press testimonies, it is surely not possible, with any appearance of propriety, to resist the united force of these collateral evidences, in support of Jerome's, and the commonly received opinion, that the Greek original of the New Testament "is a thing not to be doubted." It is added by Jerome, as we have already quoted, "excepto Apostolo Matthæo," and to this exception, the Epistle to the Hebrews has been added, on the authority of some of the fathers, who rested their opinion on the probability, that in writing to Hebrews, St. Paul would write in Hebrew; but this suggestion is of little importance, when we take it into consideration, that even if the apostle's epistle had been addressed to residents in Jerusalem, he might have been induced to write to them in Greek, by the reasons which have already been assigned for the adoption of that language, in the circulation of instruction-reasons which induced Josephus, in writing for the information of the Romans, to compose his history of the Jewish war in Greek. Besides, it is well known, that among the Hebrews who were dispersed among the Gentiles, Greek was understood better than Hebrew, and to such was the apostle writing." Indeed," says Dr. Lardner, "the ancients had no other reason for believing that St. Paul wrote this epistle in Hebrew, but that he wrote it to the the Hebrews. So likewise Cappellus. The title deceived them. And because it was written to Hebrews, they concluded it was written in Hebrew." It is obvious, for the reasons already assigned, that they were not warranted in doing so, although our author considers it "a very natural conclusion." But he writes with more confidence still, about the Hebrew original of the * Palæor. p. 60. " * Gospel of St. Matthew, and says, that our Greek text is now admitted by all well-informed men to be a translation. + Says he, "two things are asserted by the Fathers, that Matthew wrote a Gospel, and that he wrote it in Hebrew. These rest upon the same evidence, and must stand or fall together." Again, "Nor have we stronger evidence for the one than for the other.” ‡ It has indeed been very generally admitted that, in the first instance, St Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, but the best informed men, have at the same time maintained, upon the same authority, that a Greek text was indited, about the same period, and by an inspired Roman, for the use of the church. Whilst other critics, equally well informed, have thought it more than probable that Matthew wrote originally in the Greek language only. Our author will not hesitate in the admission of Casaubon into the number of well-informed men, for in p. 257; he speaks of him as a profound scholar;" and in his Exercitationes against Baronius, Casaubon says, "Matthaeum Hebraice scripsisse, nos quidem non negamus, multis veterum id affirmantibus: sed primitivam Ecclesiam, jam inde ab ipso primo illius exordio, Evangelio Matthaei Graece scripto esse usam, et Graecum textum pro authentico habuisse, omni asseveratione nos confirmamus. Auctorem textus Graeci fuisse Jacobum fratrem Domini, Athanasius gravis autor memoriæ prodidit: Johannem Evangelistam alii dicunt, ut legitur in vita Matthaei, et apud Theophylactum: Sunt qui Barnabae Apostolo, sunt qui Lucae et Paulo idipsum attribuunt. Quae diversitas sententiarum, ut de vero auctore certo pronunciare nos vetat; ita illud certissime demonstrat: ip sis apostolorum temporibus, ab uno illorum, aut illorum auspiciis, vel potius spiritus sancti, cujus ipsi erant organa, Graecum textum ex Hebraico esse confectum." Let us now apply the conclusive reasoning, which we find in the "Palaeoro maica." "Why then reject the testimony of the Fathers, or why garble it? Two things are asserted by them, that Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew, and that his Gospel was written in Greek also, under the guidance of inspiration. These rest upon the same evidence, and must stand or fall together."Again, "nor have we stronger evidence for the one than for the other." Other critics are of a very different opinion, and among them is that prodigy of Biblical learning, Sal. Glassius. In their opinion, it is more probable that Matthew originally wrote in Greek, and in that language handed down his gospel to posterity. "(1.) Quia tum Græca lingua erat ipsis etiam Judæis haud incognita, quorum usui cum scriptione sua potissimum inservisse, volunt quidam; quin alii quoque Apostoli Græci scripserunt, non modo, quæ cunctis promiscue, sed et quæ Judæis peculiariter inscriptæ erant, quod Jacobi et Petri Epistolæ, item Epistola ad Hebræos testantur. (2.) Matthæi vocatio ad Apostolatum videtur requisivisse, ut doctrinam de Christo Græce scriberet, quia non Hebræos modo, sed Græcos etiam de Christo erudire debuit, voluitque, id quod per linguam Hebræam effectum dare non potuit, utpote Græcis incognitam: potuit autem per Græcam, quippe passim in orbe Romano variis gentibus, adeoque ipsis etiam Hebræis notam. (3.) Matthæi stylus cum Marci stylo plane consentit, non admodum dissentiens a dictione Johannis. (4.) Quoted by Glass. Phil. Sacr. p. 231. p. Quicquid ab antiquis illis scriptoribus profertur, dicitur solum, non probatur. Non mihi fit verisimile (ait Erasmus in cap. viii. Matth. 34.) Matthaeum Hebraicè scripsisse, cum nemo testatur se vidisse ullum illius Hebraici voluminis vestigium, siquidem illud, quod Nazaraeorum vocant, nec Hebraicè scriptum, testatur Hieronymus, sed Chaldaicè, formulis duntaxat Hebraicis, inter Apocrypha censetur.”+ These reasons in themselves are very weighty, and as they satisfied such men as Erasmus and Glassius, we may venture to conclude, in the face of the author's assertion about all "well-informed men," that Matthew wrote in Greek, and not in Hebrew. But, at all events, if he did write in the latter tongue, his gospel was also delivered to the church in Greek about the same period, and upon the authority of inspiration. Says Glassius, "Ex duabus his, utram quis sententiam amplectatur, Canonicæ Græci textus Matthæi auctoritati nihil derogari, ultro fatebitur."+ Even from this short statement, it is sufficiently apparent, that our author's objections are not in any way supported by the external evidence; and we shall now see how far his suggestions are corroborated by the internal evidence, i. e. upon the principles of philological research. In pursuing the consideration of this part of his subject, he dwells chiefly on the mixture of Latin words with the Greek, and from this he infers, that the present Greek vulgate is a version from the Latin. We find that, in the illustra tion of this point, he has fallen into the mistake of considering words as Latinisms, which, in point of fact, are classical Greek vocables. From Mark vii. 2, he adduces the word xoves, as no other than the Latin coenum, i. e. Mark had writ ten coenosis manibus, abbreviated coenis manibus.* Had this been the case, the sacred writer would have led the Romans to imagine, that, in point of fact, the persons alluded to were accused of washing with defiled hands, whereas it was only to legal impurity that the words refer; and we learn from passages quoted by Parkhurst and Schleusner, that the Jews were accustomed to use it in this ceremonial acceptance. Its classical use in the sense of common, is well understood; and among the Jews, when it was used in reference to sacred subjects, it was naturally enough employed, in a figurative sense, to denote legal impurity. "Metonymice notat inquinatum, pollutum, impurum, immundum, quia, quod, communi et promiscuo usui cedit, inquinari et pollui solet." Stock. Clav. In what immediately follows, our author makes observations on the use of the word or in 1. Tim. vi. 19, somewhat of a different description. He takes it for granted, that no meaning can be attached to the application of it, as it stands in our vulgate Greek text, and thinks that it can be accounted for only on the supposition that the Apostle himself wrote in Latin, and made use of the word fundum, which the translator took for an abbreviation of fundamentum, and rendered it by on. Says our author," the passage in our version, therefore, ought not to be laying up in store for themselves a good foundation, but, laying up in store for themselves a good fund against the time to come." This surely is sad trifling, and gives but a poor idea of the hypothesis which is thus supported; and really, it is one of innumerable proofs, throughout the Palæoro Glas. Phil. Sacr. p. 89, 90. maica, that its author's attainments in Greek literature are but very superficial, for to the learned, it is well known, that the term o not only signifies a foundation, but any thing which rests on a solid basis; and the knowledge of its application in this sense, shows the propriety of its adoption by the apostle, who is speaking of "laying up for ourselves blessings which rest on a good foundation." In the "summation" which he has given of supposed Latin words, many are called such, which are certainly Greek; but as we must keep within limits in our review, we shall only further notice in reference to this point, that according to our author, the application of youBoas, in 1 Peter v. 5, is no other than the Latin word incumbite; but in truth, it is derived from zoμbos a knot of hair, and signifies to adorn myself with hair. "Est metaphora sumpta a genere vestimenti in nodum constricti, quo servi utebantur : youμ Græci vocabant." Leigh. Crit. Sacr. The "summation" of supposed Latinisms is in a great measure made up of such words as those which follow: σπέκουλατως,a Hebrew and Syriac word; xrugi, used by Polybius;πραιτωρίον φραγελλίον,λογίων, ἑκατονταρχης, κοδράντης, ασταριον, δηvagion, μixion, μodios, &c. &c. This class of philological phenomena is very considerable, and has been accounted for in a manner which has hitherto been considered as very satisfactory, and we doubt not it will continue to be considered as such. It is well known that when the Roman government was established over the Jews, they soon became familiar with the Latin names of offices, terms of law, money, weights, measures, and public buildings. Hence the frequent re † Page 91. currence of terms in the New Testament which have a reference to military, judicial, or financial employments. From this circumstance the use of such terms by the sacred writers was very natural, and sometimes of considerable importance. For instance, the use of the word xoveTadia in Matth. xxviii. 65, 66, is a convincing proof that the watch set over the sepulchre was made up of Roman soldiers, a circumstance of great importance, as they were the best disciplined troops, and must have suffered had they slept whilst on guard. No doubt our author has adduced other words which he considers as Latinisms, but the use of these are easily accounted for, without having recourse to his strange hypothesis; some of them unquestionably are Syriasms or Hebraisms. Nor is this a phenomenon of much difficulty. Ut in oriente plurima nomina translata fuerunt in occidentem; sic e contrario ex occidente Graeca multa traducta sunt in orientem, ab eo tempore, quo Alexander eam partem orbis Graecis colonis et disciplinis replevit." Neither is there any difficulty, generally speaking, in accounting for the use of many other Latin words which bear a strong resemblance to Greek ones. It has again and again been observed, that the Aeolics, who agree in many things with the Dorics, have been closely followed by the Latins. The existence of a general agreement between the two, both in respect to the words and to the phrase, has been recognised in what remains of Sappho and Alcaeus, and the examples which are occasionally mingled in the writings of Theocritus, Pindar, and Homer. It is the generally received opinion that the Aeolic Greek, from which the Latin lan Glass. p. 238. VOL. XXIII. NO. VI. guage was derived, was in most common use, and was most familiarly spoken by such persons as those who were selected to be the apostles of our Saviour. tolos sermonem Graecum non ex "Aposorationibus Demosthenicis, sed ex populari colloquio didicisse."+ From this circumstance we are also enabled to account for the want of the Dual in the Greek of the New Testament, in that of the Septuagint, in that of the Fathers, and also in that of the modern Greek language. All was derived from the Aeolic, and in that dialect the Dual was not used; and with this wellknown fact before our eyes, there is no need of our author's hypothesis concerning the vulgate Greek Testament, as a translation or retranslation from the Latin. He conjectures that many of the peculiarities in the Greek phraseology of the Scriptures, arise from their Latin derivation; and this, although he vituperates all conjectural criticism, i. e. when it does not appear to serve his own purpose, he brings forward as a mere conjecture suggested by the euphony of the words, whereas, in addition to the euphony of the words which is equally attached to the explanation that has hitherto satisfied Biblical critics, we add the circumstance of the acknowledged derivation of the Latin, from the less refined dialects of the Greek language. The author of Palaeoromaica dwells chiefly on the peculiarities which arise from single words, and says comparatively little as to the characteristic idioms which occur throughout the New Testament. To this we would say, in the words of Ernesti,-" Quid vero? An etiam in habitu et velut forma totius orationis aliquid ejusmodi animadvertitur? Saepe miratus sum, viros doctissi + Glass, prefa'. 4 " mos, cum de stylo N. T. ut vocant, in utramque partem dissererent, hanc partem, quantum ego quidem repererim, non attigisse, solis verbis et phrasibus expendendis voluisse contineri." The works of Ernesti we have not at hand, and quote from the elegant work of Jebb (now Bishop) on'sacred literature. (P.93.) In this work the learned author has, it may be, carried his principle of Parallelism somewhat too far; but, he has evinced in the most satisfactory manner, that the inspired peneinen were called upon, under divine providence, to write in a language, in which they were not grammatically instructed, whilst their minds were indelibly imbued with the genius of the oriental tongues. So great is the coincidence in the structure of the phraseology in the Hebrew Bible and Greek Testament, that, upon any other principle, it cannot be rationally accounted for. To explain the short aphoristic sentences, the particular phrases, and the many single words which occur as philological phenomena, would require a profound and extended acquaintance, not only with the Hebrew, but with all the kindred -languages of the oriental nations. The author of Palaeoromaica is not even a Tyro in such attainments; but, without any pretension to pro ficiency in those indispensible qua lifications as an oriental Linguist, he sets himself down, to the equally ridiculous and feeble attempt, of "converting Latin words into Greek," and of pointing out" corruptions from the Latin by the Greek translator"! By such puerilities, he pretends to account for those words, and phrases, and idi oms, in the Greek Testament, which have hitherto been considered as Syriasms and Hebraisms, but upon which he would stamp the character of Latinisms, for the pur pose of establishing his wild hypothesis that our present New Testa ment is not only not the original, but perhaps is not immediately derived from the original. In all this there is nothing like legitimate criticism. He has mistaken the source from which it can be derived, in reference to the important subject, which he has ventured to discuss in his Palaeoromaica. To his attention, and to that of our readers, we would ear nestly recommend the following judicious observations, which we quote from the preface of the Greek and English Lexicon, by the truly learned Dr. John Jones." The Greek language is necessarily of Asiatic origin; the Hebrew, with its several dialects; the Chaldean, Syriac, Arabic; the Shanscreet and the Palevi, or ancient Persian, alone contain the sources from whence it flowed. Nor is the man who is altogether unacquainted with these primeval languages more able to ex plain the sense of a primitive word in Greek, than a writer would be to explain the primitive words in English, who is an entire stranger to the Gothic, and Saxon, which are confessedly the parent tongues." After these observations, and our examination of the " summa fastigia rerum," so as to afford the readers of Palaeoromaica the clue to the author's misapprehensions and in concluding, that he is not qualimisrepresentations, we are justified fied in point of acquirements to turn |