press testimonies, it is surely not Gospel of St. Matthew, and says, possible, with any appearance of that our Greek text is now « ada propriety, to resist the united force mitted by all well-informed men to of these collateral evidences, in sup- be a translation. + Says he, “ two port of Jerome's, and the commonly things are asserted by the Fathers, received opinion, that the Greek that Matthew wrote a Gospel, and original of the New Testament“ is that he wrote it in Hebrew. These a thing not to be doubted.

rest upon the same evidence, and It is added by Jerome, as we have must stand or fall together.” Again, already quoted, “ excepto Apostolo “ Nor have we stronger evidence Matthæo," and to this exception, for the one than for the other." the Epistle to the Hebrews has been It has indeed been very generally added, on the authority of some of admitted that, in the first instance, the fathers, who rested their opi. St Matthew wrote his Gospel in nion on the probability, that in writ. Hebrew, but the best informed men, ing to Hebrews, St. Paul would have at the same time maintained, write in Hebrew; but this sugges- upon the same authority, that a tion is of little importance, when Greek text was indited, about the we take it into consideration, that same period, and by an inspired Roeven if the apostle's epistle had been man, for the use of the church. addressed to residents in Jerusalem, Whilst other critics, equally well inbe might have been induced to write formed, have thought it more than to them in Greek, by the reasons probable that Matthew wrote origiwhich have already been assigned nally in the Greek language only. for the adoption of that language, in Our author will not hesitate in the the circulation of instruction-rea- admission of Casaubon into the sons which induced Josephus, in number of well-informed men, for writing for the information of the in p. 257; he speaks of him as Romans, to compose his history of profound scholar ;” and in his Exthe Jewish war in Greek. Besides, crcitationes against Baronius, Cait is well known, that among the saubon says, 6 Matthaeum He. Hebrews who were dispersed among braice scripsisse, nos quidem non the Gentiles, Greek was understood negamus, multis veterum id affirbetter than Hebrew, and to such mantibus : sed primitivam Ecclewas the apostle writing. “ Indeed," siam, jam inde ab ipso primo illius says Dr. Lardner, “ the ancients exordio, Evangelio Matthaei Graece had no other reason for believing scripto esse usam, et Graecum texthat St. Paul wrote this epistle in tum pro authentico habuisse, omni Hebrew, but that he wrote it to the asseveratione confirmamus. the Hebrews. So likewise Cappel- Auctorem textus Graeci fuisse Jacolus. The title deceived them. And bum fratrem Domini, Athanasius because it was written to Hebrews, gravis autor memoriæ prodidit: Jothey concluded it was written in hapnem Evangelistam alii dicunt, Hebrew.” It is obvious, for the ut legitur in vita Matthaei, et apud reasons already assigned, that they Theophylactum : Sunt qui Barnawere not warranted in doing so, al- bae Apostolo, sunt qui Lucae et though our author considers it so Paulo idipsum attribuunt.

Quae very natural conclusion," * But he diversitas sententiarum, ut de vero writes with more confidence still, auctore certo pronunciare nos vetat; about the Hebrew original of the ita illud certissime demonstrat: ip





p. 60.

† P. 468.

I P. 466, 467.

sis apostolorum temporibus, ab uno Quicquid ab antiquis illis scriptoriillorum, aut illorum auspiciis, vel bus profertur, dicitur solum, non potius spiritus sancti, cujus ipsi probatur. Non mihi fit verisimile erant organa, Graecum textum ex (ait Erasmus in cap. viii. Matth. p. Hebraico esse confectum.”

Let us 34.) Matthaeum Hebraicè scripsisse, now apply the conclusive reasoning, cum nemo testatur se vidisse ullum which we find in the “ Palaeoro. illius Hebraici voluminis vestigium,

“Why then reject the tes- siquidem illud, quod Nazaraeorum timony of the Fathers, or why vocant, nec Hebraicè scriptum, lestagarble it? Two things are asserted tur Hieronymus, sed Chaldaicè, for. by them, that Matthew wrote a mulis duntaxat Hebraicis, inter ApoGospel in Hebrew, and that his crypha censetur.”+ Gospel was written in Greek also, These reasons in themselves are under the guidance of inspiration. very weighty, and as they satisfied These rest upon the same evidence, such men as Erasmus and Glassius, and must stand or fall together.”- we may venture to conclude, in the Again, “nor have we stronger evi- face of the author's assertion about dence for the one than for the all “well-informed men,” that Matother."

thew wrote in Greek, and not in Other critics are of a very dif- Hebrew. But, at all events, if he ferent opinion,--and among them is did write in the latter tongue, his that prodigy of Biblical learning, Sal. gospel was also delivered to the Glassius. In their opinion, it is church in Greek about the same more probable that Matthew origi- period, and upon the authority of nally wrote in Greek, and in that inspiration. Says Glassius, " Ex language handed down his gospel to duabus his, utram quis sententiam posterity. (1.) Qnia tum Græca amplectatur, Canonicæ Græci téx. lingua erat ipsis etiam Judæis haud tus Matthæi auctoritati nihil dero. incognita, quorum usui cum scrip- gari, ultro fatebitur.”I tione sua potissimum inservisse, Even froin this short statement, volunt quidam ; quin alii quoque it is sufficiently apparent, that our Apostoli Græci scripserunt, non mo- author's objections are not in any do, quæ cunctis promiscue, sed et way supported by the external evi. quæ Judæis peculiariter inscriptæ dence; and we shall now see how erant, quod Jacobi et Petri Epistolæ, far his suggestions are corroborated item Epistola ad Hebræos testan- by the internal evidence, i. e. upon tur. (2.) Matthæi vocatio ad A pos- the principles of philological retolatum videtur requisivisse, ut doc- search. trinam de Christo Græce scriberet, In pursuing the consideration of quia non Hebræos modo, sed Græ- this part of his subject, he dwells cos etiam de Christo erudire debuit, chiefly on the mixture of Latin voluitque, id quod per linguam He- words with the Greek, and from bræam effectum dare non potuit, this he infers, that the present utpote Græcis incognitam : potuit Greek vulgate is a version from the autem per Græcam, quippe passim Latin. We find that, in the illustrain orbe Romano variis gentibus, ad. tion of this point, he has fallen ineoque ipsis etiam Hebræis notam. to the mistake of considering words (3.) Matthæi stylus cum Marci as Latinisms, which, in point of stylo plane consentit, non admodum fact, are classical Greek vocables. dissentiens a dictione Johannis. (4.) From Mark vii. 2, he adduces the

Quoted by Glass. Phil. Sacr. p. 231.

+ P. 232.

#P. 232.

word xorvos, as no other than the maica, that its author's attainments Latin coenum, i. e. Mark had write in Greek literature are but very ten coenosis manibus, abbreviated superficial, for to the learned, it is coenis manibus.* Had this been the well known, that the term deuetov case, the sacred writer would have not only signifies a foundation, but led the Romans to imagine, that, in any thing which rests on a solid point of fact, the persons alluded to basis, and the knowledge of its apwere accused of washing with de- plication in this sense, shows the filed hands, whereas it was only to propriety of its adoption by the legal impurity that the words refer; apostle, who is speaking of - layand we learn from passages quoted ing up for ourselves blessings which by Parkhurst and Schleusner, that rest on a good foundation.” In the the Jews were'accustomed to use it summation" which he has given in this ceremonial acceptance. Its of supposed Latin words, many are classical use in the sense of common, called such, which are certainly is well understood ; and among the Greek; but as we must keep within Jews, when it was used in reference limits in our review, we shall only to sacred subjects, it was naturally further notice in reference to this enough employed, in a figurative point, that according to our author, sense, to denote legal impurity. the application of syxou Booject, in " Metonymice notat inquinatum, i Peter v. 5, is no other than the pollutum, impurum, immundum, quia, Latin word incumbite; but in truth, quod, communi et promiscuo usui it is derived from xope@os a knot of cedit, inquinari et pollui solet.” hair, and signifies to adorn myself Stock.Clav. In what immediately fol- with hair. “Est metaphora sumplows, our author makes observations ta a genere vestimenti in nodum on the use of the word deuencoin constricti, quo servi utebantur : 1. Tim. vi. 19, somewhat of a syropeiß abece Græci vocabant.” Leigh. different description. He takes it Crit. Sacr. for granted, that no meaning can The “ summation” of supposed be attached to the application of it, Latinisms is in a great measure as it stands in our vulgate Greek made up of such words as those text, and thinks that it can be ac- which follow: ozixovratwg, a Hebrew counted for only on the supposition and Syriac word ; xeyrugowe, used by that the apostle himself wrote in Polybius;πραιτωρίον,φραγίλλιον,λεγίων, Latin, and made use of the word εκατονταρχης, κοδραντης, ασταριον,

dna fundum, which the translator took vagrov, pincov, podlos, &c. &c. This for an abbreviation of fundamentum, class of philological phenomena is and rendered it by Ousdoor. Says very considerable, and has been acour author, “ the passage in our counted for in a manner which has version, therefore, ought not to be hitherto been considered as very laying up in store for theinselves satisfactory, and we doubt not it a good foundation, but, laying up will continue to be considered as in store for themselves a good such. It is well known that when fund against the time to come.”ł the Roman government was estaThis surely is sad trifling, and blished over the Jews, they soon gives but a poor idea of the hypo- became familiar with the Latin thesis which is thus supported ; and names of offices, terms of law, moreally, it is one of innumerable ney, weights, measures, and public proofs, throughout the Palæoro- buildings. Hence the frequent re

• Glas. Phil. Sacr. p. 89, 90.

| Page 91.

currence of terms in the New Tes- guage was derived, was in most tament which have a reference to common use, and was most famimilitary, judicial, or financial em- liarly spoken by such persons as ployments. From this circumstance those who were selected to be the the use of such terms by the sacred apostles of our Saviour.

" Aposwriters was very natural, and some. tolos sermonem Graecum non ex times of considerable importance. orationibus Demosthenicis, sed ex For instance, the use of the word populari colloquio didicisse.”+ From xovetados in Matth. xxviii. 65, 66, this circumstance we are also ena. is à convincing proof that the watch bled to account for the want of the set over the sepulchre was made up Dual in the Greek of the New of Roman soldiers, a circumstance Testament, in that of the Septuaof great importance, as they were gint, in that of the Fathers, and the best disciplined troops, and must also in that of the modern Greek have suffered had they slept whilst language. All was derived from the on guard.

Aeolic, and in that dialect the Dual No doubt our author has ad. was not used ; and with this wellduced other words which he consi- known fact before our eyes, there is ders as Latinisms, but the use of no need of our author's hypothesis these are easily accounted for, with- concerning the vulgate Greek Tesout having recourse to his strange tament, as a translation or retrans. hypothesis ; some of them unques. lation from the Latin.

He conjectionably are Syriasms or Hebraisms. tures that many of the peculiarities Nor is this a phenomenon of much in the Greek phraseology of the difficulty. “Ut in oriente plurima Scriptures, arise from their Latin nomina translata fuerunt in occi- derivation; and this, although he dentem ; sic e contrario ex 'occi- vituperates all conjectural criticism, dente Graeca multa traducta sunt i. e. when it does not appear to in orientem, ab eo tempore, quo serve his own purpose, he brings Alexander eam partem orbis Grae- forward as a mere conjecture sugcis colonis et disciplinis replevit.”. gested by the euphony of the words,

Neither is there any difficulty, whereas, in addition to the euphony generally speaking, in accounting of the words which is equally atfor the use of many other Latin tached to the explanation that has words which bear a strong resem

hitherto satisfied Biblical critics, blance to Greek ones. It has again we add the circumstance of the acand again been observed, that the knowledged derivation of the LaAeolics, who agree in many things tin, from the less refined dialects of with the Dorics, have been closely the Greek language. followed by the Latins. The exist- The author of Palaeoromaica dwells ence of a general agreement be- chiefly on the peculiarities which tween the two, both in respect to arise from single words, and says the words and to the phrase, has comparatively little as to the characbeen recognised in what remains of teristic idioms which occur throughSappho and Alcaeus, and the exam. out the New Testament. To this ples which are occasionally mingled we would say, in the words of Erin the writings of Theocritus, Pin- nesti,"Quid vero? An etiam in dar, and Homer. It is the gene- habitu et velut forma totius orationis rally received opinion that the Aeolic aliquid ejusmodi animadvertitur? Greek, from which the Latin lan. Saepe miratus sum, viros doctissi.

* Glass. p. 238.

+ Glass. prefa'. 3G


[ocr errors]

mos, cum de stylo N. T. ut vocant, ment is not only not the original, but in utramque partem dissererent, perhaps is not immediately derived hanc partem, quantum ego quidem from the original. In all this there is repererim, non attigisse, solis verbis nothing like legitimate criticism. He et phrasibus expendendis voluisse has mistaken the source from which contineri.” The works of Ernesti it can be derived, in reference to we have not at hand, and quote the important subject, which he has from the elegant work of Jebb (now ventured to discuss in his Palaeoro . Bishop) on sacred literature. (P.93.) maica. To his attention, and to In this work the learned author has, that of our readers, we would ear. it may be, carried his principle of nestly recommend the following juParallelism somewhat 100 far; but, dicious observations, which we quote he has evinced in the most satisfac. from the preface of the Greek and tory manner, that the inspired pen- English Lexicon, by the truly learnInen were called upon, under divine ed Dr. John Jones." The Greek providence, to write in a language, language is necessarily of Asiatic in which they were not grammati- origin; the Hebrew, with its sevecally instructed, whilst their minds ral dialects; the Chaldean, Syriac, were indelibly imbued with the Arabic; the Shanscreet and the genius of the oriental tongues. So Palevi, or ancient Persian, alone great is the coincidence in the struc- contain the sources from whence it Cure of the phraseology in the Heb- flowed. Nor is the man who is als rew Bible and Greek Testament, together unacquainted with these that, upon any other principle, it primevul languages more able to ese cannot be rationally accounted for. plain the sense of a primitive word - To explain the short aphoristic sen. in Greek, than a writer would be to tences, the particular phrases, and complain the primitive words in Eng the many single words which occur

lish, who is an entire stranger lo AS philological phenomena, would the Gothic, and Saxon, which are require a profound and extended confessedly the parent tongues.

After these observations, and our acquaintance, not only with the

Hebrew, but with all the kindred examination of the “ summa fasti.
Janguages of the oriental nations. gia rerum," so as to afford the rea-
The author of Palaeoromaica is not

ders of Palaeoromaica the clue to even a Tyro in such attainments;

the author's misapprehensions and but, without any pretension to pro in concluding, that he is not quali

misrepresentations, we are justified ficiency in those indispensible qua fied in point of acquirements to turn lifications as an oriental Linguist, he sets himself down, to the equal. Jy ridiculous and feeble attempt, of

that golden key

the palace of eternity. converting Latin words into Greek," and of pointing out “ cor- He has indeed given a desperate ruptions from the Latin by the wrench, which proves, if we may Greek translator” !. By such pueri- so speak in technical language, that lities, he pretends to account for the web of the key to which he has those words, and phrases, and idi. had recourse, is but ill fitted to open oms, in the Greek Testament, up the philological phenomena that which have hitherto been consider. are connected with the critical stued as Syriasms and Hebraisms, but dy of the Greek Testament. upon which he would stamp the The main scope of his work is

character of Latinisms, for the pure no doubt philological, but many of wahrpose of establishing his wild hypo- the sentiments which run through

thesis that our present New Testa- it, and more especially the object

[ocr errors]



« VorigeDoorgaan »