Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

gather from the view some seeds of hope for the future wellbeing of the race. His language too shows a remarkable similarity to the ancient. Striking changes have indeed been made, but fewer than in the Italian compared with the Latin, and we think we speak within limits in saying that the educated Greek ladies will read Plato and Euripides as easily as ours can read Chaucer.

As to the pronunciation of modern Greek, much has been said, but we are not prepared even to state the question fully. We close with a single remark of Mr. Gifford. "It is hard to believe that the present pronunciation can be the same as the ancient; for besides the penury of sounds with which it narrows the language, we have at least one instance in which ancient authority seems to contradict modern practice; for an Aristophanic fragment talks of the Bn, ẞn nooßarov Bλnxnba, ba, the bleating of sheep; and we can witness that the modern sheep of Greece pronounce the B with as much distinctness as those of Salisbury plain. Nor can I give much credence to a system which reduces the noλughóloßoio of Homer, a sound which we heard the sea itself articulating on the shores of Pylos, into pollyfleesveeo."

6

ARTICLE IX.

REVIEW OF NORDHEIMER'S HEBREW CONCORDANCE.

By Tayler Lewis, Esq., Professor of Greek in the University of New York.

אוצר לשון הקדש

A Complete Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance to the Old Testament, comprising also a condensed Hebrew-English Lexicon, with an Introduction and Appendices. By Dr. Isaac Nordheimer, Professor of Oriental Languages in the University of the city of New-York, assisted by William W. Turner. Part First, . New-York: Wiley & Putnam.

E.

BISHOP HORSELEY has somewhere expressed the opinion, that a careful study of parallel passages, even as they are imperfectly given in King James's Bible, would impart to a plain unlettered man, a better knowledge of Scriptural truth, than could be

acquired by one of far superior literary attainments, but who should neglect the simple though powerful means, which the other had employed. If this be true in respect to so imperfect a process as the collation of parallel passages in our common version, or of the remote points of resemblance exhibited by an English concordance, how much more might be expected from the constant use of so powerful an auxiliary, as a finished and copious index of the original words of inspiration? Were it a new vocabulary, furnishing only concise references to all the passages, or a mere numerical list of texts, it would be, in fact, of more value, than the most accredited lexicon without it, and more deserving of a place in every clergyman's library. It might even be maintained, that in a certain stage of the student's course, and after he had become moderately familiar with the language, it would absolutely be better to deprive him for a season of his separate lexicon, and throw him upon the forced exercise of his own powers, in studying by the concordance, and determining the primary senses of words, from a careful observation of those associations which it presents. In fact no commentary, translation, or lexicon can supply its place. In the language of the author's prospectus, "it can teach nothing but what is true." It may be styled a self interpreting lexicon. It guides to the knowledge of the Hebrew, through a process similar to that, by which we become familiar with our own tongue. Very few, comparatively, of the words we meet with in English authors have ever been examined by the aid of a dictionary, or directly explained to us by oral teaching, and yet we feel as much confidence in our knowledge of their correct application, as though one or the other of these means had been in every case employed. The understanding of a word is something more than a knowledge of its separate meanings, as remembered from a lexicon. It is not only true of connecting and qualifying particles, but also of all parts of speech, except the lowest class of nouns, that their whole meaning cannot be felt, or correctly given, when viewed as standing alone. We meddle not here with the grave philosophical question, whether general terms, even when directly contemplated by the mind, do ever present an independent conception of their own. There can be no doubt, however, that in ordinary reading and conversation, abstract terms of any kind, can only be said to be understood, by an apprehension of the fitness of their connection with the other members of a proposi

tion. We recognise them rather by their company, than by their individual features. The primary sense, or what may be styled the spirit of a word, is not directly made an object of thought, without a special effort of abstraction; and yet this spirit of the word, although not distinctly exhibited in the forms of conscious intelligence, may be ever present to the soul, actively exercised in determining the fitness, or detecting the incoherence, of the terms employed. When this is the case in respect to a foreign language, the words may be said to be understood. Without this, their various secondary meanings are only remembered from the lexicon, and blunders of every kind may be committed, in determining which of them, whilst it maintains the primary sense, best coheres with the connection. in each particular example. This apprehension of the spirit of words is the result of an habitual observation of the company in which they are found, and of the associations with which they are most naturally connected. In the use of our own native words we are engaged in this discipline from infancy, and in consequence of familiarity, are not distinctly aware of the great variety of secondary senses in which single terms are employed. To a foreigner, who takes them at first, only as separate remembered senses from a lexicon, without the connecting soul of their primary idea, they convey the impression of confused and arbitrary diversity,-an impression similar to that which we derive, when learning the words of another language, and relying, as we necessarily must do at first, simply upon authority. In the case of a dead or foreign tongue, the concordance furnishes the means, by which the length of this process is shortened, and its results condensed. In respect to single words, it performs in a few hours, what in a course of reading alone, would require the critical observation of years. - It does not merely give us a confused array of all possible meanings, leading to all possible interpretations, and adapted to the exigency of every dogma that seeks their support, but familiarizes the mind with the spirit of the word,-presents at a glance the one primary sensible image or action, which forms the uniting bond of all its various uses, and thus enables us to determine with confidence what is intended in each particular connection.

But few persons, comparatively, can be expected to become. such thorough masters of the Hebrew, as to be able to read every portion of the Old Testament Scriptures with ease, and thus to make it their sole and daily medium of communication SECOND SERIES, NOL. VII. NO. II.

19

with the inspired volume. Without the aid of a concordance, however, nothing less than this will render their knowledge of the language, in a critical point of view, much more than a mere reliance upon authority. After all, the lexicon is only substituted for the translation. The spirit of the language is not caught. The student has not attained to that familiarity with its idioms, its usus loquendi, its modes of conception, which alone can place him in a situation approximating to that of the ancient writer, or so bring the words to his mind in habitual connection with their primary associations, that he can feel assured, that he has grasped the true and only meaning, which in any particular passage was intended. Laborious study, and constant reading for many years, can alone impart this tact in criticism, and elevate the student above the mere pupil of authority.

Perhaps no cause has given rise to more frigid and forced interpretations, than that mere knowledge of lexicons, which stops short of what we have styled the spirit of a language,-or such a degree of familiarity as extends not merely to the outward expression, and its various possible meanings, but to the subjective state of mind, from whence its particular applications arise. A simple-minded reliance upon an accredited version, is a much safer guide to a sound and practical knowledge of the sacred volume.

We will illustrate our meaning by supposing a person to be able to read, with tolerable facility, the Greek Testament. He may have made the acquisition in some theological institute, from which classical learning is excluded; or it may be the only cherished remains of his academical course, or the result of a laudable desire in later life to understand the primary channels of inspiration. Such an one may feel a high degree of satisfaction, in being able thus to read the Bible in its original language; but after all, it may admit of much doubt, whether, without something more, the acquisition is really of any great value. If it engender a superficial critical spirit, it may be worse than useless. He has only connected the familiar ideas received from the early reading of the Scriptures, with certain Greek words, suggesting not so much their own native primary conceptions, as the corresponding English words of the transla tion, or the lexicographer. The whole exercise of reading, instead of being a spontaneous flow of thought, springing up directly from the original fountain in all its native freshness and

purity, is nothing more than an habitual exercise of memory. He is as dependent upon the authority of the lexicon, as the more unlearned reader is upon that of the translation. It is difficult to conceive what great benefit there is in all this. In a difficult passage he can learnedly appeal to Schneider, or Robinson, or Parkhurst, or Passow; but why not as well rely at once upon those scholars, in all respects equal to Schneider or Parkhurst, who made our excellent English version?

These remarks apply equally to some who may be regarded as tolerable Hebraists. In neither case can it be said, that the language is known. The words are only remembered. In the polemics of theology, such scholars often make the greatest show of learning; but it all consists in arraying one critical authority against another, or in skilfully picking out from the long series of meanings in a lexicon, that one, which the exigency of a certain dogma demands. Abundant proof of the truth of these remarks, may be found in those interminable logomachies, which half-learned controversialists have engaged in, on the famous word ẞantigo, in those exceedingly critical tracts on the prepositions is and anò in the New Testament,-in those endless discussions on the language of Scripture in respect to slavery, or that most absurd controversy which is now so gravely termed the wine question. Of what great consequence is it, to know what doulos or may possibly include or exclude in certain associations? Why should such vast importance be attached to some particular meanings, which may be given to these words by Schneider or Gesenius? A faithful examination by the con cordance not only puts an end at once to the whole controversy, but causes the candid investigator to wonder that such a contest should ever have arisen. It does so, by placing at once before us the most important means of information,―means on which the lexicographers themselves depended, and requires only the aid of the same native criticism, which we habitually employ in detecting the misapplication of our own native words.

In the present state of our clergy, but comparatively a small portion can be expected to attain to a high degree of eminence in those classical and oriental languages, which are deemed necessary to a critical understanding of all parts of the sacred volume. Even those, who have laid a good foundation in the theological seminary, find such to be the pressure of their subsequent duties, that the utmost they can expect, is to retain the imperfect knowledge which they may have acquired. The

« PoprzedniaDalej »