other species of laws, or those peculiar to the Greek tongue. This topic is a very ample one, and covers, so to speak, the whole usus loquendi of that language; and it cannot therefore be expected, that we should here explain every thing in which the interpreters of the New Testament have found a departure from Greek usage. The subject of Greek idioms, for instance, has not yet been so clearly explained and settled, that every idiom may be at once referred to a certain rule; nor so that the causes can every where be assigned, in consequence of which usage has correctly introduced forms and modes of speaking, which are contrary to the grammatical laws. In general, the genius of the Greeks was so active and rapid, that their language abounds in forms and figures of this sort, more than any other; and as these do not rest on the authority of law, and seem often to depend on mere taste or caprice, they render this part of Greek grammar exceedingly difficult, and are regarded by the unskilful as faults. Hence, even the ancient grammarians have sometimes named those forms of speaking solecisms, which, when occurring in the best writers, they have called figures, onμara, of the Greek language. And since those who have formed their estimate of that language from the jejune precepts of these grammarians, have of course not understood the nature of these onuara; they have often regarded the sacred penmen as writing incorrectly, when they have only used the same license which is found in the best Greek authors. The sacred writers duly observe the laws of grammar; but not always the laws of the grammarians. And it is truly said by Apollonius Alexandrinus, De Constructione Orationis, III. 2, οὐ δή γε θαῤῥήσει τις αλό γους τὰς τοιαύτας συντάξεις φάναι, τῶν ἐλλογιμωτάτων ἀνδρῶν χρησαμένων, καὶ τοῦ λόγου οὐκ ἐμποδίζοντος· δῆλον οὖν ὡς ἡ κατὰ πολὺ γενομένη σύνταξις ἀπηνέγκατο τὴν ὀνομασίαν ᾧ λόγῳ καὶ ἄλλα κατὰ πλέον ἐπεκράτησε. “ No one indeed will undertake to call such constructions improper, since they are employed by the most approved writers, and are not contrary to reason. It is manifest, therefore, that the predominant construction has borne off the name, just as other things also prevail by numbers." Thus, for example, when it is said in the Apocalypse (1: 5,6) ἀπὸ ̓Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστὸς,—καὶ ὁ ἄρχων τῶν βασιλέων τῆς γῆς· τῷ ἀγαπήσαντι ἡμᾶς καὶ λούσαντι ἡμᾶς καὶ ἐποί ησεν ἡμᾶς βασιλεῖς αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα κ. τ. λ. there seems, at first view, to be almost as many solecisms as there are words. Sed salva res est. We grant, indeed, that this form of apposition is somewhat unusual; and if it had stood os udorus, no objection could have been made. As to the solecism which is commonly found in the following words, as if the dative to άyannoαvri were to be referred to ano, this comes not from the apostle, but from the transcribers. The full sentence is completed with yns, and the datives are to be referred to the following auron doğa; for nothing is more common than the insertion of this pronoun, referring back to the article at some distance before it. There remains then nothing to give offence, except the consecution of the indicative after participles; and there are probably those who hold this to be an error of the apostle. But even this is not without some probable grounds. For since the participle partakes of the nature of an adjective, it is easy to see, that he who says o aɣannoas, means nothing more than he who loved; which is the same as if he had said ös nyάnnoɛv. There is, therefore, no incongruity, in referring an indicative joined with a participle in the same period, to the same subject; because in both, there is the designation of an adjective or predicate. Nor was it necessary that the ös which is implied in the participle, should be repeated before noinos; since it is necessarily understood. The omission of a word does not render the style incomplete or incongruous, provided it be plainly implied in what is said; neither does a change of case produce this effect, unless there should be no word expressed or implied, which may properly govern one or the other of the cases. But if there be any thing faulty in figures of this kind, then the writings of the prince of poets swarm with errors; for in Homer such construcions are very frequent. So II. VI. 509, 510. ὑψοῦ δὲ κάρη ἔχει, ἀμφὶ δὲ χαῖται ὤμοις αΐσσονται· ὁ δ ̓ ἀγλαΐφι πεποιθώς, "He bears his head aloft, his mane floats around his shoulders; - ἐβεβήκει καγχαλόων, ταχέες δὲ πόδες φέρον "He advanced exulting, and his swift feet bore him." But here follows a passage, in which all the constructions occur, that have given so much offence in the Apocalypse; II. VI. 479 ff. καί ποτέ τις εἴπῃσι· πατρὸς δ ̓ ὅγε πολλὸν ἀμείνων! "And then may some one say, He is far braver than his father, him returning from battle; and may he bring back bloody spoils, having slain a foe." In truth, it is the very nature of such figures as these, to render the style, which would otherwise be encumbered by too many words, more adapted to express the ideas. The power of language does not consist alone in this, that the same idea should be excited in the mind of the hearer, which existed in that of the speaker; but also that it should be perceived, and, as it were, felt in the same manner and degree by the former, as it presented itself to the mind of the latter. If now any one will reduce those words of Hector to the rules of syntax, he will at once see, that they express indeed the same ideas, but in a manner far different from that in which those images affected the mind of Hector himself. Should it now be said, that figures of this sort, in orators and poets, are artificial and objects of research, but are in the apostles undesigned and accidental; it may be replied, that the question is, not what is said with art and study, but what is said correctly. The best writers, whether poets, or orators, or historians, are applauded, not because they have studiously sought for single words and forms; but because they have, as it were naturally and instinctively, written or spoken in the manner which the subject required, and not necessarily in that prescribed by the syntax of the grammarians. It has also been objected to the sacred penmen, that while different classes of authors usually have characteristics peculiar to themselves, the style of the writers of the New Testament is mixed up from every kind of writing; that while the peculiarities of tragic authors, for instance, are foreign to the style of the orator and historian, in the New Testament all is found mingled together. This representation is not without the appearance of truth; but the objection may be easily removed. For first, the nature of the style of the sacred writers is such, as to approach as near as possible to the common usus loquendi of ordinary life. But this usus, which governs alike the learned and the unlearned, is of such a nature, that it submits with difficulty to the fetters of syntax, so far as the laws of this latter are not necessary and essential; either because the thoughts are uttered in an unpre meditated manner and as rapidly as possible; or because the mutual interchange of thought does not require or bear, either a multitude of words, nor fulness of construction; or because, when speaking in the presence of one another, men do not need to express every idea fully in words, since tone, and expression, and gesture can then afford their aid for the full understanding of what is uttered. It is therefore not surprising, that this mixed kind of writing should be found in the New Testament; and of him who best understands the causes of this style, we should not hesitate to say, that he is the best interpreter of the sacred writers. It is also to be borne in mind, that those peculiar modes of speaking, as they are called, are not so exclusively appropriated to particular classes of writers, but that they may be employed by all those whose minds are affected in the same manner. The modes of expression found in poets, are not peculiar to them merely because their language is regulated by numbers; but because their thoughts are of such a kind as to require, or best to bear, these modes of expression; and therefore he who should think the same things in the same manner, might properly apply the same species of language. The sacred writers therefore are not to be censured, because they have promiscuously employed every species of expression, provided only their style has sufficient symmetry and congruity. On this point, it is more difficult to form a judgement than many suppose, who declare that the sacred writers paid no regard to grammatical accuracy, because they appear sometimes to have used middle verbs for passives, or to have erred in some other manner. This last question, however, refers not to the observance of grammatical laws, but to purity of language; as has been remarked above. Such then being the result of our inquiries, it follows, that in order that the interpretation of the New Testament may not be left in a state of entire uncertainty, every interpreter should prescribe it as a rule to himself, to pay a strict regard to the nature of the grammatical laws; and never in any case to depart from them, nor have recourse to Hebraisms, until he clearly sees, that a passage interpreted according to those laws alone, must be despaired of. ART. VI. PRESENT STATE OF THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE AND EDUCATION IN Italy.* By Augustus Tholuck, Professor of Theology in the University of Halle. Translated from the German by the Editor. It is seldom that any theological intelligence, or theological production, comes over to us from Italy; and this is the less to be wondered at, because in that country itself, there is very little heard or known of new theological publications. The theological works which appear, are usually ascetic writings, homilies, prayerbooks, and the like; sometimes a translation in rhyme of single poetic books of the Old Testament, as e. g. Pacchi's Version of Malachi and the Book of Wisdom; the Marquis Nicolo Grillo Cattaneo's Proverbi de Salomone, Genoa 1827; or a confutation of heretics;† or a biblical history; or finally small antiquarian treatises. But whoever would form an estimate of the catholic church generally, from the freshness, freedom, and spirituality, which she exhibits in some of the German states, would be led into great error. The German depth has there penetrated also the catholic religion and the catholic theology; and the latter has here and there received another and nobler form, than it exhibits in other lands. For the ardent and profound catholicism of a Sailer or Stolberg, the Italians appear to have no perception. The Marquis Carlo Antici at Rome has taken the pains to translate into Italian Stolberg's Ecclesiastical History, Sailer's Homilies, and Sailer's Life of Sambuga; but these works have excited little attention. The trans The following article appeared originally in the Literarische Anzeiger für christliche Theologie, etc. of which Prof. Tholuck is editor, and contains some of the results of his personal observation in Italy during the year of his residence at Rome. It is, of course, more particularly adapted to the German reader; but the information contained it, is of general interest. ED. + Difesa contro la falsa dottrina che si contiene nella vita di Scipione de Ricci, data in luce dal Signor de Potter, opera del sacerdote Bartolomeo Giudetti, uno dei curati della cattedrale di Livorno, Lucca 1826. Dell' Istoria del vecchio e nuovo Testamento, libri dieci di Pellegrino Farini, Ravenna 1827.-Rudone Jesu Christi ne' due Testamenti, Lodi 1827. |