Page images

cessary relation to the nature of the animals themselves. In his Sacred Geography, too, the scarcity of other evidence would naturally lead bim to attach undue importance to that derived from etymology. He is rather to be pitied than blamed for this erroneous predilection, although it must be admitted that it detracts in no small degree from the utility of his labours to those who would build upon surer ground.

As an interpreter of Scripture, BOCHART is, to say the least, respectable. His general views of the rules of interpretation, are, with the exception of his attachment to etymology, for the most part good. Many of the most important of these rules are clearly stated and well defended in different parts of his writings; (j) and most of them are well exemplified in the Preface to the Hierozoicon, where he was forced to study brevity. (k) But he is by no means consistent ar uniform in his adherence to those rules.

His conclusions are sometimes hastily or incorrectly drawn, or founded on insufficient premises. A partial glance at the evidence before him seems to have seized upon the most prominent, while other portions, conjointly of more importance, are passed over. (1)

(j) The reasons against an allegorical interpretation of the history of the temptation of Eve are well stated, De Serpente Tentatore. Opp. III. 933; those against interpretation from the event, p. 836 ;-against forcing tropes, 860. In the same piece, the determining of the scope of a passage from its context is well exemplified, p. 904; and the means of ascertaining the usus loquendi are ably applied, p. 906.

(k) Let any one compare BOCHART's interpretation of Prov. vii. 22. (Hieroz. P. 1. Lib. lll. c. lvi. fin.) and his happy conjecture respecting the present reading of the Septuagint in that passage, with MICHAELIS’article on the same passage ; Suppl. ad Lex. Heb. 1898, and the manifest superiority of the former, will show the high ground which he at least occasionally takes as a biblical interpreter.

(1) VORSTIUS (De Hebraismis N. T. c. xxiji. Vol. II. p. 33.) shows the fallacy of an interpretation of BOCHART by which he attempted to confirm his views (sufficiciently established on other grounds) respecting the queen of Saba. She is said to have come amò repéray oñs gās. BOCHART catches at this, and argues that her kingdom must have been in Arabia, as that is bounded by the sea, while yast districts extend he.

He too readily indulges in conjectural emendations of passages in which the present reading presents difficulties to him insuperable, or offers an obstacle to a favourite hypothesis. The Scriptures themselves are by no means exempted from the exercise of this wayward propensity. (m) It is true that his emendations are sometimes very happy, and throw unexpected and vivid light upon a passage seemingly utterly obscure.(n) It is also true that he had the sanction of the greatest critics of his age in the employment of such means

yond Ethiopia. It is impossible that he could have been ignorant of the common application of the phrase tapete 7*6 gue to countries not bounded by the ocean, which is clearly shown by Vorstius ; and yet his eagerness for proof drew off his attention from that fact, and caused him to rely upon a worthless argument. Very similar, and equal. ly egregious, failures in exegetical argument may be found corrected by Vorstius, De Hebraismis, 1. 393. s. and BRYNAEUS, de Calceis Hebrae. orum, p. 8. ss. 158. ss. and 242. ss.

(m) So Hieroz. P. 1. Lib. II. c. xliji. Bochart agrees with Beza (and they are followed by Benson, DODDRIDGE, &c.) in supposing the word Apzrije, Ac. vii. 16., to be an interpolation by some ignorant transcriber, who thought the verb ordato needed a nominative, and from indistinct recollection supplied • Abraham.'

JEBB, (Sacred Literature, p. 324,) cites Bochart as agreeing with TANAQUIL FABER in a still bolder mutilation of the text of Scripture, viz. representing υπός γάς τα αγαθά τάχα τις 8 τολμά αποθανείν, (Rom. v. 7.) as a marginal gloss.—But I have not met with this in the works of BOCHART, and find no mention of it in the indices.

Something nearly approaching to this conjectural licence appears HIEROZ. P. 11. Lib. 11. c. xii, where the author is willing to reverse the present reading of the Hebrew text, in favour of the Greek version, on the authority of a Grecian mythological fable, and the use of a term among the Arabian astrologers: virtually admitting such testimony in evidence respecting an event 2000 years previous !

(n) Such is that by which he accounts for an apparently enormous blunder in the Sibylline Oracles, placing Ararat in Phrygia Niger; by changing Menasius into Keratins, and referring it to CELENE, afterwards APAMÆA, called for some unknown reason K60705.-Phaleg. P. 1. Lib. ifi, c. xiii. See SAURIN Diss. Hist. ix. p. 115. s. and compare the confirmation subsequently given by the medal, 16. p. 132. ss. Most of the investigations respecting the ancient Punic, in Part ii. of the Sacred Geography, partake largely of the character of conjectural emendations, and must be allowed, as such, to possess rare merit.


of arriving at the sense of a difficult passage ; and that, with regard to profane authors, the practice has been prevalent to an extent only not universal. Still, the strict rules of exegesis will not warrant it : much less can its results be used as evidence in historical research, or as' media' in the examination of other passages ; to both which uses they are not unfrequently applied by our author.

Lastly, he is not always nice in his choice of proofs and Scriptural authorities. Passages to which it is scarcely to be doubted that he would have given the correct interpretation upon a professed examination, he often cites in a sense very foreign from the actual import. Who, for instance, would, on due reflection, bring forward Rom. x. 67 as a 6 ratio non contemnenda' for interpreting the ninth article of the Creed, of an abode in the state of death? Yet that does BOCHART. Opp. 11. 987.

To conclude this extended, yet imperfect, sketch :-the works of Bochart have by no means survived their usefulness or reputation. They are yet treasures of philosophical learning, which may be used to no small advantage by the industrious and discriminating student. The faults of their writer were the faults of his age ; but his excellencies are his own, and are such as will endure.

The praise of unparalleled industry, almost unlimited erudition, great ingenuity, and no small degree of independence as an interpreter of Scripture, will be awarded to BOCHART as long as Biblical Philology shall be studied as a science.

etymologies, conjectures, and occasional lapses in inter pretation, will be forgotten, or readily forgiven, by every one qualified to judge of the true value of his works,









« PreviousContinue »