The sun., 1884-02-24

with regard to tho evangelists In particular.
that according to Prof. Toy Matthew cites
generally. possibly always. from an Aramaic
version" that Mark usually quotes from the
Septuag that Luke also follows the Septua-
gint as rule though he seems occasionally In
fuenced by Aramaic renderings. and that
John texcept perhaps in one instancel confines
himself to the Greek translation as was nat
ural In one writing for a non-Jewish public"
Now. word as to the inaccuracy often OBJ
served to characterize quotations from tho
Hebrew Scriptures. and as to tho extreme lat-
tude of Interpretation In which the authors Of
the New Testament occasionally y indulged. The
failure to reproduce passages with literal prec-
sion s TO limited extent explicable by the habit
OF quoting from memory. a consequence Csk the
rareness. and. In the case OF citations from the
Aramaic, the probable non existence Of writ
ton version. But the dellections from strict
verbal accuracy. like the apparent perver-
sions OF the obvious meaning of words.
are mainly duo to the peculiar Ideas
OF Interpretation which then prevailed.
The hermeneutcal or oxcgctcal principles.
followed alike by the contributors to the Tai
mud the authors OF the New Testament. and
the Patrlsto writers. allowed them to bring
out OF the Scripture text any meaning that The
cords could possibly De mate 10 bear" Starting
with such n conception Of the nature and limits
of legitimate cxogesis. they would naturally
throw In words or give turns to expressions
that would bring out the ideas they supposed
to bo contained in the text" Interpretation
would thus take according To the conviction or
aim of the particular eXpounler. the direction
OF rigid litcralness. or Of the vagucst symbol
ism and most extravagant allcgory-
directions which. though thoy seem mu.
tually contradictory, are In truth equally
conciliable with the rabbnica view OF exegeti-
cal license. Prof Toy il far from maintaining
that there was my Intentional alteration of
the sense OF the Scriptures" or any trace OF
deliberate purpose to misstnte the meaning
Of quotations" But the change in the sense
produced by alteration Of the words was often
not the less material because II was unde-
signel. nor is the distortion of the plain mean
ing Of a passage BY iestimate methods of eX-
egess any the less profound and the less IA
grant and inadmissibe because it was brought
about with the most edifyinE intentions.
Not only was the eXegetical method applied
to the documents of tho Old Covenant by the
composers of the Gospels and Epistles ESSEN
italy identical with that exhibited in the
Ta,mud. but they were peculiarly disuuali-
fled for the historical. scientific mode OF in
terpretation which must be impartially
required OF all studcnts-no matter how pro-
lpuuu anu itlUlul tHoH TcllsipuS VI
how intense their purifying power-by the
special form Of their Messianic belief: that Is
to say. in the language OF Prof Toy. by tho
fact that for them las was not the case with the
Jewish eXpounders Of the Scriptures) the
Messiah had already appeared. and his earthly
career was known" With the New Testament
writer's the discovery OF apt Messianic illusions
was immensely stimulated by the assumption
that they had bofore them the Messiahs life.
All the important events OF this life they be-
level. wero predicted in the Scriptures. and
they were not loft merely to surmise that such
and such passages were af Massianic import {:
knowing tho events OF the Chrst's earthly
career they coulG compare them with the Old
Testament. and ind the anticipation Of thom
in the prophets" Indeed. during the first and
perhaps we nigh, safely add the second CON
tury tho stress Of tho arguments OF Christian
arologistS WAS laid. not upon miracles. for OF
these tho PECAN slperstitions woro lavish. oi on
tho ethical soundness and beauty of the teach
in.s Of Jesus. for hero they wou.i have had to
prove just how much was superaddcd to tho
Hebrew scheme OF morals and also to vie with
that stole philosophy which went far to satisfy
such men rs Epictetus. Seneca. and Marcus
Aurolius. bat on the alleged fulfilment OF He-
brew prophecy in the life OF the Christ. With
their fundamental ostulates and spec .nc aims.
| it was not to be expected that any attompt
| would be made to fix the historical sense OF
| the Bible with precision. The deeper the rev.
| erence for the departed Lord unG the divi, o
| Word the greater the disposition to and Him
everywhere"
But however natural it may have boon for
| that time and for those men to have honest
| ly applied mistaken principles and pro-
cesses Of exegesis. the author Of the book be-
| fore us does not shrink from declaring
boldly that 1t is the duty of modern
| scholars to Judge the New Testament
| writer's by the strirtest rules OF gram
mntical and historical exposition" Nor
| would he pursue any other method with the
Scriptural citations OF him whose words are
most sacred. Jesus himself. the essence OF
| whose life and ut.erances is truth" And sum
! ming up his view Of this subject Prof. Toy does
not hesitate to affirm that while Jesus. 'as
teacher Of spiritual truth. sent from God and
| full Of God is universal, yet as logician and
| critic. he belongs TO his own times. We may
safely" lie nd1s. appeal to him for support
when wc say that true reverence for his per
son and teaching Is not incompatible with tho
most thorough and independent investigation
Of his words. II the question were o
the date AID auth OF q psalm. can ",
doubt that he would say. Follow the tsach:n4
Of sound science. and not tho jewish tradition.
| Let uS now eyemplify the procssses and out
como Of Prof. Toy y scrutiny of the New Testa
ment quotations in detail. 10y looking at some o
those excerpts from the Hebrew Scriptures
which tho cvaDgelists believed to have
special boaring the life and mission o
Jcsus. We read for instance Matt. H.. %
that Ho shall be caod n Nazarone." No sue
affirmation is 10 be found In the O!d Tcsta,len
or in any known apocryphal book. The onl
plausible explanation of the passage is that OF
fered by Prof. Toy namely. that the Ne'
Testament writer intended no reference t
, any particular words in the Hebrew Scrip
lures. but meant 10 sum up the signilcanc
Of all Its statements relative to tho Mes
siah. But this. OF course. does not justify I'll
, presentation OF the assertion as n definite pro