NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH THE OTHER
PRETERIST SAMUEL LEE FROM BOSTON..
OF THE SAME GENERATION
Original Autograph from January, 1836.
A Brief Memoir of a
Scholar of a Past Generation - By His Daughter
The Events and Times of the Visions of Daniel and St. John.
1851
College Green, Bristol
1836 Original Letter
"he became convinced that the views
which he entertained, known as the Preterist, were those held by the early
Church."
FIRST SERMON TEXT:
"But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly; wherefore
God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He hath prepared for them a
city." (Hebrew xi. 16.)
"I now say no BIBLICAL STUDENT should be without
Mr. Fairbairn's
"Typology."
"The adherents
to Calvin’s views of these prophecies will find much profit from their
perusal."
Thomas Myers, M.A., Vicar Of Sheriff-Hutton, Yorkshire
Letters of Charles Darwin: "On Saturday evening dined at one of the Colleges, played at bowls on the College Green after dinner, and was deafened with nightingales singing. Sunday, dined in Trinity; capital dinner, and was very glad to sit by Professor Lee ; I find him a very pleasant chatting man, and in high spirits like a boy, at having lately returned from a living or a curacy, for seven years in Somersetshire, to civilised society and oriental manuscripts. He had exchanged his living to one within fourteen miles of Cambridge, and seemed perfectly happy." May 16, 1832
(Joseph Wolff's tutor at
Cambridge),
STUDY ARCHIVE
Main Page
EARLY CHURCH
Ambrose
Ambrose, Pseudo
Andreas
Arethas
Aphrahat
Athanasius
Augustine
Barnabus
BarSerapion
Baruch, Pseudo
Bede
Chrysostom
Chrysostom, Pseudo
Clement, Alexandria
Clement, Rome
Clement, Pseudo
Cyprian
Ephraem
Epiphanes
Eusebius
Gregory
Hegesippus
Hippolytus
Ignatius
Irenaeus
Isidore
James
Jerome
King Jesus
Apostle John
Lactantius
Luke
Mark
Justin Martyr
Mathetes
Matthew
Melito
Oecumenius
Origen
Apostle Paul
Apostle Peter
Maurus Rabanus
Remigius
"Solomon"
Severus
St.
Symeon
Tertullian
Theophylact
Victorinus
HISTORICAL PRETERISM
(Minor Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 or Revelation
in Past)
Joseph Addison
Oswald T. Allis Thomas Aquinas
Karl Auberlen
Augustine
Albert Barnes
Karl Barth
G.K. Beale Beasley-Murray
John Bengel
Wilhelm Bousset
John A. Broadus
David Brown
"Haddington Brown"
F.F. Bruce
Augustin Calmut
John Calvin
B.H. Carroll
Johannes Cocceius
Vern Crisler
Thomas Dekker
Wilhelm De Wette
Philip Doddridge
Isaak Dorner
Dutch Annotators
Alfred Edersheim
Jonathan Edwards
E.B.
Elliott
Heinrich Ewald Patrick Fairbairn
Js. Farquharson
A.R. Fausset
Robert Fleming
Hermann Gebhardt
Geneva Bible
Charles Homer Giblin
John Gill
William Gilpin
W.B. Godbey
Ezra Gould
Steve Gregg
Hank Hanegraaff
Hengstenberg Matthew Henry
G.A. Henty
George Holford
Johann von Hug
William Hurte
J, F, and Brown
B.W. Johnson
John Jortin
Benjamin Keach
K.F. Keil
Henry Kett
Richard Knatchbull Johann Lange
Cornelius Lapide
Nathaniel Lardner
Jean Le Clerc
Peter Leithart
Jack P. Lewis
Abiel Livermore
John Locke
Martin Luther
James MacDonald
James MacKnight
Dave MacPherson
Keith Mathison
Philip Mauro
Thomas Manton
Heinrich Meyer
J.D. Michaelis
Johann Neander
Sir Isaac Newton
Thomas Newton
Stafford North
Dr. John Owen
Blaise Pascal
William W. Patton
Arthur Pink
Thomas Pyle
Maurus Rabanus
St. Remigius
Anne Rice
Kim Riddlebarger
J.C. Robertson
Edward Robinson
Andrew Sandlin
Johann Schabalie
Philip Schaff
Thomas Scott
C.J. Seraiah
Daniel Smith
Dr. John
Smith
C.H. Spurgeon Rudolph E. Stier
A.H. Strong St. Symeon
Theophylact
Friedrich Tholuck
George Townsend
James Ussher
Wm. Warburton
Benjamin Warfield
Noah Webster
John Wesley
B.F. Westcott William Whiston
Herman Witsius
N.T. Wright
John Wycliffe
Richard Wynne
C.F.J. Zullig
MODERN PRETERISTS
(Major Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 or Revelation
in Past)
Firmin Abauzit
Jay Adams
Luis Alcazar
Greg Bahnsen
Beausobre, L'Enfant
Jacques Bousset
John L. Bray
David Brewster
Dr. John Brown
Thomas Brown
Newcombe Cappe
David Chilton
Adam Clarke
Henry Cowles
Ephraim Currier
R.W. Dale
Gary DeMar
P.S. Desprez
Johann Eichhorn
Heneage Elsley
F.W. Farrar
Samuel Frost
Kenneth Gentry
Hugo Grotius
Francis X. Gumerlock
Henry Hammond
Hampden-Cook
Friedrich Hartwig
Adolph Hausrath
Thomas
Hayne
J.G. Herder
Timothy Kenrick
J. Marcellus Kik
Samuel Lee
Peter Leithart
John Lightfoot
Benjamin Marshall
F.D. Maurice
Marion Morris
Ovid Need, Jr
Wm. Newcombe
N.A. Nisbett
Gary North
Randall Otto
Zachary Pearce
Andrew Perriman
Beilby Porteus
Ernst Renan
Gregory Sharpe
Fr. Spadafora
R.C. Sproul
Moses Stuart
Milton S. Terry
Herbert
Thorndike
C. Vanderwaal
Foy Wallace
Israel P.
Warren Chas Wellbeloved
J.J. Wetstein
Richard Weymouth
Daniel Whitby
George Wilkins
E.P. Woodward
FUTURISTS
(Virtually No Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 & Revelation in 1st
C. - Types Only ; Also Included are "Higher Critics" Not Associated With Any
Particular Eschatology)
Henry Alford
G.C. Berkower
Alan Patrick Boyd
John Bradford
Wm.
Burkitt
George Caird
Conybeare/ Howson
John Crossan
John N. Darby
C.H. Dodd E.B. Elliott
G.S.
Faber
Jerry Falwell
Charles G. Finney
J.P. Green Sr.
Murray Harris
Thomas Ice
Benjamin Jowett John N.D. Kelly
Hal Lindsey
John MacArthur
William Miller
Robert Mounce Eduard Reuss
J.A.T. Robinson
George Rosenmuller
D.S. Russell
George Sandison
C.I. Scofield
Dr. John Smith
Norman Snaith
"Televangelists" Thomas Torrance
Jack/Rex VanImpe
John Walvoord
Quakers :
George Fox |
Margaret Fell (Fox) |
Isaac Penington
PRETERIST UNIVERSALISM |
PRETERIST-IDEALISM
|
"The work is pleasurable for the time being, but then there is a hope
that when I am dead it shall speak, and shall give God the glory when my
tongue and tongues shall have ceased."
"Darwin was himself initiated into Islamic
culture in Cambridge under orientalist Samuel Lee"
|
Please Allow
a Special Introduction to PreteristArchive.com's
Number One All-Time
Preterist
Samuel Lee, D.D.
(1783-1852)
PROFESSOR OF HEBREW AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
"Father of Syriac Studies in
Britain" - Canon of Bristol
S.T.P. OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HALLE,
MEMBER OF THE ASIATIC SOCIETIES OF ENGLAND AND PARIS, HONORARY
MEMBER OF THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF RHODE ISLAND, AND OF THE
ETHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, AMERICA, LATE REGIUS
PROFESSOR OF HEBREW IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE, RECTOR OF
BARLEY, HERTS, CANON OF BRISTOL &c. &c.
|
|
"ALL PROPHECY IS FULFILLED"
Yet Not Full Pret, in
that the Second Resurrection is Not Past
"It is scarcely possible
not to perceive the allusion here made to Rom. vi. 3-—6 : and Col.
ii. 12, 13, which again brings before us, in terms a little
different, the prophetic and apostolic doctrine of a new creation,
in the newness of mind and of life, so inculcated. But the Apostle
Paul carries the Resurrection, here supposed to be realized in the
baptized Believer, onward to its intended issue; namely, the final
resurrection of the dead: and, what is most remarkable, he argues
from the certainty of the first, as a thing to be taken for granted,
to that of the last. His words are, " What shall they do who are
baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all. Why, repeats he,
" are they then baptized for the dead i.e. in behalf of their own
dead bodies, if there be no final resurrection of these ? As if he
should say, This symbolical rite, representing to us the cleansing
and renewing powers of Christianity, and admitting us to a full
participation in them,—to be cultivated moreover continually, and
under all the other means— likewise holds out to us, as its intended
issue and end, the resurrection to eternal life: i.e. the certainty
of the first implies the certainty of the last. Something more than
the symbol must here, therefore, have been taught by the Apostle: i.
e. the means of a spiritual resurrection now secured to the baptized
person. But see this argument followed out in a Tract, entitled, "
Why are they then baptized for the dead" by the Rev. J. Blackburne,
Cambridge, 1850. (Events and Times, pp. 58-59)
"I think probable, that at no
very distant day my views, and those of the early Church, may prevail."
// "In an article furnished by Mr. Desprez in the July
number, 1856, of the "Journal of Sacred Literature" on
the Neronic date of the Apocalypse, he says, "That the
coming of Christ took place at the destruction of
Jerusalem," will require more consideration. And here I
am glad to shelter myself under the authority of the
late Prof. Lee, who says in a letter to a friend, 'I am
so much overwhelmed with the crowd of matter that I
hardly know on which first to seize. It is truly a noble
and glorious subject. How the church should have lost
sight of it in this its simplicity, I am at a loss to
conceive, particularly as it is quite certain that in
early times this was the only view entertained."
//
"We cannot humble ourselves too much, we cannot love Christ too much, we
cannot depend too much upon Him, nor cast our cares too implicitly and
fully upon Him, nor indeed can we rejoice too much in His power,
readiness and willingness to "save to the uttermost all those who come"
to Him by faith.' "
"I was fully aware of the difference in our views on
Prophecy. You, I know, are a Preterist"
G.S. Faber to Lee in 1846
Teaching:
"all prophecy had already
had its fulfilment; that the Book of Revelation is rather confirmatory of
old than a record of new predictions--that the believing remnant of the Jews
have become the heirs of the world, and that to them have been already
fulfilled all the promises made to their fathers--that there exist no
promises in Scripture of the restoration of their brethren on their
acceptance of the promised Saviour, to the earthly Canaan and Jerusalem--
that the fulness of the Gentiles has arrived in the Scriptural sense of the
term, and that the Gospel has in that sense been preached to every creature
under heaven -- and that the Jews, at whatever time converted, will, on
their conversion, lose all their distinctive characteristics as a nation,
and will become, with the Gentiles, one body in Christ." (Rev. William Paul)
MAJOR PUBLICATIONS
-
1816. --
The Syriac New Testament.
-
1817-18. -- Edited the Malay Scriptures, Arabic and Coptic Psalter and
Gospels, translated Genesis into Persian, superintended the Hindustani
Prayer-Book, and Morning and Evening Prayers in Persic.
-
1820. -- A New Zealand Grammar.
-
1821. -- A Letter to Mr J. Bellamy on his new Translation of the Bible, with
some Strictures on a Tract, entitled 'Remarks,' etc., Oxford, 1820.
-
1821-22-- A Vindication of Certain Strictures on a Pamphlet entitled
'Remarks,' etc., Oxford, 1820, in answer to 'A Reply,' etc., Oxford, 1821.
-
1823. -- The Syriac Old Testament.
-
1824. -- Controversial Tracts on Christianity and Mahommedanism, by Henry
Martyn, and some of the most Eminent Writers of Persia, translated and
explained, to which is appended an additional Tract on the same question ;
and in a Preface, Some Account of a Former Controversy on this Subject, with
Extracts from it.
-
1827;--A Grammar of the Hebrew Language.
-
1828.--A Grammar of the Persian Language, by Sir W. Jones, Revised, with
considerable additions.
-
1829.--Prolegomena in Biblia Polyglotta Bagsteriana.
-
1829.--The Travels of Ibn Batuta, translated from the abridged Arabic MS. copies, with Notes.
-
1830.--Six
sermons on the study of the Holy Scriptures : their nature,
interpretation, and some of their most important doctrines :
preached before the University of Cambridge, in the years 1827-8 :
to which are annexed two dissertations, the first on the
reasonableness of the orthodox views of Christianity, as opposed to
the rationalism of Germany : the second on the interpretation of
prophecy generally, with an original exposition of the book of
Revelation, shewing that the whole of that remarkable prophecy has
long ago been fulfilled. Hamilton Circulating Coll. BS415.L43 1830
- "This did not
occur to me when I wrote my Exposition on this book. I then followed Dr. Hammond, erroneously placing these powers beyond the limit assigned to them by Daniel and St. John."
(Dissertation on Eusebius)
-
1832.--Grammar of the Hebrew Language, second edition.
-
1837.--A Translation of the Book of Job, with an Introduction and
Commentary.
-
1840.--A Lexicon, Hebrew, Chaldee and English.
-
1841.--Grammar of the Hebrew Language, third edition.
MOST
HEAVILY PRETERIST INFLUENCED PUBLICATIONS
-
1842.--Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, on the
Theophania, or Divine Manifestation of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. A
Syriac Version. Edited from an ancient manuscript recently discovered by S.
Lee. Syriac. London: Society for the Publication of Oriental Texts
(1842). 8o. Printed in the Peshito Character. **
-
1842-3.--The Prayer-Book, translated into Arabic. 1843.--A Translation of
the 'Theophania,' by Eusebius.
-
1843.--Preliminary
Disserations on Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, on the
Theophania
-
1843.--Tracts on Tithes.
-
1849.--An Inquiry into the Nature, Progress and End of Prophecy.
-
1849.--A Letter to G. S. Faber, B.D., containing an Interpretation of 2
Peter iii.
-
1849.--A Letter to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Glo'ster and
Bristol.
-
1849-51.--The New Testament translated into Arabic, and the Old as far as
Numbers.
-
1851.--The Events and Times of the Visions of Daniel and St John
investigated. -
** "EVER
since his translation of Eusebius's 'Theophania,' my father's
mind had been more or less occupied on the subject of Prophecy,
and he became convinced that the views which he entertained,
known as the Preterist, were those held by the early Church. The
subject was one of absorbing interest to him during the few last
years of his life, and as a child I can remember the animated
conversations between him and my mother on Prophecy in their
walks about our beautiful garden, or in the leisure of meal
times, she holding the more general and popular opinions of the
restoration of the Jews to their own land, etc. "
"These predictions so
limited, therefore, were fulfilled to the very letter : and
the facts of the case make it utterly impossible they can be
fulfilled again." (vi)
"We have in Daniel a Persecutor foretold under the symbol of a Little
horn. This, every respectable Commentator has seen, must mean the
heathen Roman Empire. But, as it has not been also seen, that
all so foretold took place under that Empire, it has been imagined that
PAPAL ROME must be meant, i.e., heathen Rome, drawn out as it
were and continued in Papal Rome." (i)
"We are next told that, then should the
People of the Prince who should come, destroy both the city
and the sanctuary. I now know therefore, that, some
time after the cutting off of the Messiah, Jerusalem should
fall. But I know when this took place : and,
therefore, that it happened within Daniel's seventieth week,
as I also do, that this event cannot take place again" (iii)
"My answer is, as these charges are the mere assumptions of a very
plausible, pious, but weak man, I have a right also to assume, that they are
entitled to no farther notice or reply from me." (vii)
"As we know of but one great promise
made to the Fathers, which the coming of Christ was intended
to fulfil, it should follow that, -- as the Bible is
necessarily consistent with itself, -- event ministration of
the Patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles, would in one way or
other be subservient to its fulfillment : and this again,
would have the effect of exhibiting in the Scriptures one
plain, consistent and invariable system : and,
accordingly, that how numerous and various soever the modes
of expression adopted might be, all would in the main
conspire to put forth, declare, and illustrate, the
particulars of this one great events. (xiv.)
"According to (I Peter 1:12), the Prophet
ministered to nothing beyond Apostolical Christianity.
They do not seem -- i.e. as explained to us by the
Apostles -- to have had any idea whatever of a future
restoration of Jews, Christian Millennium, new Dispensation,
personal reign of Christ on earth, or of any think of
the kind." (xv)
And again, St. Peter (Acts ii. 17, seq.)
applies a place, here (Joel ii.28) to this very period generally : i.e. the
seventieth week of Daniel. These predictions apply, therefore,
to these particular times : and the destroying army, so described,
must necessarily be that of heathen Rome ; and the destruction
mentioned, that of Jerusalem." (xl)
"As the law was a shadow of good things to
come, and as the Prophets ministered under it for our edification,
let us be careful in duly separating its shadows, types, &c., from the
realities, antitypes, &c., which these shadowed out. Christianity
being a purely spiritual system, can in no way amalgamate with the
carnal one of Judaism." (xlvii)
(On Daniel 8:13 and the "Little Horn")
11 By him the daily sacrifice was to be
taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was to be cast down.
12 And an army was to be given him against
the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, (i.e., because the
transgressors had now come to the full: see note, page 165,) and it cast the
truth to the ground, and it practiced and prospered.
13 How long shall be the vision concerning
the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the
sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
14 The answer is, unto 2300 days; then shall
the sanctuary be cleansed.
"The wording of the Hebrew is
peculiar here and highly deserving of remark. It stands literally thus, —
“Until (the) evening (and) morning, or it may be until the evening of the
morning, two thousand and three hundred, and the sanctuary (lit. holiness)
shall be sanctified.” Evening and morning, I take here to be a mere
periphrasis for a day; and so our translators have taken it, Genesis 1:5.
The day here had in view must mark the period of Daniel’s seventieth week —
the numbers given above must be understood indefinitely, and as intended to
designate a considerable length of time. This consummation could not
be effected by Antiochus Epiphanes: he only suspended the service of the
Temple for about three years and a half. By every consideration, therefore,
it is evident that the Little Horn of Daniel’s seventh and eighth chapters,
is identically the same, and that this symbolized that system of Roman
rule which ruined Jerusalem, and then made war upon the sainted servants
and followers of the Son of man; and in this he prospered and practiced,
until he in his turn fell, as did his predecessors, to rise no more at all.
(An Inquiry into the Nature, Progress, and End of Prophecy, p. 168.)
"Of one thing
I think I may say I am certain, viz., that I am not wrong in the main, that
my system is good, and hence, I have no doubt, it will first or last
prevail. Its results are certainly good. I care not, therefore, for
the present popularity of the opposite view." (Letter to brother, May 2,
1850)
"I know that
many -- no matter how right or wrong -- will not take the trouble to
investigate a question of so large an amount as that of prophecy, merely for
the truth's sake. Others would rather accept a system which seems to promise
so much that is glorious than be convinced that it is not true. " (July 27,
1850)
If so, I
believe I shall be made the honoured instrument in the hands of Him
who has, of His mercy, done so much for me, of more effectually arresting
the progress of doubt as to the inspiration of the Scriptures than I
had ever imagined, or perhaps than anyone hitherto has.' (July 27,
1850)
(On the Restoration of the Jews)
"On this question much need not be said, for if the events of prophecy have
all been fulfilled, and were so fulfilled upon the establishment of
the Christian Church, as already shown, every hope of a restoration of the
Jews to Palestine must be groundless and futile. Besides, it must be most
incongruous to look for the temporalities of the Old Testament under the
New, in which we are taught that there is neither Greek nor Jew,
circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free, but
Christ is all and in all. That neither on Mount Gerizim, nor in Jerusalem
exclusively, should the Father be worshipped, but that wherever there was a
real spiritual child of Abraham there should be a temple of God the Holy
Ghost. And, let it be remembered, this was the doctrine which the Apostles
themselves felt the greatest difficulty in receiving, met the greatest in
its propagation, and laboured most anxiously and constantly to preserve
entire from commixture with Jewish notions. . . . In this case, then, as
before, nothing short of a new revelation and a new dispensation can justify
the expectation of any such things as these. Whether we are to expect any
such new light and new appointment, I leave it to others to determine. I can
find no such things foretold. I conclude on this question, therefore, that
no restoration of Jews, either to temporal or spiritual exclusive
privileges, is to be expected ; that all such expectation is groundless;
and, what is worse, that it tends only to confirm Jewish prejudices, which
have hitherto proved all but invincible without it; and further, that those
who are so anxiously pressing it are unwarily calling into exercise a power
more than equal to all their better efforts to the contrary. To call the
Jews to a belief in Christ is a legitimate work of Christian faith and love.
It is that which our Lord commanded, and it is that in which the Apostles
persevered to the utmost. Circumstanced as the Jews now are, they are
"strangers to the covenants of promise, they are without hope and without
God in the world.' They are as branches broken off and dissevered from the
stock of Abraham ; and it is faith in the Redeemer alone which can graft
them in and make them the spiritual seed of Abraham, the fleshly descent
availing nothing whatever under the New Covenant. To this end it is the duty
of the Christian Church to labour; and in this work there are the best
grounds for believing that their labour shall not be in vain.'
'TRIN. COLL., CAMB.,
'Oct. 3, 1843.
(On Romans 8:28-30)
'It is with great pleasure
and thankfulness that I sit down to write my last Sunday bulletin for this
year. I have indeed much to be thankful for
|210 that I have been
enabled to get through my duties with so much ease and comfort to myself. My
sermon was on Rom. viii. 28, 29, 30 ; rather a long and comprehensive text.
My object was to show that the predestination here was that of prophecy, or
promise, to be fulfilled in all believers under the New Covenant, just as
those belonging to the temporary Israel were under the Old; that conformity
to Christ, and hence justification and glorification, were in like manner
pre-determined for all believers. "
WHAT OTHERS HAVE SAID
Thomas Witton Davies
DR. SAMUEL LEE AND HEINRICH EWALD
"Of all the personal encounters in which Ewald had part, none was
conducted with more acrimony and ill-will than that between him and the
Rev. Samuel Lee, D.D. (1852), Professor of Arabic, and afterwards Regius
Professor of Hebrew in the University of Cambridge. This Samuel Lee was
the son of a Salop labourer, and worked himself as a journeyman
carpenter until he was nearer thirty than twenty. Then he became a
schoolmaster, and in 1813, at the age of thirty, he gained admission
into the University, of which he became subsequently.
He was author of a Hebrew Lexicon and of a Hebrew Grammar, which had a
considerable vogue in this country half a century back. [See A Brief
Memoir of S. Lee. London, 1896.] In 1827 Ewald and Lee issued
the first editions of their Hebrew Grammars, and each claimed to have
introduced important improvements in the treatment of the subject. Lee
said that Hebrew has two tenses —what he called Present ( =
Imperfect) and Preterite (= Perfect). Of course, English has,
without the aid of auxiliaries, also but two tenses—I love, I
loved— Present and Preterite. Not at all unlikely the
English practice suggested to Lee the names he gave to the Hebrew
tenses. Ewald, on the other hand, maintained [See p. 523 of the
Grammatik (1827)] that the conception of time, as such, does not
enter into the Hebrew verb, any more than it does into the participle:
it is modes or kinds of action that the so-called tense
forms express. That called previously Preterite (our Perfect) is the
Indicative mode or mood; the so - called Future (our
Imperfect) is the Conjunctive mode or mood. Both appeared to
agree that the so-called Waw (or Vav) Conversive is really
nothing of the kind. Ewald gave it the name by which it is now known—Waw-
consecutive. Without using the name that came from Ewald, Lee
nevertheless gave a very similar account of the thing itself, as
Schroder had done long before.
Both Ewald and Lee were at one in
rejecting the Jewish doctrine of the three tenses— the participle under
the designation benoni (the tense
between [ben] Preterite and Future) constituting, according to the Jews,
a present tense, which of course in Aramaic and late Hebrew it is. Ewald
and Lee agreed further in putting aside the Jewish teaching about Waw (Vav)
Conversive. In 1828 a second edition of Ewald's Grammar came out, and in
1835 a third. In these editions the author abandoned the
description and designation of the so- called Hebrew tenses as modes,
and instead spoke of them under the names Perfect and Imperfect, so
familiar now to all Hebrew students. In the edition of 1827 Ewald has
nothing to say about the Hebrew accents, apparently, Lee insinuates,
because the author knew nothing about the subject. By the time he was
preparing the third edition (1838) he had learned a good deal from Lee's
Grammar, so that he is able to make a contribution on his own account in
the edition of 1855. Lee is good enough to acknowledge that he is
indebted for most of what he writes on the accents in his Grammar to
older authorities ; but he honestly gives his authorities, and he claims
to have been the first to adapt the accents to Hebrew syntax.2
Ewald, according to his opponent, makes undue use of what the latter had
put forth in his Grammar of 1827, but he has not the honesty to
acknowledge it. To a still greater extent was the
German Hebraist held to be indebted to Lee's doctrine of the Hebrew
tenses. Why, asks Lee, does Ewald, in the first edition of his Grammar,
call the " tenses" -modes or moods, and then go on in later
editions to adopt his distinction of Past and Present,
only disguising the plagiarism by calling them Perfect and
Imperfect! The answer given is that Ewald had been " ploughing with
his heifer."1 It does not seem to
have occurred to Lee that between Ewald's conception of the Hebrew "
tenses " as modes not strictly tenses at all, and his
doctrine of the Perfect and Imperfect, there was really no
contradiction, but only a development of view; that, moreover, down to
the very last there was a fundamental difference, if not contradiction,
between what Ewald and Lee wrote on the matter. According to Lee,
Past and Present are the ideas conveyed by the so-called
tense forms in Hebrew. Ewald denied that time, as such, is implied in
any form of the Hebrew verb.
Ewald was not the man to be silent under such accusations as these. He
replies with his wonted vehemence in The Churchman's Review'1'
for May 1847, in an earlier number of which 3 Lee had repeated his charges; and also in the
Jahrbiicher
for 1849, p. 34 ff., Ewald denies having seen or heard of Lee's
Grammar until he had published the works in which he was charged with
having purloined from that Grammar. Since Lee continued to make his
charges, Ewald sent to the Journal of Sacred Literature for April1
1849 a final answer put into English by Dr. Nicholson. A more
crushing rejoinder has hardly ever been made. It is a series of
propositions of which the first is this : " That, as a teacher of
Hebrew, Dr. Lee understands nothing of that language, since every pupil
in a German Gymnasium, who intends to visit the University as a
theological student, knows infinitely more of it than he does." Ewald
finds, he says, no other kind of reply likely to suit an antagonist like
Dr. Lee. The controversy was begun by Lee in the preface to his Grammar
of 1841. In the Jahrbiicher for 18492
Ewald writes of Lee's Job in the following words: " In his thick
Commentary on the Book of Job, Lee showed that he understands as good as
nothing of Hebrew grammar."3 Lee's words
concerning Ewald's notice of his Job cannot well be reconciled
with what Ewald here states. Thus in 1847 Lee wrote: 4 " That I am
exceedingly unpopular with the Neologian school there" (in Germany), " I
am very well aware, and I rejoice at it; as I am of the very
good-natured and scholar-like remarks which Mr. Ewald supplied some
years ago to the Gottingen Anzeigen on my Job" It does
seem that Ewald or Lee makes some mistake here.
A few extracts will show how bitterly Lee wrote of his German opponent:
they are taken from the pamphlet, An Examination, etc.: — "Von
Ewald declares, indeed, in a manner superlatively contemptuous, that he
has seen none of my works. Contemptible, however, as they may be, he
has, by some means or other, got at, and adopted, the contents of some
of them." After a notice of the English edition of Ewald's Grammar which
appeared in 1837, Lee writes: " So much for the new light lately
imported from Tubingen and made available to the English nation by John
Nicholson." " Ewald," says Lee, " possesses less learning than I
had imagined." In the letter to Dr. Tregelles, already referred to, Lee
defends the view that the Nipk'al and Hithpael are
primarily passive and only secondarily reflexive. He then writes:4
"If either Gesenius or Mr. Ewald had consulted the native Arabic
Grammars they would have seen what these passives really are, and how a
reflexive sense has grown out of them . . ." " The Baron de Sacy
laboured under a similar want of knowledge." (Heinrich Ewald,
orientalist and theologian: 1803-1903, a centenary appreciation, pp.
50-52)
LeRoy E. Froom (1946)
"The projection of the Preterist view into the discussion in 1830, by Samuel
Lee (1783-1852) - noted Orientalist and professor of Arabic and of Hebrew at
Cambridge [One of the most profound linguists of his time and 'master of 18
languages,' he held various churchly posts and was author of numerous
books], and rector of Barley, Hertfordshire (later canon of Bristol) --
brought the three post-Reformation schools of interpretation again into
definite conflict -- the Historicist, Futurist, and Preterist.
Preterism had become well-nigh dominant in the rationalistic universities of
Germany. And now the noted linguist, Lee, under whom Wolff studied at
Cambridge, espoused it. His Events and Times of the Visions of
Daniel and St. John, first published in 1830, is strictly Preterist;
that is, all the specifications of Daniel and the Apocalypse were allegedly
fulfilled in the downfall of pagan Rome and the overthrow of Jewry.
"A general resume must suffice: Lee
builds nearly everything around the seventy weeks of Daniel 9, not as a
definite chronological term but as an indefinite period. He makes the
three and a half times of Daniel 7 coincident with the last of Daniel's
seventy mystical weeks, and comprehends within it the two catastrophes -
first the fall of Jerusalem and the reprobate Jewish nation, and then the
heathen Roman as God's instrument for desolating Jerusalem. So the
three and a half times is the last half of Daniel's seventieth week. [1851
ed, pp. 69,70]
"In the Apocalypse the seals,
trumpets, and vials are synchronous, according to Lee, and are compassed in
this elastic seventieth week - the fourth seal referring to Jerusalem's fall
in the middle of the week, the fifth to the pagan persecutions.
The trumpets likewise depict the fall of the Jews. The witnesses
testify in the first three and a half days of the seventieth week, and are
assailed in the latter three and a half days by the heathen Roman power, the
beast from the abyss. Christ is the child of the church of Revelation
12, and the persecution of the beast of Revelation 13 is under heathen Rome,
from Domitian to Diocletian inclusive.
"Thus the devil is loosed for a little
season, Lee holds, as is depicted by the sixth trumpet - the hour, day ,
month, and year being the same as the three and a half times. Finally,
the compassing of the beloved city and the destruction of Satan and his
hosts signify the fall of the pagan Roman power with the apocalyptic new
heavens and earth, the Christian church after Constantine. So the
1,000 years constitute "the apostolic period." Such was Lee's strange
and yet familiar Preterist view of prophecy, which was as yet shared by
relatively few in Britain." (Prophetic
Faith of our Fathers Vol. 3, p. 596-597)
Thomas Myers, M.A (Calvin's
Translator)
"The Expositor who sympathizes most with our Lecturer (Calvin)
among writers of our own day, is the late Professor Lee, of Cambridge. In
his translations of the Hebrew Scriptures he is unrivaled; no scholar of our
age can approach him in the extent of his learning or the soundness of his
erudition. His expository system of the prophecies of Daniel and St. John
will meet in these days with the most vehement condemnation, and it happily
does not fall within the province of the Editor of these Lectures to express
any other opinion, than that they throw light upon the views of our
Reformer. It will be sufficient at present to refer the reader to his
valuable work, entitled “An Inquiry into the Nature, Progress, and End of
Prophecy,” Cambridge, 1849. He discusses the subject of our second volume
from page 152, to page 230, and translates the Hebrew and Chaldee text of
Daniel, adding valuable explanatory notes. Before the student is competent
to pass an opinion on the Professor’s hermeneutical conclusions, he should
be intimately familiar with his elaborate verbal criticisms." (Dissertation
on Calvin's Commentary on Daniel)
The possession of the kingdom by the saints of the most
high, (Daniel 7:22,) was interpreted by the early Fathers, of the general
spread of Christianity after the first advent. Professor Lee,
in replying to Dr. Todd, has collected their testimony to the reign of
Christ and his saints, as spread far and wide in the very earliest period of
the Gospel history. His list of authorities will support the system of
interpretation adopted by Calvin.
See Tertullian adv. Jud., page 105. Ed. 1580.
Irenoeus. Edit. Grabe, pages 45, 46, 221, etc.
Justin Martyr.
Edit. Thirlby, pages 369, 328, 400.
Cyprian. adv. Jud,
Book 2:passim, and De
Unit. Eccl., page 108. Edit. Dodwell. Euseb. Hist. Eccl., Book 8,
and elsewhere. De, Vit. Const., Book 1, chapters 7, 8, and his other
writings.
Fabricii Lux. Sanct. Evan.
contains similar
extracts from the earliest Fathers to the same purpose.
For the Professor’s own view, see his Treatise on the
Covenants, page 112 and following." (Dissertation on Calvin's
Commentary on Daniel)
(On Daniel 12)
"Professor Lee considers that the events which occurred at the
destruction of Jerusalem by Titus fulfilled the prediction of verse. 1. “The
children of thy people,” found written in the book, are said not to be the
Jews at large, but the holy remnant who embraced Jesus as Messiah, and
escaped to carry the tidings of salvation to the ends of the earth. The many
who slept in the dust of the earth were to awake “in a first resurrection
with Christ,” Romans 6:3-6, and “some to shame and everlasting contempt,
i.e., awakened to hear through the preaching of the gospel, the
judgments denounced against unbelief, and to feel this in a general
overthrow.” The resurrection is here interpreted of our regeneration and
union with the Savior through the Spirit, and the precise period of its
accomplishment is confined to the early spread of the gospel among mankind.
The “time, times, and a half” of Daniel 12:7, “must, of
necessity, signify the time that should elapse from the fall of Jerusalem,
to the end of Daniel’s seventieth week; for, according to the prediction
enouncing this, the Temple and the City were to fall in the midst of this
week,” page 199." (Dissertation on Calvin's Commentary on
Daniel)
(On the Fourth Kingdom)
The followers of Mede have met with a formidable antagonist, and the
adherents of Calvin a staunch supporter in the late Regius Professor of
Hebrew in the University of Cambridge. Dr. Lee, in his pamphlet on the
Visions of Daniel and St. John (Seeleys, London, 1851.) has stated his
reasons for adhering to the Older Interpreters, thus adopting the principle
of the Praeterists, and entirely discarding the slightest reference to the
Pope and the Papacy. His conclusions may be exhibited in a few word.
Respecting Nebuchadnezzar’s Image, “the feet must of necessity symbolize
Heathen Rome in its last times.” “Papal Rome cannot, therefore, possibly
be any prolongation of Daniel’s Fourth Empire.” “These Kings,” represented
by the Toes, “may, therefore, be supposed in a mystical sense to be,
as the digits ten, a round number, and signifying a whole series.” (Ibid.,
p2) “The Little Horn” is said to be Heathen Rome — its persecuting Emperors
from Nero to Constantine fulfilling the Prophetic conditions. The phrase “a
Time, Times, and a Half,” is said to refer to the “latter half (mystically
speaking) of the Seventieth Week of our Prophet.” “Daniel’s Week of
seven days — equivalent here to Ezekiel’s period of seven years — is, we
find, divided into two parts mystically considered halves, or of three days
and a half.” (See Introductory.)... “That the Roman
Power took away the Daily Sacrifice, arid cast down the place of its
Sanctuary, it is impossible to doubt. Titus, during the reign of his father
Vespasian desolated Jerusalem by destroying both the City and the
Sanctuary.” Thus in his general principles of Exposition, this
celebrated Hebraist pronounces his verdict in favor of Calvin and his
interpretation."
(On the Seventy Weeks)
"Professor Lee’s translation of the passage, and explanation
of the Hebrew words, is exceedingly valuable. His exegetical comments admit
of some variety of opinion as to their value. The seventy weeks, says he,
were not “to be considered chronological in any sense, but only to name an
indefinite period, the events of which, as in most similar cases,
should make all sufficiently clear,” Bk. 2, chapter 1, page 160." (Daniel
9)
Wikipedia
"There is no native writing system for Māori. Missionaries made
their first attempts to write the language using the Roman alphabet as early
as 1814, and Professor Samuel Lee of Cambridge University worked with chief
Hongi Hika and his junior relative Waikato to systematize the written
language in 1820. Their efforts at phonetic spelling were remarkably
successful, and written Māori has changed little since then, with only the
distinguishing of w and wh and the addition of macrons late in the 19th
century, though they were not commonly used outside of specialist
publications until late in the 20th. Literacy was an exciting new concept
that the Māori embraced enthusiastically, and missionaries reported in the
1820s that Māori all over the country taught each other to read and write,
using sometimes quite innovative materials, such as leaves and charcoal,
carved wood, and the cured skins of animals, when no paper was available." (Maori)
Robert Young (1863)
"Style of the Sacred Writers, and of this Translation
ONE of the first things
that is likely to attract the attention of the Readers of this New
Translation is its lively, picturesque, dramatic style, by which the
inimitable beauty of the Original Text is more vividly brought out than
by any previous Translation. It is true that the Revisers appointed by
King James have occasionally imitated it, but only in a few familiar
phrases and colloquialisms, chiefly in the Gospel Narrative, and without
having any settled principles of translation to guide them on the point.
The exact force of the Hebrew tenses has long been a vexed question with
critics, but the time cannot be far distant when the general
principles of the late learned Professor Samuel Lee of Cambridge, with
some modification, will be generally adopted in substance, if not
in theory. It would be entirely out of place here to enter into details
on this important subject, but a very few remarks appear necessary, and
may not be unacceptable to the student.
1. It would appear that the Hebrew
writers, when narrating or describing events which might be either
past or future (such as the case of Moses in reference to the
Creation or the Deluge, on the one hand, and to the
Coming of the Messiah or the Calamities which were to befall
Israel, on the other), uniformly wrote as if they were alive at the
time of the occurrence of the events mentioned, and as eye-witnesses
of what they are narrating.
It would be needless to refer to
special passages in elucidation or vindication of this principle
essential to the proper understanding of the Sacred Text, as every page
of this Translation affords abundant examples. It is only what common
country people do in this land at the present day, and what not a few of
the most popular writers in England aim at and accomplish—placing
themselves and their readers in the times and places of the
circumstances related.
This principle of translation has long
been admitted by the best Biblical Expositors in reference to the
Prophetic Delineation of Gospel times, but it is equally applicable
and necessary to the historical narratives of Genesis, Ruth, etc.
2. The Hebrew writers often express the
certainty of a thing taking place by putting it in the past
tense, though the actual fulfilment may not take place for ages. This is
easily understood and appreciated when the language is used by God, as
when He says, in Gen. xv. 18, "Unto thy seed I have given this
land;" and in xvii. 4, "I, lo, My covenant is with thee, and
thou hast become a father of a multitude of nations."
The same thing is found in Gen. xxiii.
11, where Ephron answers Abraham: "Nay, my lord, hear me; the field I
have given to thee, and the cave that is in it; to thee I have
given it; before the eyes of the sons of my people I have given
it to thee; bury thy dead." And again in Abraham's answer to Ephron:
"Only—if thou wouldst hear me—I have given the money of the
field; accept from me, and I bury my dead there." Again in 2 Kings v. 6,
the King of Syria, writing to the King of Israel, says: "Lo, I have sent
unto thee Naaman, my servant, and thou hast recovered him from
his leprosy,"—considering the King of Israel as his servant, a mere
expression of the master's purpose is sufficient. In Judges viii. 19,
Gideon says to Zebah and Zalmunnah, "If ye had kept them alive, I had
not slain you." So in Deut. xxxi. 18, "For all the evils that
they have done"—shall have done.
It would be easy to multiply examples,
but the above may suffice for the present. Some of these forms of
expression are preceded by the conjunction "and" (waw, in
Hebrew), and a very common opinion has been that the conjunction in
these cases has a conversive power, and that the verb is not to
be translated past (though so in grammatical form), but future.
This is, of course, only an evasion of the supposed difficulty,
not a solution, and requires to be supported by the equally
untenable hypothesis that a (so-called) future tense, when
preceded by the same conjunction waw ("and,") often becomes a
past. Notwithstanding these two converting hypotheses, there are
numerous passages which have no conjunction before them, which can only
be explained by the principle stated above.
3. The Hebrew writers are accustomed to express laws,
commands, etc., in four ways:
1. By the regular imperative form, e.g., "Speak unto the people."
2. By the infinitive, "Every male of you is to be circumcised."
3. By the (so-called) future, "Let there be light;" "Thou
shalt do no murder; " "Six days is work done."
4. By the past tense, "Speak unto the sons of Israel, and thou hast
said unto them."
There can be no good reason why these
several peculiarities should not be exhibited in the translation of the
Bible, or that they should be confounded, as they often are, in the
Common Version. In common life among ourselves, these forms of
expression are frequently used for imperatives, e.g., "Go and do
this,"—"This is to be done first,"—"You shall go,"—"You go and finish
it." There are few languages which afford such opportunities of a
literal and idiomatic rendering of the Sacred Scriptures as the English
tongue, and the present attempt will be found, it is believed, to
exhibit this more than any other Translation.
The three preceding particulars embrace
all that appears necessary for the Reader to bear in mind in reference
to the Style of the New Translation. In the Supplementary "Concise
Critical Commentary," which is now in the course of being issued,
abundant proofs and illustrations will be found adduced at length." (Young's
Literal Translation Introduction)
CHAPTER XIII WORK ON PROPHECY
EVER since his translation of Eusebius's 'Theophania,' my
father's mind had been more or less occupied on the subject of Prophecy, and
he became convinced that the views which he entertained, known as the
Preterist, were those held by the early Church. The subject was one of
absorbing interest to him during the few last years of his life, and as a
child I can remember the animated conversations between him and my mother on
Prophecy in their walks about our beautiful garden, or in the leisure of
meal times, she holding the more general and popular opinions of the
restoration of the Jews to their own land, etc.
In the year 1849 he published his 'Inquiry into the
Nature, Progress and End of Prophecy.'
A Scotch minister, the Reverend W. Paul, himself a Hebrew
scholar, with whom my father
corresponded, has so clearly and forcibly
set forth his views in one of his letters, as he gathered them from the
book, that I give an extract from it:--
'MANSE OF BANCHORY,
'BY ABERDEEN, 30 March, 1850.
'REVD. AND DEAR SIR,--Since I last wrote to you I have
perused with great care and interest your work on Prophecy, and I felt every
inclination to write to you sooner with a view to the expression of my
opinion of its contents. I, however, delayed doing so until I had fully and
maturely considered the principles you set out with, and the result you have
arrived at. I had given very little attention previously to this important
subject, chiefly from the very unsatisfactory manner in which I had seen it
pursued. I could discover no solid ground to rest upon, and I was called
upon to hold, almost as a matter of faith, results which had no foundation
but that of ingenious conjecture, which left ample scope for anyone becoming
a prophet who was not deficient in vanity and presumption. . . .
'Notwithstanding these views, which in a somewhat
confused form occasionally floated through my mind previously to the perusal
of your work, I do confess that I was completely staggered by
enunciations that all prophecy had already
had its fulfilment; that the Book of Revelation is rather confirmatory of
old than a record of new predictions--that the believing remnant of the Jews
have become the heirs of the world, and that to them have been already
fulfilled all the promises made to their fathers--that there exist no
promises in Scripture of the restoration of their brethren on their
acceptance of the promised Saviour, to the earthly Canaan and Jerusalem--
that the fulness of the Gentiles has arrived in the Scriptural sense of the
term, and that the Gospel has in that sense been preached to every creature
under heaven -- and that the Jews, at whatever time converted, will, on
their conversion, lose all their distinctive characteristics as a nation,
and will become, with the Gentiles, one body in Christ.
'I have marked with great attention and interest the way
in which you have cleared your ground, and laid down, followed out and
established your principles. I have carefully considered these principles,
weighed the arguments by which they were supported, and reflected upon the
results to which they have led, and I am happy to say that they have carried
full conviction
to my mind. The fact is, I cannot resist
your conclusions. I find nothing in them to clash with the great leading
principles of divine truth which are most surely believed in by all the true
Church of Christ, while they throw a flood of light upon otherwise
unintelligible parts of the Old Testament history, doctrine and prophecy
which is most satisfactory. One regrets to see the talents and learning of
such men as Mr Elliott and Dr Todd wasted in confirming and perpetuating the
errors of Mr Mede. The year-day theory you have very properly rejected, and
have rightly tested the application of prophecy by the whole of the
circumstances taken in cumulo. No one has succeeded, who has
attempted, to fix down the accomplishment of a prophecy to periods
calculated from time specified in the prophecy itself.
'One great difficulty has been removed in regard to the
application of prophecy to the Jews, by the dissertation on the Covenants
introduced into your work. You have there clearly pointed out the different
condition, under these covenants, of those that serve the Lord, and of those
that serve Him not--that the promises made to Abraham are the portion only
of the former ; that these promises do
not include any peculiar blessings of a
temporal character in Canaan or Jerusalem; and that Jews as well as Gentiles
were only to be blessed in Christ by their being turned from their
iniquities, and obtaining salvation through Him. In that dissertation,
likewise, the confusion between doctrine, i.e., contingent
prediction, or intimation of the consequences of certain conduct as good or
evil, on the fate of nations or individuals, and prediction, properly so
called, has been removed, by which means many otherwise very difficult
passages of Scripture have been made extremely plain.
'I have often thought that "Glassen's Rhetorica Sacra"
might, in the hands of one mighty in the Scriptures, be of essential service
to the elucidation of prophecy. I have often thought that the rhetorical
figures of Scripture might, through the instrumentality of that work, in
good hands, be reduced to a precision, which would make the study of
prophecy, conducted on proper principles, comparatively easy. Nothing can be
more satisfactory than the manner in which you have arranged this part of
your subject. Indeed, you have accomplished in this way more than I ever
thought to be practicable. You have, indeed, brought unusually great talents
and theological attainments of every variety to
bear upon this very difficult question, and a mind, unless I am much
mistaken, sincerely anxious for the Spirit's light and guidance in the
investigation of divine truth, together with an earnest desire for the
advancement of the spiritual interests of others.
'It is not wonderful that prophecy is expressed under
highly figurative language, but it is remarkable to trace the extent to
which what is figurative is involved in the whole of the Jewish history. In
their journeyings from place to place; in their captivities and deliverances
; in occurrences that happened to individuals ; in Egypt, in the Wilderness
and in Canaan; in the language and ceremonies of their ritual; in their
offices of prophet, priest and king, are perceptible types and shadows of
good things to come, and events applicable to the circumstances of the
Church under the last dispensation of the Covenant of Grace. All this fully
justifies the spiritual interpretation which you have given to many of the
prophecies, where temporal events in the first instance are evidently
pointed at.
'I have only now to conclude with the expression of my
hearty concurrence in the views you have
adopted, of my thanks for your having put
the work into my view, and of my sincere desire that it may be extensively
read and pondered, and impart to others the same gratification and
instruction which it has afforded me. . . . Were mine the prayers of the
righteous man which could "avail you much," be assured they would be offered
up for you with all sincerity.--Believe me to be, rev. and dear sir, with
great respect and esteem, very faithfully yours,
' WILLIAM PAUL.
The following letter is from the Reverend W. Carus,
acknowledging a copy of his work on Prophecy, which Dr Lee had sent him :--
'TRIN. COLL.,
'March 31, 1849.
'MY DEAR DR LEE,--How much have I been longing for the
appearance of your work on Prophecy ! But I little expected the favour of a
copy from the author, especially valuable from the kind inscription, and
also from the but too kind note which accompanied it. Allow me to express to
you my grateful and affectionate acknowledgments for this very gratifying
remembrance of me. I can truly say no one in Cambridge
will feel your separation from us more deeply than myself. Your presence and
friendship has been one of the bright and happy gifts which made my labour
here pleasant, and self-sacrifice light and easy. But we are not separated
though we cannot meet just so frequently within the walls of our good
College. I shall feel more than ever bound to visit Barley, and so fulfil my
long-made promise. Indeed, I have here a volume brought from Armenia for
you, by Mr Birch, about which I wrote to you last autumn. Shall I send it?
or bring it ? I go on Monday to the Pyms. . . . I shall take your book as my
company. Whether you will make me a convert or not, I don't think you
will have a more friendly reader. Wednesday I go to the F.'s of S., the week
following, the Scholarship Examinations will detain me here. But, about
June, if you are at Barley I will gladly come over.--With kindest regards,
ever believe me, your affect, and obliged,
W. CARUS.'
Letter from Dr LEE to his BROTHER-IN-LAW.
'BARLEY, Jan. 1st, 30, 1849.
'MY DEAR BROTHER HOPPER,-- . . . I think
I said in my last that I should show what
the principles of Mr Mede were, and what sort of reliance can be placed on
them. I have finished my preface, and in a day or two shall send it to
press. You will not be sorry to hear that I find my principles and the main
of my results to accord exactly with those of the early Christian Church. So
far as it judaized, Mr Mede and his school are with it.'
'BARLEY, May 2, 1850.
'My DEAR BROTHER HOPPER,--Many thanks for your kind note,
and for all the kind things said in it. I have no doubt Mr N.'s letter would
please you, not only as entering very fully and particularly into the
character of my book, but as exhibiting a very rare specimen of an ingenuous
mind. In this last respect, I must confess it surprised me. I have had some
letters much to the same point, but none that so particularly and carefully
investigated the matter before he pronounced his conclusions. Only a few
days ago I had a letter, much to the same effect, from London, and a little
earlier another from Brighton. What I prize principally in Mr N. is the care
he has taken to understand the subject. I am not one of those who labour
under a very high opinion either of myself or my productions. I am therefore
greatly obliged when anyone takes the trouble to follow me, and to state his
reasons either for approving or disapproving of anything that I have
written. Of one thing I think I may say I am certain, viz., that I am not
wrong in the main, that my system is good, and hence, I have no doubt, it
will first or last prevail. Its results are certainly good. I care not,
therefore, for the present popularity of the opposite view. It must have its
day, and this, God knoweth, I do not envy it. I have, indeed, much to be
thankful for, and I praise my God for the great honour He has been pleased
to put upon me. I must confess I do not expect much from a review by Mr
Nangles, for, in the first place, I have doubts whether he has either
ability or candour sufficient to enter fairly into the question. He cannot
in a day or two see where the great point of the question rests, and he
cannot spare more time, as the editor of a newspaper, to bestow upon it.
Then, again, he writes for a party who will not take his paper if he desert
the Millennarian, etc., doatings of his supporters. The manner, too, in
which he has been accustomed to view Scripture will not quadrate well with
that adopted by me. He is, and will continue, like many others similarly
circumstanced, satisfied with his present notions. If this is not the case,
you may fairly conclude that, whatever I may be as an interpreter of the
prophets, I am no prophet myself; you will soon be able to judge in this
matter if, indeed, Mr Nangles is at work on the book. Poor Lamb! *[ * Dean
of Bristol.] I saw him about nine days before he died. He seemed then to
have no idea of his danger. I invited him to Barley, for I thought a change
of air might do much for him. But it could have done him no good. . . . You,
and those about you, are very kind in wishing to see me at the Deanery. I am
pretty sure, however, this will not be the case. I am told that Lord
Wriothsley Russell has long been wishing for it; if so, he will have it, of
course. Lord Melbourne wished Lamb to take Ely, and to vacate Bristol, in
order, as it is said, to make way for Lord W. R. If he comes to you, you
will have a most excellent man, and one who will fill that post much better
than I can. . . . We are all, thanks to our God, doing very well. I do not
think I shall see you now before Midsummer, unless, indeed, our new Dean
should deem it right to summon us earlier.'
'BARLEY, July 27, 1850.
'My DEAR BROTHER HOPPER,-- . . . This day week I must be
in Bristol to commence my two months' residence there. . . . I am interested
in hearing of any progress made in the knowledge of prophecy. The case you
mention seems to promise well. Still, I know that many -- no matter how
right or wrong -- will not take the trouble to investigate a question of so
large an amount as that of prophecy, merely for the truth's sake. Others
would rather accept a system which seems to promise so much that is glorious
than be convinced that it is not true. And here I think the stumbling-block
and rock of offence to my scheme is likely long to continue, perhaps to the
end of time. But I must be content to succeed in just as much as the great
Head of the Church will allow me, and for this, little as it may be, I shall
be thankful. You will be glad to hear, I think, that I shall shortly publish
an outline of my work, D. V. In this it will be my object to fix the
dates and events of prophecy in such a manner as to be incapable of
misunderstanding, and I think of avoiding their adoption. My own convictions
certainly grow stronger daily on this great and interesting subject. Every
day adds
something to my stock which I had not
before, and this, I have no doubt, will be the case to the end of my career.
If so, I believe I shall be made the honoured instrument in the hands of Him
who has, of His mercy, done so much for me, of more effectually arresting
the progress of doubt as to the inspiration of the Scriptures than I
had ever imagined, or perhaps than anyone hitherto has.'
Anna Mary Lee
"SHORTLY after the death of Professor S. Lee, over forty years
ago, a suggestion was made that some record of his remarkable talents and
career, in a more extensive and lasting form than mere newspaper articles
could supply, should be given to the public. He had, however, left no
diaries or memoranda, nor yet copies of his large literary correspondence,
and the idea was abandoned. A year or two ago I was passing through
Shrewsbury, and, visiting the museum, saw there, amongst other portraits, a
large oil-painting of my father. Attached to the picture was a
card, with the statement that he had been Professor of Hebrew at Oxford!
Finding such inadequate knowledge of him within eight miles of his
native place, it occurred to me that he could scarcely be known even by name
to many of the present generation, to whom the story of his life might be a
stimulus, and an encouragement to make the most of their far greater
opportunities for the acquirement of knowledge. "
Canon Norgate
'DEAR Miss LEE,--I heartily wish I could be of more service to you in your
contemplated enterprise than your letter seems to intimate, as I had a great
respect for your worthy father, though by no means intimately acquainted
with him, and 'tis sixty years since! I, had two Cambridge acquaintances who
passed under your father's hands who could have borne far higher estimony to
his capability and value as at teacher than myself--Arthur Dawson of
Christ's College, and Edward Harold Browne of Emmanuel (afterwards Bishop of
Winchester), both of whom became Hebrew Scholars of the University of
Cambridge. But though a mere sciolist in that language myself, I had learned
to appreciate and honour what was perhaps not so generally known by the
public at large as by his contemporaries at College--the remarkable manner
in which, from his earliest days, he had persisted, in spite of most adverse
circumstances, in the acquisition of knowledge of the most valuable
description--that of the original language of the Old Testament Scriptures,
and of other cognate tongues bearing upon its elucidation --and in imparting that knowledge to others. But this is
not all of which I have a vivid recollection ; for added to it was the
faithfulness with which he adhered to "the truth as it is in Jesus," never,
by the grace of God, having been led away by those "will-o'-the-wisps" by
which many allowed themselves to be distracted, some even in those early
days of heresy, and (alas!) many more later. " (FOXLEY PARSONAGE, 'NORFOLK,
Jan. 14, 1895.)
Rev. Fr. Dale A. Johnson
I purchased my first Syriac book when I was 23 years of age at Powell’s
bookstore in Portland, Oregon. It was the Syriac New Trestament of Samuel
Lee. Having studied Latin for a few years previously, I read with delight
the Latin introduction of Samuel Lee. It was a masterpiece of scientific and
philological scholarship. He cited from Hebrew, Arabic, Latin, Syriac,
Persian, and other sources to support his theories about the Syriac Language
and the text we had before us. It not only overwhelmed me but inspired me as
a westerner to learn the “Language of our Lord.”
Little did I know at the time that Samuel Lee came from
humble beginnings. Handicapped by poverty, a sixth grade education, and his
obligations as a young husband and father, he overcame these obstacles and
rose to conduct a brilliant and successful life as a scholar/priest.
Early Life
SAMUEL LEE was born May 14th, 1783, He was the youngest
of a family of six brothers and five sisters living at Longnor, about eight
miles from Shrewsbury, England. Of these, he and a brother and sister were
the children of a second marriage, and much younger than the rest
Samuel Lee attended school until the age of 12 when he
was made a carpenter’s apprentice shortly after his father died. His mother
needed his small income to help provide for her. After five years he was
employed as a handyman and carpenter in the Roman Catholic chapel of Sir
Edward Smith. There he was exposed to books with Latin quotes. It inspired
him to learn Latin. The priests who came to the chapel were not helpful
knowing this boy to be a Protestant.
For seven years he labored during the day and studied
alone by night. After mastering Latin he conquered Greek and then Hebrew. He
reports the following:
I read the Latin Bible, "Florus,"
some of "Cicero's Orations," "Caesar's Commentaries," "Justin," "Sallust,"
"Virgil," "Horace's Odes" and "Ovid's Epistles." It may be asked how I
obtained these books? I never had all at once, but generally read one
and sold it, the price of which, with a little added to it, enabled me
to buy another, and this being read, was sold to procure the next. I was
now out of my apprenticeship, and determined to learn the Greek. I
bought, therefore, a "Westminster Greek Grammar," and soon afterwards
procured a Testament, which I found not very difficult with the
assistance of "Schrevelius's Lexicon." I bought next "Hunford's Greek
Exercises," which I wrote throughout, and then, in pursuance of the
advice laid down in the Exercises, read "Xenophon's Cyropoedia," and
soon after "Plato's Dialogues," some part of the "Iliad" and "Odyssey"
of Homer, "Pythagoras's Golden Verse," with the "Commentary of Hierocles,"
"Lucian's Dialogues of the Dead," and some of the "Poetae Minores," with
the "Antigone of Sophocles." I now thought I might attempt the Hebrew,
and accordingly procured "Bythner's Grammar," with his "Lyra Prophetica,"
and soon after obtained a Psalter, which I read by the help of the "Lyra."
I next purchased "Buxtorf's Grammar and Lexicon," with a Hebrew Bible,
and now I seemed drawing fast to the summit of my wishes, but was far
from being uninterrupted in those pursuits. A frequent inflammation in
my eyes, with every possible discouragement from those about me, were
certainly powerful opponents; but habit and a fixed determination to
proceed had now made study my greatest happiness,
Transformation
Finally at age 25 he went to work as a carpenter for his
brother. He married and for a short time gave up his secret life of study.
Then one day a fire broke out in the house he was repairing and all his
tools were burned up. He fell into the ashes of despair and began to think
about what to do with his life. He began to investigate using his mind
instead of his hands. He sought out a former school master who helped him
improve his math and English skills. Finally, the Reverend Archdeacon
Corbett hearing of his circumstances became his benefactor and over the next
year Samuel Lee learned Persian, Arabic, and Urdu.
'I thought that of a country
schoolmaster would be the most likely to answer my purpose. I therefore
applied myself to the study of "Murray's English Exercises" and improved
myself in arithmetic. There was, however, one grand objection to this--I
had no money to begin, and did not know any friend who would be inclined
to lend. In the meantime, the Revd. Archdeacon Corbett had heard of my
attachment to study, and having been informed of my being in Longnor,
sent for me in order to inform himself of particulars. To him I
communicated my circumstances, and it is to his goodness I am indebted
for the situation I now hold, and several other very valuable benefits,
which he thought proper, generously, to confer. My circumstances since
that time are too well known to you to need any further elucidation. It
is through your kind assistance I made myself thus far acquainted with
the Arabic, Persian and Hindoostanee languages, of my progress in which
you, sir, are undoubtedly the best judge.’
Syriac was the seventh language for Samuel Lee. He
learned it through a project he did for the British and Foreign Bible
Society . He was commissioned to produce a Syriac New Testament for the
Malabar Syriac Archbishop and his diocese. It was published in 1816 when Lee
was 33 years of age. It was the beginning a great scholarly career. He
produced twenty three major publications. Three of these works were specific
contributions to Syriac studies: the Syriac New Testament, the Syriac Old
Testament, and Eusebius’ Theophania.
In the October term of 1817 Samuel Lee took the degree of
B.A., and was soon afterwards admitted to Holy Orders as curate of
Chesterton, near Cambridge. He remained a priest in the church of England
for the rest of his life. During all this time he combined scholarship with
the pedestrian duties of a faithful priest, visiting the sick, preaching on
Sundays, and attending to the cares and worries of his congregations.
The publication of the 'Syriac New Testament' raised the
reputation of Samuel Lee abroad as well as at home. The University of Halle,
in Saxony, accordingly presented him with the degree of D.D., through the
hands of Dr Gesenius, the Hebrew professor of that University. The Syriac
Old Testament was not completed till the year 1823, when four thousand
copies in quarto were issued.
Samuel Lee went on to learn Ethiopic, Abbyssinian, and
Malay. The latter he learned in two months during Christmas break. Lee was
asked why it was so easy for him to learn languages.
Mr Lee made the remark that the acquisition of
languages was to him as easy and certain a process as the study of Newton's
"Principia" appeared to be to his fellow-student; that in all languages
there were certain links and dependencies which, when once understood, fixed
the language in the mind ; and that afterwards the copia verborum might be
acquired at your leisure.
Professorship
The commencement of the next year, 1818, introduces a new
era of his life. The Arabic professorship at Cambridge became vacant by the
resignation of Mr Palmer. His friends proposed that he should become a
candidate; but as it was necessary that he should have an M.A. degree, the
first step was to procure a royal mandate for conferring that degree upon
him before the mandatory time had been completed. For this purpose, the
consent of a majority of heads of houses, and a vote of the Senate, were
required. Samuel Lee's modesty and retired habits had made him little known
in the University. He was opposed also by a gentleman already of the degree
of M. A., who had been many years in India, and was an accomplished Oriental
scholar. Under these circumstances, a paper was printed and circulated among
the members of the Senate, simply giving a list of the various Oriental
works which he had edited, and a few testimonials from well-known Oriental
scholars. Amongst them was the testimony of four native Persian gentlemen at
that time residing in London, who testified to his thorough knowledge with
the idiom and pronunciation, as well as with the grammar of that language,
in the following emphatic terms :-- 'Upon the whole, this being the entire
persuasion of your servant, and in like manner the belief of all his
companions, who have spoken with the above-mentioned Mr Lee, both in Persic
and Arabic, that, whether as regards pronunciation, or reading, or writing,
he is learned and perfect.' The claims of Mr Lee upon the vacant chair, and
his pre-eminent learning, were recognized by all parties and he was voted to
the chair by a count of 9 to 4.
Later in his academic life Lee became Regius Professor of
Hebrew.
He died on the 16th December 1852, and was buried in a
vault in Barley Church.
Notes: Primary source for this article is from the
daughter of Samuel Lee, Anna Mary Lee, in her book, A Scholar of a Past
Generation, 1896, Seely and Co. It is a compilation of letters and journal
entries. Its major contribution is a list of all of Dr. Lee published works.
An online version is found at .
|