INTRODUCTION

ΤΟ

THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.

ON THE CRITICISM AND INTERPRETATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.

CRITICISM, in the more extensive sense of the term, is the art of forming a correct judgment concerning any object proposed to our consideration. In a more restricted sense, particularly with reference to the works of ancient authors, it was fashionable, for a considerable time, among the literati on the continent of Europe, to employ this word as indicating merely that kind of labour and judgment which was employed in settling the genuineness of the whole or part of the text of any author. But the term is now generally used in a much more enlarged sense, viz. to indicate any kind of labour or judgment, which is occupied either in the literary history of the text itself, or in settling or explaining it. To the former the appellation of lower criticism has been given; while the latter has been termed higher criticism, because its objects and results are of a much more important nature. [Other terms have also been employed, such as Biblical Criticism, Scripture Exegesis, Exegetical Theology, and the like. It matters little which of these is adopted, provided it be clearly understood what topics it is intended to embrace. There are four departments of criticism-(1) Emendatory, or the criticism of the text; (2) Explanatory, including the principles of interpretation with their application; (3) Discriminatory, the separation of the genuine from the spurious; (4) Esthetic, the illustration of the merits of the composition. To the two former the student's attention will be here particularly directed.]

The FIRST PART, which treats on Scripture-Criticism, will be found to comprise a concise account of the Languages in which the Sacred Volume is written; together with a Sketch of the Critical History of its Text, and of the several Divisions and Subdivisions of it, which have obtained at different times. The Sources of Sacred Criticism are next discussed, including a particular account of the

1 See Black, Exegetical Study of the Original Scriptures. Edinb. 1856, pp. 5, 8. VOL. II.

6

B

Manuscripts, and the History of the Ancient Versions of the Scriptures. The nature of Various Readings, and the means of determining genuine readings, are then considered, together with the Quotations from the Old Testament in the New, and the nature and different kinds of Scripture Harmonies.

In the SECOND PART the principles of Scripture Interpretation are discussed, together with the application of them to the exposition of the Sacred Volume, both exegetical and practical.

PART I.

ON SCRIPTURE-CRITICISM.

wwwww

CHAPTER I.

ON THE LANGUAGES IN WHICH THE OLD TESTAMENT IS WRITTEN.

A KNOWLEDGE of the original languages of Scripture is of the utmost importance, and indeed absolutely necessary, to him who is desirous of ascertaining the genuine meaning of the Sacred Volume. Happily, the means of acquiring these languages are now so numerous and easy of access, that the student, who wishes to derive his knowledge of the Oracles of God from pure sources, can be at no loss for guides to direct him in this delightful pursuit.

SECTION I

ON THE HEBREW LANGUAGE.

Introductory Remarks on the Oriental or Shemitic Languages. —I. Origin of the Hebrew Language. - II. Historical Sketch of this Language, and of the Study of Hebrew.-III. Of its Characters. IV. Of the Vowel Points.-V. Hebrew Accents.

THE languages of Western Asia, though differing in respect to dialect, are radically the same, and have been so, as far back as any historical records enable us to trace them. Palestine, Syria, Phonicia, Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Arabia, and also Ethiopia are reckoned as the countries, where the languages commonly denominated Oriental have been spoken. Of late, many critics have rejected the appellation Oriental,' as being too comprehensive, and have substituted that of Shemitic,' a denominative derived from Shem. Against this appellation, however, objections of a similar nature may be urged; for no inconsiderable portion of those, who spoke the languages in question, were not descendants of Shem. It is matter of indifference which appellation is used, if it be first defined. There are three principal branches of the trunk language of Western Asia, viz. the Aramæan, the Hebrew, and the Arabic.

1. The Aramaan, spoken in Syria, Mesopotamia, and Babylonia or Chaldæa, is subdivided into the Syriac and Chaldee dialects; or, as they are sometimes called, the West and East Aramaan.

2. The Hebrew or Canaanitish (Isai. xix. 18.) was spoken in Palestine, and probably with little variation in Phoenicia, and the

Phoenician colonies, as at Carthage and other places. The remains of the Phoenician and Punic dialects are too few, and too much disfigured, to enable us to judge with certainty how extensively these languages were the same as the dialect of Palestine.

3. The Arabic, to which the Ethiopic bears a special resemblance, has, in modern times, a great variety of dialects, as a spoken language, and is spread over a vast extent of country. But, so far as we are acquainted with its former state, it appears more anciently to have been principally limited to Arabia and Ethiopia.

The Arabic is very rich in forms and words: the Syriac is comparatively limited in both: the Hebrew holds a middle place between them, both as to copiousness of words and variety of forms.

Besides the preceding branches, there are many slighter variations of language. Thus, the Ephraimites could not distinguish between the letters (s) and (sh), as the other tribes did, in speaking: hence they pronounced Sibboleth instead of Shibboleth (Judges xii. 6). [Traces also, it is thought, are discoverable of an Aramaic influence on the speech of the inhabitants of North Palestine; e. g. the prefix in Judges v. 7., vi. 17., vii. 12., viii. 26.; and the plural Judg. v. 10']

The Samaritan dialect appears to be composed (as one might expect, see 2 Kings xvii.) of Aramæan and Hebrew; and the slighter varieties of Arabic are as numerous as the provinces where the language is spoken.

All the Oriental or Shemitic languages are distinguished from the Western or European tongues, in general, by a number of peculiar traits; viz. :

(1.) Several kinds of guttural letters are found in them, which we cannot distinctly mark; and some of which our organs are incapable of pronouncing, after the age of maturity.

(2.) In general, the roots are tri-literal, and of two syllables. By far the greater part of the roots are verbs.

(3.) Pronouns, whether personal or adjective, are, in the oblique cases, united in the same word with the noun or verb, to which they have a relation.

(4.) The verbs have but two tenses, the past and future, and, in general, no optative or subjunctive moods distinctly marked.

(5.) The genders are only masculine and feminine; and these are extended to the verb as well as to the noun.

(6.) For the most part, the cases are marked by prepositions. Where two nouns come together, the latter of which is in the genitive, the first in most cases suffers a change, which indicates this state of relation; while the latter noun remains unchanged; that is, the governing noun suffers the change, and not the noun governed.

(7.) To mark the comparative and superlative degrees, no special forms of adjectives exist. But from this observation the Arabic must be excepted; which for the most part has an intensive form of adjectives, that marks both the comparative and superlative.

'Keil, Einleitung in die kanon. Schriften des Alten Testamentes, Frank. 1853, § 13.

(8.) Scarcely any composite words exist in these languages, if we except proper names.

(9.) Verbs are not only distinguished into active and passive by their forms; but additional forms are made, by the inflections of the same verb with small variations, to signify the cause of action, or the frequency of it, or that it is reflexive, reciprocal, or intensive, &c.

(10.) All these dialects (the Ethiopic excepted) are written and read from the right hand to the left; the alphabets consisting of consonants only, and the vowels being generally written above or below

the consonants.'

I. ORIGIN OF THE HEBREW LANGUage.

[The Old Testament is written in the Hebrew language, with the exception of a few words and passages which are in the Chaldæan dialect. These are Jer. x. 11.; Dan. ii. 4-vii. 28.; Ezra iv. 8— vi. 18., vii. 12—26. There also is a trace of Chaldee in Gen. xxxi. 47. It is difficult to say what is the origin of the name Hebrew. Of the various opinions which have been advanced on this point, it will be sufficient to notice three: 1. That the word is derived from y, to pass over, because Abraham crossed the river Euphrates to journey into Canaan; 2. That it is from 77, beyond, because Abraham had been a dweller beyond the Euphrates, transfluvialis (Tepáτns, Gen. xiv. 13.); 3. That it is a patronymic from Eber, Gen. x. 21, 24, 25., xi. 14-17. Against the first two suppositions there is the objection that it is not easy to see how the word so derived should be applied exclusively to Abraham, since many other dwellers beyond the Euphrates doubtless crossed it also for fresh settlements; while, as the earth was divided in the days of Peleg, Eber's son, it is not unreasonable to suppose that Eber may have been prominently designated as the head of a race from whom the chosen people were to spring. It has been thought that Gen. xiv. 13. favours this supposition; since, as Mamre is there called by a patronymic, "the Amorite," there is a propriety in similarly designating Abram. But a weightier argument may be fetched from Numb. xxiv. 24., where, as the Assyrians are called Asshur from their progenitor, the Israelites are denominated Eber from Eber their ancestor.

2

If at first the name Hebrews, sons of Eber, had a wider application (comp. Gen. xl. 15., xliii. 32.), it was afterwards confined to the descendants of Jacob, and given them more especially by foreigners, or assumed by them in their intercourse with foreigners (Jonah i. 9.). They were known among themselves (though not exclusively, see 1 Sam. xiii. 3.; Jer. xxxiv. 9.) as Israelites, or sons of Israel, a theocratic, and therefore more honourable, appellation, applied to the whole people till the revolt of the ten tribes after the death of Solomon, when these appropriated the name of Israel as distinguished from the kingdom of Judah. The prophets, however, frequently applied it to the whole nation, and it continued to be used,

Stuart's Hebrew Grammar, pp. 1-5. (Andover, 1821); Robinson's edition of Calmet's Dictionary, abridged, pp. 605-607. [Comp. Max Müller, Survey of Languages (2d edit.) PP. 23-7.]

* Eusebius adopts this derivation.

Euseb. Præp. Evang. Col. 1688. lib. vii. 6. p. 304.