01.04. Collateral Sources For Determining The Sense And Explaining The Peculiarities ...

Section Third.

Collateral Sources For Determining The Sense And Explaining The Peculiarities Of New Testament Scripture. OUR attention has hitherto been confined to the original language itself of the New Testament, and to the things which concern both its general character and its more distinctive peculiarities. In considering these, it has been implied, rather than formally stated, that for the correct and critical study of the writings of the New Testament, there must have been acquired a competent acquaintance, not only with the common dialect of the later Greek, but also with the idioms of the Hebrew tongue, and with that combination of Greek and Hebrew idioms, which appears in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. In this version all the leading peculiarities, as well of the later Greek as of the Hebraistic style, which have been noticed in connexion with the language of the New Testament, are to be found; and some of them, those especially of the Hebraistic class, in greater abundance, and in bolder relief, than in the writings of the New Testament. In regard to the earlier portions of the Septuagint, this has been exhibited with scholarly acumen and precision in a late publication by the younger Thiersch (De Pentateuchi Versione Alexandrina, Libri Tres, 1851,) to which reference has already been made. Considerable use has long been made of the materials supplied by the Hebrew Bibles and the Septuagint for illustrating the diction of the New Testament in some of the more learned commentaries; particularly those of Grotius, Wetstein, Koppe, Kuinoel, and the more recent commentaries both of this country and the Continent. Some additional service has been rendered in the same line by the Editio Hellenistica of the New Testament of Mr. Grinfield, which is devoted to the single purpose of collecting under each verse examples of the same or of similar words and phrases occurring in the Septuagint, and other writings of the period. The Lexicons also of Biel and Schleusner, and, above all, the Grammar of Winer, have contributed to establish and elucidate the connexion between the Greek of the New Testament and of the Septuagint, and the characteristics of the dialect in which they are written. All this, however, has respect to the elements of the subject under consideration; it bears directly upon the form and structure of the language itself of the New Testament; so that, without a certain knowledge of the one, there can be no accurate and discriminating know ledge of the other. But there are also certain collateral sources of information, from which incidental and supplementary aid may be derived, to illustrate both the phraseology and .some of the more characteristic notices and allusions of New Testament Scripture. These we must now briefly describe, with the view of indicating the nature and amount of the aid to be derived from them, before entering on the examination of specific rules and principles of interpretation. (It should be borne in mind by those who are entering on the prosecution of such studies, that the Septuagint is far from being a close translation, and that those commentators and grammarians, who have proceeded on the principle of always finding in it the key to the exact meaning of particular words and phrases, are by no means to be trusted.)

I. The sources that may be said to lie nearest to the inspired writings, and which should first be named, are the contemporary Jewish writers, who used the Greek language. These are simply two—Philo and Josephus; the former, there is reason to believe, born about a quarter of a century before Christ, though he appears to have outlived the Saviour; and the other fully as much later. The birth of Josephus is assigned to A.D. 37. In a strictly exegetical respect, little help, comparatively, is to be obtained from the first of these writers. Philo was much more of a philosopher than a religionist; and living in Alexandria, and ambitious mainly of ranking with its men of higher culture, both his sentiments and his style stood at a wide distance from those peculiar to the writers of the New Testament. Even in respect to the points, in which his writings bear a kind of formal resemblance to those of the Apostle John, in the use of a few terms relating to the Being and operations of Godhead, no real advance has been made by the efforts that have been put forth to interpret the one by the other. It has turned out rather—the more carefully the subject has been examined—that as their conceptions of divine things were essentially different, so their language, even when it seems most nearly coincident, is by no means agreed; and little more has resulted from such comparative investigations than learned disputations about the meanings of words and phrases, which sometimes look as if they yielded what was sought, but again deny it. As for the principles of interpretation adopted by Philo, they have, indeed, a close enough affinity with what is found in many of the Fathers of the third and fourth centuries, but are by no means to be identified with those sanctioned by the writers of the New Testament. Such deliverances, therefore, as the following of Ernesti, which has often in substance been repeated since “Philo is particularly useful in illustrating the allegorical and mystical reasonings, so much used by St. Paul” (Institutes, P. III., ch. 8.)—must be rejected as groundless, and fitted to lead in a wrong direction. The statement is made by Ernesti with apparent moderation, as it is again in recent times by Klausen, (Hermeneutik, pp. 96, 97.) with the view simply of pointing attention to Philo as a master in that kind of allegorizing, which was pursued especially by the Apostle Paul—not that Paul was actually conversant with the writings of the Alexandrian, and followed in his wake. This latter is noted by Ernesti as a fanciful extreme, advanced by Wetstein and some others, and is declared to be destitute of historical support; unnecessary also, since both Paul and Philo but imbibed the spirit of their age, and adopted a style of exposition which was already common. In opposition to this view, we maintain, that the allegorizings of Philo and those, as well of the Jewish cabalists who preceded, as of the Christian theosophists who followed, belonged to another class than the so-called allegorical interpretations of the New Testament. The latter are not allegorical, in the distinctive sense of the term; they are not, as allegorical meanings properly are, adaptations of matters in one sphere of things to those of another essentially different, and consequently arbitrary and uncertain. On the contrary, they are applications of the truths and principles embodied in the institutions or events of preparatory dispensations to the corresponding events or institutions of an ultimate dispensation, to which, from the first, they stood intimately related. In short, they are typical explanations, as contradistinguished from allegorical, and have nothing about them of the caprice and extravagance to which the others are liable. But as we have investigated this elsewhere, (Typology of Scripture, vol. i., o. I., and App. B., § 1.) it is needless to do more here than mark the confusion of ideas, on which this assimilation of Paul and Philo is grounded, and declaim against the dishonour which is thereby done to the character of the apostolic teaching. So far, therefore, as Philo is concerned, there is little to be reaped from his writings for the exposition of New Testament Scripture; his language, his style of thought, and his manner of dealing with Old Testament Scripture, all move in different channels from those followed by the apostles; and his references also to existing manners and circumstances are extremely few and unimportant. In this last respect, however, his contemporary Josephus may justly be said to compensate for the defect of Philo. A man of affairs, and bent on transmitting to posterity an account of what he knew and understood of the events of his times, as well as of former generations, his writings abound with details, which are calculated to throw light on, at least, the historical parts of the New Testament. In the words of Lardner, who has done more than any other person to turn to valuable account the notices of Josephus, “He has recorded the history of the Jewish people in Judea and elsewhere, and particularly the state of things in Judea during the ministry of our Saviour and His apostles; whereby he has wonderfully confirmed, though without intending it, the veracity and the ability of the evangelical writers, and the truth of their history.” (Works, vi. p. 502.) It was for the richness of materials in this respect, contained in the writings of Josephus, that Michaelis strongly recommended a diligent study of his works, from the beginning of Herod’s reign to the end of the Jewish Antiquities, and spake of him as furnishing the very best commentary on the Gospels and the Acts. (Introduction, vol. iii. P. 1, c. 9.) Of course, a commentary so furnished could only have been of the external and historical kind, which too much accorded with the taste of Michaelis; but, in a revelation pre-eminently historical, the incidental light and attestations derived from such a source are not to be undervalued; and though, doubtless, the imperfections in Josephus accounts, and what probably we may call his occasional errors and studied omissions (in respect to the subject of Christianity,) have given rise to some perplexities, yet his writings, on the whole, have contributed greatly to elucidate and confirm the narratives of the New Testament. His style, however, which he aimed at having as pure as possible, is of little service in illustrating the more peculiar idioms of Scripture; though, in regard to some of those common to it and the later Greek dialect, and the meaning also of particular words and phrases, considerable benefit has accrued from the study of his productions. Two works, of about the middle of last century (the Observationes of Krebs, and the Specilegium of Ottius.) were specially directed to the elucidation of the New Testament from this source; and many of the examples adduced by them, with others gathered by subsequent inquirers, have found their way into recent grammars and commentaries.

It is proper to add, that there are questions on which even the silence of Josephus is instructive, and fairly warrants certain conclusions respecting the existing state of things in the apostolic age—for example, on the subject of Jewish proselyte-baptism; since, treating, as he does, of matters bearing upon the reception of proselytes, and remaining silent regarding any such practice, this, coupled with the like silence of Scripture, is well nigh conclusive on the subject. (But see Dissertation on βαπτίζω) in Part II.) Again, there are other points, chiefly of a formal or legal description, on which the testimony of Philo and Josephus runs counter to that delivered in the later Jewish writings; and in such cases, we need scarcely say, the testimony of those who lived when the Jewish institutions were actually in force is entitled to the greater weight. Nothing of this sort, however, has to be noted in connexion with New Testament affairs.

II. The next source of illustrative materials that falls to be noticed, is that supplied by the Jewish Rabbinical writings—writings composed near to the apostolic age, though subsequent to it, and composed, not in Greek, but in modern Hebrew. These writings consist of two main parts, the Mischna and the Gemara,—the Mischna being the text, viz., of the traditions about the law, and the Gemara the comments of learned men upon it. Two sets of comments grew up around it,—the one earlier, produced by the Palestinian Jews, and called, along with the Mischna, the Jerusalem Talmud; the other, originating with the Chaldean Jews, and forming, with the Mischna, the Babylonian Talmud. It is important to bear in mind the ascertained or probable dates of these productions, in order to determine their relation to the writings of the New Testament. The Mischna being a compilation of traditional lore, may, of course, in many of its parts, be really more ancient than the Gospels; but as it was not committed to writing till the latter half of the second century after Christ, and probably even later than that, (See Prideaux, Connexion, at B. c. 446; Lightfoot’s Opera, i., p. 369.) there can be no certainty as to the actual existence of particular portions of it before that period; and still more does this hold with the Talmudical comments, which were not produced, the one till 300, and the other till 600 years after Christ. “Besides, undoubted traces exist in these writings of references to the events of Gospel history, showing the posteriority of some of the things contained in them to that period; and if some, who can tell how many! They were, it must be remembered, the productions of men who wrote in the profoundest secrecy, and who, though not formally assuming a hostile attitude towards the Christian cause, could not but be conscious of a certain influence from the great events of the Gospel and the writings of apostolic men.

There are few ancient writings extant, perhaps, that contain a larger proportion of what may be called rubbish than these Talmudical productions. Lightfoot speaks of the stupenda inanitas et vafrities of the subjects discussed in them, and says of them generally, nugis ubique scatent. There is the more reason that we should cherish feelings of gratitude and admiration toward him, and such men (in particular the Buxtorfs, Bochart, Vitringa, Surenhusius, Schoettgen,) who, with the simple desire of finding fresh illustrations of the meaning of sacred Scripture, have encountered the enormous labour, and the painful discipline, of mastering such a literature, and culling from it the comparatively few passages which bear on the elucidation of the Word of God. They have undoubtedly, by so doing, rendered important service to the cause of Biblical learning; although it must also be confessed, that a very considerable proportion of the passages adduced might as well have been left in their original quarries, and that some have been turned to uses which have been prejudicial, rather than advantageous, to the right understanding of Scripture. The special benefit derived from them has been in respect to ancient rites and usages, the meaning of Aramaic expressions occasionally occurring in New Testament Scripture, the synagogal institution and worship, and the state of things generally in the closing period of the Jewish commonwealth, to which so many allusions are made. But in respect to the points in which the Scriptures of the New Testament may be said to differ from those of the Old—the doctrines, for example, relating to the person of Messiah, His peculiar office and work, the characteristics of the Christian community, etc. nothing definite can be learned from the Rabbinical sources under consideration. Endless quotations have been made from them, apparently favouring the Christian views; but it were quite easy to match them with others of an opposite description; so that all belonging to this department was evidently but idle talk or free speculation. In regard also to the treatment of Scripture—especially the method of expounding and applying it to things, with which it might seem to have no very direct connexion—this, which Surenhusius (in his Βιβλος Καταλλαγης) and Eisenmenger (in his Entwecktes Judentum) have shown to be so much the practice with the Rabbinical Jews, and which rationalistic interpreters have so often sought to connect also with the writers of the New Testament, must be held to be altogether foreign to the territory of inspiration. It was quite natural to the Talmudists and their followers; for they could find separate meanings not only in every sentence, but in every word, and even letter of Scripture, and in the numerical relations of these to each other. With them, therefore, Scripture admitted of manifold senses and applications, of which some might be ever so remote from the natural import and bearing. But apostles and evangelists belonged to another school; and when they apply Old Testament Scripture to a circumstance or event in Gospel times, it must be in the fair and legitimate sense of the terms; otherwise, their use of it could not be justified as a handling of the Word of God in simplicity and godly sincerity.

We may add, that on points of natural history the Talmuds seem just about as capricious guides as on texts of Scripture. The writers would appear to have wantoned sometimes with the field of nature around them, much as they did with the volume of God’s revelation in their hands; and to have found in it what no one has been able to find but themselves. A fitting specimen of this peculiarity may be seen in the quotations produced by Lightfoot in connexion with the cursing of tjie fruitless fig tree. Among other wonderful things about fig trees there noticed, mention is made of a kind which bore fruit, indeed, every year, though it only came to maturity on the third; so that three crops, in different stages of progress, might be seen on it at once; and on this notable piece of natural history an explanation of the evangelical narrative is presented. In such matters it is greatly safer to trust the accounts of scientific naturalists and travellers than Jewish Rabbis; and when they report the existence of such figs in Palestine, it will be time enough to consider what aid may be derived from the information, to illustrate the narrative referred to. Meanwhile, no great loss is sustained; for the narrative admits, without it, of a perfectly satisfactory explanation.

There are points, however, of another kind, in respect to which this species of learning is not unfrequently applied, not so properly for purposes of elucidation, as with the view of showing how the teaching of the Gospel appropriated to itself elements and forms of instruction already existing in the Jewish schools. Here the question of priority is of some moment; and though the things themselves remain the same, their relative character is materially affected, according as the priority may appear to have belonged to the authors of the Gemara, or to the originators of Christianity. The teaching of our Lord, for example, by parables, is certainly one of the most distinctive features of His public ministry; and, accordingly, when He began more formally to employ it, the Evangelist Matthew saw in it the realization of a prophetic utterance (Matthew 13:35;) nor can anyone attentively read the Gospels, without discerning in the parables the most impressive image of the mind of Jesus. But this impression is apt to be considerably weakened by the array of quotations sometimes produced from those Rabbinical sources, to show how the Jewish teachers delighted in the use of parables, and even exhibiting some of our Lord’s choicest parables as in the main copies of what is found in the Talmud. (Lightfoot, Horæ Heb. on Matthew 6:13; and Schoettgen, Horæ Heb. on Matthew 20:1-34, Matthew 21:1-46, Luke 15:1-32) The same thing has also been done in regard to the Lord’s Prayer; so that not only its commencing address, “Our Father which art in heaven,” but nearly all that follows, is given as a series of extracts from Jewish forms of devotion. Now, this style of exposition proceeds on a gratuitous assumption; it takes for granted that the existing forms in the Talmud were there before they were in the Gospels,—and, of course, that the Rabbinical gave the tone to the Christian, rather than the Christian to the Rabbinical. The reverse is what the palpable facts of the case tend to establish. The prayers of the synagogues before the Christian era were doubtless moulded after the devotional parts of the Old Testament, and to a large extent composed of these. But in none of them does the suppliant, even in his most elevated moments, rise to the filial cry of “My Father in heaven;” it was the distinctive glory of the Gospel to bring in this spirit of adoption; and the theological as well as the historical probability, is in favour of the supposition, that Rabbis here followed in the wake of Jesus, not Jesus in the wake of Rabbis. The same probability holds equally in regard to the parables. The parabolical form, possibly, to some extent appeared among the earlier traditional lore of the Jews; for it is not unknown in Old Testament Scripture; but the parable, such as it is found in the teaching of our Lord, bears on it the impress of originality; and the few straggling specimens that have been produced from Rabbinical sources, nearly identical with those of Christ, may confidently be pronounced to be the echoes of the latter—the productions of men, who were greatly too feeble and puerile to invent, but who had enough of sagacity to imitate. The slaves of the letter and of tradition were not the persons to originate anything new or fresh, not even in form. (Owen, in his Theologoumena, Lib. v., c. 15, Dig. 4, discusses the question of our Lord’s relation to the Talmudical doctors, but chiefly with respect to religious usages and services. He indignantly rejects, however, the idea of a borrowing on the part of Christ.)

III. The more ancient versions maybe mentioned as the next collateral source, from which aid should be sought in endeavouring to ascertain the meaning, and expound the text of New Testament Scripture. Those versions have their primary use, as among the helps for determining the text itself that should be preferred; since they exhibit the one that was preferred at an early period by some, and possibly should still be retained, where there is a variation in the readings. In this respect, however, they can never amount to more than subordinate authorities; since it must ever remain doubtful whether due pains were taken by the translator to obtain a pure text, and doubtful, still further, whether the translation may not to some extent have been tampered with in the course of its transmission to present times. There is necessarily the same kind of relative inferiority adhering to the use of versions in connexion with the import of the original. While, in the simpler class of passages, they could scarcely fail to give the natural meaning of the original, it must still be a matter more or less problematical, how far they did so in those cases where there is some dubiety or difficulty in the passage, and consequently some possibility of the precise import having been misunderstood. Still, considerable weight must always be attached, especially in respect to the meaning of particular words and phrases, to those versions, which were made by competent persons at a time when the original language of the New Testament continued to exist as a living tongue. And of such versions so made, the Vulgate seems entitled to hold the first place. The Vulgate, that is, as it came from the hands of Jerome, and as it appears with probably substantial correctness in the Codex Amiatinus, the oldest MS. of the Vulgate extant, not the common Vulgate of the Romish Church, which in many parts has undergone alteration for the worse. In point of learning and critical tact, Jerome, we have reason to believe, was the most competent man in the ancient Church for executing a translation of the Scriptures; and the version he produced would have been probably as near perfection as the translation of a single individual, and in so early an age, could well be expected to be, if he had been left altogether free to exercise his judgment in the performance of the work. His version of the Old Testament, with the exception of the Psalms, was the unfettered production of his hand; it was made directly from the Hebrew, as he himself testifies once and again, although, as it now exists, it contains not a few accommodations to the Septuagint, and departs from the Hebrew. (See Walton’s Prolegomena, x. c. 9.) But in regard to the New Testament, he professed to do nothing more than fulfil the request of Pope Damasus,—revise the current versions, and select out of them the best; so that, as he said, “he restrained his pen, merely correcting those things which appeared to affect the sense, and permit ting other things to remain as they had been.” What was called the Old Italic, or Latin version, therefore, was simply the current version, in one or other of the forms in which it. existed before it had been the subject of Jerome’s collating and emendatory labours. It now exists only in part, but most fully in the Codex Claromontanus, which is of great antiquity. In some things the rendering contained in it is even prefer able to that adopted by Jerome, and, consequently, where access can be had to it, it is worthy of being consulted. But it is not so properly a distinct version from that of Jerome, as a variation of what became his. And, as a whole, Jerome’s form of the Latin version must be held to be the best. Restrained and limited as his object was, he undoubtedly accomplished much good. And with all the defect of polish that appears in the version that goes by his name, its occasional Hebraisms, the imperfect renderings, and even erroneous representations of the original, sometimes to be met with in it, there can be no doubt that it is in general a faithful translation, and has rendered essential service toward the elucidation of the sacred text.

Some of the blemishes in the Vulgate, especially in the New Testament portion, are obvious, and have often been exposed; such as the pœnitentiam agite, in Matthew 3:2, and other parallel places; Ave gratia plena, Luke 1:28; mortuus est autem et dives, et sepultus est in inferno, Luke 16:22; et (Jacob) adoravit fastigium virgæ ejus, Hebrews 11:21; panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis, Matthew 6:11, etc. And, unfortunately, they are mistranslations which too often afford a sort of handle to the advocates of corruption in the Church of Rome. Yet it is proper also to add, that some of the examples occasionally referred to in that connexion yield no real countenance to those corruptions; and some again, that are more correct than the English translation, which has been exalted to the prejudice of the other. Thus at 1 Peter 3:19, the rendering, in quo et his, qui in carcere erant, spiritibus veniens prædicavit, is substantially correct (though the meaning expressed, of course, may be, and often is, perverted by Romanists to a wrong use,) and the in quo, in which, is more exact than the by which of the authorized version. In not a few cases, indeed, the Vulgate is decidedly more correct than our version in the rendering of prepositions and connecting particles:—as, to refer to one or two examples partly mentioned already in another connexion, ut in nomine Jesu omne genu flectatur, Php 2:10; gratia vobis et pax adimpleatur in cognitione Dei, 2 Peter 1:2; qui vocavit nos propria gloria et virtute, ver. 3; ut impleamini in ornnem plenitudinem Dei, Ephesians 3:19. In these, and many other cases, the Vulgate contrasts favourably with our English version in respect to grammatical precision; and, if judiciously used, it may often be of service in suggesting some of the nicer shades of meaning. It is due also to the memory of Jerome to notice (though it does not belong to the criticism of the New Testament,) that the well-known mistranslation in the authorized Vulgate of Rome, of Genesis 3:15, ipsa conteret caput tuum, which ascribes to the woman the victory over the tempter, and which the Romanists usually apply direct to the Virgin, is a later corruption. The correct reading as given by Vallarsius, runs, ipse conteret caput tuum, and, in a note, he declares this to be beyond doubt the reading established by the authority of MSS. The version next in importance to the Vulgate of Jerome, and undoubtedly prior to it in origin, is the Old Syriac, or Peschito—a production, in all likelihood, of the latter part of the second century. We know nothing of the author of this version (which, however, wants the second Epistle of Peter, the last two of John, Jude, and the Apocalypse;) but without going into the extravagance of Michaelis, who pronounced it “the very best translation of the Greek Testament he had ever read,” we may safely regard it as, in general, a faithful and spirited translation. The chief use, to which it has hitherto been turned, is as a witness in behalf of the genuine text. This may have partly arisen from the Syrian language being so little understood, even by Biblical scholars. They may, however, to some extent, avail themselves of its aid by means of the translations which have been made of it. It has long existed in Latin; and a few years ago the portion containing the Gospels was rendered into English by Mr. Etheridge, ac companied with preliminary dissertations. The remaining versions which, from their age or their fidelity to the original, are entitled to consideration, and calculated to be of occasional service in the work of exposition, are the Ethiopic, the Memphitic, and the Gothic of Ulphilas. The aid, however, to be derived from any of them is extremely limited. Mr. Ellicott, in the preface to his last volume (his Commentary on the Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon) speaks in strong terms of the excellence of the Ethiopic version, and of the satisfaction he has derived from consulting it, since he has been enabled to find his way with some certainty to its meaning. But, in truth, we have so many more helps for getting at the precise import of the Greek New Testament, than for arriving at an intelligent acquaintance with the old Ethiopic version of that Greek, that most people will feel greatly more assured of coming at the object of their search by repairing directly to the original source; nor, with the defective literature of Ethiopia in the early centuries, can such a version—even if it were thoroughly understood—attain to a place of much authority. Its renderings can, at the most, confirm meanings obtained by other and surer lines of investigation. And the same may be said of the Memphitic and Gothic versions. So that, whatever incidental benefits or personal satisfaction the study of such versions may yield, little comparatively can now be expected from them as to the correct understanding of New Testament Scripture.

IV. Among the collateral sources of information, that may be turned to account in the interpretation of New Testament Scripture, we must unquestionably reckon the writings of the earlier Fathers. It is, certainly, but a mixed service they render; since, from the strong tendency among them to allegorical and arbitrary modes of interpretation, if they are not used discriminatingly, they will often prove false guides. They were as a class defective in critical discernment, and that well- poised balance of mind, which in such matters is rarely possessed, excepting as the result of an efficient training in linguistic and critical studies, such as they did not enjoy. Had the earlier Fathers but possessed a little more of the critical faculty, and employed in connexion with it the advantages of their position for the good of the Church in future times, they would have directed their minds particularly to the investigation of the facts and circumstances of the Gospel age, examined with minute care the information that lay within their reach respecting the local and historical allusions in the New Testament, searched into the meaning of all words that in any way bore upon them the peculiar impress of the time, and by philological or antiquarian researches endeavoured to make plain the obscurer passages in the Gospels and Epistles. These, however, are the provinces which they have most thoroughly neglected to cultivate, and in respect to which, apparently, they felt least conscious of any need of special application. We have scarcely left the inspired territory, till we find ourselves involved in the strangest misconceptions even as to matters of fact, and, instead of careful discriminations between fable and history, are presented with a confused jumbling of both together. In what is probably the earliest of sub-apostolic writings extant, one also of the best—the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians—we have the fables about the Danaids and the Phoenix classed with the biographical notices of sacred history, and treated as equally deserving of credit (c. 6, 24.) Justin, in like manner, swallows without a suspicion the-story of Aristeas about the translation of the Septuagint, and even speaks of Herod as having sent to Ptolemy the seventy elders who executed the work; as if the two had been contemporaries! (Apol. c. 31, Exhor. ad Græcos, § 11.) Even in the face of plain statements in the Gospel history to the contrary, he once and again, in his Trypho, represents Jesus as having been born in a cave or grotto. Irenæus falls into mistakes and inanities still more extraordinary; not only ac crediting the senseless tradition of Papias respecting the fruitfulness of the millenial age (B. 5:c. 33,) but also affirming it to have been the teaching of St. John, that our Lord’s person alministry lasted from His thirtieth till His fiftieth year (ii. c. 4, 5.) Even when we come down to the more regular and elaborate expositors of New Testament Scripture, Augustine, Jerome, Chrysostom, while they contain much that deserves, and will repay a careful perusal, they are marvellously deficient on those points in which their comparative proximity to apostolic times, had they known how to avail themselves of its opportunities, should have given them an acknowledged superiority over more distant generations. In respect to dates and places, customs and manners, they knew nothing of the accuracy of our age. Their references to Old Testament affairs contain often the most egregious blunders (of which a striking example will be found in the Dissertation on the Genealogies;) and of the spirit and design of the Old Testament economy, both as a whole, and in its several parts, they are ever evincing the most defective understanding. Not unfrequently, also, in matters connected with the New, we meet with explanations utterly puerile and fantastic; as in the instance produced by Archdeacon Hare from Augustine respecting the gift of the Spirit to the disciples on two distinct occasions—an explanation that turns on the mystical value of numbers—and of which Hare justly remarks:—“The striking thing is, not that the explanation is a bad one, but that it implies an ignorance of what an explanation is, and of the method in which we are to attain it; and the same thing we find perpetually, as well in the Fathers, as in the contemporary grammarians and rhetoricians.” (Mission of the Comforter, p. 312.)

Another thing, that may equally be characterized as striking in the mode of exposition adopted by the Fathers, is the perpetual interchange between the most spiritualistic meanings and the grossest literalism; so that one is puzzled to understand how the same minds that took pleasure in the one could possibly rest satisfied with the other. For example, we have not one merely, but a whole series of the Fathers (Barnabas, Tertullian, Clement Alex., Ambrose, Augustine, etc.,) finding in the letter T, when occurring as a numeral in the Old Testament, an indication of the cross, numbers of all kinds spiritualized, the spring in Eden with its four streams made to signify Christ and the four cardinal virtues (Ambrose de Parad. 3;) and, in short, the principle of Augustine carried out in all directions, “that whatever in Scripture cannot be referred to purity of manners or the realities of faith, is to be understood spiritually” (De Doc. Chris, 3:14.) But, on the other hand, there ever and anon meets us the most literal and fleshly application of the prophecies: if these speak of New Testament things under the images supplied by the Old, of priesthood and sacrifice, they are interpreted to mean things equally outward and earthly still. Some of the Fathers (such as Irenæus, Tertullian, Ambrose, Lactantius,) even carried this species of carnalism into the future world, and held that flesh and blood only in the sense of unregenerate nature, shall not inherit the kingdom of God; but that the bodies of believers—limb for limb, member for member, precisely the same bodies as now—shall be raised up from the dead, and shall regale themselves with corporeal delights (Tert. de Resur. c. 35, Irenæus, 5:9, etc.) This exegetical caprice, which oscillated between two extremes, and inclined to the one or the other as the fancy or exigence of the moment might prompt, unfits the patristic writings for being employed as exegetical guides; and, along with the other defects mentioned, obliges the student at every step to exercise his discretion.

Still, considerable benefit is to be reaped for Scriptural interpretation from the perusal of the more eminent Fathers—although one that we must be content to seek in fragments. To say nothing of the bearing they have on the text of Scripture, the development of Christian doctrine, and the varied evolution of evil and good in the history of the Church, which constitute their chief historical interest, they are valuable for the manifestation they give of mind in the ancient world, when brought into contact with the revelation of God in Christ, and of the effect produced by this in turning the tide of thought and feeling, and directing it into a channel somewhat accordant with the realities of the gospel. Even when the explanations given of Scripture are one-sided and imperfect, they are far from being uninstructive; for, when not absolutely erroneous, they still present one aspect of the truth, which the events and relations of the ancient world served more particularly to call forth. In this respect they contribute an element—often a very important element—to the full understanding of the Divine record. And in writers of the higher class writers like Augustine and Chrysostom—one is continually rewarded with passages, which discover the profoundest insight into the truth of Scripture, and present it to our view in the sharpest outline. The Greek expositors, too, among the fathers, have a value of their own in regard to occasional words and phrases, the precise import of which they not unfrequently enable us to apprehend, or at least to determine, in a way that might otherwise have been impracticable. With all the exceptions, therefore, and serious abatements that require to be made, in regard to the exegetical value of the fathers, there are advantages to be derived from their judicious perusal, which no well-furnished interpreter can dispense with; and however, in certain quarters, their employment may have been pushed to excess, the full and correct knowledge of New Testament Scripture has certainly gained by the revived study of their writings.

V. In the way of collateral sources, nothing further requires to be mentioned, excepting the occasional employment of the various materials, furnished partly by ancient, partly by modern research, which serve to throw light on the historical, social, or geographical allusions of the New Testament. If the earlier Christian writers have done little to supply us with such materials, the deficiency is in a great degree made up by contributions from other quarters. From the nearly stationary character of society in the lands of the East, the manners and usages of the present time, which have been amply illustrated by modern travellers, have brought us almost equally acquainted with those of the Gospel age. All the scenes, too, of Gospel history, not only the places trodden by the footsteps of Jesus, but those hallowed by the labours, the journeyings, and voyages of the apostles, have been with laborious accuracy explored. The chronology of the New Testament has been so frequently and so fully investigated, that the probable period of every event of any moment has been ascertained. And even the local details, and casual occurrences of single chapters—such as Acts 27:1-44—have been verified and explained with a minuteness and fidelity, which leaves nothing further to be desired, (Smith on the Voyage and Ship wreck of St. Paul.) With sources of such a kind the intelligent interpreter of Scripture must make himself familiar; and be prepared at fitting times to use the information, which past care and industry have accumulated. In its own place this is valuable, and, in a sense, indispensable; yet still only as a subsidiary aid; and the work of exposition turns into a wrong channel, when it finds its chief employment in matters of so incidental and circumstantial a kind.