Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

the science of criticism in the most efficacious manner, viz. by example. The Philological and Exegetical Notes are, for the most part, of the kind found in the best editions of the Greek Classics: they are intended to comprise (what they actually do comprise) whatever respects the interpretation, and tends to establish the grammatical sense: and with this view, the editor has taken great pains in tracing the connexion and scope of the passage under discussion. In ascertaining the sense of very obscure or controverted passages, he has sought their illustration

1. From parallel passages of the N.T., or passages where the same, or a similar phrase, occurs either in the writer himself, or in the other writers of the N. T.; thus making Scripture its own Interpreter. 2. From passages of the Septua gint (including the Apocrypha), Josephus, and Philo. 3. From the Apostolical Fathers. 4. From Apocryphal writings of undoubted antiquity, and which, whatever may be their claims to inspiration, are, at least of considerable utility, as indicating the Theological opinions of the times when they were written, whatever those might be, whether earlier or later than the N. T.; in the former case, showing the opinions of the Jews previous to the promulgation of the Gospel; in the latter, contributing in various ways, to the interpretation of the N. T., and often establishing its authenticity and uncorrupted preservation. 5. From Rabbinical writers of unquestionable antiquity. 6. From the Fathers in general, Greek and Latin, of the first four centuries, including the Greek Commentators, Theodoret, Theophylact, Euthymius, and Ecumenius. 7. From the Greek Classical writers, especially those who lived after the formation of the Alexandrian and Hellenistic, common or popular dialect.—Vol. I. p. xiii.

The annotations are in a very considerable degree original, the classical illustrations almost entirely so, at least in that modified sense of the term which the nature of works on verbal criticism admits, and where they are not original, they are, with due acknowledgment when possible, derived from the best expositors ancient and modern. While, however, Dr. B. has studiously repressed any undue bias in favour either of antiquity or of novelty, he will be found every where to pay that proper attention which is due to the former, "antiquity being" (as Bishop Middleton observes) "no inconsiderable evidence of truth." At the same time he has studied "to combine simple and solid old views, with ingenious and learned new ones," not making his notes (to use the words of Jeremy Taylor) "curious inquiries after new nothings, but pursuance of old truths." Dr. B. has rightly aimed at settling the grammatical sense of Scripture and in accomplishing this object he has employed all the aids of that verbal criticism, of which Bishop Middleton forcibly remarks that, "when we consider how many there are who seek to warp the Scriptures to their own views, it seems the only barrier that can be opposed successfully against heresy and schism."

One of the most useful features of this work is, that a new literal version or close paraphrase is given, of really difficult passages, together with a regular series of glossarial notes on such words and

phrases as required explanation. In these notes the editor has so combined and arranged the matter, which is scattered through various lexicographers and philologists (whose deficiencies he has supplied), that the student may not only in general dispense with their labours, but further possesses advantages which those who confine themselves to their works cannot attain. Much has also been done towards removing the great difficulties connected with the quotations from the Old Testament, either by obviating or by satisfactorily accounting for the discrepancies occurring in words or things.

There is one feature in Dr. Bloomfield's work, which we conceive is quite original, viz. that wherever-especially in the epistles-there is a long enumeration of virtues or vices, dispositions or endowments, &c. &c., he has avoided the too frequent error of commentators, either of passing by the terms without due distinction, or of reducing them to vague generalities, and treating them all as mere synonymes, but associated by the sacred writers in order to strengthen the sense. The terms, to which we refer, are here specially considered; their distinction is pointed out; and there is usually traced a sort of plan, or regular order, by which the terms are thrown into

groups. Instances of this arrangement will be found in the annotations on Mark vii. 21.; Rom. i. 29-31.; 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10.; 2 Cor. vi. 4, et seq.; Gal. v. 19-21.; Eph. v. 3—5.

Notice has already been taken of the punctuation, which in many of the reputed best editions had been very vicious: this Dr.B. has adjusted upon a plan which steers a middle way between the old and new systems. To this important feature in his work we have to add another, which our readers will be gratified to have brought before them, viz. its being totally free from intemperate and contumelious language, as well as from too prolix statements of the evidences for-what we must be permitted to call orthodoxy. While the editor uniformly enforces, and on all fit occasions defends, "sound doctrine," he has accomplished this difficult part of his undertaking in a candid spirit, far removed from that of the pugnacious polemic: at the same time he has held up neologian glosses and heterodox perversions to deserved censure.

We are not aware that any further observations are necessary with regard to the PLAN of the present work. With respect to its EXECUTION we shall enable our readers to judge for themselves, by presenting as many extracts as the limits of our journal will allow, and by referring to such other notes as are more particularly worthy of attention, but the value of which would be impaired by any partial quotation of them which we might give.

On Matt. xi. 3. there is a satisfactory view of the debated question respecting the real object of John the Baptist's message to Jesus. We

have been much struck with the notes on Matt. xii. 31. Toŭ zveúparos Blaoonpía, and on xiii. 1. on parables and parabolic instruction. On xvi. 18, 19. there is a very able elucidation, too long to be given entire, of the much controverted promise made to Peter, and the committal to him of the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

On the Gospel of Mark, which has been much neglected, especially in the critical department, we have observed many excellent notes. Particularly, on ix. 49. (nãç yàp πvpì åλɩoßíjσɛrai,) we have the true sense probably (for who shall dare to say certainly) pointed out. On the Gospel of Luke, numerous valuable notes occur, both critical and philological-as ii. 7. xi. 2. and xvi, 6. On the Gospel of John (the strongest pillar of the orthodox doctrine concerning the Deity of Christ) great pains have been bestowed; as the notes on the following passages will testify, viz. i. 1-14. the golden proëm, as we have somewhere seen it termed; the conversation with Nicodemus in chap. iii. and with the Samaritan woman, in chap. iv. In his notes on viii. 3—11. Dr. Bloomfield had, in his Recensio Synoptica, given an elaborate dissertation, satisfactorily vindicating the genuineness of the narrative respecting the woman who had been taken in adultery. In his present work he adopts the same view, and adds some further remarks in confirmation of it. On viii. 58. (πρὶν ̓Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι, ἐγὼ Eiui) he refutes the pretended gloss: and, though he does not adopt the common interpretation, he shews that the real sense is equally favourable to the doctrine of the deity of Christ, which doctrine is also triumphantly defended in his note on x. 8. On xiv. 16. there is the following luminous exposition of the much disputed term Παράκλητος.

Most of the earlier Commentators assign to Tapák. the sense of comforter; others, teacher; others, again, helper; and not a few, advocate, or intercessor. These interpretations are each of them copiously discussed in Recens. Synop. On examination it will, I apprehend, appear, that those of comforter, teacher, and some others which have been proposed, are too limited to reach the extent of signification evidently meant by the term, or that of the gifts imparted by the Holy Spirit. One of the two senses, Helper and Intercessor, is, no doubt, the true one; the former of which is adopted by almost all recent Commentators: the latter by Bp. Pearson, Lampe, Ernesti, Pearce, Wets., and others. And this (especially as it is confirmed by most of the antient Fathers and Commentators) seems to be preferable, and it has the peculiar advantage of including the former, since, as appears from the passages of the Classical writers adduced by Lampe, Wets., and Tittm., apáṇλntos is used, not only of a person called in to plead one's cause, but of one who is a helper in any matter, or generally a patron. And as both these offices are centered in the PARACLETE (and may be said to include that of Teacher and Comforter) there can be no doubt that both are intended.-Vol. I. pp. 403, 404.

To the Acts of the Apostles much attention has been given; and there is a great body of valuable and mostly original matter. The supernatural character of the events related in ii. 3, &c. is ably defended against the perverse interpretations of the foreign commenta

tors and on ii. 30. we have the following defence of the important passage, τὸ κατὰ σάρκα-Χριστὸν, which has been expunged from the text by most modern critics.

The words τὸ κατὰ σάρκα—Χριστὸν were without reason rejected by Mill and Beng., and cancelled by Griesb. and Knapp. The authority for this omission is exceedingly small; only that of 3 or 4 MSS.; for the reading of the Cod. Cantab. is, as Griesb. has omitted to notice, (from Wets.) ex emendatione. And that the words were in the Archetype is plain, by their being found in the venerable Latin Version which accompanies the MS. Of the three MSS. which are said not to have the words, the Barb. 1. is of no authority. The other two are the Cod. Alex. and Cod. Ephr., two very antient MSS., but which bear perpetual marks of the liberties taken with them by some Biblical Critics of an early period. The words are found in all the other MSS., (not far short of 200) including the most antient of MSS., the Cod. Vaticanus, 1209. Thus the external evidence for the omission in question is exceedingly slight. As to the internal, it is infinitely more probable that the words should have been omitted in two or three MSS. by accident, or perhaps removed designedly by the Pelagians, than that they should have been foisted into all the other MSS. The evidence, indeed, of the Versions may seem more in favour of the omission. But let us examine. Those Versions are the printed Syriac (Peshito) the Vulg., Copt., Æthiop., and Arm. Now though the printed Syriac has them not, yet the MSS., I learn, have. And, at all events, the authority of the Syriac in the Acts and Epistles is very far inferior to that in the Gospels, it being supposed to be of a much more modern date, and not unfrequently altered from the Vulg. The authority of the Vulg. may seem weighty; but it is, in fact, not so in cases where it is unsupported by the antient Italick. And that the words were in that Version, is plain from what is brought forward by Sabatier. See Matthæi and Nolan, p. 390. As to the Fathers, some of them, indeed, adduce the verse without the words in question. But others, as Theophyl., Theodoret, and especially Chrysost., cite the verse with those words. And in them the evidence for insertion is much stronger than for omission, since citing, as they perpetually do, from memory, they often omit what is not to their purpose. Heinrichs and Kuin. catch at an argument for their omission, from the words being variously placed in the MSS. But the truth is, that in only some two or three MSS. is there a transposition, evidently from the carelessness of scribes; which, of course, proves nothing. As to the argument with which those two Commentators aim at giving the coup de grace to the words, namely, that the omission of the words produces a more difficult reading, and therefore the more likely to be genuine, it is an argument of straw; for even that critical canon, like most others, has its exceptions. Here, surely, it cannot apply; for it would leave a more harsh ellipse of τίνα. As to the argumentum ad verecundiam, consisting in the authority of names, we may very well oppose to those of Mill, Beng., Schoettg., Griesb., Knapp, Heinrichs, and Kuin. those of Grot., De Dieu, Wolf, Wets., Matth., Tittm., Nolan, and others.-Vol. I. p. 451.

On the disputed passage at v. 12-14. there is a note, in which, after proving that the passage ought not to be cancelled, Dr. B. shews that alteration by transposition is inadmissible, and indeed unnecessary; being merely an example of the synchysis so frequent in Thucydides and the best writers, and of the same nature with the passages at ii. 11 and 44: and that, so far from being inexplicable, it yields an excellent sense, when properly interpreted. Great pains have been bestowed on the apology of Stephen, in chap. vii., which has been much misunderstood, and especially in reconciling the seeming discre

pancies between the statements there made, and some parts of the Old Testament.

Acts x. 11. Téoσapoi apxaïs deceμévov. On these words, which have greatly perplexed commentators, we have the following note.

'Apxy signifies the extremity of any thing of an oblong form, since each end may be considered as a beginning. See Galen ap. Recens. Synop. And as in things of the form of a parallelogram (as in a web of cloth) each end, having two angles, may be said to have two of these apxal; thus apxai might here be rendered extremities or corners; though 'ends' is the more accurate version. Wakefield, indeed, renders by four strings,' referring for an example of that signification, to a passage of Diod. Sic. Bishop Middleton regards this as "a singularly happy criticism, and as probably worth all that remains in his New Testament." I can neither agree with the Prelate in his commendation, nor by any means (low as I rate the value of Wakefield's labours on the N. T.) in the censure which it implies. After carefully examining all the authorities which have any bearing upon the point in question, I cannot discover any proof of the signification which Wakefield and Middleton adopt. The passages to which I allude are the following. Galen de Chirurg. ii. Exod. xxviii. 23. (Complut.) Diod. Sic. i. 109. ἀρχὴ σχοινίου. Lucian ii. 83. δεσμῶν ἀρχάς. Herodot. iv. 60. Tηy ἀρχὴν τοῦ στρόφου. Eurip. Hip. 772. πλεκτάς πεισμάτων ἀρχάς. But the first and second passages only prove that either, or both ends of any oblong body might be called apxaí. The rest show that it was not unfrequently used of the end of a rope or band. On which see Jacobs on Athol. Gr. T. xi. p. 50. So far the proof only amounts to this, that dpy may denote the end of any thing, and, with the addition of a word signifying band, the end of a rope; but there is no proof that it ever meant a rope. Yet the passage of Diod. Sic. cited by Wakefield, T. i. 104. Edit. Bip., was thought by Middleton to supply this proof. It respects the manner of harpooning the Hippopotamus, and the words are these: εἰθ ̓ ἑνὶ τῶν ἐμπαγέντων ἐνάπτοντες ἀρχὰς στυπίνας ἀφίασι μέχρις ἂν Tapaλúon. But a far better Grecian, Wesseling, in his Note, determines it to mean hempen cable-ends." These were probably stronger than the rest of the cable; and they were, no doubt, fastened together for the purpose of holding fast the Hippopotamus; hence the plural is used. Of this sense of apxn to denote end Wessel. adduces two examples from Plutarch and Philo Jud. And finally, he so explains the present passage of Acts. Bochart, indeed, most ingeniously, conjectures on the passage of Diod. σrápτas or aprávas, which had also occurred to myself; but they are perhaps unnecessary, if the above mode of explanation be adopted. At all events, there is no proof made out that dpxn can of itself denote a rope. Indeed such a usage would involve an intolerable catachresis. The two learned Critics above mentioned were both deceived by not attending to the nature of the word dedepevov, which is often, as here, a vor pragnans, including the sense ἀπὸ or ἐκ σχοινίου. So Matt. xxi. 12, ευρής σετε ὄνον δεδεμένον. Mark xi. 4. τὸν πῶλον δεδεμένον. In this case the ἀπὸ or ek must be understood according as the sense be suspension from (as in the present passage), or tying to, as in the foregoing. Thus we may render at the four ends; for the sense cannot be by four rope-ends.' Middleton, indeed, objects to the introduction of the the, because there is no article in the Greek; forgetting that he thus falls into the very error for which he so often censures Wakefield, that of not bearing in mind those many cases where the absence of the Article affords no presumption of the noun's being indefinite. The present falls under the case of nouns used κar' ¿έoxǹv, or rather nouns which, though by their very definite sense, they point only to certain individuals of a genus, yet that is so well understood, that the Article may be safely omitted. this is still more frequently the case when the noun is accompanied with an adjective, and preceded by a preposition.-Vol. I. p. 499.

66

And

« VorigeDoorgaan »