(6)

of the old Hebrew idiom*. There are moreover evident marks in these volumes of the change, which the Macedonian + conquests introduced into the language of the conquered countries; and there is a variety not only of Latin phrases, but of Latin words‡ incorporated, and as it were domiciliated, into the vernacular tongue. In this last particular, the style of the New Teftament is found to differ from that of the Septuagint verfion, which is much more free, if not || entirely fo, from any mixture of Latin phraseology or idiom. So that, although these different collections of writings are composed in the fame kind of Greek, which has been termed the Hellenistic dialect §, but is indeed

more

• For the name "Hebrew" confult Campbell, Vol. I. p. 3. II. p. 17. and 20. for the retention of the" idioms "Vol. I. p. 48. + Thefe conquefts produced what was called the Alexandrine idiom, traces of which are found in the New Teftament. See Salmafius, pp. 95. 102. 264. and 442-447. Michaelis has devoted a section, the feventh of Chap. 4. to this fubject.

Salmaf. pp. 94. 121.-123. 140. Mich. ib. fect. X.

In Novo (fc. Teftamento) multæ voces Romanæ, multæ phrafes Latinæ occurrunt, quæ nufquàm in vetere comparent. Salmaf. p. 251.

The difpute between fome eminent fcholars of the fixteenth and feventeenth centuries concerning this appellation is well known. The controverfy certainly turned too much upon names, yet it had it's use, fince it brought forward much curious criticifm upon the language of the New Teftament. I must confefs, I think Salmafius has made out his point as to the impropriety of both the terms, which were firft adopted by

Scaliger

more properly the Greek of the Synagogue, ftill there is this marked diftinction between them; which fhews that the one must have been written, after the Macedonians had obtained a confiderable influence over the affairs of Judea, while the other bears evi

dent

Scaliger and Drufius. (Vid. Ernefti Interpr. N. T. p. 1. f. 2. c. 3. f. 16.) Yet he has carried his argument much too far, in fuppofing the Apostles to have been entirely unacquainted with the Greek language, and with the Septuagint Verfion. With regard to the EAAs mentioned in the Acts, I am not quite fatisfied that he is wrong. Upon the whole however, I am difpofed to acquiefce in the determination of Harles. "Si quis aut nationem, quæ ufa fuiffet peculiari græco dicendi genere, aut peculiarem græcam dialectum intelligit, eamque hellenifticam vocat, tunc nego, linguam effe hellenisticam. Contrà, fi quis illam dicendi rationem ex linguâ hebraicâ et græcâ mixtam, quæ Judæis inter vas viventibus ab educatione, confuetudine, ufuque tam hebraici codicis, quam verfionis T LXX. propria quafi fuit et vulgaris, Hellenifticam dixerit, equidem non adeò diffentirem. Introductio in Hift. Ling. Gr. Tom. II. pars 2. p. 69. Altenburgi 1795.

See Campb. Vol. I. p. 12. and 23. Simon argues that Salmafius contended about words.-He has replied to this ob. jection in the Dedication prefixed to his Commentarius, pp. 31. and 50. I am not fo fortunate as to poffefs his other treatise on this fubject, which I fuppofe he thought conclufive, fince he gave it the title of Funus Linguæ Hellenisticæ. It may be worth while, before we quit the fubject, to fee what appellation he is willing to bestow upon this peculiar ftyle. Concludamus igitur non Hellenifticum fuiffe ftilum Novi Teftamenti, fed partim idioticum Syriacum, partim igunrevTixóv. Nam Syriafmos ex utroque habet, fed præcipuè ex versionis genere. Phrafium autem rationem nihil facere ad idiomatum differentiam conftituendam jam fuprà docuimus. Veteris Teftamenti dictio partim etiam ięμnvivin, quod eloquutionem spectat, ex Hebræo ad verbum expreffam, partim Macedonica propter Macedonum in Ægypto et Syriâ fub Alexandri fuccefforibus firmatum imperium." p. 264.

dent tokens of the prevalence of the Roman arms. The historical facts, mentioned and alluded to in various parts of the New Teftament, will not admit any reasonable doubt, but that the books must have been written after the acceffion of Tiberius to the Empire; but even if this were not the cafe, these internal marks would fhew, that the Romans had established themselves in that part of the world, fufficiently to have effected a confiderable change in the language of the inhabitants. On the other hand, as Michaelis obferves, "The Hebraifms and Syriafms, with which thefe writings abound, fhew them to have been written by men of Hebrew origin." He juftly concludes from this fact, that they were productions of the first century; "fince after the decease of the Jewish converts to Chriftianity, we find hardly any instance of Jews who turned preachers of the Gofpel; and the Chriftian fathers were for the most part totally ignorant of Hebrew *."

WITH respect to the character and condition of the writers, we are juftified in concluding, from the resemblance to the phrafeology of the old Teftament, and to the

• Pag. 45.

style

(9)

style of the Septuagint Verfion*, from the introduction of Syriac and Chaldaic modes of expreffion, and from the thorough knowledge which these volumes exhibit of Jewish customs and writings, not only that the writers were extremely converfant with the language of Palestine, but also that they were Jews by religion; since none but Jews were likely to attain such an insight into all that concerns Jewish laws and opinions, or could be enabled to produce compofitions, fimilar, in fo many marked peculiarities, to the Rabbinical and Talmudical writings +. THERE

* Salmafius contends against all probability, that the Apofles never used the Septuagint verfion, p. 252. Ernesti maintains that they never quoted it (Vid. Michaelís, Vol. I. p. 231.) which is not only a different queftion, but one more difficult of folution. -No impartial judge will deny, that there is a ftrong and frequent refemblance between the Greek of the LXX. and the New Teftament. Indeed what Salmafius fays of the former in another place, is equally applicable to the latter. Quocunque nomine vocari placeat eam eloquutionem, quâ concepta eft Septuaginta Interpretum editio, certum effe, eam plures Hebraifmos et Syriafmos intertextos Græcæ orationis corpori, quafi notas ac nævos peculiares, oftentare. Ep. Dedic. p. 31. It is true, he puts this remark into the mouth of his opponent, yet he elsewhere allows it's accuracy, see p. 34. Nam de re femper inter omnes conftitit, verba effe Græca, phrafim Hebraicam, p. 50. See alfo Campb. Vol. I. pp. 10, 11.

+ On the great affiftance to be derived from these fources towards the more accurate interpretation of the New Teftament, fee what has been faid before of Lightfoot and Schoettgenius. See alfo Michaelis, pp. 129. 182. and the teftimony of Surenhufius, in his preface to the Hora Hebraicæ and Talmudica

B

THERE is moreover another ftrong argument for the authenticity of these writings, the force of which will be acknowledged by the accurate obfervers of language. Very many of the Greek words found in the New Teftament, are not fuch as were adopted by men of education, and the higher and more polished ranks of life, but fuch as were in ufe with the common people. Now this fhews,

*

that

mudicæ of Schoettgenius, fect. 4. In the fame preface, an objection to the fuppofed want of antiquity in these writings is fuccessfully encountered. See fect. 13. and 14.

*No critic feems to have taken more pains in pointing out the qualities of this vulgar idiom (this xudaιórns or xudarooyia, as it is styled) and in marking the inftances, which occur in the New Teftament than Salmafius. See his treatise De Hellenisticâ, pp. 95-113. He difcriminates the dirixes xagantne p. 128. See alfo pp. 144. 250. 254, and 260. Simon in c. 28. ad fin. and Campbell, Diff. I. agree with Salmafius as to this fact, and they produce in corroboration of it a variety of paffages, equally ftrong and appofite, from Origen and Chryfoftom.

With refpect to the charge of obfcurity, which Simon has taken occafion from this circumftance to urge against the language of the New Teftament, fee Salmafius, p. 131. and Ernefti, loc. fup. cit. fect. 14. and 15. Certain it is, that the common language would be beft understood by thofe to whom Christianity was firft taught, and by the teachers themselves. Michaelis feems too much afraid of making any conceffions on the fubject of this idiomatic language pp. 156. 171. Yet he more than once wifhes for the affiftance of antient infcriptions, folely with a view to the explanation of the provincialisms and idiotifms. See pp. 170. and 176. Perhaps this eminent critic would not have taken the alarm, which he feems to have done, if he had been aware of the judicious dictinction made by our learned countryman. "It is pertinent, however, to obferve that the above remarks on the Greek of the New Teftament, do not imply that there was

any