Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

But what is this usus loquendi? It is modes of expression which a nation have adopted, under the influence of all the objects with which they are conversant, both natural and artificial; of all the circumstances and relations in which they are placed, whether social, civil, or religious. Authors take language as they find it; they do not make a new one. They may, indeed, help to introduce now and then a new word, because they want it to express a new idea; but the great body of their words must be conformed to the usus loquendi, in order to be intelligible.

Now if when God speaks to any particular men, he uses the language of these men, in order to be understood; it follows, that when he spoke to the ancient Jews, through the prophets, he employed the language of the times and of the nation. But in order to interpret this, one must be acquainted with the circumstances and relations of the Hebrew nation at that time; because the language, as it then was, was entirely conformed to these.

From these very plain and obvious principles it results, that in order to interpret rightly, we must have respect to all these circumstances and relations. It follows with equal certainty, that to carry back our recent notions of philosophy, theology, morals, government, or any thing else, and attach them to the words of the ancient Hebrews, would be doing a violence to the laws of interpretation which every one must spontaneously disapprove. The simple question for an interpreter, always and without variation, is, What idea did the writer mean to convey? When this is discovered and developed, the interpreter's work is done; and so far as the simple office of an interpreter is concerned, it is all done. Whether his author agrees or disagrees with our present notions, yea, whether he inculcates truth or error, is nothing to him as interpreter. With this he may be deeply concerned as a man and a theologian; he is so; but as an interpreter, his work is done, when the true meaning of his author is unfolded.

One cannot help exclaiming here, when he looks on many of the glosses which have been forced upon the Scriptures by philosophy and sectarianism, by superstition and by ignorance, Would to God that the Bible, at last, might come to be considered as the sufficient and only rule of faith and practice! When will men cease to be wiser than God, in their own estimation? And when will the simple meaning of the inspired writers, that

and no more nor less, be the great object of inquiry and investigation among all interpreters of the divine word? May that time speedily come, and the whole earth be filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters fill the sea!

Let me add a few considerations by way of caution, to every conscientious interpreter, and I have done. Is it not our only true interest, so far as revelation is concerned, to know just what has been actually revealed, and to attach neither more nor less to the Scriptures than the inspired writers did themselves attach to them? This cannot be denied. How then can we strive for a party explanation of a text, in case we are conscious to ourselves that we have never investigated it by the usus loquendi, nor the idioms of the language in which it was written? I speak to interpreters, professed and authorized interpreters of the divine word. What would they say of an ambassador of our government, who, being furnished with his instructions, should go to a foreign country, and give an interpretation to them agreeable to the notions or wishes of the people there? And if we neglect or overlook the obvious means by which we are to investigate the sense of the Scriptures, and in order to save toil and application, put a gloss on them suggested by our own philosophy, or superstition, or ignorance, or party prejudice; then we are accountable for what we do, to the Author of the Scriptures. His word is truth-everlasting truth; what is more or less, may be truth, or error, or a mixture of both; but it is what lays us under no obligation of faith or practice; it is often what may mislead us, and plunge us into danger, if not into perdition. Let the interpreter of the divine word, then, feel that his office is high and holy; that he can never be at liberty to pervert it or to abuse it. Nor can he fulfil its functions, in all respects as he ought to do, without such a knowledge of the Scriptures and the principles of their interpretation, as will enable him to pursue his inquiries independently of human authority, and to cast himself only on the guidance of those who were inspired.

ART. V. ON THE GRAMMATICAL ACCURACY OF THE WRITERS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

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

INTRODUCTORY NOTICE.

J. A. H. Tittmann, the author of the following article, is the son of C. C. Tittmann, formerly Superintendent of the churches in Dresden, and author of the Meletemata Sacra and other works. He was born in 1773 at Langensalza, where his father was then sub-pastor; became professor extraordinary in the faculty of philosophy at Leipsic in 1796; was transferred in the same capacity to the theological faculty in 1799; and was afterwards made an ordinary professor in the same, of which he has since risen by degrees, and particularly since the death of Tzschirner, to be the senior professor. He is accounted a man of profound and various erudition. He has published no large work, but many smaller ones both in exegetical and systematic theology, which are charcterized by learning and sound good sense; though they do not always exhibit the warm and evangelical spirit of a living faith. The principal one is his work on the Synonymes of the New Testament, first printed in four Programms, and recently republished with his opuscula, Leips. 1829. These opuscula consist of several essays relative to the principles on which the New Testament is to be interpreted. The following article is the first of these essays; and the others will probably be given in future numbers of this work. He is also the editor of the small edition of the New Testament published by Tauchnitz. ED.

ON THE GRAMMATICAL ACCURACY OF THE WRITERS OF THE

NEW TESTAMENT.

Among the imperishable merits of Luther in relation to the church of Christ, it must no doubt be reckoned the greatest, that he again laid open the fountains of divine truth, which had been for many ages concealed or corrupted; and vindicated the use of them, not only to teachers and to the learned, but also to all Christians. But as in many other things, in which he could only make a beginning, so also here, he left to posterity the duty of becoming more thoroughly acquainted with the sources thus re

stored to them, and of freeing more and more the doctrines drawn from these fountains from the inventions of human opinions. That this was not done by Luther himself, no one can wonder; although such was his genius, that had he not been deprived, by the multitude of his other severe and pressing labours, of that leisure which the study of ancient literature particularly demands, he would probably have been superior to all his contemporaries in the true interpretation of the New Testament.

But that after three centuries, and after the labours of so many distinguished men, the interpretation of the New Testament should not yet have been regulated by any certain laws; must surely be matter of wonder to all, and would seem hardly credible, unless one were acquainted with the difficulties of the subject, and the causes of the errors under which it still labours. The number and magnitude of these difficulties becomes more known, the longer and more diligently the sacred writings are studied. The nature of the errors and faults to be avoided is such, that the more experience one seems to have in interpreting the writings of the New Testament, the more difficult does it become to avoid these errors. They grow indeed by practice, and are so impressed by daily habit, that unless the interpreter shall have been prepared in the best manner, he is constantly more or less influenced by them. Those therefore who in youth, have become imbued by severe study with a deep knowledge of the ancient languages; and the labours of whose future lives have left them leisure and strength to fulfil the proper duties of an interpreter of the New Testament, enjoy a rare felicity. The lot of very many, however, is widely different; they have been able formerly to read but few of the Greek authors; and having acquired no insight into the genius of the Greek language, are compelled to acquiesce in the decisions of the lexicons, however unsatisfactory and worthless; and are thus unable, through want of leisure and books, to make good in after life that which they have neglected in youth. On the other hand, those philologians who would seem to be the best qualified for the interpretation of the New Testament, have often such a distaste for the reading of the Scriptures, that they most gladly abandon it to the theologians. But although it may be doubted, with Valckenaer,* whether those who have acquired their knowledge only in the monuments of the profane writers, should

* Valcknerii Orationes, Lugd. Bat. 1784. p. 288 sq.

on that account be prohibited from the emendation and explanation of the sacred books; still, it is greatly to be wished, that all theologians, who are in a manner regarded as the only legitimate interpreters of the New Testament, should be able to sustain a comparison with those great men, who have been so much distinguished by their zeal for the study of languages, by learning, sagacity, and sound judgement.

A principal reason why the science of interpreting the New Testament, is not yet firmly settled on its proper foundations, seems to lie in the fact, that many regard the interpreter of the New Testament as having nothing to do with the niceties of grammar. Hence it happens, that even those who have best understood the genius of the Greek language, have in explaining the sacred books paid no proper regard to the laws of grammar or to the analogy of language; and the same thing has therefore happened to them, that has usually deterred mere philologians from treating of the Scriptures. They have taken it for granted, that the sacred writers were far removed from that grammatical accuracy, the laws of which are founded in the nature of language and the use of the best writers; and therefore in explaining their writings, they have supposed there was little or no use in applying those laws. Indeed it has even been imagined, that in seeking the true sense of the sacred writers, he was exposed to err the mostly widely, who should endeavour to subject their words and phrases to the ordinary rules of the Greek language. Hence the direction, now to take refuge in Hebraism; or again, where there is no place for Hebraism, we are referred to the barbarous dialect of Alexandria; or at last, if there is nothing similar to be found in this dialect, we are told that the words of the sacred writers, so incongruously composed, and construed in a manner so contrary to the laws of language, must be explained from the connexion, and by reference to the object of the writer. Inasmuch now as this mode of proceeding is most pernicious, and not only renders the whole interpretation of the New Testament uncertain, but delivers over the Scriptures to the caprice of every interpreter, it may be worth while to spend a few moments, in endeavouring to form a proper estimate of the grammatical accuracy of the sacred writers.

Our first object will be, to explain in what we suppose this grammatical accuracy to consist. This seems the more necessary, because there is here more than one error to be avoided. It is therefore first of all to be remarked, that we are not to treat

« AnteriorContinuar »