tion; although in some of the books, more elegance is exhibited. In this way and to such a degree, on the other hand, the writers of the New Testament have not erred against the nature and elegance of the Greek language; and although their style is not pure, yet they have at least written Greek, and not barbarisms.* This ambiguity and inconstancy in the judgments formed respecting the Greek style of the New Testament, to which we have above referred, has operated as the cause of forced interpretations chiefly in three ways, which we now proceed to exhibit.

1. It has thus operated, first, because that which is good Greek has not been sufficiently distinguished from that which is bad Greek, and vice versa; and the same words and phrases have been explained now according to the more elegant Greek idiom, and then again from the corrupted language. Thus the word dixalos and its cognates have been understood by interpreters, sometimes in the pure Greek sense, and at other times in the Hebrew sense; and hence it cannot be otherwise, than that many passages should be exceedingly tortured. We see also many words explained by a reference to foreign sources, when the force and signification of them can be illustrated and fixed by domestic examples. Thus the name λóyos in John many suppose to be borrowed from the philosophy of Plato, or of Philo o IIarovičov; others, that it signifies the divine wisdom personified in the Jewish manner, or the divine interpreter, zov hyovra, and they dispute largely here respecting the adversaries whom John intended to refute. But it is perfectly evident, that it here denotes a certain οὐσίαν, ῥήματι θεοῦ γεγονότα πρὸ πάσης κτίσεως, πρωτότοκον, δι ̓ οὗ καὶ τοὺς αἰῶνας ἐποί nov; and that this word, which is used by John as well known to those to whom he wrote, i. e. not to learned men but to unlearned Christians, is not to be explained in a manner new and unusual among Jews and Christians; but so that it would be easily understood by all those accustomed to speak of the Messiah in the same manner. They however were wont xar' ¿oχήν, to call the Messiah τὸν λεγόμενον, the promised of God, oxoμevov, him who is to come, the first and most excellent of all created things in his origin, nature, and power; so that the

* Ernesti Opusc. Philol. Crit. p. 209 sq. Institut. Interp. N. T. Pt. III. c. 7. ed. Ammon. [Omitted in the English translation.] Planck, Einl. in d. theol. Wissensch. II. p. 46 sq.

*

word is to be explained in the same manner, in which all at that time spoke of the Messiah. But from this uncertain interpretation of the word óyos, there have not only arisen many forced interpretations, but the whole purpose of the apostle seems to be perverted.

2. There have also been others, in the second place, who have every where sought to find Hebraisms; and these, while they have attempted to explain from the Hebrew language words and phrases which ought to be interpreted according to Greek usage, have in various ways tortured the sense of the sacred writers. Thus they have given it as a precept, that the use of the abstract for the concrete (as we say in the schools) is a Hebraism. But this is done in all languages, and especially among the Greeks, in whose language are extant some of the most elegant examples of this figure.t The Seventy also have often placed abstract words, where the Hebrew text has concrete ones; e. g. Ex. 19: 6, where they have isoúrevμa instead of isois, for the Hebrew b, as in 1 Pet. 2: 5, 9.-So when the prepositions and is are interchanged, these writers have referred it to a Hebraism. But this permutation was exceedingly common among the Greeks. The phrase εἰς τὸ φανερόν instead of iv r gaveo, is well known; and Thucydides very often puts ev with the dative for is with the accusative. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Lib. IV. p. 276) also says: nataleiφθέντες εἰς τὸ στρατόπεδον, for ἐν τῷ στρατοπέδῳ. The form εἰς ᾅδου moreover is plainly Attic, for ἐν ἅδου; but in Euripi des we read: ἐκεῖ δ ̓ ἐν ἅδου κεῖσομαι χωρὶς σέθεν. But it cannot be denied, that the words is and iv in the New Testament are often employed according to Hebrew usage, when they express the Hebrew and e. g. where v signifies propter, or per; although examples of this usage occur in the most

καταλει

* See Keil de Doctoribus Ecclesiae a culpa corruptae per Plat. rec. Doctr. Comm. II. [The author is here describing the manner in which the Jews spoke of the Messiah, in order to illustrate the proper sense in which the word óyos is to be understood. The apostle on the other hand declares to the Jews, that Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.—ED.]

† Casaubon ad Athen. I. 9. D'Orville ad Chariton. V. 5.

Duker ad Thuc. Lib. VII. c. 16.

Vorstius de Hebr. N. T. p. 213, 219. Gataker de Stilo N. T. p. 180 sq.

elegant of the Greek writers. So Demosthenes de Corona p. 308, ἐν οὐδενὶ τῶν παρ' ἐμοῦ γεγονυῖαν τὴν ἧτταν εὑρήσετε; and Andocides de Mysteriis p. 79, ἐν τούτῳ σώζεσθαι ὑμᾶς, for dia toútov x. T. λ. and so in the other passages.

Hebraisms are strictly forms of speech appropriate and peculiar to those who spoke the Hebrew language; or they are idioτισμοὶ τῶν ̔Εβραίων. For although even in classical Greek there are found many things, which have a great similitude in words and forms to the Hebrew language ;* nevertheless these and all other things which are not wholly peculiar to the Hebrews, but are also found among other nations and current in their usage and language, are not to be regarded as Hebraisms, but as general forms common to every language; even though they may particularly occur in Hebrew writers. Indeed, as every language has its own idiopara or peculiar forms of speech, of which the Greek participles are an example; so also there are other constructions and forms which are of universal prevalence in all languages. When therefore these are found in a writer, they are to be regarded as 'employed by common right and usage, and not as peculiar to the particular language in which he writes. Thus many expressions in the New Testament have been stamped with the name of Hebraisms for no other reason whatever, than because it was taken for granted, that the writers of the New Testament have imitated the Hebrew mode of speaking; just as if they could not have derived those forms from the like usage of the Greek language which they were writing. Many Hebraisms have thus been pointed out by Vorstius, Leusden, and others, which might be just as properly called Hellenisms. Because, forsooth, they occur in the New Testament, in writers 'Eßoaitovies, they are Hebraisms; while the same things, when found in Demosthenes, Thucydides, Xenophon, or Polybius, are pronounced to be good and elegant Greek. Thus in the New Testament, the use of the demonstrative pronoun without apparent necessity after a noun or relative pronoun, has been regarded as a Hebraism; inasmuch as the Hebrews do indeed use this construction, as also the Arabs, Syrians, Greeks, and Rumans. Still that cannot surely be reckoned as a Hebrew idiom, which is also employed by the best writers of other nations. Casaubon in com

* This is shewn by J. A. Ernesti in his Prolusio de vestigiis linguae Hebraicae in lingua Graeca, Opusc. Philol. Crit. L. B. 1776.

6

menting on a passage of Apuleius, who makes frequent use of this pleonasm, says: "Est Enviouós, familiaris huic scriptori, apud quem saepe reperias eam dictionem naдéλxovσαv.Ita autem Graeci, Herodotus praesertim atque Pausanias, atque e recentioribus Agathias." It is a Hellenism familiar to this writer, in whom you often find this pleonastic construction.So also the Greeks, and especially Herodotus, Pausanias, and of later writers, Agathias.' But when he adds, etsi id proprie Hebraeorum dialecti esse, certum est, although this belongs peculiarly to the dialect of the Hebrews;' it is impossible to understand by what right the learned writer makes this assertion. Who would consider Cicero as employing a Hebraism, when he says (Orat. pro Coel. c. 4): "Illud tempus aetatis, quod, ipsum sua sponte infirmum, aliorum lubidine infestum est, id hoc loco defendo?" or in writing to Sulpicius (ad Div. XVIII. 28): "Illud quod supra scripsi, id tibi confirmo?" Compare pro Lege Man. c. 10. So also Sallust (Bell. Catil. c. 37): "Sed urbana plebes, ea vero praeceps ierat." Moreover in Thucydides, o 'Atrixáτatos, the most Attic of all Greek writers, we find the same construction; e. g. IV. 93 to de Ιπποκράτει ὄντι περὶ τὸ Δήλιον, ὡς αὐτῷ ἡγγέλθη. In Demosthenes also οὗτος is elegantly pleonastic (παρέλκει) in his Oratt. (ed. Reisk.) adv. Mid. p. 522. adv. Aristog. A. p. 775. de Corona, p. 280. So in Xenophon, Cyrop. Lib. II. p. 51, τοῖς μὴ θέλουσιν ἑαυτοῖς προστάττειν ἐκπονεῖν τἀγαθὰ (ὁ θεὸς ἄλλους αὐτοῖς ἐπιτακτῆρας δίδωσι. The construction in all these passages is evidently the same as in Matt. 4: 16. 8: 5. John 15: 2. 18: 11.

tại

We turn now to some examples of forced interpretation, which have sprung from this source. In Matt. 12: 36, many understand ua doyov to mean wicked and injurious words; as if αργόν were the same as πονηρόν, which is found as a gloss in Cod. 126. They think the sense to be this: Believe me, that for every wicked and injurious word shall men hereafter render an account.' They suppose the Lord intended in these words to reprehend the Pharisees, who had impiously spoken against him, and to threaten them with the severest punishments; inasmuch as every one of their injurious and impious words should one day be punished. The supporters of this interpretation of the word gyós endeavour to confirm it by comparing, (from the Heb.) which they suppose to be used of vain, useless, and also injurious words. They are not indeed able to bring forward No. III.

61

examples from the Hebrew language itself; but they adduce two passages from the Chaldee version, viz. Ex. 5: 9, where

.2 :5 .and Ecc ,פִּתְגָמִין בְּטִילִין by דִּבְרֵי שֶׁקֶר Onkelos expresses

They appeal also to the Hebrew version of the New Testament published by Münster, which here renders ñμa ágyóv by ; and to the Syriac, which has ; compare the same versions on Mátt. 25: 30. But, so far as I can see, these examples prove only, that dgyóv might be expressed in Chaldee by, and denotes idle, otiosus, and then useless, slothful; but not that the writers of the New Testament, when they said doróvte, imitated the usage of the Chaldee tongue. Nor in the Hebrew text are there any examples, that the expression idle or vain words is used to denote injurious, mischievous words. In short, it cannot be proved from these passages, that those translators employed the word in the sense of nongóv. For the axoeios doulos in Matt. 25: 30, is one who is useless, unprofitable, i. e. who brings his master no advantage; not necessarily one who is wicked. And also often denotes that which is vain, empty, as Jer. 8: 8. 16: 18; where p is rendered in the Septuagint by eis μárny; and very frequently too it signifies falsehood, as Ex. 25: 15, and especially Prov. 12: 22. 17: 7; where the Seventy have rightly translated by geln yevon.* This interpretation moreover would not be in accordance with what precedes in verses 33-35, nor with what follows in verse 37. For it is not any wicked discourse that is there reprehended; but the feigned piety of the Pharisees, and their affected zeal for the public welfare. In order to avoid the charge of levity and indifference, they demanded (verse 38) a sign, onuεiov; as if desirous, that both they and others might know whether Jesus was truly the Messiah. Against this dissimulation in those who uttered nothing sincerely and from the heart, Jesus had inveighed in severe and appropriate terms in verses 33-35, using the comparison of a tree, which no one judges to be good and useful, unless it bears good fruit; and from which, if it be bad, no one expects good fruit. But if now the sense of verse 36 is such

* Compare Drusius in Animadv. ad. h. 1. Vorstius de Hebr. N. T. p. 80. Fischer de Vit. Lex. N. T. Diss. XXV. p. 569 sq.

tПotiv signifies here to judge, consider, regard; of which sense Raphel (on this passage) has collected many examples from