Acts 16: 9, 10. "And a vision was seen (on) by Paul in the night. And when he had seen (78ɛv) the vision," etc. See also, Numb. 23: 13. 2 Sam. 14: 24. Dan. 1: 13. John 1: 33, 34, 51. 8: 56, 57. Acts. 26: 13, 16. Rev. 1:12. The same usage prevails throughout the classic writers. For an obvious reason, theophanies and angelophanies are, for the most part, spoken of in past or future time, and in the description of them, writers were under the necessity of adopting the appropriate tenses of those verbs which were commonly used, when vision (I take the term here in its ordinary or physical sense) was the subject of discourse. Their employment of certain terms from 9ɛwéw and őпvoμai arose simply from the fact that, in the required tenses, these were the forms which popular usage had sanctioned in treating of sight. They must adopt these, or introduce solecistic modes of expression, if not in their terms, at least in their style. To set this matter clearly before our readers, we have prepared several tables, illustrating the usus loquendi of the New Testament, Septuagint, and Apocryphal writers. The basis of our investigations in the New Testament is the text of Mill. Between this and the text of Griesbach, on the point under consideration, there are a few unimportant differences. The tables present the number of times each word occurs, and the tenses in which it is used. Middle forms, employed in an Active sense, are placed with the tenses of the Active Voice. These are distinguished by the letter M. A glance at the above tables will be sufficient to satisfy any inquirer as to the usage of the Hellenistic writers, and to convince him that, in the employment of a simple Future in the active sense, and of a Future and an Aorist in the passive sense, they had scarcely the privilege of a selection. Thus in ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-THREE passages out of ONE HUN * 1 Pet. 1: 8. ɛidóres, a very rare form in this sense, though common in the signification" to know." + We omit the interjectional forms ide and idov, of which the former occurs 25, the latter, 213 times. DRED AND EIGHTY-EIGHT in which the Future Active is required, the form is oyoua. The Future Passive occurs THIRTY-THREE times; in THIRTY-TWO places we find oσo μαι. The Aorist Passive is demanded NINETY-FIVE times; and in EIGHTY-SEVEN instances they have adopted agony. The terms peculiarly appropriated to spiritual manifestations are the very terms peculiarly appropriated to PHYSICAL vision in the same relations of time. They are almost the ONLY terms which the language affords. Strange, that an argument should be constructed in favor of the spiritual resurrection of our Saviour from its being denoted in various instances by ontoμa. Yet such is the fact. After the citation of about thirty passages from the Septuagint and New Testament to illustrate the spiritual as well as the physical application of the term, Mr. Bush remarks, with reference to the New Testament usage, "Here are eight instances, out of fifty-seven, in which we do not refuse to admit that the original őzzoua indicates ocular vision. The remaining forty-nine constitute so strong an array of proofs in favor of the other sense, that we see not why our asserted distinction is not made out. If so, we certainly have good grounds for the position that the angelic appearances recorded in Scripture were not made to the natural eye." The spiritκαὶ ὄπτομαι, then, is to the physical ὄπτομαι, speaking mathematically, a little more than as six to one! But, seriously, how are the "forty-nine" instances of spiritual vision, by which instances the predominant sense of the word is to be proved to be spiritual, made up? BY INCLUDING THE VERY PASSAGES WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF DISPUTE. If this does not involve a petitio principii, we think that the world has never seen, and will never see an illustration of the fallacy. Why, if the Professor will only allow us to follow his example, and transfer to our side of the account all the passages in dispute, he will certainly cry in vain for a nov oz☎ in using his spiritual lever. The chain of argumentation by which the conclusion is reached that the angelic appearances recorded in Scripture were not made to the natural eye," is altogether of a novel description, and though capable of being converted (we mean not perverted) into the triangular form of the regular syllogism, it seems to us wholly destitute of that indispensable quality of true syllogistic reasoning, that like "a three-fold cord" it is not quickly broken." Professor Bush first assures us that it is capable of absolute demonstration, that of all the different terms for " seeing" it is this which is more especially used to denote that internal or intellectual perception, which is expressed by the Hebrew " This constitutes the major premise, and is instanter proved, or rather disproved by a reference to six passages in the Old Testament, (in not one of which, is found, but uniformly ) and to six in the New, most of them examples of theophanies, and angelophanies. He then lays down the minor premise, by quoting Luke 3: 16. 17: 22. John 3: 36. Rom. 5: 21, and Heb. 12: 14, (in all of which, but the last, the term "see" is plainly used in the metaphorical sense of “experience," "enjoy,") which will serve in his opinion as "a clew" to the fact, that "the prevailing usage in regard to the term," is that of "a seeing by the eye of the mind, and not of the body." After a few additional citations, in which, "from the general usage of the term," the very point which he sets out on the preceding page to prove, he infers "that it has the import, not of a bodily, but of a mental vision," he trumpets forth the conclusion that "the angelic appearances recorded in Scripture were not made to the natural eye." If, in this unlinking of our author's chain of argumentation, we have not done him injustice, which we most sincerely deprecate, we presume that our readers will join us in the belief that the connection between the antecedents and the conclusion is about as close, as that which exists between the philosophical disquisition prefixed by Sallust to the Jugurthine War, and the body of the history. 1 Gen. 12: 7. 35:9 Exod 3:2. Judg. 6: 12. 13: 3. 1 Kings 3:5. Luke 1:11. 22: 43. Acts 7: 30, 35. Rev. 11: 19. 12: 1. We confess ourselves rather dissatisfied with Professor Bush's theory and practice of classification, and present the following as the result of a minute examination of the use of oлτоμaι in the New Testament. It denotes 1. Ocular vision, four times. Acts 7: 26. "He (Moses) showed himself (apŋ) to them, as they strove.' "20: 25. "Ye shall see (owevɛ) my face no more." Heb. 13: 23. "With whom I will see (oyoua) you." So probably, John 11: 40. "Thou shalt see (owa) the glory of God," i. e. in the resurrection of thy brother. These are the only instances in which I refer the term to ocular vision, leaving out, of course, for the present, the passages under debate. 2. Attention, perception, experience, or enjoyment; this being a metaphorical use of the term; thus used eight times. Matt. 27: 4. "What is that to us? Thou shalt see to it❞ (ὄψει). 66 « 24. Acts 18: 15. Luke 3: 6. "17:22. John 3:36. 19:37. "Ye shall see to it (őчɛɛ).” "Ye shall yourselves see to it (owεodε).” "Ye shall desire to see (idav) one of the days "He shall not see (őɛrα) life.” "They shall look (oporra) on him whom they pierced." Rom. 15: 21. "To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see (ὄψονται).” 3. Spiritual vision, ten times. 1 Ps. 89: 49. "What man is there who shall live, and shall not see (opera) death?" |