« PreviousContinue »
teproxý éoti, " there is a passage." In page 103, tis åv ein does not
, τίς είη properly come under the head of the simple optative. In page 110, 1 Thess. iii. 3, το μηδένα σαίνεσθαι is clearly a wrong reading for το undeva oaiveoba, and ought not to have been cited, although it occurs in the received text. It is, indeed, scarcely Greek.
. Chapter VIII, is on the particles. In page 129, we fully agree with Mr. Webster in considering ζηλουτε, πληροίς, and φυσιούσθε, after iva, as subjunctives. We cannot but think that insufficient stress is laid upon the influence of the Latin language in extending the use of iva till it became merely equivalent to the loosest ut with the subjunctive. In modern Greek, iva, under the form và, with the subjunctive, has supplanted the infinitive. This, certainly, ought to have been mentioned, as it is the only explanation of several passages, especially in St. John's gospel and epistles. In page 135, vai ought to have been treated of at greater length, and its originally negative siguification exhibited. Is it really certain (page 136) that ouws is ever used in the New Testament ? Mì, interrogative (page 141), may often be well translated, “ is it that;" un o'r kovoar, “is it that they did not hear;" and so forth.
Chapter X. is on synonyms, and supplies a great desideratum. It is well and carefully done, and, after friendly criticism has played its part, will, no doubt, become excellent.. In page 201, Acts xix. 15 ought certainly to have been cited: τον Ιησούν γινώσκω και τον Παύλον éniotauai, " Jesus I recognize [as an authoritative person), and Paul I επίσταμαι, am aware of the existence of."] In page 214, the Roman shield, Ovpeòv, should have been distinguished as such from the rouņd Greek shield, domis. This is, we should think, merely an accidental omission. On Kýpurua (page 217), some allusion should have been made to the folly both talked and written about “the foolishness of preaching," Toû kmpúrquatos (1 Cor. i. 21), on which Hooker has some excellent remarks. In page 226, Origen's definition of a parable should, surely, have been given: λόγος ως περί γινομένου, μη γινομένου μεν κατά το ρητον, δυναμένου δε γινεσθαι. On the distinction between σημεία and Tek peńpia (page 233), we should remark that the simplest way of distinguishing the meanings of the two words is to say that onueia are indications that the thing may be so, or even probably is so, while tekuń pia are indications that the thing must be so.
Chapter XI. consists of “Hints on the Authorized Version." On this, time and space will not allow us to remark further than in general terms of commendation, although we should be slow to translate dè, in Matt. vii., 15, "accordingly." Finally, we have, in Chap. XII., explanations of grammatical and rhetorical terms. And here we find an opinion of Dr. Wordsworth's endorsed by Mr. Webster, against which we should fail in our duty if we did not raise our voice in protest. In the very last paragraph of the book, on Solecisms, we find : “ In the A pocalypse, indeed, there are many expressions for which we cannot account by ordinary rules. But the remark of Dr. Wordsworth is very just : Wherever the reader meets, in the Apocalypse, with a phrase
which seems a solecism, let him take it for granted that it contains some great and solemn truths, and that the singularity of the phrase is designed to call his attention to them.' If the author of the Apocalypse wrote bad grammar in order to draw attention to momentous truths, why was not the same method adopted by the other Apostles and Evangelists? If they did not do so, why should he ? No doubt there are many peculiarities in the New Testament generally, which are necessitated by the novelty of its subject matter, but some of the phenomena in the Apocalypse can only be rationally accounted for by supposing the author less at home in Greek than in some other language. To our mind, Wordsworth’s idea of the employment of bad grammar on principle is one of those affronts to common sense in which theologians have often delighted, but which are entirely out of place in a grammar, and which we regret to see adopted by one of whose work we think otherwise so well, as we do of Mr. Webster's. Assuming the author of the Apocalypse to be identical with that of the Gospel and Epistles of St. John, we should be rather inclined to suppose that in the solecisms of the Apocalypse we have St. John's Greek more nearly as he habitually wrote and spoke it, whereas he had the gospel and epistles completely revised by a friend, who was a competent Greek scholar, preparatory to publication. God almost always makes use of ordinary mechanical means and applications, where such are to be bad, so that this would be no derogation from the authority and inspiration of the writings in question. Indeed, the flaws of the earthern vessels which contain the gospel and its accompanying revelations, do but exhibit more grandly the greatness of its victory over the wisdom and learning of the world. (St. Paul's opelov åtokoyuvra in Gal. v. 12, is a solecism, to which we find no allusion in the work under review).
In conclusion, let us express our hearty thanks to Mr. Webster for his excellent and well-timed work, and bid him farewell with our best wishes.
The Bible in the Church. A popular account of the collection and
A reception of the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Churches. By
Brooke Foss Westcott, M.A. London: Macmillan and Co. In this small volume, Mr. Westcott has collected and set out in a popular form the principal facts concerning the history of the canon of Scripture. The introduction contains a series of useful observations, which should not be passed over without perusal. The chapters which follow are thus designated: 1. The Bible in the Apostolic Age; 2. The growth of the New Testament ; 3. The Apostolic Fathers; 4. The Age of the Apologists; 5. The Christian Bible; 6. The Bible Proscribed and Restored ; 7. The Age of Jerome and Augustine; 8. The Bible of the Middle Ages in the West; 9. The Bible of the Middle Ages in the East ; 10. The Bible in the Sixteenth century. The appendix contains notices of the History of the Canon of the Old Testament before the Christian era, and of the most ancient MSS. of the Christian Bible. The work is executed with Mr. Westcott's characteristic ability. At p. 233, there is a list of the contents of the ancient Syriac MS. of the Bible now at Cambridge; and it is said that “the number of words in each book is given at the end." This is not quite correct. The pethgomé bere called “words' are no doubt the portions into which the books are divided by the punctuation : e.g. Proverbs, 1463 ; Ecclesiastes, 627. We find similar sets of numbers in other manscripts and printed copies. Thus the Bible Society's edition has them at the end of the books, and at the beginnings of the separate Psalms. The two books of Chronicles (the number is lost in the Cambridge copy) contain 5630 pethgomé. We examined some of the Psalms lately in reference to these divisions, and found that the pethgomé corresponded with the stichometrical arrangement of the Greek manuscripts. For example, the last Psalm contains eleven pethgomé, and is divided into eleven portions or lines by means of the points. It sometimes happens that the punctuation or the numeral is wrong, and then the numbers and lines do not correspond. Some of the Older Greek MSS. in like manner give at the end of the books the number of στιχοι. Our only reason for calling attention to this matter is, that the Syriac pethgomé (q.d. poerypata) point to an ancient arrangement of the text, and might prove serviceable to the critics. If they could be restored they would possibly shew whether any clauses have been added to the text or taken from it since the numeration was adopted. With regard also to this valuable Cambridge MS., if it is not later than the eighth century, are 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude, in as ancient a band as the rest of the volume? We suppose they are, as the Clementine constitutions follow them; but it is so long since we saw the codex that we forget the impression we received in regard to its antiquity.
What I saw in Syria, Palestine, and Greece. A narrative from the
Pulpit. By S. Smith, M.A. London: Longmans. 1864. Tuis volume contains what we must call twelve sermons, with an appendix, two small maps, and two outline plans of Jerusalem. The author wintered at Beyrout, and then set out to see some of the more interesting sites of the Holy Land. He proceeded first by way of Sidon, Tyre, and Accho, to Mount Carmel. From Carmel he went to Nazareth and Tiberias, and then southward through Shechem to Jerusalem. After this he visited Bethlehem and Hebron, then back to Jerusalem and on to Jaffa. From Jaffa he took ship, and having landed at Beyrout, made an excursion to Damascus and Baalbec. Turning westward to Tripoli, he sailed by Rhodes and Patmos to Smyrna and Athens. Of the places mentioned the descriptions are very brief; they are in fact principally treated of in view of Scripture statements regarding them. The succesive discourses are nevertheless agreeably written, and were calculated to edify the congregation who listened to them. In their published form they will no doubt interest plain people, to whom, rather than to students, they are chiefly addressed. In the appendix, Mr. Smith advocates the opinion that the Holy Rock
where Christ was buried is within the Haram enclosure. lle adds a note on the river Adonis, and other notes on the Man of Sin and the personal coming of Christ. The author's object has been a practical one, and his book is therefore practical.
Horeb and Jerusalem. By the Rev. GEORGE SANDIE. Edinburgh :
Edmonston and Douglas. The author travelled from Alexandria to Sinai and back again. He then proceeded by sea to Joppa and on to Jerusalem. While in Egypt be made an excursion to the Pyramids and Memphis. His book is vigorously written ; but, taking all the facts into consideration, we should say it is too positive in its tone. When old experienced students and explorers stand in doubt, and speak with reserve in presence of the chief problems here discussed, it seems strange that a new author, after a few weeks' travel, should feel able to speak like an oracle. This applies to the question of the true Sinai, and the true Calvary and Holy Sepulchre. As to the former, Mr. Sandie decides in favour of Jebel Mousa; as for the latter, he decides that they were on the eastern side of Jerusalem, within the area of the present area of the Haram-es-Sherif. He says this area was once divided by a valley running east and west. Students of Biblical topography should read
. this book.
A Winter in Upper and Lower Egypt. By G. A. Hoskins, Esq.,
F.R.G.S. London: Hurst and Blackett. There is a great deal that is very interesting in this book, for although the author does not exbibit the literary or the scientific accuracy and diligence of some of our Egyptologers, he tells a straightforward story, and embodies in it a good many facts which will be acceptable both to the student and the general reader. The journey here narrated was taken in 1860-61, and Mr. Hoskins had the advantage of having previously visited and sojourned in the land of Ham. On this occasion he visited Suez, and traversed the valley of the Nile as far as the second cataract. Stay-at-home travellers will find in the volume both amusement and instruction, and actual travellers will not do amiss to find room for it, as it will certainly be a useful companion as well as an agreeable one. We
e are very sorry to learn that the most beautiful and curious remains of antiquity in Egypt are constantly defaced and destroyed by visitors and others. We may add, that Mr. Hoskins frequently speaks of himself as an invalid, and that since we wrote the preceding notes, we have heard of his death.
A Neglected Fact in English History. By HIENRY CHARLES Coote, ,
F.S.A. London: Bell and Daldy. The neglected fact to which Mr. Coote calls attention in his learned book is, that the civilization of the Anglo-Saxons embodied the essentialelements of that of Roman Britain. He is right; we recently had to make an investigation in our early history, and we were conducted to a similar conclusion. The Romano-Britons were not exterminated, but to a great extent incorporated in the new nation wbich arose out of the Saxon settlements and conquests. Our author proves his point by a large induction of curious facts, from which he makes it appear that the Saxons were greatly indebted to the institutions which they found already existing in the country. His illustrations are partly legal, and partly relating to social life, and even to some extent to religion. To one of the latter we may give a moment's attention, as it concerns a word about which the editor of this Journal was consulted by Mr. Coote, who very handsomely acknowledges a trifling service. The Anglo-Saxons called baptism fulluht, or perfection, a fact which led the author to suspect that it was a translation of an older word used by the Christians of Roman Britain, and probably of one in Greek or Latin. The question then was, did the Greeks or Romans of the early Church use such a word for baptism? In reply we shewed that the Greeks so used teelow and Telelors, and the Latins perficere. Since then we have found something similar among the Nestorians in Western Asia, and the ancient Christians of Malabar. They both of them (as is shewn by documents quoted in Assimani's Bibliotheca Orientalis) used a Syriac phrase equivalent to “N. is baptized and perfected." We have met with much the same phraseology elsewhere, but the reference escapes us. The extensive prevalence of British and Roman names of places in England down to our own day, supplies another proof that the Anglo-Saxons often adopted what they found already existing. Such of our readers as have an antiquarian taste will be gratified and instructed by this book, which although not such as we are wont to review at length in our pages, is one we are happy to meet with. The diligence of the author is most praiseworthy, and we may safely say that if he has produced what we have called a learned book, he has produced one which will shew that while we may justly be proud of our Anglo-Saxon name, we are none the less entitled to call ourselves Britons.
On Shakspeare's Knowledge and Use of the Bible. By CHARLES
WORDSWORTH, D.C.L., Bishop of St. Andrew's. London: Smith,
Elder, and Co. 1864. The chief value of books of this sort is to shew that Shakspeare had a considerable knowledge of Scripture. The language he puts into the mouth of his characters can hardly be supposed to represent his own opinions, and still less to furnish any clue to his practice. The Right Reverend author of this volume seems to think a little differently. He may, however, be mistaken in this, as he certainly is in his belief that the ground he takes was previously quite unoccupied. There is a
Bibl. Or., vol. 3, pt. 2, p. 243, 255.