INTRODUCTION. SECTION L The Bible an Eastern Book-A Revelation from Heaven-Designed for all Nations-The Ne cessity of Biblical Science. While it ought to be borne in mind that the Bible is strictly an Eastern book, written in Eastern lands, and by Orientals; at the same time the devout student will remember that it is a Revelation from heaven, designed for the spiritual education of the family of man, of all varieties of talent and training, in every geographical position. It is therefore a matter of fact that the Scriptures, given in all their parts by Inspiration of God, are so wonderfully composed as to interest all classes; the child feels himself to be spoken to in them, and the philosopher finds materials there for subsequent meditation. Such a book must accordingly embrace within itself a great variety of characteristics, which are adapted to the diverse states of its readers. The same expression that is well fitted for one mind is not so well adapted to a different mind, and thus what is clear to the former is often Obscure to the latter. Yet the several apparent obscurities do not arise from anything really dark or mysterious in the inspired volume; but from the modes of life and peculiar circumstances connected with the people of the East, of which we, who inhabit a different The books which Oriental travellers have written; particularly from Maundrell, Shaw, Hasselquist, Volney, Niebuhr, Seetzen, Burckhardt, Irby and Mangles, Olin, Wilson, Lynch, Williams, Van de Velde, Barclay, Dr. E. Robinson, Thompson, Porter, Stanley, Palmer, Tristram, M. Clermont-Ganneau, the "ReWarren, the volumes of the Palestine Explocovery of Jerusalem," by Captains Wilson and ration Fund; and those of Loftus, Layard, and Mr. G. Smith, on Nineveh and Babylon, and the neighbouring countries. inhabitants of those countries remain, in many respects, in nearly the same situation with that of their progenitors, and the influence of climate and of natural scenery upon them, is altogether unchanged. A man therefore can experience scenes at the present day in the East, which correspond very strikingly with the scenes described in the book of Genesis. The resemblance, however, between the Hebrew life and the life of other Eastern nations, in not in all particulars complete. The great difference of the Hebrew religion from the religion of other countries, introduced a corresponding diversity in their respective habits. From a want of consideration in this particular, it not unfrequently happens that travellers, who derive their first notions of the East from among the Scriptures, when they come an Oriental people, are too ready to set down as region, and are placed in different circum-specifically Hebrew some of the more striking stances, have very imperfect conceptions. usages which attract their notice; whereas, Hence, many passages in the sacred volume will remain obscure to the reader who is unacquainted with Biblical Literature. As the Hebrews were an Oriental people, their character and state may be illustrated in various particulars, by the descriptions of the whole Eastern world, The Bible student can therefore derive profit from reading the 5 in fact, they are generically Oriental, and are Hebrew also merely because the Hebrews were an Oriental people, and had Oriental habits and usages. While it is true that the people of the East are seldom given to change, a moment's reflection will also satisfy us, that there were rumerous objects in ancient Palestine which B have no existence here. The great objects of nature are indeed the same as ours, or altogether analogous. But the appearance of even these objects in some respects varied from ours. Then as to climate, soil, productions, the arts of life, the pursuits of industry, the modes of living, houses, clothing, utensils, manners and customs, amusements, religious rites, government, state of society, literature, modes of education and philosophizing-these and a thousand other things of a like nature, made ancient Palestine as it were another world, almost entirely different from ours. All their language, as Professor Stuart has well observed, all its nice and delicate and expressive colouring and shades, was formed in the midst of objects exceedingly different from our own. We can scarcely venture, as to the objects of nature and art-a very few only excepted,to suppose that we can now give a translation wholly adequate to express the idea which an ancient Hebrew entertained, when he made use of terms to designate these objects as they then existed, and as they were viewed by his own mind. One set of terms,-the names of objects that have never existed among us, we cannot translate; all we can do is to transfer them, and throw the explanation into comments. It is thus that we have and must have the Hebrew shekel, ephah, ephod, hin, etc.; so the Persic daric, pahha, etc; also the Greek talent, centurion, tetrarch, etc,; and the Roman consul, tribune, aedile, procurator, præfect, etc. We may Anglicize the form of some of these words, when we transfer them, translate them we never can. But why? For the simplest of all reasons; and this is, that never having had occasion to form words expressive of such objects, we have never coined any words for this purpose. Neither could we translate the terms gun-powder, muskets, cannon, steam-boats, air-pumps, into the ancient Hebrew, Greek, or Latin languages, inasmuch as those nations had not these objects, and consequently had not the words to designate them. Every people coins just as many words as necessity or convenience calls for, and no more. Now, if the well trained scholar, whose knowledge of antiquity is minute and extensive, finds difficulties in the way of comprehending many words designating the objects we have just noticed, how must it fare with the simplehearted believer whose chief delight is in the oracles of God, but who has never had anything like a previous training? Indeed, it is a most obvious truth, that all which critical and philological helps of every kind and name that may now be furnished, can achieve, is only to place him who makes use of them in a condition, as it were, of a native Hebrew in the days of the prophets. To the Hebrews all our present critical apparatus, or anything like it, was unnecessary, and would have been almost unmeaning. Moreover, as the Bible is a Divine Revelation, designed for the instruction of all nations, it has to be translated into the several spoken languages; and certainly no book was ever written so capable of universal translation as the Inspired Records. Even the difficulties in the way of translating many words form no real hindrance to our understanding the will of God concerning us; but our acquaintance with Biblical Science will obviate many of these, and materially contribute to our better understanding of the Sacred Records. It is obvious that when historians wrote, and psalmists sung, and prophets preached or predicted, they doubtless did so with the design of being understood. They uttered what they themselves understood; and, judging from the laws of language and of the human mind, we may say with confidence that their hearers and readers could understand them, at least they could do this as well as our public now understand the writers and speakers of the present day. The very fact that Divine Revelation came to the Hebrew writers, in the first instance, in an oral form, though in successive portions, confirms the statement that that which is revealed must have been designed to be intelligible, and what is intelligible must be spoken or written in accordance with the ordinary usage of language; and, undoubtedly, what was intelligible to the first recipients of revelation, is designed to be equally understood by all people, and is equally capable of being transfused into the languages of every kindred, tribe, and nation. What, then, is the nature of the wide circle of knowledge which is requisite for the interpreter to stand in the position of a native of Palestine when the Scriptures were written, and at the same time, to enable him to grasp the further advantages resulting from the experience of centuries? The proper answer to this question resolves itself into a variety of particulars, and covers the whole ground embraced by Biblical Science. A general outline of the nature, the extent, and the importance of the studies embraced under the appellation of Biblical Science may properly have a place in this Introduction. SECTION II. The great requisite, which, indeed, lies at II. The Hebrew, retained in the family of Heber, and also spoken by the Canaanites. It would thus appear that the Hebrew language occupies a central point amidst all the branches of this family, as well with reference to the geographical position in which it was spoken, as with reference to the degree of development to which it attained. Here belong also the later Hebrew, or Talmudic and Rabbinic dialect; which, however, is again intermingled with Aramaean." III. The Arabic language, of which the Ethiopic is an early secondary branch. So also the Himyaritic, the relics of which, found on the Sinaitic inscriptions, Professor Tuch supposes to have been the work of heathen Arab tribes, who were accustomed to meet at certain seasons in order to celebrate a festival. From the Arabic we have again the later half-corrupted Moorish and Maltese dialects, and from the Ethiopic we have the Amharic. Finally, it is proper to mention here those languages out of which, though not indeed kindred with the Hebrew, single words have been adopted, and, with slight changes, naturalised in the Hebrew. The Hebrew language belongs to the Shemitic, or, as it is sometimes called, the SyroArabian, or Oriental family of languages: which, if it be not the most ancient language, is certainly the oldest form of human speech with which we are acquainted. The Old Testament has come down to us in this language, with a few passages of Chaldee interspersed. The square character in which the Hebrew Scriptures are written, was probably a gradual formation from the more ancientnow called the Samaritan-character, modifled in the course of time by Aramaean influence, but not generally prevalent till after the second or third century of the Christian era. The Hebrew Scriptures are a collection of valuable relics of antiquity; and a considerable portion of them have descended from ages from which we have scarcely any other monuments. In this view they present a field of research at once unbounded in extent, and luxuriant in its productions. But as the ancient Hebrew has been a dead language for more than 2000 years, it is evident that a great number of words, which once belonged to this language, are utterly lost. Almost its only remains are contained in the Bible; and even these are naturally only fragmentary. Hence the necessity of appealing to the Oriental languages kindred with the Hebrew, in order to supply, though in an imperfect manner, the deficiencies arising from its incompleteness. The Shemitic stock of languages-the writing of which was from left to right, as with Ing of which was generally from right to left may be divided, in general, into three principal branches: I The Aramazan, which may be subdivided into the Chaldaic, or East Aramaean, which was anciently spoken by some of the tribes in Assyria, Babylonia, and Mesopotamia, and afterwards received accessions from the Aryan family-the Persian, which was almost identical with that of the Medes. And the Syriac, or West Aramaean, spoken in Syria and Phenicia, to which belonged the Punic spoken at Carthage. The existing relics in the dialects of the Samaritans, Zabians, and of Palmyra, also belong to the Aramaean branch, 1. The ancient Egyptian language must be investigated; and this is coming more and more to light, partly through the Coptic, its principal daughter, and partly through the deciphering of the hieroglyphic inscriptions on the ancient Egyptian monuments. The similarity of the Egyptian language to the languages of western Asia is striking in many points. Sometimes it agrees with the Hebrew, when that differs from the Aramaean and the Coptic. At other times it agrees with these where they differ from the Hebrew. The words adopted from it into the Hebrew Scriptures relate chiefly to Egyptian objects, and were probably introduced during the sojourn of the Hebrews in Egypt. 2. The ancient Persian language-the writ Aryan nations generally-in the old dialects of the Zend, Pelhvi, Parsi, and the Median, from which many proper names and appellatives were adopted into the Hebrew Scriptures, during the Persian dominion. Though these ancient dialects are only imperfectly known, still the progress in the interpretation of the ancient cuneiform inscriptions has shown that illustrations of such words as occur in the Bible may be drawn from these sources The same is the case with many Assyrian and Babylonian names and appellatives, which belong without doubt to the same stock. |