV. 7. 512 s.
Context^ use of, in interpretation of
Parables, 241.
Critici Sarri, comparison between it
and Poole's Synopsis, 468
Criticism, of the O. and N Testament,
how divided, 4. Questions relat-
' ing to the Old Testament brought
into view by Higher Criticism, II.
Questions relating to the New Test ,
13 The use of Higher Criticism,
26 s.
Cyril of Alexandria, character of hit
Commentary on Isaiah, 449 Year
of his death, ib
Daniel, his Book originally in sepa-
rate treatises, 26. And in different
dialects, ib The Jews have diffe-
rent opinions of its value and au-
thority, 30 Not mentioned by
Philo, 58. No direct quotation
from it in the N- T., 102. In the
Canon of Mellto, 85 And in that
of Joseph u«, 77 81 Where and
when the Sepiua^int Version of his
Book was publishec j500.
Dathe, notice of bis Latin Version of
Isaiali, 477 And of his Syriao
Psalter. .=.15
David, the epithets applied to him by
Philo, 56 s. Inferiority of his go-
vernment t«» that of Christ, 201.
De Dieu, Louis, character of his me«
thud of exposition, 467 s.
Death, differently depicted by diffe-
rent nations, 498. See Taste of
Death
Dereser, notice of his translation bf
Isaiah 477.
Descent, of Christ iato hell, Bochart
on, 160. 168.
Deuteronomy, the epithet applied to
it by Philo, 55. See Moses.
Diffusii eness^ Bochart not to be charge
ed with, 160
Ddderleiii, J C, notice of his Latin
Version of Isaiah, 477.
Eastern, what nations were so called
by the Hebrews, 278.
'?,/i^aicev ^iBf.ot, what is to be under-
stood by the phrase, 73.
Ecclesiasies, not cited by Josephus nor
Philo, 59. 81 But by Melito, Ori-
gen and Jerome, 84. 87. 91.
Ecclesiastical History, receives im-
portant accessions from Syriao li-
terature, 521.
Edessa, Juioh of see Jacob.
Egyptian Christians, their opinions
on the Canon, 46.
Jews, held the Apocrypha
in no repute, 46. Had the same
Canon as the Palestine Jews, 41 ss.
Sre Canon.
Eichfiorn, opinion of, as to the period
when Jonathan Ben Uzziel lived,
413. His thetry in regard to the
writings of Isaiah, 476. His trea-
tise on the Canon of the O. T., 17
-^104. Account of its first rnibli-
ro
554
GENERAL INPEX OF MATTERS.
cation, 19. Four editions of his
Introduction, ib. His opinion on
the use of the Paragogic Nun of
the Preterit, 494.
Ehazar, whether he sent to Egypt a
Hebrew MS. for forming the Sep-
tuagint Version, 47.
Enoch, Books of, cited by St. Jude,
31.
Episcopacy, Bochart's letter on, 122.
Epistle of Aristeas ; See Septuagint.
Ephrem Synts, when, where, and by
whom his Works were published,
516. 487. S. E. Asseman's Latin
translation of them censured, 516.
Commended in lofty terms by
Greeks, Latins, Copts and Arme-
nians, 527. Entitled by the Sy-
rians Master of the World, ib. His
mode of interpretation illustrated
by examples, 527 s. Comments
on the Syriac Version, and not on
the original text, 527. Character
as a Commentator, 527. 454 s.
Character of his Commentary on
the Syriac Version of Isaiah, 454 s.
Quotes Rev. of St. John, 523.
Esseiies, had sacred books, 60. Whe-
ther they worshipped angels, 335 s.
Esther, is not held in the same repute
by all Jews, 30.
Ethiopians, their division of the books
of the Old Testament 89.
Etymological inte.rpr. tation, Bochart's
overweening atlachment to, 165.
Eunapius, what he means by Chal-
daic philosophy, 310 s.
Eusebius, his 'TfrofAvrifxtTet. tU 'Htntinv
first published by IVlontfau9on, 447.
Character of this work, 447—449.
Exodus, the epithet applied to it by
Philo, 55.
Ezechiel, abounds in Chaldaisms, 21.
Not certainly included in the Canon
of Philo, 59. Not cited in the N.
T., 102. Found in the Canon of
Josephus, 71. 77. And of Melito,
S4. And of Origen, 87. And of
Jerome, 91. And of the Talmud,
94. The Syriac Version accords
with the Greek more frequently in
this, than in the other books of the
O. T., 506.
Ezra, not cited in the New Testament,
64 102. Cited by Philo, 55. Used
by Josephus, 80. In the Canon of
Melito, 84. Of Origen, 87. Of
Jerome, 91. And of the Talmud,
94.
Fables, how different from parables,
216 ss. Classification of, 219 s.
Nature of, 223. Use of, proper,
219. 221. Utility of, 232 s.
Fathers, after Origen's time, until the
fifth century, almost entirely igno-
rant of the Hebrew text, 446 s.
Their opinion on the number pf
the Books of the O. T., 70 s. And
on the sacred books of the Saddu-
cees, 60 s. And on the Apocry-
pha, 31.
Firmilian, testimony of, as to the
date of the Gnostic heresy, 286 s.
Forerivs, notice of his Commentary
on Isaiah, 467.
Fox and trapes, fable of, 227.
Franciscan Friar, anecdote of, 133.
Future Paragogic, more common in
Arabic than in Hebrew, 493.
Gabriel Shmiia ; see Sionita.
Gamaliel, Rabbi, his proof of the re-
surrection of the dead, 62.
Gems, of Scripture, 158.
Genesis; see Moses.
Geography, derives important aid from
Syriac learning, 524. Geographi-
cal tables of the Monophysite and
Nestorian' Sees and Monasteries,
ib. Bochart's errors in, ib. And
those of Cellarius, ib. See Mabog.
Gesenius, W., hit History of Intro-
ductions to the Scriptures, 1 — 15.
And his History of the Interpreta-
tion of the prophet laeiah, 401—
479. His criticism on the Hiero-
zoicon of Bochart, 156.
GENERAL INDEX OP MATTERS.
555
GiU, his illustrations of the phrase
Tasle of Death, 498.
'Gnoslics, origin of the name, 277.
Opinion of Arnold respecting them,
278. Of Moshelm and Brucker,
279. The name shewn to be first
used in the Second Century, 281.
Testimony of Clemens Alexandri-
nus, as to the time when the Gnos-
tic heresy prevailed, 282. Of He-
gesippus, 284. Of Firmilian, 286,
287. Of Tertullian, 291—293.
Date of the Gnostic philosophy
proved not to be so early as the
time of the Apostles, from the si-
lence of the writers of the First
Century, 293. Difficulty of ascer-
taining the real opinions of the
Onostics, and reasons for this, 302,
303. Their tenets supposed by
some to have been derived from
the Jews, 304, 305. By others,
from the Greeks, 305, 306. Rigid
in their lives, 372. Cause of the
occasional resemblance between
their language, and that of the sa-
cred writers, 385—387. Their sys-
tem too absurd, and too refined, to
have been a subject of discussion
with the Apostles, 388—391. That
mode of interpretation which finds
them in the sacred writings, too
laboured and artificial to be true,
391. Their doctrines derived from
a threefold source, 394 — 396. Ap-
parently contradictory statements
of the ancient ecclesiastical writers
on this subject, reconciled, 396.
The origin of the Gnostic heresy
to be traced to Egypt, 397. The
number of the Gnostics not great,
398. Their various sects more
profitable than injurious to Chris-
tianity, 399.
Gradation, of fnture rewards, 255.
268.
Grammar, importance of its know-
ledge, 163. TJiat of the Hebrew.
compared with the Arabic and Ara-
maean, 493. Hebrew Grammar
illustrated by Syriac, 492. And
by Arabic, ib.
Grammars, the best Syriac, notices
of, 531.
Grei^k Version of the O. T. ; see Sep-
tu'igint.
Gregory Barhebraeus ; see Ahidphara-
gius,
Grotius, his method of exposition,
467.
Habakkuk ; see Minor Prophets.
Haggai; see Minor Prophets.
Hammond, Dr., undue eagerness of,
to find traces of the Gnostics in the
N. T., 318,
Han/ein,* character of bis Introduc-
tion to the N. T., 13.
Harduin; see Mabog.
Hasseniamp, points out an error of J.
D. Michaelis, 523. Writes a book
against bis Introduction to the N.
T., ib. Proposes a Collection of
Testimonies from the Syriac Fa-
thers, iZ>. Favourable notice of
him by Michaelis, ib.
Hebraisms, improper application of
the word, 497. Treatise on, cited,
501.
Hebrew Language, the Scriptures of
the O. T. the only repository of it,
151. Importance of Syriac for
its illustration, 486—490. Exam-
ples of this, 490—492. 513 s. 526.
Influence of the Aramaean on the
Hebrew, 495.
Hebrew Grammar, illustrated by Sy-
riac, 492—495. The Nun Para-
gogic of the Preterit, 493. Vowels
and diacritical marks, 495. Con-
sonants, ib. Illustration from the
records of Palmyra, 493.
He^esippus, testimony of, as to the
date of the Gnostic heresy, 284.
When he lived, i6. Testimony of
Eusebius to his character, 285.*
566
GENERAL INDEX OF MATTERS.
Heresies, what St. Paul means by
them, 288 s.
Btrmas, cites the Eldad and Medad,
31.
Hierapolis ; sec Mahog.
Hierozoicon, of Bochart, 129 150 ss.
Its publication, 134. Editions of,
157.
History, Ecclesiastical and Civil, the
great light shed on it by Syriac li-
terature, 517—522.
Hoffmann, A. T., his eminence as a
Syriac scholar, 531. The excel-
lence of his Syriac Grammar, ib.
His brief history of i^yriac Lite-
rature mentioned, 530. His re-
mark on the Paragogic Nun of the
Preterit in Syriac, 494. And on
the matres lectionis, 493.
HoTmsel, notice of his work on Isai-
ah, 478.
Hosea ; see Minor Prophets.
Houbigajit, his character as a biblical
critic, 472.
Huet, his disputes with Bochart, on a
passage of Origen, 136. Fond-
ness for mythological illustrations
of Scripture, 165. Letter to Bo-
chart, on the abuse of etymology,
165. Journey to Sweden, 124 ss.
Origeniana, 128. Effect of Bo-
chart's Sacred Geography on him,
120.
Mug, J. L., character of his Intro-
duction to the N. T., 13.
Hymenaeus, not among heretics, and
why, 289. Case of, considered,
349.
Inspiration, the manner in which
Philo expresses himself, in regard
to it, 53. See Canonical.
Interpretation, rules of, exemplified,
166.
Introduction, to the Bible, meaning
of, 3. How this species of learning
is divided, ib. Proposed fourfold
division, 4 s. Nature of a practical
Introduction,^. Origin of this de-
partment of learning, 7. When the
name Iniroduclion was first used,
ib. First important steps in treat-
ing this subject, 8. Other nations
far behind the Germans, in their
prosecution of it, and why, 14.
Is'tiah the epithets applied to him by
Philo, 56. His writings found in
the Canon of Philo, Josephus, Meli"
to, Origen, Jerome, and the Tal-
mud, 19. 76. 84. 87. 9L 94. Is
quoted in the N. T., 100 s. His
style, 21 s. Extant in Greek, at a
more recent date than the books of
M ses, 48, Character of the Sep-
tuagint Version of, 430 s. Its pe-
cularities, 404 — 410. Use of it by
the N. T. writers, 410 s. Charac-
ter of the translation of Isaiah by
Symmachus, 411 s. By Aquila, ib.
By Theodotion, ib. Antiquity of
the Chaldee Version of, defended?
412—415. its unity, 415—417.
Its character, 417 — 426. Charac-
ter <»f the Syriac Version of, 426 —
429. 431. Whether the author of
this version was a Jew or a Chris-
tian, 429—431. 507. Character of
Jerome's Latin Version of Isaiah^
431 s. Age of the Arabic Version
of Saadias, 432. Its character. 433
— 437, Remains of the Old Latin
Version of Isaiah, 438. Its charac-
ter, 438 s. Arabic Version of, 439.
Age of, 439 s. Peculiarities of,
440 ss. Its external character, 442
— 445. Observations of the Fathers
on Isaiah, before Origen's time,
chiefly doctrinal, 446. Cbaracter
of the work of Eusebius. *r To,uv»y«<-
tet tk "Ho-aiav, 447—449. The
Commentary of Cyril of Alexan-
dria, 449. The Commentaries of
Tiieodoret, 449 s. Those of Pro-
copius of Gaza, 450. The Com-
mentary of Jerome, 450 ss. That
of Ephrem Syrus on the Syriac
Version of Isaiah, 4-54 '. Remarks
GENERAL INDEX OF MATTERS.
557
t)t Jarchi on Is. vi. 1—6. wid vii.
1—9., 457—459. Of Al)en Kzra on
the same, 459 s, Cliaracler and
specimens of David Kimchi's Com-
mentary on Isaiah, 460—462. Of
Isaac Abarbanel's, i62 — 464. Of
Luther's, 465 s. Of Zuingle's
and Calvin's, 466 s. Of Varenius,
469. Of Vitriiiga's, 470. When
the dialects were fir=t used in tlie
interpretation of Isaiah, 471. Cha-
racter of Bishop Lowth's work on
Isaiah, 472 s. K"ppe's edtiion of
it, 473. Paulus' Clavis, 473. J.
D. Michaelis' and Moidenhauer's
translations, 475. • Of the works of
Cube, Kiagelius, Seller Holster
and Heiisler, 476. Augusti's trans-
lation, ib. Eicbhorn's theory, in
regard to the writings of Isaiah,
476 s. Notice of D*^reser's transla-
tion, 477. Of the Latin Versions
ofDdderleinand Dathe,i&. Greve's
work, 477. The works of Hohei-
sel, Scheliing, Arnoldi, Schleusner,
and Mossier, 478. Schroder's Mo-
nographic on Is. III. 16 ss., 479.
Martini on Chap liii. ib. Cha-
racter of Schnurrer and Aurivillius,
•as interpreters of Laiah, 479.
Jofob of Edessa, his recension of the
Syriac version, 506. When intrp-
duced, ib.
JaJm, character of his Introduction,
11 s His opinion on the time of
Jonathan Ben Uzziel, 413.
Jarchi, time when he flourished, 456.
character of his Commentary, 456
s. His remarks on Is. vi. 1 — 6.
and vn. 1 — 9., 457 ss.
Jeremiah, liis writings abound in
Chaldaisms, 21. The subscription
to bis paK):|>bccies, 27. Spoken of
with great respect, by Philo. 56.
And by Josephus, 77. Found in
the Canon of Melito 84. And of
Origen, 87. And of Jerome, 91.
Quoted in the N. T., and how, 64.
Placed among the Prophets, by the
Talmud, 94 logethi-r with the
Lameiita(i.»nsconstiiutesone book,
Virmeyah. 88. The apocryphal
wjirk ascribed to him, 31. The
Epistle which bears his name ne_
ver was a part ol the Jewish Ca-
non, 89.
Jerome^ arranges the Scriptures under
three h< ads, Law, Prophets and
Hagiogra[iha, 90 s. Enumerates
the books of Scripture, ib. The
Apocrypha, according to him, 93.
Character of his Commentary on
Isaiah 45(.»— 453.
Jesus SiracA, translates the Sentences
of his grandfather, from Hebrew
into Greek, 43. His periphrasis, to
designate the O. I ., jb.
Jews, after the Bab) Ionian captivity,
divided into Egyptian and Pales-
tine, 39. Notwithstanding their
jealou^y, their religious fellowship
was remarkable, 41. They had
the same Canon, 41 ss. Their sa-
cred books in ancient times were
twenty -two, 70. But afterward
twenty-toui,93. When they agreed
on the number of their sacred
books, 30. Did not rank the Apo-
crypha with their saered books,
35.
Jtb, known to Philo and the writers
oilheiN.T., 82. Among the sa-
cred writings in the time of Christ
and the Apostles ib. Cited by
Philo, 57. But not by Josephus,
81. Placed after the Song of So-
lomon, by Melito, 84. After Eze-
chiel by Origen, 87. After the Mi-
nor Prophets, by Jerome, 91.
JGcher, hi? deviaiion from the proper
orihograf-hy of a Syrian city, 526.
Jofi ; see Yod.
Joel, an original poet. 22. See Minor
Prophets.
John, the Evangelist, design of his
Gospel, a53— 355. Difference of
558
GENERAL INDEX OF MATTERS.
his style in the Apocalypse, from
that of his other writings, 373.
His Apocalypse cited by Ephrem
Syrus, 523.
■John, the Baptist, in what respect in-
ferior to ihe Apostle-?, 183 s.
Jonah ; see Minor Prophets.
Jonathan Ben Uzziel, his Targura,date
of, 412 ss. The work of one au
thor, 415 ss. Its character, 417 ss.
Contains views similar to some in
the New Testament, 425. Made
in general from a Masoretic text,
425.
Josephus, a contemporary of the
Apostles, 64. Attached himself to
the sect of the Pharisees in his
youth, 6§. But left it in his ma-
turer years, ih. A priest, and a sa-
gacious investigator of truth, 65.
Speaks of two kinds of sacred
writings of his nation, 31 s. His
mode of designating the later writ-
ings, 31. His use of the word Ca
non, 65. Speaks of twenty-two
sacred books, 67. And gives a ge-
neral enumeration of them, 71.
Speaks of thirteen prophets and
four hagiographa, 71. His view
of the Palestine Canon, 64 ss.
And of the contents of it, 45.
Writings which he places express-
ly among the sacred books, 76 ss.
Writings which he merely cites,
79 ss. Writings which he passes
by in silence, 81. His celebrated
passage contra Ap., on the credibi-
lity of the Scriptures, 67. Closes
the Canon with Artaxerxes Longi-
manus, 30. And why, 68 ss. On
the books of Moses, 76. Says the
book of Joshua was repositf^d in
the temple, 78. On the hooks of
Kings, 79. Made use of Ezra, 80.
And Neheraiah. ib. Designates the
contents of Esther, i&. Considers
it to be the latest book, of all those
in the O. T., 80. 69. His view of
the book of Judges, 80. And of
Ruth, ib. Considers Isaiah to be
among the sacred books, 76 s. And
to be the author of the prophecies
ascribed to him, 76. ('alls Jeremi-
ah a propnet, 77. And Ezechiel,
ib. And Nalium, 78. And Jonah,
ib. Places Ha-gai among the sa-
cred writitgs, 78. And calls him
and Zechariah prophets, ib. Plac-
es Daniel among the /•§* ^g«;*^«-
T«t, 77 Calls the Psalms uiuvot tie
Tov ei<5v, and places them among
the sacred books, 79. Does not
mention Proverbs, nor Ecclesias-
tes, nor the Song of Solomon, 81.
Makes no mention of Job, ib.
Makes use of the Hebrew Books,
in composing his history, 73.
Treats minutely of the Jewish
sects, 295. Makes no mention of
the Gnostics, ib. A passage in his
works corrupted, 335.
Joshua, enters deeply into the particu-
lars of the most ancient Geography,
25. What Philo calls this book,
55. What Josephus says of it, 78.
In Philo's Canon, 55. And in that
of Josi-pbus, 78. And of Melito
and Origen, and Jerome, 84. 86.
90. Placed in the Canon by the
Talmud. 94. Cited in the N. T., 98.
Jude, cites the Assumption of Moses
and the Books of Enoch, 31.
Judges, its provincialisms and barba-
risms, 21. Together with Ruth,
one book, called Shophetim, 86. 90.
Not cited in the N. T., 64. But
referred to, 102 Philo's view of
it, 57. Josephus', 80. Quoted by
Philo according to the Septuagint,
57. The Arabic Version of Job in
the Polyglots is made from the
Syriac, 509. His book in the Ca-
non of hilo, 59 And of Jose-
phus, 83. And of Melito, 84. Of
Origen, 86. And of Jerome, 90.
And of the Talmud^ 94.
UE^EAAL LNUHTL OF MATTERS.
>5d
Kimchi, time when he flourished,
460. Character and specimens of
his Commentary on Isaiah, 460 —
462.
Kingdoniy heavenly, had long been
expected by Christ's hearers, 171.
The sources of this expectation
pointed f)Ut by Josephus and Ta-
citus, 172. The Messiah's king-
dom sometimes called the King-
dom of the Father, and why, 173,
206. Why sometimes called the
Kingdom, 174. Erroneous opi-
nions prevalent, in Christ's Jtime,
respecting it, 174. Its commence-
ment, 180, 185 In what sense it
was present daring John the Bap-
tist's time, and Christ's residence
on the earth, 180, 181. In what
passages that more comprehensive
sense of the Kingdom of heaven
obtains, by which it includes the
whole of Christ's history, 183.
Perpetuity of Christ's Kingdom,
186—196. Its extent, 197—199.
Greatness and power of its admi-
nistration, 200—206. Into what
periods the Kingdom of Christ,
is divided, 206. To what the term
Kingdom of heaven may pecu-
liarly be applied, 208.
Kings, the first and second books,
together called Samud, 87. The
third and fourth called Vammelech
David, ib. The first book called
the third, by Philo and the Sep-
tuagint, 67. How regarded hy
Philo, 58 s. In the Canon of Jo-
sephus, Melito, Origen, Jeiome,
and the Talmud, 83. 84. 87. 90.
94. Cited in the N. T., 98. 99.
Kirschy G. JV., notice of his Syriac
Chrestomathy, 533. It is derived
chiefly from the Chronicle of Gre-
gory Abulpharagius, ib.
Knoes, Guslavus, notice of his Syriac
Chrestomathy, 520. It is in great
part derived from valuable MSS.,
ib.
Lamentations of Jeremiah, appended
to the Prophecies of Isaiah, 59,
87. Not s ) in the Taimud, 94.
JNot cited by Philo, 58. Merely
mentioned by Josephus as a book
composed by Jeremiah, 79. But
is to be considered a part of his
Canon, 83. And was in that of
Origen, 87. And the Talmud, 94.
Not cited in the N. T., 102.
Lar'i'ner, controversy of, with Mi-
chaelis, respecting a certain pas-
sage in Irenaeus, 281. Unfavour-
able notice of him by J. D. Mi-
chael is, 523.
Lattn Language, prbnunciation of,
113 s. 495.
Le Clerc, notice of his Commentary,
472.
Lee, Prof., his opinion of the impor-
tance of the Oriental Languages,
533.
Leviticus ; see Moses.
Lexicons, the best Syriac, 532.
Lizards, species of, mentioned by
Moses, 153 s.
Locusts ; 160 s.
Loudon, Synod of the Reformed
Church of France at, 129 s.
Lowth, Bishop, character of his work
on Isaiah, 472 s. Koppe's edition
of it, 473.
Lucian, silence of. in regard to the
Gnostics, 294.
Lulher, his translation of Ephesians,
n. 2., 382. When his translation
of Isaiah appeared, 465. Charac-
ter of his Commentary on Isaiah^
465 s His excellencies as a trans-
lator, 512.
Mnbos, a Syrian city, tfte error of
Cellarius in regard to it, 524. Sup-
posed to be mentioned by Pliny,
ib. Harduin's opinion on the
name, 525. Its changes, ih. The
360
GENERAL INDEX Ol^ MATTEKS.
same as Bambyce and Hierapolis,
ib. Its orthography decided by a
referenee to the Syriac, ib.
Lyra, de; see Nicolaus <ie Lyra.
Mclachi ; see Minor Prophets,
Martin^, .lOtice oi his work on Isai-
ah, uii. 479.
Matr'S lectionis, more frequent in
modern, than in ancient Syriac,
493
Melito, Bishop of Sardis, 83 Lived
in the second century, ib. His ce-
lebrated Epistle to Oiiesiuiiis, 84.
Illustration of it, 85. Wrote with-
out accents or spiritus, ib. His ar-
rangement of the books of Scrip-
ture, 84. Omits Nehemiah and Es-
ther, 85. Arrd Malachi, 84
Menenin Agrippa, bis fable of the
members of ihe body, 2i6. 224.
226 s.
Methodists, a set of Romanist dispu-
tants so called, 1 15.
Micah ; see Minor Prophets.
Michaelis, J. D.. devoted his chief
attention to Hebrew Philoloijy. for
ten years, at GSttingen, 486. His
Criticisms on Is. xiv. 23. and i.
22., 490—492. On xxv. 7., 51 1 ss.
On the phrase Taste of Drath, 497
ss. (See Taste of Death.) On
Deut. VIII. 3 16., 494 Oa ii. Cor
XII. 7., 499 ss. His notice of the
Syriac text in the Polyglots, 507 ss
Thinks that the author of this ver-
sion was a Christian, 507. His
censure of Lardner, 5 >3. Of Bo-
chart, 624 And of Gabriel io-
nitas, 509. And of S. E. Ase nan,
516. Favourable notice of Has-
sencamp, V23 And of Cellarius,
524. His notice of the publica-
tions of the Assemaiis, 516 s. Of
Dr. BUsching's Description of Asia,
525. Censure of the Continuation
of the Universal History, 517.
Notice of Dathe's Syriac Psalter,
515. Of the Chrpnicle of AbuN
pharagius, 517—520?. (See AhuO
pharagius.). His mention of the
copy of this work proposed by Ba-
ron von Mtinchh«usen, 519 s. And
of the copy made by Bruns, 520.
His account of Theodore of Mop-
suestia. as a Commentator, 529 s.
And of Ephrem Syrus 527 s. Errs
in saying that Ephrem did not re- ,
gard the Revelation of St. John
as authentic, 522. CJorrects his
error, 522 s. Notice of the publi- ,
cation of Ephrem's works, 616.
Collection ot Syriac phrases, to
illustrate the N. T , 496. An ac-
count of his Introduction to the
O. 1., 505. Of his Curae in Versi-
onem Syriacam, 504. Of his Trea-
tise on the Use of the Svriac Lan-
guage, 485. Of his View of the
means foi acquiring a knowledge
of the Hebrew Latjguagn, 455. %
Of his Introduction to the N. T.,
12. Of bis Translation of Isaiah,
476. Of his Syriac Grammar, 531.
And Syriac Chrestomxthy, 532.
Of his edition of Castells ?^yriac
Lexicon, ib. His Treatise o.\ the
Use of (he Syriac Language, 481
— 534. ( See Syriac Language. )
Date of his death, 505.
Michaelis, J. ., value of his He-
brew Bible. 471 s.
Chr. Benedict, his Syriac
Grammar an ongimtl work, 531.
His conjectural emendations of the
Sv riac Version, 508.
Mi or Prophets, all quoted in the N.
T except Obadiah. Jonah, Nahum
and Zephaiiiah, 102. Called the
tirelve in the Targum, 94, Only
Hoseaand -Zechariah are cited by
Ph.lo. 56 Bui he virtu dly cites all,
59. J isephus regards them as one
book, 78. And also Melito. 84.
And Jerome, 91. Origen omits
them in his catalogue, 88. The fact
accounted for, ih.
GENERAL liSDEX OF MATTERfe;
561
Minor Prophets, Hosea, the epithet ap-
plied byPhilo to his Prophecies, 66.
Called by Philo a prophet, ib.
Often cited in the N. T., 101.
■■ ' Joel, his origiaality, 22.
■■ JonaJi, reference to his narra-
tive, in the New Testament, 102.
Called a prophet, by JosephuS; 78.
'<■• " ■ "" Micah, only once cited in the
N. T., 101.
Nahum, called a prophet by Josephus,
78.
■ ■■ Habakkttk, his originality, 22.
' " ' ■ Haggai, only once cited in the
N. T., 101. Josephus calls him a
Prophet, 78.
Zechariah, called by Philo
companion of Moses, 56. Called a
Prophet, by Josephus, 78.
Malachi, no special mention
of him by Philo, Josephus, Melito,
Origen, Jerome, or the Talmud, and
why, 59. Particularly cited in the
N. T., 101.
Moldenhauer, notice of his Translation
of Isaiah, 475.
Moral fable, nature of, 220.
Morin, John, objection of, to the sup-
posed early date of the Chaldee
Version, 412 s.
Moses, his five books are all cited in
the New Testament, 97 s. They
were in the Canon of Philo, 54.
And of Josephus, 76. And Melito,
84. And Origen, 86. And of
Jerome, 90. And of the Tal-
mud, 93 s. They are called by
Josephus £«/>«< 010KOI, and al tav
Itpuv yp*<pcet 0i0Kii, 76. Are spoken
of in very high terms by Pbiio, 54.
And called by m hp«i ^iShtt, ib.
'— — his book Genesis is called by
Philo tiffi ypafxi, 55. Exodus is
called Up* 0i8\o(, ib. Leviticus,
UfOf Adyoc, ib. Numbers, ItpsiritTov
yp^ftut, ib. And Deuteronomy,
^piicrfAot and Up6( Mya, ib.
Mossier, notice of his work on Isaiah;
476
Mosheini, availed himself of the Edes-
sene Chronicle, in composing his
History, 521. His ignorance of
Syriac, ib. His account of Theo-
dore of Mopsuestia, 529. His vin-
dication of him, 530. His opinion
respecting the Gnostics, 279. His
objection to the testimony of
Hegesippus concerning them, 285.
His opinion as to Simon Magus,290.
Mythical fable, nature of, 220.
Nahum ; See Minor Prophets.
Nantz, edict of, 135.
Nehemiah, was called the second book
of Ezra, 59. Not cited in the N. T.,
102. Nor by Philo, nor Melito,
58. 85. Used by Josephus, 80.
Found in the Canon of OrigeD,
Jerome, and the Talmud, 87. 90. 94.
Ntw Testament, refers to the Old
Testament very often, yet never
enumerates its parts, 63. Its citations
of two kinds, 64. (See Quotations.)
Nicolaitans, ought not to be called
heretics, and why, 289.
Nicolaus de Lyra, year of his death,
464. Notice of his Postillae, i6-
Numbers ; See Moses.
Nun, Paragogic ; See Paragogic Nun.
Obadiah; See Minor r.ophets.
Obscurity, occasionally an end of
parabolic instruction, 234.
Opitz, his Syriac Grammar highly
commended by Hoffman, 531.
Origen, when he lived, 86 His cele-
brated passage on the Canon, 86 s.
Importance of it, ib. Illustration
of the passage, 88 s. His ar-
rangement of the Books of Scrip-
ture, 86 s. Why h^ made Ba-
ruch a part of the Canon, 88. Se-
parates the books of Samuel from
the bouks of Kings, 87. Mentions
Nehemiah as the second book of
Egra, i6. Mentions Esther, »&. Had
Jeremiah in his Canon, 87. Men-
lions Ezechiel, ib. Thinks Jere-
miah and the Lamentations to be
one book, ib.
I
562
GENEBAL INDEX OF MATrJEKS.
Oriental Languages, opinion of Pro-
fessor Lee of Cambridge on their
importance, 533. A knowledge of
them essential to the Biblical
scholar, 533 s. Example of the ap-
plication of Syriac, Arabic and
Rabbinic, to the interpretation of
the N. T., 497 s. Of Syriac, to
the illustration of Hebrew Gram-
mar, 494. Of Syriac and Arabic,
to the interpretation of the Old
Testament, 511—514. Importance
of Syriac, in General History, Ec-
clesiastical History, Geography,
and Biblical Interpretation, 517 —
630. See Syriac Language, Ara-
maean Language, Chaldee Lan-
guage.
Oviparous quadrupeds of Scripture,
]53.
Palmyra, records of; See Hebrew
Grammar.
Parable, of the excuses, 248. 270 s,
Father and two sons, 229. '244.
246. Fig tree, 255. Good Sama-
ritan, 243. 267. Hidden treasure,
257. 261 s. King taking account
of his servants, 232. Labourers in
the vineyard, 249. 259 s. Leaven,
253. 255. 258 Marriage supper,
241. 245. 247. 267 s. Mustard seed,
244. 253. Pearl of great price,
258. 264. Pharisee and Publican,
225. 242 s. 272. Prodigal son, 250
s. 262. 266. 270. Rich n:an, 225.
231. Rich man and Lazarus, 253.
268 s. Talents, 246 s. 254. Tares,
259.272 s. Ten virgins, 254.256
S.261. Two debtor>, 266. Unjust
judge, 264. Unjust steward, 265.
Unmerciful servant, 262. Wed-
ding garment, 239 s. 245 s. Wick-
ed husbandmen, 249.
■ — Origin of the word, 215.
Construction of, 217 ss. Distinct
from fables, 216 s. Effect of, with
regard to unbelieving Jews, 235.
With reference to the disciples,
236 s Supply t-he want of exam-
ples, 230. Use of, by our Saviouiv
220 s. As proofs of doctrine, 266*
s. In preaching, 272.
Paragogic Nun, of the Future, com
mon in Arabic, 493. Well known
in Hebrew, ib. Of the Preterit,
well known in Syriac, 494. Iho
opinion of Eichhorn, on the oc-
currence of it in the Preterite of
the Hebrew, ib. The opinion of
Gesenius, ib. Hoffmann's remark
on its use in Syriac, 494. Its oc-
currence in the Chaldee Targums,
ib. The inference of Michaelis,
ib.
Paul, St., how educated, 389.
Paulm, H. E. G., character of his
edition of the Arabic Version of
Isaiah by Saadias Gaon,433. No-
tice of his Clavis, 473 s.
Peshito, meaning of the term, 426 s..
See Syriac version.
Peter, St., peculiarity of his phraseo-
logy in the second Ch. of his se-
cond Epistle, and cause of it, 372
s
Phaleg, Bochart's, editions of, 149.'
Fhilo of Alexnndria, when he lived,
49. Sent to Jerusalem, to present
offerings in the name of his bre-
thren, 41. His testimony, on the
Canon of the Alexandrian Jews,
49 ss. Divides the O T. into three
parts, 44 s. His view of the cano-
nical books of the O. T., 52 ss
Writings to which he attributes a
divine origin, 52 — 57- Writings
which he only cites, 57 s. Writ-
ings of which he makes no men-
tion whatever, 58. Calls the au-
thors of the O. T. Prophets, 62.
His meaning of the word, 53.
His view of the Apocrypha of the
O. T., 50 s. He does riot ailego-
rize them, 32. 60 s. Does not even
cite them, 51. What books are
contained in his Canon, 59. He
calls Moses a Prophet, 54. Re-
gards him asj the greatest of ^thf
GENBKAli INDEX OP MATTEKS.
5tj3
3?rophets, id. Speaks of each of
the five books of Moses, 54 s.
Mentions Joshua, the first book of
Samuel, and Ezra, 55. Cites two
of the Minor Prophets, 66. Calls
Isaiah the ancient Prophet, ib. Calls
Jeremiah a Prophet, ib. Express-
es himself highly of Solomon, 67-
Calls David a Prophet, 56 s. Eze-
chiel not found in his Canon, 59.
Makes no mention of Daniel, 58.
Uses the words of Job xiv. 4., 57
Makes no mention of the Song of
Solomon, 58. Nor Ecclesiastes,
ib. The Wisdom of Solomon sup-
posed to have been written by
him, 51. His silence respecting
the Gnostics, 295. Alleged traces
of their philosophy in his writings,
-297—302.
JPhilosopky, Oriental, unknown to
the ancient ecclesiastical writers,
304. Magian, mentioned by Pliny,
308. And what he meant by it,
310. Chaldaic, meaning of, in
' Eunapius, 310 s. Barbarian, high-
ly esteemed by some of the an-
cient philosophers, 312.
Plants, of Scripture, 158.
Pliny, speaks of the Magian Philoso-
phy, 308. And what he meant by
it, 310.
Tococke, his edition of the History
of the Dynasties by Abulpharagius,
518. It contains the Arabic text,
and a Latin translation by the edi-
tor, ib.
Foeiry, no models of it in Syriac,
486.
JPolyglot, the Arabic Version of Job
contained in the Polyglots is made
from the Syriac, 509. The Arabic
Version of the Psalms in the Lon-
don P. is from the Greek, ib.
Baumgarten's error on this sub-
ject, ib. The Syriac text in the
Polyglots, very incorrect, 507.
Causes of this, 508. Christ. Be-
ned. Michaelis' conjectural emen-
dations of it, ib. The critical va-
lue of Ephrem Syrus, in correct-
ing this text, 508. See Syriac Ver-
sion, Jrabic Version, he
Poole, Matthew, comparison between
his Synopsis and the Critici Sacri,
468.
Prayer, Lord's, why proper to be us-
ed in our own day, 183 s.
Preaching, use of the parables in,
269 ss. Bochart's, 114 s. 119.
Presbytery, Bochart's letter on, 122 ss.
Procopius, of Gaza, character and
im|»ortance of his commentary on
Isaiah, 450. Age in which he liv-
ed, ib.
Prophecies, concerning Christ, whei>
they may be said to have their ac-
complishment, 183. Prophecy of
Amos, IX. 11 s., considered, 199 s.
Character of the prophetic style,
372 s. The Prophecy of Isaiah,
XXV. 6 — 8, applied to Christ, 513 s.
Propltet, Philo's use of the word, 53.
Alleged to be sometimes the title of
a writer in general, 82. The as-
sertion doubted, ib. Meaning of
the words j^^^j and Te^o^hntc, 30,
•T
82. The Talmud enumerates five
books of Prophets, 94. Josephus,
thirteen, 81, Jerome, eight, 93.
The twelve Minor Prophets, one
book, 59. These are not mention-
ed in the Canon of Origen, 88.
Proverbs, in the Canon of the Tal-
mud, 94. Not mentioned by Jose-
phus, 81. But by Philo, and to be
placed in his Canon, 57. And in
that of Melito, Origen and Jerome.
84. 87. 91. Solomon is the author
of them, according to Philo, 57.
Cited in the N. T., 100.
Psalms, very often cited in the N.
T., 99. 100. For what purpose,
103. Called by Josephus Psalms
of David, 79. Very often quoted
by Philo, 56. Tn the Canon of the
5(34
GEINEKAL IMJE.V (>F MATTERS.
Talmud, Philo, Joseplius, Origen,
Melito and Jerome, 'M. 59. 83. 84.
87. 91.
Prepositions, Greek, frequently of no
force in composition, 288.
Qimtremdre, his Syriac labours and
proposed Lexicon, 532.
^uotatio7is, from the Old Testament
found in the New T , tabular view
of, 97—101. Of two kinds, 103.
64. The books of Moses, Isaiah,
and Jeremiah, and the Psalms, cit-
ed for the establishment of reli-
gious truths, 64. 103. What books
of the O T. are never cited in the
New Testament, 64. What books
are cited, and where, 97 — 101.
Citations from the Psalms most
frequent, 99 s. Only one direct
ijuotation in the N. T. from Joshua,
98. And only one from Micah and
Haggai, 101. The best works on
the subject of Quotations from the
O. T. in the N. T., recommended,
102. 103 s.
Rabbins, character of, as expositors,
456. Application of their writings
to the interpretation of the N. T.,
498.
Rational fable, 220. 231.
Ravens, curious disquisition, 164.
Reformed Churches of France, dis-
putes of, with the Romanists, 115.
Troubles of, 129 s. 134 ss.
Regal Authority, Bochart's letter on,
123.
Resurrection^ Christ's proof of, from
the books of Moses, no argument
that the Sadducees received these
books and none else, 62. Rabbi
Gamaliel's proof of it from the Pro-
phets and the Hagiographa, without
objections from the Sadducees, ib.
Rome, the special seat of Syriac learn-
ing, and why, 488. Efforts of the
See of, to gain the Syrian Church, i/>.
RosenmUUer, E. F. C, character of
bis comraentaryj on Isaiah, 474 s.
His edition of the Hierozoieon oi
Bochatt, 157.
Rvfjin,.\\\s translation of a phrase in
thf Canon of Melito, 85, His La-
tin translation of the eel. brated
passage of Origen on ihe Canon,
has the twelve Minor Prophets af-
ter the Song of Solomon, 88.
Ruth, an appendix to the book of
Judges, 59. Not cited by Philo,
58 In the Canon of the Talmud,
94. Cited by Josephus, 80. In
the Canon of Melito, Origen, and
Jerome, 84 86.90.
Saadias, Rabbi, works of, 432. When
he flourished, ib. Character of his
Arabic Version of Tsaiah,433 — 437.
Salomn, Ben Melech, notice of his
Michlal Jophi, 464.
Samaritans, received the Pentateuch
only, 63.
Samuel, the books of, together with
the books of Kings, called by Meli-
to : the four books of Kings, 84.
Origen separates them, 86 s. Used
by Josephus, 80. The first book,
called by Philo : the first book of
Kings, 55 The second book, re-
ceived by Philo, 58 s.
Sanctius, Caspar, notice of his com-
mentary, 467.
Scandalize, the use of the word in the
N. T. explained by the aid of
Syriac, 499 ss.
Schaaf, C, his Syriac Lexicon re-
commended, 532.
SchelJing, notice of his work on Isaiah,
478. ^
Schleusner, notice of his work on
Isaiah, 478.
Schmidt, J. C. C, character of his in.
troduction to the N. T., 13.
Sebastian, notice of, 469.
Schnvrrer, character of, as an inter-
preter of Isaiah, 479.
Schroder, character of his Mono-
graphic on Isaiah, tri. 36 ss.-
479.
G^GNEBAL INDEX OP MATTERS.
5^
Schultens, his predilection for Arabic,
486.
Sender, opinion of, in regard to the
design of St. John's Gospel, 354 s.
Sermons, Bochart's, on Genesis, 1 18 s.
139.
Septuas^inl Version, its origin, 37.
Books of Scripture which it con-
tained, 49 ss. It was gradually
formed, at different times, and by
different persons, 47 The story
of Aristeas, respecting its formation,
ib. Reposited in the Alexandrian
Library, 48. Its general authority
in Egypt, and the cause of this, 49.
Philo's account of it, 62 ss Jose-
phus' account of it, 64 ss. Its
version <»f Daniel, when and where
published, 500. Its agreement with
the Syriac Version, 506. This
fact accounted for, ib. Accords
with the Syriac more frequently in
Ezechiel, than in the other books,
506. Its agreement with the Syriac,
in Proverbs, examined by Dr.
Pathe, 507. His opinion of the
cause of this agreement, ih. Its ac-
cordance with the Targum, in Pro-
verbs, 506 s.
Simon, Richard, character of, 8 s.
His opponents, 9. Thinks a Jew
was the author of the Syriac Ver-
sion of the O. T., 507.
Simon Ma^s, not to be classed among
heretics, 289—291.
Sionita, Gabriel, censured for his
loose translation of the Syriac text
in the Polyglots, 510. Many of his
errors corrected by Casteli, 510.
Sixtus Sinensig, the last edition of his
Bibliotheca Sancfa, 7.
Song of Solomon, forbidden to be read
in the Synagogues, 35. Not cited
in the N. T., nor by Philo, nor
Josephus, J02. 58. 81. But in the
Canon of the Talmud, and Melito,
and Origen, and Jerome, 94. 84. 87.
Slcsichorus, fable of the Horse and
the Stag, 224. 226.
Symmachns, character of his version
of Isaiah, 411 s.
Syriac Version, of the 0. T., an ac-
count of it, 505 ss. The religion
and nation of the author, unsettled,
507. The different opinions ex-
pr-'ssed on the subject, by Kirscb,
Simon, Dathe, Bertholdt, Michae-
lis and Gesenius, ib. Not the work
of a single translator, ib. The
Latin version of it in the Poly-
glots, not to be trusted, 510. Cha-
racter of its text in the Polyglots,
507 s. Conjectural emendations
of it, by Chr. Ben Michaelis, 508.
The various readings of it in the
sixth volume of the London Poly-
glot, recommended, ih. The va-
lue of Ephrem's works, in its emen-
dation, 509. Translated from the
Hebrew, 505. The testimony of
Abulpharagius on this subject, ex-
press, ih. Its agreement with the
Septiiagint version, 506. (See Sep-
iuasint.) Often differs from the
Septuagint, 505. The coinciden-
ces of the Syriac and the Greek
Version, ascribed in part to Jacob
of Edessa, 506. The value of the
Syriac Version, critical and exege-
tical, 510 ss. Exampl-e of its exe-
getical use, 511 ss. Ephrem Syrus
wrote his Commentary, not on the
Hebrew text, but on this version,
527.
of Isaiah, characte
ristics of, 427 ss. Made by a Chris-
tian, 429 3. Varies from the Ma-
soretic text, without improving it,
431.
Language, together with
the other Oriental languages con-
tains treasures innumerable, 534.
Numerous valuable works extant
in it, .504. 516 s. The Chroni-
cle of Abulpharagius, 518. fSefe
^5m
GENERAL INDEX OF MATTERS.
Abulpharagius.) The Worlds of
Ephrem Syrus, 516. (See Ephrem
Syrus.) The compilations of the
Assemans, 516. (See Assemnn, J.
S, and S. E,) And a complete
Version of the Bible, and of the
Apocrypha, 503. Importance of
the Version of the O. T , 505.
(See Sj/riac Version.) Far more
books of every kind extant in it
than in Chaldee, 489. These use-
ful books an inducement to its stu-
dy, 503. Tn atise on its Uteralure
by Gaab, 503 Useful in illustrat-
ing Profane History, 517 And
Ecclesiastical History, 521 s. And
Geography, 524 ss. And the He-
brew Language, 489 ss. And the
Interpretation of Scripture, 527 ss.
The publications in it supplied
Bayer with the most important ma-
terials of his Historia Osrofthna,
517. Greatly aided Beausobre, in
his History of Manes, 521. And
BQsching, in hi? Description of
Asia, 525. Aud Mosheim, in his
Ecclesiastical History, 521. Pos-
sesses resources. for Ecclesiastical
History, not yet used, ib. And
may shed new lijrht on the Histo-
ry of Polemics, ib. Example of
its illnstrating the history of
the Canon, 522. Example of
its illustrating Geography, 525.
(See Mabog.) Less used than
Chaldee and Arabic, for the illus-
tration of the Hebrew language,
485. Books in Syriac, not read
by the Jews, and why, 486. Af
fords more for the illustration of
the Hebrew, than can be derived
from Chaldee, 489. Its elucida-
tions derived from a rich vocabu-
lary, 487. Their CfTlninfy, 489.
Illustrates Hebrew Grammar, 492
ss. C. B Michaelis' use of it, for
this purpose, 495. Its illustration
of thematreslectionis,493. Hoff«
mann's remark on this, ib. Its il-
lustration of the Nun Paragogic of
the Preterit, 494. The views of
Michae'is, Eichhorn and Geseuius
on tills subject, ib. More useful
than Arabic, in Illustrating the
vowels and diacritical marks, 495.
Cause of this, ih. Illustrates the
phraseology of the N T., 496. J.
D. Michaelis' collection of Syriac
phrases for this purpose, ib. Ex*
amples of this source of interpre-
tation, 497 ss. (See Taste of
Death.) A motive to the study of
the Syriac language, from the new
light afforded by it, 486. Beauty
and Poetry do not enter into it?
commendation, ib. Study of, lit-
tle attended to in Europe, until the
commencemeut of the sixteenth
century, 531. Pursued with dili-
gence at Rome, and why, 488. Not
pursued there with a view to the il-
lustration of the Hebrew, 488 s.
Lardner's ignorance of the lan-
guage, 522. And Mosheim's, 521.
A proper knowledge of it not to
be acquired from the Syriac xet-
sion of the N T., and why, 486 e.
The use' of the Syriac version of
the O. T., most important, 487.
Notices of the best elementary
works for the study of it, 531 ss.
Talmud, date of its compilation, 93.
Its view of the Canon of the O.
T , 93 s. Reckons twenty-four
books, 93. Divides them into three
part, s94.' Enumerates eight Pro-
phets, and nine Hagiographa, ib.
Considers Ruth a distinct book, ih.
Names Esther, ib Its quibble res-
pecting Yod, 93. The argument of
Rabbi Gamaliel, on the resurrec-
tion of the dead, 62.
Tanchum of Jerusalem, notice of his
GEIv'ESAL INPEX OF IJIATTEIfS.
mi
commentary on the Prophets,
464.
Targum, of Jonathan Ben Uszid;
See Jonathan, Ben Uzziel.
— — — — of Jerusalem ; 494.
'■ of Pseudo-Jonathan, con-
tains the tradition of Jannes and
Jambres, 74.
Taste of Death, enumeration of the
passages of the N. T., in which
the phrase ^ occurs, 497. Loose in-
terpretations of it, ib. Found no-
where in the O. T., ib. Illustrated
by the Syriac, ib. And by the
Arabic, 498. The phrase used by
the Rabbins, ib. Proofs of this,
498 s.
Temple Library, traces of its exis-
tence before the Babylonian cap^
tivity, 29. And after the captivity,
ib.
Temple of Jerusahm^kis destruction
not connected by the Jews, with
the commencement of Messiah's
kingdom, 174 s.
TertuUian, his evidence in regard to
Simon Magus, 290. His testimony
respecting the date of the Gnostic
heresy, 291 ss. Respecting the
source of its tenets, 316. What he
means by haereticonim patjuar-
chae philosophi, 397.
Theodoret, character of his com-
mentary on Isaiah, 449 s. Year of
his death, 449.
Tkeodotian, character of his Version
of Isaiah, 41 1 s.
Timothy, Epistle of St. Paul to, why
rejected by the Gnostics, 317.
Illustration of i Tim. vi., 344 —
852.
Therapeutae, their Canon of the Old
Testament, 60. What books of
Scripture they used, 45.
Tittmann, C. C, mistake of, in at-
tributing a certain passage of Augus-
tine to Atto, 338.
Tychsen, O. G., notice of his Elemen-
tale Syriacum, 633. Eichhorn's
commendation of it, ib.
Universal History, the Continuation
of it censured by J. D. Michaelis,
517.
Varenius, Augustus, character of his
ct nimentary on Isaiah, 469. Year
of his death, ib.
Vatican, contains a MS. of the Chro-
nicle of Abuiphaiagius, 519.
Vav and Yod, the rule in Syriac re-
specting them, 493.
Verses, Latin, a singular description
of, 112.
Vitringa, character of his commentary
on Isaiah, 470.
Vossius, Isaac, objection of, to the
supposed early date of the Chaldee
Version, 412 s.
Wetstein, his extracts from the Rab-
binical writings, in relation to the
kingdom of Heaven, of no weight,
171 s.
Yod, the quibble of the Talmud in
regard to it, 93. Rule in Syriac,
respecting Yod and Vav, 493.
Zechariah ; See Minor Priphets.
Zephaniah ; See Minor Prophets.
Zobah, errors in regard to the region
so called, 526. JScher's orthogra-
phy of the word, ib. The word
illustrated by the use of Syriac.
Zwingle, character of his commentary
on Isaiah, 466 s.
%
ERRATA^
fage.
30
read .
«^5I • '
45. last line
5.29;
J 55. 1.3. .
ItpaH ypa(pa.
107. note, 1. 7. .
stupendam
last line
■
junctara
118. 1. 20. . .
varied
119. 1. 13. . . .
unction
note, 1. 3. .
Rothomagcnsi
120. note, 1.1. .
trfaXiiara
121. 1. next to the last.
ceclesiasticis
Cadomi
149.1.3. .
the modem travelr-
154. 1. 7
HDZ^Jn
162.1.21
or
164. note, 1. 15. .
allegorical
166. notes, 1. 15.
sufficiently
168. 1. 13. . . .
Rom. X. 6. 7.
178. notes, . . .
• Drn
205.1.28. .
the proclamation
206.1.7.
gently and by degrees^
245. note, 1. 8. .
%•
earum
246. note, 1. 4. .
fO)5 ov
258. note, 1. 24. .
p. 262.
note, 1. 26. .
p. 253.
note, 1. 27. .
p. 255.
328. note, 1. 9. 10.
. dele
rb
417. 1. 5. from the last. .
read
perception
503.1.1.
forbad
508.1.9.
not at all
516.1.21. .
. dele
other
I In the Greek type, elsewhere, over the final syllable of a separate word, or of the
last word in a distinct phrase, the grave accent is sometimes found, instead of the
acutr. An accent is often placed over thejirst vowel of a diphthong, instead of the
second. And over the final syllable of a word, when followed by another in connex-
ion with it, an acute accent sometimes occurs, irtstead of a grave.
RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT
TO-^ 202 Main Library
LOAN PERIOD 1
HOME USE
2
3
4
5
6
ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS
Renewals and Recharges may be made 4 days prior to the due date.
Books may be Renewed by calling 642-3405.
DUE AS STAMPED BELOW
BECEIVED
SEP 5198{
CIRCULATION D IW^
APR 5 199 3
mumm-i
2 '90
APR t 1 199 i
Airromsrmc jiji\
Q^M
FORM NO. DD6,
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
BERKELEY, CA 94720
ms
U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES
coEEfiMoaaa
2SZ 73 ^f
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY
^']'