so that no interpreter can attain to their true meaning, nor feel the beauty and sublimity of their language, unless his own mind be imbued with the same simplicity which constitutes the characteristic of those ingenuous and uncorrupted men.

This subject, however, of the simplicity so characteristic of the writers of the New Testament and so conspicuous in their language, is too extensive, and requires a discussion too protracted, for the brief limits of the present essay. I add therefore only this one reflection. How greatly is it to be desired, that in declaring the divine doctrines, in preaching the word of God, we may imitate the simplicity of those holy men; and that. in explaining the sacred Scriptures, we may employ also that simplicity which has been above described; and especially preserve as much as possible that simplicity of mind, which is manifested in an aptness to perceive the truth and to comprehend and embrace the doctrines taught from heaven. Thus may not only the teachers in the church, but also all Christians, hope to perceive and experience more and more the power of that divine Spirit, by which the church is governed.

Come then, fellow citizens, and celebrate the approaching festival; in order that thus your minds, elevated above the vicissitudes of human affairs and purified from every unworthy purpose, may be nourished and strengthened in their simplicity and integrity by a grateful remembrance of the divine benefits; so that by the aid of that Spirit which is not of this world, you may be enabled both to persevere in the true faith, and to sustain and augment the faith of others. And being assured that you will gladly do this of your own accord, we willingly indulge the hope that you will be present at the sacred solemnities, which are to be celebrated in the manner of our ancestors, in the university hall, on the first day of Pentecost.

ART. III. ON THE PRINCIPAL CAUSES OF FORCED INTERPRETATIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

By J. A. H. Tittmann, Professor of Theology in the University of Leipsic. Translated from the Latin by the Editor.*

THERE has been much discussion among theologians in our day, and those too men of learning and deeply imbued with a knowledge of the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin literature, respecting those forced† interpretations of the New Testament, by which, as is supposed, the true and genuine sense of the sacred writings has been corrupted by many recent interpreters. Although this complaint is not without foundation, yet the causes of the evil seem to be more extensive than has been commonly supposed, and are not to be sought only in an ignorance of languages, or in the neglect of grammatical interpretation. For those even who have most closely followed the grammatical method, have been some of the first to offend in this respect, by proposing interpretations of the most distorted kind. Such, for instance, was Origen himself, the celebrated author of grammatical interpretation; who, as is well known, has extracted from the Scriptures, through his superstition and still more through his imagination, an innumerable multitude of things, which in the opinion of those best able to judge, are not contained in them.

Indeed, as a general principle, the grammatical method of interpretation, although the only one which is or can be true, is

* See the Introductory Notice in No. I. p. 160. The present essay was prepared on the occasion of the author's becoming Professor Extraordinary of Theology in 1803; and was republished with a single additional note in 1829. He remarks on that occasion, that although several things perhaps need further definition and illustration, he yet chooses to leave them in their present state, lest he should seem desirous of embellishing a more youthful performance with the fruits gathered in riper years.-This article is here pub lished, as being in some sort introductory to the celebrated essay of H. Planck De Indole, etc. which it is intended to give in the next number.-ED.

The epithet in the original is contorta, to which the nearest corresponding English words, as to form, are contorted, distorted; but these would here be too strong. The idea of the Latin is commonly expressed in English by the words forced, strained, etc.-ED.

nevertheless to be employed with great caution, in explaining the sacred Scriptures. It is certainly a correct precept, that the same rules are to be followed in interpreting the sacred volume, which are applied to works of mere human origin; but yet this precept is not true in any such sense, as would imply that the meaning of the New Testament is to be sought in precisely the same manner, as the meaning of the words and phrases of Thucydides and Polybius. As every one has his own peculiar habit of speaking, so there is not in all cases the same use and application of the same rules (non est idem apud eundem earundem regularum usus); and an interpretation of a word or phrase in Polybius and Xenophon may be perfectly correct and facile, while the same applied to one of the sacred writers would be as forced as possible. Hence it arises, that those authors who have applied the forms and phrases of the more elegant Greek writers to the explication of the New Testament, have not always been able to escape the charge of proposing forced interpretations; and there are many things of this kind extant in the works of that fine Greek scholar Raphel, of Elsner, Alberti, and the truly learned Palairet. And although J. A. Ernesti, the celebrated restorer of grammatical interpretation in our times, has given many excellent precepts on this subject, still (it would seem) they have not always been observed, even by those who profess to follow most closely the grammatical method. Hence, the causes of such forced interpretations must be sought, not so much in the neglect of grammatical exegesis, as elsewhere. It is therefore proposed to offer, on this occasion, some remarks on this subject, tending to unfold briefly some of the chief causes of the interpretations in question.

First of all, however, it is necessary to define the nature of forced interpretation, in regard to which there is some ambiguity. Many call that a forced interpretation, which gives to a passage a sense foreign to the intention of the writer, and which is not contained in his words. Others give this name to every explanation which is not grammatical. But it is obvious, that an interpretation which is foreign to the words, and even repugnant to them, is to be termed false, rather than forced; and also that an interpretation may be entirely grammatical, and yet forced. This will be evident to the good sense of every There are indeed many interpretations, which the usus loquendi and the power of words will admit; but which nevertheless are not satisfactory, and even give offence, by seeming to No. III. 59

διδά

interrupt the progress of the discourse and imparting to it a sort of foreign colouring. These no one would call false; nor yet would any one hold them to be true, i. e. appropriate to the passages to which they are applied; and they may therefore properly be termed forced. To such interpretations Ernesti was accustomed to oppose the very suitable term facile.* Thus in James 3: 1, the words μὴ πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι γίνεσθε, are sometimes rendered thus: do not too eagerly desire the office of a teacher. This sense the words indeed admit; though it seems somewhat harsh to understand yivɛove as being put here for μὴ θέλετε γενέσθαι πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι; but the context rejects this sense; to which such an admonition against an ambitious spirit is utterly foreign. If now we should say that didaoxalos here means a person who carps at and reproves others; no one probably would readily concede that this sense necessarily lies in the word itself; and yet it suits admirably to the succeeding clauses. We may perhaps compare the German word meistern, which plainly answers to τῷ διδάσκειν and διδάσκαLov ivat. [So also, in some degree, the English verb to tutor.] Nor should I hesitate to explain Rom. 2: 21, avrov ov didãoxes, in this manner: thou who censurest the faults of others, dost thou not censure thine own faults? In nearly the same sense, I think, is didάozew found in Ecclus. 9: 1. In like manner, the word oorn, James 1: 19, cannot signify wrath, which is a notion entirely foreign to the subject there under discussion; but it denotes undoubtedly the indignation or indignant feeling of a man who is irritable and fretful under the calamities to which, like arrows, the whole of human life is exposed. At the same time, the idiom in this passage as

* Institutio Interpretis N. Test. P. II. Cap. I. § 22. ed. Ammon. Leip. 1809. [Omitted in the English translation.]

That doy signified among the Greeks not only anger and wrath, but also the feeling of a man offended or provoked, is not necessary to be shewn to those acquainted with the Greek language. Nor are there wanting in the New Testament examples of the same signification; e. g. Mark 3: 5. Rom. 9: 22. Heb. 3: 11. It may also be observed in passing, that when this word is employed in the New Testament to denote punishment, chastisement, etc. this is not in consequence of any Hebrew idiom; but it is so found also in the best Greek writers. So Demosthenes adv. Mid. p. 528 ed. Reisk. τῷ δράσαντι δ' οὐκ ἴσην τὴν ὀργὴν, ἄν θ ̓ ἑκων,

to form is not Hebrew, but good Greek; since an Auctor incert. in Poet. Gnom. has this sentence: yiyvov d eis ỏgynv μn ταχὺς ἀλλὰ βραδύς.—From these examples it will easily be seen, that the nature of the interpretations under discussion will be very much obscured, if they are to be defined in the usual way above pointed out, i. e. if we merely say they are such as are not grammatical.

To interpret grammatically is surely not merely, by the help of a lexicon, to explain simply the verbal meaning and render word for word; but, as the most distinguished interpreters have long taught, it is to ascertain the proper sense of the words, and the idea attached to a particular word in any particular place, by a diligent attention to the usus loquendi, the object of the writer, and the logical connexion of the whole context. Neither is the grammatical interpretation a different thing from the historical one; there is not one grammatical sense, and another historical. Under that which earlier interpreters, as Sixtus Senensis, formerly called the historical sense, they understood nothing more than the grammatical one; and they called it the historical, merely because it is deduced from a proper observation of times and events.* And that which certain later writers have begun to call the historical sense, viz. that which a passage expresses when explained with reference to the time in which the author lived, or that which the words appear to have expressed at that time and place and among those persons for whom he wrote; this is nothing else than what the earlier interpreters called the grammatical sense. Indeed, according to their views, and those of every correct interpreter, the grammatical interpretation has and ought to have for its highest object, to shew what sense the words of a passage can bear, ought to bear, and actually do bear; and it requires not only an accurate acquaintance with words and the usus loquendi of them, but also with many other things. It is not enough to investigate what is said; but we must also inquire by whom and to whom it is said, at what time, on what occasion, what precedes, what follows, etc. For to interpret, is to point out what

ἂν τ ̓ ἄκων, ἔταξεν ὁ νόμος, just as Paul says Rom. 4: 15, ὁ νό μας ὀργὴν κατεργάζεται. Other examples may be seen in the Index Dem. Reisk. v. ooyý, p. 540.

* See Ernesti, Opp. Phil. crit. p. 221.

+ So Erasmus, Ratio et Meth. verae Theologiae, p. 51 ed. Semler.