« AnteriorContinuar »
which seem abrupt, and as it were insulated, in the Epistles ; and their import, for that very reason, not always very apparent. The quotations, in fact, often carry with them the supposition, that the reader will consult the context, in the book whence they are taken ; for it would have been contrary to that plan of brevity which seems purposely to have been made to pervade the New Testament, to swell it out by large quotations from either the Old Testament Prophets or the Apocalypse. It is admitted on all hands, that when the Law or any of the Prophets is quoted, it is often indispensable that the context of the quoted words should be examined ; and now that it is known to be no less certain, that the Apocalypse is in like manner quoted by the writers of the Apostolic Epistles, the propriety and necessity of attending to that book will be held to be equally indispensable.
I am well aware that, the circumstance of quotations from the Apocalypse being found in the Epistles of the New Testament having been scarcely even suspected, many may be disposed to question the fact entirely. Let such persons first take due pains to examine the alleged quotations. In the examination they may, perhaps, find reason to reject, as not sufficiently evident, some of the instances that have been offered ; but I humbly apprehend that no person, acquainted with the antient modes of quotation
and reference, will be able to reject them all ; and such is the nature of this evidence, that if but a single instance, out of the many that have been offered, shall be found to be, indisputably, a quotation from, or an allusion or reference to, the Apocalypse, the argument for an early date will remain unimpaired, and the fact incontrovertible, that the book was written at least as early as the reign of Nero, or more probably that of his predecessor.
I have supposed it possible that some of the alleged instances of quotation may be thought not sufficiently obvious to allow of their admission; but, on the other hand, I have to state, what I doubt not will be the result, a sufficiency being found to establish the general inferenceand one indisputable quotation is as effectual for this as fifty would be-that other passages will be found, by those who turn their attention to this subject, which the author has not noticed; for it would be singular indeed if, in such an inquiry, none should have escaped his search. The issue I doubt not will be, that, on this subject, much will yet be discovered by the diligence of future enquirers; nor will its important uses, in illustrating those passages in which such allusions are found in the Epistles, escape the attention of such as study the scriptures with an earnest desire to comprehend their true meaning.
DISSERTATION THE THIRD.
ON THE LANGUAGE AND STRUCTURE OF THE
§ 1. Of the Verbal Language.
In reading the New Testament it should be constantly recollected that, though written in Greek, it is a record of doctrines and precepts delivered originally in Hebrew, or in a dialect of that language, and of events which had been predicted in the Hebrew scriptures ; and also, that the principal speakers and actors were Jews. No new terms were invented ; nor could this be necessary, in showing that what was now transacted was simply a fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies. It follows, that, in the Greek scriptures, (and this applies to the Septuagint translation so far as it gives a correct version of the Hebrew), other ideas, or shades of mean
ing, attach to many words, than could be connected with them, as used by the heathen writers. To explain them only by Greek usage, would, on many occasions, be to exclude, in a great degree, the real subject which they are employed to elucidate. The Apostles and Evangelists, however, when exhibiting Jewish usages and ceremonies, and scripture theology, in a new garb, did not arbitrarily impose upon words, meanings foreign to their radical sense : analogy was strictly regarded. They did what good writers are obliged to do every day,—they extended the primary sense, so modified as to express or embrace, the new idea, taking care to maintain that funiformity of use, in the new application, which should remove ambiguity and uncertainty.
It should be also recollected that, already, a language was, as it were, prepared for the penmen of the New Testament, as to the greater portion of the terms; for the Jews who were spread over the Roman Empire, and, particularly, throughout Egypt and the whole extent of the Greek provinces, were in the habit of using the Septuagint. Indeed but few of these Jews, excepting their learned men, could speak a word of Hebrew; and, but for this version, they must have sunk into a state of the greatest ignorance, respecting the history and religion of their
forefathers.' It is not surprising, therefore, that they should have considered the making of this
יופותו של יפת יהא באוהלי שם Greek tongue
Even in Judea the Hellenists made use of the Greek tongue; and, as noticed by Lightfoot (Vol. 1. p. 330), there are in the Gemarists several passages respecting the Greek language.--"In Megillah fol. 71, col. 2, they say thus, There is a tradition from Ben Kaphra, God shall enlarge Japhet, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem. The Babylonian Gemara on the same Treatise, fol. 9, col. 2, resolves us, what tongue of Japhet is meant ; for having spoken, all along before, of the excellency and dignity of the
, ' The very beauty of Japhet shall be in the tents of Shem.Our men first named, say further thus : Rabbi Jonathan of Beth Gubrin saith, There are four languages brave for the world to use, and they are these: The Vulgar, the Roman, the Syriac, and the Hebrew, and some add the Assyrian. Now the question is, What Tongue he means by the Vulgar? Reason will name the Greek as soon as any; and Midras Tilin makes it plain that this is meant; for fol. 25, col. 4, speaking of this very passage, [but alleging it in somewhat different terms,] he nameth the Greek, which is not here named. Observe then that the Hebrews call the Greek the Vulgar Tongue. They proceed, ibid. col. 3. It is a tradition. Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel saith, In books they permitted not, that they should write, but only in Greek. They searched, and found, that the Law cannot be interpreted completely but only in Greek. One once expounded to them in Syriac, out of the Greek. R. Jeremiah in the name of R. Chaijah ben Ba saith, Aquila the proselite interpreted the Law, before R. Eliezer and before R. Joshua. And they extolled him and said, Thou art fairer than the children of