12. Lastly, as the first vestiges of the points that can be traced are to be found in the writings of Rabbi Ben Asher, president of the western school, and of Rabbi Ben Naphthali, chief of the eastern school, who flourished about the middle of the tenth century, we are justified in assigning that as the epoch when the system of vowel points was established. Such are the evidences on which the majority of the learned rest their convictions of the modern date of the Hebrew points: it now remains, that we concisely notice the arguments adduced by the Buxtorfs and their followers for the antiquity of these points. 1. From the nature of all languages it is urged that they require vowels, which are in a manner the soul of words. This is readily conceded as an indisputable truth, but it is no proof of the antiquity of the vowel points: for the Hebrew language always had and still has vowels, independent of the points, without which it may be read. Origen, who transcribed the Hebrew Scriptures in Greek characters in his Hexapla, did not invent new vowels to express the vowels absent in Hebrew words, neither did Jerome, who also expressed many Hebrew words and passages in Latin characters. The Samaritans, who used the same alphabet as the Hebrews, read without the vowel points, employing the matres lectionis, Aleph, He or Hheth, Jod, Oin, and Vau (a, e, i, o, u) for vowels; and the Hebrew may be read in the same manner, with the assistance of these letters, by supplying them where they are not expressed, agreeably to the modern practice of the Jews, whose Talmud and rabbinical commentators, as well as the copies of the law preserved in the synagogues, are to this day read without vowel points. 2. It is objected that the reading of Hebrew would be rendered very uncertain and difficult without the points, after the language ceased to be spoken. 4. In further proof of the supposed antiquity of vowel points, some passages have been adduced from the Talmud, in which accents and verses are mentioned. The fact is admitted, but it is no proof of the existence of points; neither is mention of certain words in the Masoretic notes, as being irregularly punctuated, any evidence of their existence or antiquity: for the Masora was not finished by one author, nor in one century, but that system of annotation was commenced and prosecuted by various Hebrew critics through several ages. Hence it happened that the latter Masorites, having detected mistakes in their predecessors (who had adopted the mode of pronouncing and reading used in their day), were unwilling to alter such mistakes, but contented themselves with noting particular words as having been irregu larly and improperly pointed. These notes, therefore, furnish no evidence of the existence of points before the time of the first compilers of the Masora.5 The preceding are the chief arguments usually urged for and against the vowel points, and from an impartial consideration of them, the reader will be enabled to judge for himself. The weight of evidence, we apprehend, will be found to determine against them: nevertheless, "the points seem to have their uses, and these not inconsiderable; and to have this use among others,-that, as many of the Hebrew letters have been corrupted since the invention of the points, and as the points subjoined originally to the true letters have been in many of these places regularly preserved, these points will frequently concur in proving the truth of such corruptions, and will point out the method of correcting them." V. HEBREW ACCENTS. Besides the vowel points, the antiquity of which has been considered in the preceding pages, we meet in pointed Hebrew Bibles with other marks or signs termed ACCENTS; the system of which is inseparably connected with the present state of the vowel points, inasmuch as these points are often changed in consequence of the accents. The latter therefore vowels, at least with the completion of the vowel system. must have originated contemporaneously with the written To this it is replied, that even after Hebrew ceased to be a vernacular language, its true reading might have been continued among learned men to whom it was familiar, and also in their schools, which flourished before the invention of the points. And thus daily practice in reading, as well as a consideration of the context, would enable them not only to fix the meaning of doubt-Respecting the design of the accents there has been great ful words, but also to supply the vowels which were deficient and likewise to fix words to one determinate reading. Cappel, and after him Masclef,2 have given some general rules for the application of the matres lectionis, to enable us to read Hebrew without points. the church of Rome. has discussed this subject most copiously in his valuable dispute among Hebrew grammarians. Professor Stuart, who Hebrew Grammar, is of opinion that they were designed, not to mark the tone-syllable of a word or the interpunction, but to regulate the cantillation of the Scriptures. It is well known that the Jews, from time immemorial in the public reading of the Scriptures, have cantillated them, that is, read in a kind of half singing or recitative way. In this manner most probably the Ethiopian eunuch was reading the prophecy of Isaiah when he was overheard and interrogated by Philip. (Acts viii. 30.) In this manner also Mussulmen read the Koran; and the people of the East generally deliver public discourses in this way. The mode of cantillating Hebrew in different countries is at present various, but guided in all by the accents; that is, the accents are used as musical notes, though various powers are assigned to them. The mode of reading with Hebrew accents will be found treated at less or greater length in most of the Hebrew grammars with points. A bibliographical account of the principal editions of the Hebrew Bible will be found in the BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX to this volume, PART I. CHAP. I. SECT. I., and of the principal Hebrew grammars and lexicons, both with and without points, in PART II. CHAP. IV. SECT. I. and 11. 3. "Many Protestant writers have been led to support the authority of the points, by the supposed uncertainty of the unpointed text; which would oblige us to follow the direction of "This_argument, however, makes against those who would suppose Ezra to have introduced the points: for in that case, from Moses to his day the text being unpointed must have been obscure and uncertain; and if this were not so, why should not the unpointed text have remained intelligible and unambiguous after his time, as it had done before it? This argument, moreover, grants what they who use it are not aware of: for if it be allowed that the unpointed text is ambiguous and uncertain, and would oblige us in consequence to recur to the church of Rome, the Romanists may prove at least with every appearance of truth-that it has always been unpointed, and that, therefore, we must have recourse to the church to explain it. Many writers of that communion have had the candour to acknowledge, that the unpointed Hebrew text can be read and understood like the Samaritan text; for although several words in Hebrew may, when separate, admit of different interpretations, the context usually fixes their meaning with precision; or, if it ever fail to do so, and leave their meaning still ambiguous, recourse may be had to the interpretations of ancient translators or commentators. We must likewise remember, that the Masorites, in affixing points to the text, did not do so according to their own notions how it ought to be read: they followed the received reading of their I. day, and thus fixed unalterably that mode of reading which was authorized among them; and, therefore, though we reject these points as their invention, and consider that they never were used by any inspired writer, yet it by no means follows, that for the interpretation of Scripture we must go to a supposed infallible church; for we acknowledge the divine original of what the points express, namely, the sentiments conveyed by the letters and words of the sacred text."4 1 Arcanum Punctationis revelatum, lib. i. c. 18. 2 Grammatica Hebraica, vol. i. cap. 1. § iv. Thus the English verb to skin has two opposite meanings; but the context will always determine which it bears in any passage where it occurs. Hamilton's Introd. to the Study of the Hebrew Scriptures, pp. 41, 45. SECTION II. ON THE GREEK LANGUAGE. Similarity of the Greek language of the New Testament with that of the Alexandrian or Septuagint Greek version.-II. The New Testament why written in Greek. • Walton, Prol. iii. §§ 38-56. (pp. 125-170.) Carpzov. Crit. Sacr. Vet. Test. parti. c. v. sect. vii. pp. 212-274. Pfeiffer, Critica Sacra, cap. iv. sect. ii. (Op. pp. 701-711.) Gerard's Institutes, pp. 32-38. Jahn, Introd. ad Vet. Foedus, pp. 129-131. Bauer, Critica Sacra, pp. 128-141. Prideaux's Connection, vol. i. part i. book 5. pp. 347-361. 8th edition. Bishop Marsh (Lectures, part ii. pp. 136-140.) has enumerated the principal treatises for and against the vowel points. 6 Dr. Kennicott, Dissertation i. on the Hebrew Text, p. 315. Stuart's Hebrew Grammar, pp. 22, 23. 68. (First edition.) In pp. 6466., and Appendix (E,) pp. 341–356. Mr. Stuart has treated at large on the number, names, inode of writing, prose and poetic consecution, original design, and importance of the Hebrew accents. Cilicisms. 1. Similarity of THE GREEK LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TES TAMENT WITH THAT OF THE Alexandrian or Septuagint Ir a knowledge of Hebrew be necessary and desirable, in order to understand the Old Testament aright, an acquaintance with the Greek language is of equal importance for understanding the New Testament correctly. It is in this language that the Septuagint version of the Old Testament was executed; and as the inspired writers of the New Testament thought and spoke in the Chaldee or Syriac tongues, whose turns of expression closely corresponded with those of the ancient Hebrew, the language of the apostles and evangelists, when they wrote in Greek, necessarily resembled that of the translators of the Septuagint. And as every Jew, who read Greek at all, would read the Greek Bible, the style of the Septuagint again operated in forming the style of the Greek Testament. The Septuagint version, therefore, being a new source of interpretation equally important to the Old and New Testament, a knowledge of the Greek language becomes indispensably necessary to the biblical student. III. Examination of its style.-IV. Its Dialects-Hebra- were also inhabited by Greeks. Herod the Great, in particuisms—Rabbinisms—Aramæisms—Latinisms—Persisms and lar, made continual efforts to give a foreign physiognomy to Judæa; which country, during the personal ministry of Jesus Christ, was thus invaded on every side by a Greek population. The following particulars will confirm and illustrate this fact: Aristobulus and Alexander built or restored many cities, rians who spoke their language. Some of the cities, indeed, which were almost entirely occupied by Greeks, or by Sywhich were rebuilt by the Asmonean kings, or by the command of Pompey, were on the frontiers of Palestine, but a great number of them were in the interior of that country; and concerning these cities we have historical data which demonstrate that they were very nearly, if not altogether, Greek. Thus, at Dora, a city of Galilee, the inhabitants refused to the Jews the right of citizenship which had been granted to them by Claudius. Josephus expressly says that Gadara and Hippos are Greek cities, xxnvides sio woxes.? In the very centre of Palestine stood Bethshan, which place its Greek inhabitants called Scythopolis. Josephus testifies that Gaza, in the southern part of Judæa, was Greek; and Joppa, the importance of whose harbour induced the kings of Egypt and Syria successively to take it from the Jews,10 most certainly could not remain a stranger to the same influence. Under the reign of Herod the Great, Palestine beerected several cities in honour of the Caesars. The most came still more decidedly Greek. That prince and his sons remarkable of all these, Casarea (which was the second city in his kingdom), was chiefly peopled by Greeks;" who after Herod's death, under the protection of Nero, expelled the Jews who dwelt there with them.12 The Jews revenged the affront, which they had received at Caesarea, on Gadara, Hippos, Scythopolis, Askalon, and Gaza,-a further proof that the Greeks inhabited those cities jointly with the Jews.13 After the death of Pompey, the Greeks, being liberated from all the restraints which had been imposed on them, made great progress in Palestine under the protection of Herod; who by no means concealed his partiality for them,11 and lavished immense sums of money for the express purpose of naturalizing their language and manners among the Jews. With this view he built a theatre and amphitheatre at Cæsarea;15 at Jericho an amphitheatre, and a stadium; he erected similar edifices at the very gates of the holy city, Jerusalem, and he even proceeded to build a theatre within its walls." II. A variety of solutions has been given to the question, WHY THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS WRITTEN IN GREEK. The true reason is simply this, that it was the language best understood, both by writers and readers, being spoken and written, read and understood, throughout the Roman empire, and particularly in the eastern provinces. In fact, Greek was at that time as well known in the higher and middle circles as the French is in our day; almost all Romans, who had received any tincture of education, speaking it in addition to their mother tongue. To the universality of the Greek language, Cicero,2 Seneca,3 and Juvenal bear ample testimony: and the circumstances of the Jews having had both political, civil, and commercial relations with the Greeks, and being dispersed through various parts of the Roman empire, as well as their having cultivated the philosophy of the Greeks, of which we have evidence in the New Testament, all sufficiently account for their being acquainted with the Greek language; to which we may add the fact, that the Septuagint Greek version of the Old Testament had been in use among the Jews upwards of two hundred and eighty years before the Christian æra; which most assuredly would not have been the case if the language had not been familiar to them. And if the eminent Jewish writers, Philo and Josephus, had motives for preferring to write in Greek, there is no reason at least there is no general presumption why the first publishers of the Gospel might not use the Greek language. But we need not rest on probabilities. For, 1. It is manifest from various passages in the first book of Maccabees, that the Jews of all classes must at that time (B. C. 175-140) have understood the language of their conquerors and oppressors, the Macedonian Greeks under Antiochus, falsely named the Great, and his successors. 2. Further, when the Macedonians obtained the dominion of western Asia, they filled that country with Greek cities. The Greeks also possessed themselves of many cities in Palestine, to which the Herods added many others, which 1 Bishop Marsh's Lectures, part iii. pp. 30, 31. The question relative to the supposed Hebrew originals of Saint Matthew's Gospel, and of the Epis. tle to the Hebrews, is purposely omitted in this place, as it is considered in the subsequent part of this work. adverse to the extension of the Greek language in Palestine, 3. The Roman government was rather favourable than in consequence of Greek being the official language of the procurators of that country, when administering justice, and speaking to the people. Under the earlier emperors, the Romans were accustomed frequently to make use of Greek, even at Rome, when the affairs of the provinces were under consideration.18 If Greek were thus used at Rome, we may reasonably conclude that it would be still more frequently spoken in Greece and in Asia. In Palestine, in particular, we do not perceive any vestige of the official use of the Latin language by the procurators. We do not find a single instance, either in the books of the New Testament or in Josephus, in which the Roman governors made use of interpreters; and while use and the affairs of life accustomed the common people to that language, the higher classes of society would on many accounts be obliged to make use of it. 4. So far were the religious authorities of the Jews from opposing the introduction of Greek, that they appear rather to have favoured the use of that language. They employed it, habitually, in profane works, and adAn article of the Mischna prohibits the Jews from writing books in any other language, except the Greek.19 Such a prohibition would not have been 2 Orat. pro Archia Poeta, c. 10. Græca leguntur in omnibus fere genti-mitted it into official acts. In consolat. ad Helviam, c. 6. Quid sibi volunt in mediis barbarorum regionibus Græcæ urbes ? Quid inter Indos Persasque Macedonicus sermo? Scythia et totus ille ferarum indomitarumque gentium tractus civitates Achaia, Ponticis impositas litoribus, ostentat. Nunc totus Graias nostrasque habet orbis Athenas. Sat. xv. v. 110. Even the female sex, it appears from the same satirist, made use of Greek as the language of familiarity and passion. See Sat. vi. v. 185-191. To the authorities above cited may be added the testimonies of Tacitus (De Orat. c. 29.), of Ovid (De Arte Amor. lib. ii. v. 121.), and of Martial. (Epigr. 1. c. xix. Epig. 58.) Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xix. c. 6. § 5. 8 Σxvwv Ilois, Judges i. 27. (Septuagint version.) Polybius, lib. v. c. 70. § 4. Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xvii. c. 11. § 4. 10 Diod. Sic. lib. xix. cc. 59. 93. 1 Macc. x. 75. xii. 33, 34. xiii. 11. xiv. 34. 2 Macc. xiii. 3. Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xiii. c. 9. § 2. and lib. xiv. c. 10. §22. 11 Josephus, de Bell. Jud. lib. iii. c. 9. compared with lib. ii. c. 13. § 7. 12 Bell. Jud. lib. ii. c. 14. § 4. 13 Ibid. lib. ii. c. 18. 14 Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xix. c. 7. § 5. 15 Idem. lib. xv. c. 9. compared with lib. xvi. c. 5. Josephus, de Bell. Jud. Proem. § 2. says, that he composed his history of the Jewish war in the language of his country, and afterwards wrote it in Greek for the information of the Greeks and Romans. The reader will 10 Bell. Jud. lib. i. c. 33. § 6. 8. Ant. Jud. lib. xvii. c. 6. find a great number of additional testimonies to the prevalence of the Greek 11 Bell. Jud. lib. i. c. 9. s. 3. Ant. Jud. lib. xv. c. 8. αтpov ev lepoto language in the East, in Antonii Josephi Binterim Epistola Catholica Inter- Aumors wxodomnσTED. Compare Eichhorn de Judæorum Re Scenica in Com linealis de Linguà Originali Novi Testamenti non Latinâ, &c. pp. 171-ment. Soc. Reg. Scient. Gotting. vol. ii. Class. Antiq. pp. 10-13. 198. Dusseldorpii, 1820. It is necessary to apprize the reader, that the design of this volume is to support the dogma of the Romish church, that the reading of the Holy Scriptures, in the vulgar tongue, ought not to be promiscuously allowed. 2 B VOL. I. 18 This will account for the Jewish king, Herod Agrippa, and his brother being permitted by the emperor Claudius to be present in the senate, and to address that assembly in Greek. Dion. Hist. lib. lx. c. 8 19 Mischma, Tract. Megill. c. 1. § 8. given if they had not been accustomed to write in a foreign | dering into Hebrew or Greek the discourse which Titus prolanguage. The act or instrument of divorce might, indiffer-nounced in Latin. ently, be written and signed in Greek or Hebrew: in either 2. It has also been urged as a strong objection to the Greek language, and with either subscription, it was valid. During original of the Gospels, that Jesus Christ spoke in Hebrew; the siege of Jerusalem, for the first time, some opposition was made to the use of the Greek language, when brides were forbidden to wear a nuptial crown, at the same time that fathers were commanded to prevent their children thenceforward from learning Greek.2 ́ This circumstance will enable us readily to understand why Josephus, when sent by Titus to address his besieged countrymen, spoke to them per, that is, in the Hebrew dialect, and Targ coon, in his native tongue: it was not that he might be better heard, but that he might make himself known to them as their fellow-countryman and brother. 20.)10 because Hebrew words occur in Mark v. 41. (Talitha cumi); vii. 34. (Ephphatha); Matt. xxvii. 46. (Eli, Eli! Lama sabachthani), and Mark xv. 34. But to this affirmation we may reply, that on this occasion the evangelists have noticed and transcribed these expressions in the original, because Jesus did not ordinarily and habitually speak Hebrew. But admitting it to be more probable, that the Redeemer did ordinarily speak Hebrew to the Jews, who were most partial to their native tongue, which they heard him speak with delight, we may ask—in what language but Greek did he address the multitudes, when they were composed of a 5. The Greek language was spread through various clases mixture of persons of different countries and nations-proof the Jewish nation by usage and the intercourse of life. selytes to the Jewish religion, as well as heathen Gentiles? The people, with but few exceptions, generally understood For instance, the Gadarenes (Matt. viii. 28-34. Mark v. 1. it, although they continued to be always more attached to Luke viii. 26.); the inhabitants of the borders of Tyre and their native tongue. There were at Jerusalem religious Sidon (Mark vii. 24.); the inhabitants of the Decapolis; communities wholly composed of Jews who spoke Greek; the Syrophoenician woman, who is expressly termed a Greek, and of these Jews, as well as of Greek proselytes, the Chris-uva Exams, in Mark vii. 26.; and the Greeks, 'Exanves, who tian church at Jerusalem appears in the first instance to have were desirous of seeing Jesus at the passover. (John xii. been formed. An examination of the Acts of the Apostles will prove these assertions. Thus, in Acts xxi. 40. and xxii. 3. Lastly, it has been objected, that, as the Christian 2. when Paul, after a tumult, addressed the populace in churches were in many countries composed chiefly of the Hebrew, they kept the more silence. They, therefore evi- common people, they did not and could not understand dently expected that he would have spoken to them in an- Greek. But, not to insist on the evidence already adduced other language which they would have comprehended,4 for the universality of the Greek language, we may reply, though they heard him much better in Hebrew, which they that " in every church there were numbers of persons enpreferred. In Acts vi. 9. and ix. 29. we read that there were dowed with the gifts of tongues, and of the interpretation at Jerusalem whole synagogues of Hellenist Jews, under of tongues; who could readily turn the apostles' Greek the name of Cyrenians, Alexandrians, &c. And in Ácts vi. epistles into the language of the church to which they were 1. we find that these very Hellenists formed a considerable sent. In particular, the president, or the spiritual man, who portion of the church in that city. From the account given read the apostle's Greek letter to the Hebrews in their public in John xii. 20. of certain Greeks (whether they were Hel- assemblies, could, without any hesitation, read it in the Helenistic Jews or Greek proselytes it is not material to deter-brew language, for the edification of those who did not undermine), who through the apostle Philip requested an interview stand Greek. And with respect to the Jews in the provinces, with Jesus, it may fairly be inferred that both Philip and Greck being the native language of most of them, this Andrew understood Greek." epistle was much better calculated for their use, written in 6. Further, there are extant Greek monuments, containing the Greek language, than if it had been written in the Heepitaphs and inscriptions, which were erected in Palestine brew, which few of them understood." Further, "it was and the neighbouring countries, as well as ancient coins proper that all the apostolical epistles should be written in which were struck in the cities of Palestine, and also in the the Greek language; because the different doctrines of the various cities of Asia Minor.8 What purpose could it Gospel being delivered and explained in them, the explanaanswer, to erect the one or to execute the other, in the Greek tion of these doctrines could with more advantage be comlanguage, if that language had not been familiar-indeed | pared so as to be better understood, being expressed in one vernacular to the inhabitants of Palestine and the neighbour-language, than if, in the different epistles, they had been exing countries? There is, then, every reasonable evidence, pressed in the language of the churches and persons to whom amounting to demonstration, that Greek did prevail uni- they were sent. Now, what should that one language be, versally throughout the Roman empire; and that the com-in which it was proper to write the Christian Revelation, mon people of Judæa were acquainted with it, and under- but the Greek, which was then generally understood, and in stood it. which there were many books extant, that treated of all kinds of literature, and on that account were likely to be preserved, and by the reading of which Christians, in after ages, would be enabled to understand the Greek of the New Testament? This advantage none of the provincial dialects used in the apostle's days could pretend to. Being limited to particular countries, they were soon to be disused; and few (if any) books being written in them which merited to be preserved, the meaning of such of the apostles' letters as were composed in the provincial languages could not easily have been ascertained." Convincing as we apprehend the preceding facts and evidence will be found to the unprejudiced inquirer, two or three objections have been raised against them, which it may not be irrelevant here briefly to notice. 1. It is objected that, during the siege of Jerusalem, when Titus granted a truce to the factious Jews just before he commenced his last assault, he advanced towards them accompanied by an interpreter :9 but the Jewish historian, Josephus, evidently means that the Roman general, confident of victory, from a sense of dignity, spoke first, and in his own maternal language, which we know was Latin. The interpreter, therefore, did not attend him in order to translate Greek words into Hebrew, but for the purpose of ren witnesses in Greek, or vice versa; or the name of one witness be in He III. EXAMINATION OF THE STYLE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. The style of the New Testament has a considerable ment, which was executed at Alexandria,12 although it apaffinity with that of the Septuagint Version of the Old Testa If the book of divorce be written in Hebrew, and the names of the brew and the other in Greek; if a scribe and witness wrote it, it is law-proaches somewhat nearer to the idiom of the later Greek ful.-Mischna, Tract. Gitin. c. 9. § 8. 2 Ibid. Tract. Sotah. c. 9. § 14. 3 Bell. Jud. lib. v. c. 9. § 2. lib. vi. c. 2. §1. In like manner, it is well known, there are many hundred thousand natives of Ireland who can understand what is said to them in English, which language they will tolerate; but they LOVE their native Irish dialect, and will listen with profound attention to any one who kindly addresses thern in it. Essai d'une Introduction Critique au Nouvean Testament, par J. E. Cellérier, fils, pp. 242-248. Genève, 1823. 8vo. Dr. Wait's Translation of Hug's Introduction, vol. ii. pp. 32-53. A. Arigler Hermeneutica Biblica, pp. 74-79. Alber, Instit. Hermeneut Nov. Test. tom. i. pp. 242, 243. Antonii Jos. Binterim, Propemticum ad Molkenbuhrii Problema Critieum, Sacra Scriptura Novi Testamenti in quo idiomate originaliter ab apostolis edita fuit? pp. 27-40. (Moguntiæ, 1822, 8vo.) Ibid. pp. 40-44. Josephius, de Bell. Jud. lib. vi. c. 6. Janguage. Hence some philologers have wished to call the diction of the New Testament the Alexandrine dialect, and have regarded the dialect of Alexandria as the source of the style of the New Testament. This opinion is supported, neither by a comparison of the New Testament with this dialect, nor by history: for the writers of the New Testa 10 Cellérier Essai, p. 249. Hug. vol. ii. p. 54. 11 Dr. Macknight on the Epistles, Pref. to Hebrews, sect. ii. §3. vol. iv p. 336. 4to edit. 12 Michaelis has devoted an entire section to show that the language of the New Testament has a tincture of the Alexandrian idiom. Vol. i. pp. 143. et seq. Professor Winer has given an interesting historical sketch of the Greek Language of the New Testament, in his Greek Grammar of the New Testament, translated by Professor Stuart and Mr. Robinson, pp. 12-35. Andover (North America), 1825. 8vo. ment were not citizens of Alexandria; nor, simply because | rous publications were written on both sides of the question, they have sometimes followed the Alexandrine version, can with considerable asperity, which, together with the controit be concluded, that they have imitated the Alexandrine versy, are now almost forgotten. The dispute, however inDialect, which was not a language peculiar and appropriate teresting to the philological antiquarian, is, after all, a mere to the citizens of that place alone, but was a kind of speech "strife of words;"3 and as the appellations of Hellenistic or mixed and corrupted by the confluence of many nations, as Hebraic-Greek, and of Macedonian-Greek, are sufficiently corGreeks, Macedonians, Africans, Carthaginians, Syrians, rect for the purpose of characterising the language of the East Indians, Sicilians, and others. After the Macedonians New Testament, one or other of them is now generally had subjugated the whole of Greece, and extended their do- adopted. The peculiar genius and character of the Greek minion into Asia and Africa, the refined and elegant Attic style of the New Testament are copiously and ably discussed began to decline; and all the dialects being by degrees mixed by Henry Planck, in a dissertation on this subject, to which together, there arose a certain peculiar language, called the the reader is necessarily referred. Common, and also the Hellenic, but more especially, since the empire of the Macedonians was the chief cause of its introduction into the general use from the time of Alexander onwards, it was called the (later) Macedonic. This dialect was composed from almost all the dialects of Greece, together with very many foreign words borrowed from the Persians, Syrians, Hebrews, and other nations, who became connected with the Macedonian people after the age of Alexander. Now, of this Macedonian dialect, the dialect of Alexandria (which was the language of all the inhabitants of that city, as well of the learned as of the Jews), was a degenerate progeny far more corrupt than the common Macedonian dialect. This last-mentioned common dialect, being the current Greek spoken throughout Western Asia, was made use of by the writers of the Greek Testament. In consequence of the peculiarities of the Hebrew phraseology being discernible, it has by some philologers been termed Hebraic-Greek, and (from the Jews having acquired the Greek language, rather by practice than by grammar, among the Greeks, in whose countries they resided in large communities,) Hellenistic-Greek. The propriety of this appellation was severely contested towards the close of the seventeenth and in the early part of the eighteenth century :2 and nume 1 Ernesti on the causes of the forced Interpretations of the New Testa ment, in the Biblical Repository, vol. i. pp. 472-476. Of this Hebraic style, the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark exhibit strong vestiges: the former presents harsher Hebraisms than the latter and the Gospel of St. Mark abounds with still more striking Hebraisms. "The epistles of St. James and Jude are somewhat better, but even these are full of Hebraisms, and betray in other respects a certain Hebrew tone. St. Luke has, in several passages, written pure and classic Greek, of which the four first verses of his Gospel may be given as an instance in the sequel, where he describes the actions of Christ, he has very harsh Hebraisms, yet the style is more agreeable than that of St. Matthew or St. Mark. In the Acts of the Apostles he is not free from Hebraisms, which he seems to have never studiously avoided; but his periods are more classically turned, and sometimes possess beauty devoid of art. St. John has numerous, though not uncouth, Hebraisms both in his Gospel and epistles: but he has written in a smooth and flowing language, and surpasses all the Jewish writers in the excellence of narrative. St. Paul again is entirely different from them all his style is indeed neglected and full of Hebraisms, but he has avoided the concise and verse-like construction of the Hebrew language, and has, upon the whole, a considerable share of the roundness of Grecian composition. It is evident that he was as perfectly acquainted with the Greek manner of expression as with the Hebrew; and he has introduced them alternately, as either the one or the other suggested itself the first, or was the best approved."5 This diversity of style and idiom in the sacred writers of the New Testament affords an intrinsic and irresistible evidence for the authenticity of the books which pass under their names. If their style had been uniformly the same, there would be good reason for suspecting that they had all combined together when they wrote; or, else, that having previously concerted what they should teach, one of them had committed to writing their system of doctrine. In ordinary cases, when there is a difference of style in a work pro The "controversy on this topic began very soon after the revival of literature in Europe. In the sixteenth century, Erasmus and Laurentius Valla ventured to assert publicly, that the Greek of the New Testament is Hellenistic. Many learned men of that day were inclined to adopt this opinion. But Robert Stephens, in the preface to his celebrated edition of the New Testament (1576), took it into his head strenuously to contend for the Attic purity of its dialect. As his Testament was so widely circulated, the preface served to excite general attention to the subject in question, and to prepare the minds of critics for the mighty contest which followed. Sebastian Pforscher led the way, in his Diatribe de Ling. Grac. N. Test. puritate, published in 1629, at Amsterdam; in which he defends, with great warmth, the purity of the New Testament Greek. His antagonist was J. Jung, who published in 1640 his Sententia doctiss. virorum, de Hellenistis et Hellenistica Dialecto. To this a reply was made, by J. Grosse of Jena, styled Trias propositionum theol. stilum Nov. Test. a barbaris crimina tionibus vindicantium; in which the whole mass of Hellenists were confessing to be the production of one author, we have reason to signed over to the most detestable heresy. In the same year, Wulfer wrote an answer to this in his Innocentia Hellenistarum vindicata; to which Grosse replied, in his Observationes pro triade Observatt. apologetice. Musæus defended Wulfer (though not in all his positions) in his Disquisi. tio de stilo Nov. Testamenti, A. D. 1611; to which Grosse replied by a Tertia defensio Triados, 1641. In 1612, Musæus felt himself compelled to pub lish his Vindicia Disquisitionis; which however only excited Grosse to a Quarta defensio Triados. upon "About the same time, the controversy was briskly carried on in Hol land. D. Heinsius, in his Aristarchus Sacer, and his Exercitt. Sae. in Nov. Testamentum, had espoused the cause of Hellenism, and commented Pforscher's Diatribe. In a plainer manner still did he do this, in his Erer citatio de Lingua Hellenistica, published in 1613. In the very same year, the celebrated Salmasius appeared as his antagonist, in three separate pub lications, the spirit and tone of which may be readily discerned from their titles. The first was inscribed Commentarius controversiam de lingua Hellenistica decidens; the second, Funus lingua Hellenistice; the third, Ossilegium lingua Hellenistica. In 1648, Gataker, in England, warmly espoused the cause of the Hellenists, in his Dissert. de stilo Nov. Testamenti. On the same side, about this time, appeared Werenfels, of Switzer land, in his essay De stylo Script. Nov. Testamenti; and J. Olearius, of Germany, in his book De stilo Nov. Testamenti; also Böckler, in his tract, De ling. Nov. Test. originali. In Holland, Vorstius published, in defence of the same side, his book De Hebraismis Nov. Testamenti, 1658; and in 1665, his Comment. de Hebraismis N. Test. The last was attacked by H. Vitringa, in his Specimen annotatt. ad Philol. Sac. Vorstii. The best of these dissertations were collected and published by Rhenferd in his Syntagma Diss. Philol. Theol. de stilo Nov. Test. 1703; and also by Van Honert about the same time, at Amsterdam. "J. H. Michaelis, in his essay De textu Nov. Test. Hala, 1707, and H. Blackwall, in his Sacred Classics illustrated and defended, endeavoured to moderate the parties, and to show, that while it might safely be admitted that there are Hebraisms in the New Testament, it may at the same time be maintained, that the Greek of the sacred writers is entitled to the character of classic purity. But all efforts at peace were defeated by Georgi of Wittemberg, who, in 1732, published his Vindicia Nov. Test. This was answered by Knapp and Dressing of Leipsic. In 1733, Georgi published his Hierocriticus Sacer, in three books; and at the end of the year, a second part, in as many more books; which were also answered by his Leipsic opponents. From this time, the cause of the Hellenists began to predominate throughout Europe. And though many essays on this subject have since appeared, and it has been canvassed in a far more able manner than before, yet few of these essays have been controversial; almost all writers Yeaning to the side of Hellenism." Dissertations on the Importance and best believe that it was written by several persons. In like manner, and for the very same reason, when books, which pass under the names of several authors, are written in different styles, we are authorised to conclude that they were not com posed by one person. Further, If the New Testament had been written with classic purity; if it had presented to us the language of Isocrates, Demosthenes, Xenophon, or Plutarch, there would have been just grounds for suspicion of forgery; and it Method of studying the Original Languages of the Bible, by Jahn and others, with Notes by Prof. Stuart, (Andover, N. America, 1821), pp. 77, 78. The reader, who is desirous of investigating the controversy on the purity of the language of the New Testament, is referred to the Acroases Academicæ super Hermeneutica Novi Testamenti of Prof. Morus (vol. i. pp. 202233.); in which he has enumerated the principal writers on each side of the question. A similar list has been given by Beck (Monogrammata Hermeneutices Novi Testamenti, part i. pp. 28-32.), by Carpzov, (Isagoge ad Lectionem N. T. p. 33. et seq.) and by Rambach, (Instit. Herin. Sacræ, pp. 23. 399.) Dr. Campbell has treated the subject very ably in the first of his Preliminary Dissertations, prefixed to his version of the four Gospels; and Wetstein (Libelli ad Crisin atque Interpretationem N. T. pp. 48-60.) has given some interesting extracts from Origen, Chrysostom, and other fathers, who were of opinion that the language of the New Testament was not pure Greek. Other writers might be mentioned, who have treated bibliographi cally on this topic: but the preceding foreign critics only are specified, as their works may be easily procured from the Continent. Michaelis ascribes the disputes above noticed either to "a want of suf ficient knowledge of the Greek, the prejudices of pedantry and school orthodoxy, or the injudicious custom of choosing the Greek Testament as the first book to be read by learners of that language; by which means they are so accustomed to its singular style, that in a more advanced age they are incapable of perceiving its deviation from the language of the classics." (Bp. Marsh's Michaelis, vol. i. p. 211.) Commentatio de vera Natura atque Indole Orationis Græce Novi Testamenti (Gottinga, 1810.) As the Latin Treatise is not of very common occurrence, the reader is particularly referred to two accessible English translations, one in the second volume, (pp. 91-188.) of the Edinburgh 'Biblical Cabinet,' and the other in the first volume (pp. 638–689.) of the Biblical Repository' (Andover, Massachusetts, 1833.) Michaelis, vol. i. p. 112. might with propriety have been objected, that it was impos- which were utterly unknown to the Greeks; and also words sible for Hebrews, who professed to be men of no learning, bearing widely different interpretation from those which are to have written in so pure and excellent a style, and, conse- ordinarily found in Greek writers. quently, that the books which were ascribed to them must IV. In consequence of the Macedonian Greek being comhave been the invention of some impostor. The diversity posed of almost all the dialects of Greece (as well as of very of style, therefore, which is observable in them, so far from many foreign words), the New Testament contains examples Deing any objection to the authenticity of the New Testa- of the various DIALECTS occurring in the Greek language, and ment, is in reality a strong argument for the truth and sin- especially of the Attic. To these, some have added the poetic cerity of the sacred writers, and of the authenticity of their dialect, chiefly, it should seem, because there are a few paswritings. "Very many of the Greek words found in the sages cited by St. Paul from the ancient Greek poets, in New Testament, are not such as were adopted by men of Acts xvii. 28. 1 Cor. xv. 33. and Tit. i. 12.4 But the saeducation, and the higher and more polished ranks of life, cred writers of the New Testament, being Jews, were consebut such as were in use with the common people. Now this quently acquainted with the Hebrew idioms, and also with shows that the writers became acquainted with the language, the common as well as with the appropriated or acquirea in consequence of an actual intercourse with those who spoke senses of the words of that language. Hence, when they it, rather than from any study of books: and that intercourse used a Greek word, as correspondent to a Hebrew one of must have been very much confined to the middling or even like signification, they employed it as the Hebrew word was lower classes; since the words and phrases most frequently used, either in a common or appropriated sense, as occasion used by them passed current only among the vulgar. There required. The whole arrangement of their periods "is reguare undoubtedly many plain intimations given throughout lated according to the Hebrew verses (not those in Hebrew these books, that their writers were of this lower class, and poetry, but such as are found in the historical books); which that their associates were frequently of the same description; are constructed in a manner directly opposite to the roundbut the character of the style is the strongest confirmation ness of Grecian language, and for want of variety have an possible that their conditions were not higher than what they endless repetition of the same particles." These particular have ascribed to themselves." In fact, the vulgarisms, idioms are termed HEBRAISMS, and their nature and classes foreign idioms, and other disadvantages and defects, which have been treated at considerable length by various writers. some critics imagine that they have discovered in the He- Georgi, Pfochenius, and others, have altogether denied the braic Greek of the New Testament, "are assigned by the existence of these Hebraisms; while their antagonists have, inspired writers as the reasons of God's preference of it, perhaps unnecessarily, multiplied them. Wyssius, in his whose thoughts are not our thoughts, nor his ways our ways. Dialectologia Sacra, has divided the Hebraisms of the New Paul argues, that the success of the preachers of the Gospel, Testament into thirteen classes; Vorstius into thirty-one in spite of the absence of those accomplishments in fan-classes; and Viser into eight classes; and Masclef has given guage, then so highly valued, was an evidence of the divine an ample collection of the Hebraisms occurring in the sacred power and energy with which their ministry was accom- writings in the first volume of his excellent Hebrew Grampanied. He did not address them, he tells us (1 Cor. i. 17.), mar.8 The New Testament, however, contains fewer Hewith the wisdom of words,-with artificial periods and a brew grammatical constructions than the Septuagint, except studied elocution,-lest the cross of Christ should be made of in the book of Revelation; where we often find a nominative, none effect;-lest to human eloquence that success should be when another case should have been substituted, in imitation ascribed, which ought to be attributed to the divinity of the of the Hebrew, which is without cases. As the limits nedoctrine and the agency of the Spirit, in the miracles wrought cessarily assigned to this section do not permit us to abridge in support of it. There is hardly any sentiment which the valuable treatises just noticed, we shall here adduce some he is at greater pains to enforce. He used none of the en- instances of the Hebraisms found principally in the New ticing or persuasive words of man's wisdom. Wherefore? Testament, and shall offer a few canons by which to deterThat their faith might not stand in the wisdom of man, but mine them with precision. in the power of God. (1 Cor. ii. 4, 5.) Should I ask what was the reason why our Lord Jesus Christ chose for the instruments of that most amazing revolution in the religious systems of mankind, men perfectly illiterate and taken out of the lowest class of the people? Your answer to this will serve equally for an answer to that other question,— Why did the Holy Spirit choose to deliver such important truths in the barbarous idiom of a few obscure Galilæans, and not in the politer and more harmonious strains of Grecian eloquence?—I repeat it, the answer to both questions is the same-That it might appear, beyond contradiction, that the excellency of the power was of God, and not of man."3 1. Thus, to be called, to arise, and to be found, are the same as to be, with the Hebrews, and this latter is in the Old Testament frequently expressed by the former. Compare Isa. Ix. 14. 18. Ixi. 3. Ixii. 12. Zech. viii. 3. Accordingly, in the New Testament, these terms are often employed one for the other, as in Matt. v. 9. They shall be called the children of God: and ver. 19. He shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven! 1 John iii. 1. That we should be called the sons of God. To be called here and in other places is really to be, and it is so expressed according to the Hebrew way of speaking. There is the like signification of the word arise, as in Sam. xi. 20. if the king's wrath arise.-Esth. iv. 14. Enlargement and deliverance shall arise to the Jews. Prov. xxiv. 22. Their calamity shall arise suddenly.-In all which places the word arise signifies no other than actual being or existing; according to the Hebrew idiom. And hence it is used in a similar manner in the New Testament, as in Luke xxiv. 38. Why do thoughts arise in your hearts? i. e. Why are they there 1-Matt. xxiv. such persons according to my prediction. So, to be found is among the Hebrews of the same import with the above-mentioned expressions, and accordingly in the Old Testament one is put for the other, as in 1 Sam. xxv. found in thee.-Isa. li. 3. Joy and gladness shall be found therein.-Dan. 12. An excellent spirit was found in Daniel. In these and other texts the Hebrew word rendered found is equivalent to was. In imitation of this Hebraism to be found is used for sum or existo, to be in the New Testament, as in Luke xvii. 18. There are not found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger. Acts v. 39. Lest haply ye be found to fight against God.-1 Cor. iv. 2. That a man be found faithful.-Phil. ii. 8. Be. ing found in fashion as a man.-Heb. xi. 5. Enoch was not found: which 28. Eril hath not been found in thee.-2 Chron. xix. 3. Good things are As a large proportion of the phrases and constructions of the New Testament is pure Grecek, that is to say, of the same degree of purity as the Greek which was spoken in Mace-21. There shall arise false Christs, i. e. there shall actually be at that time donia, and that in which Polybius and Appian wrote their histories; the language of the New Testament will derive considerable illustration from consulting the works of classic writers, and especially from diligently collating the Septuagint version of the Old Testament: the collections also of Raphelius, Palairet, Bos, Abresch, Ernesti, and other writers whose works are noticed in the Bibliographical Appendix to Vol. II., will afford the biblical student every essential assistance in explaining the pure Greek expressions of the New Testament according to the usage of classic authors. It should further be noticed, that there occur in the New Testament words that express both doctrines and practices It is obvious to cite such passages, as Mark i. 16. ii. 14. John xxi. 3.7. where the occupations of the apostles are plainly and professedly mentioned. It may be more satisfactory to refer to Acts iii. 6. xviii. 3. xx. 34. 2 Cor. viii and ix. xi. 6. 8, 9. 27. xii. 14, &c. Phil. ii. 25. iv. 10, &c. 1 Thess. ii. 6. 9. 2 Thess. iii. 8. 10. Philem. 11. 18. In these, the attainments, occupations, and associates of the preachers of the Gospel are indirectly inentioned and alluded to; and afford a species of unddesigned proof, which seems to repel the imputation of fraud, especially if the circumstance of style be taken into the account. Bp. Maltby's "Illustrations of the Truth of the Christian Religion," pp. 10-12. Dr. Campbell's Preliminary Dissertation, Diss. i. (vol. i. 3d edit.) p. 50. Bishop Warburton has treated this topic with his usual ability in his "Doctrine of Grace," book i. chapters viii.-x. (Works, vol. viii. pp. 279–302.) See also Michaelis's Introduction, vol i pp 116-123. J. B. Carpzov. Prima Lineæ Hermeneuticæ, p. 16. Pfeiffer, Herm. Sacra, c. vii. $6. (Op. tom. ii. P. 652.) Leusden de Dialectis, p. 20. Michaelis, vol. i. p. 123. In his Philologia Sacra: this work was originally published in 4to. but the best edition is that of M. Fischer, in 8vo. Leipsic, 1778. Vorstius's treatise was abridged by Leusden in his Philologus Græcus; and Leusden's Abridgment was republished by Fischer, with valuable notes and other additions, in 8vo. Leipsic, 1783. In his Hermeneutica Sacra Novi Testamenti, pars ii. vol. ii. pp. 1--62. See particularly pp. 273-200. 304-307, and 333-352. See also Schaefer's Institutiones Scripturisticæ, pars ii. pp. 194–205. 9 Michaelis, vol. i. p. 125. Glassius has given several instances in his Philologia Sacra, canons xxviii. and xxix. vol. i. pp. 67-72. edit. Dathe. Professor Winer divides the Hebraisins of the New Testament into two chasses, perfect and imperfect. Greek Grammar of the New Test. pp. 32— 35., where he has given many important examples. Winer's arrangement of Hebraisms is approved by Dr. Alt in his Grammatica Græca Novi Tes tamenti, p. xiii. (Hal. Sax. 1829. 8vo) |