reading which I am induced to regard as genuine by the authority of Thomas Magister, who prescribes δραχμή, not δραγμή, to be used in writing, from which it appears that the latter agreed with the common speech. Interpreters have remarked that in Josephus and Hesychius, the word rain is found in a variety of reading. On the third instance in which the true reading depends on the orthography, I perceive that Fischere has already given an opinion. It occurs Luke ii. 24, where dúo veoGɗous is commonly read, although, as that very learned author perceives, the MSS. reading voorous ought to be substituted-for grammarians represent the letter as omitted in this word by the later writers.

C

From these illustrations, which were not far to seek, it will be easily seen, that a fuller and more careful inquiry into the vulgar speech in use among the Greeks, is by no means foreign to our pursuits, but may rather prove of great service to those who are engaged in explaining and illustrating the usus loquendi of the New Testament. I have thought it suit

d Page 250. Δραχμὴ, οὐ δραγμή. • Proluss. de vitiis N. T. p. 676.

Page 622. C. 644. D. BEGHS, and others.

able, therefore, to this place and occasion, to give an explanation of what seemed possible to be said on this whole subject. My purpose, then, is to treat of the character and genius of the later Greek, of which there are a great many traces to be found in Holy Scripture. This discussion may be divided into two parts—the one devoted to an inquiry into the rise and original formation of this mode of speech, so as, if possible, to ascertain at what time and from what causes it sprang, and how it may be known—the other remarking and classifying what we find in the diction of the sacred writers belonging to this form of the Greek tongue. I shall aim at the greatest brevity; for this is a subject of such a kind as to render it utterly impossible to discuss it, if treated according to its dignity, within the limits to which this discourse is necessarily restricted, and, besides, I intend to explain the subject more largely in a separate work, entitled, Isagoge Philologica in Novum Testamentum (A Philological Introduction to the New Testament). In this place, therefore, I shall dwell chiefly on those particulars which neither Fischer nor Sturzius have taken notice of, and which are illustrated by those principles which, in my opinion, ought to be applied.

I. Writers on the nature and character of Sacred Hellenism were called, I think, to lay it down as a first principle, that the books of the New Testament were composed, not in the elegant and elaborate speech which learned writers are found using, but rather in that which was ordinarily employed in the common intercourse of life. Nor do I make Paul an exception. For, though he seems to have communicated some degree of ornament and elegance to his style, by reading good writers, especially poets, yet he never paid such attention to the grammar of the Greek as that he may by any means be numbered among authors of approved style. As for the rest, it appears from the thing itself, that they knew no better way of speaking than the common one they used. From this vulgar idiom then, the writers I have referred to were called to set out in their inquiries, and this being neglected, they could not omit to fall into mistake. For without an accurate explanation of this subject, no advance can be made either in soundly interpreting words, or in rightly pointing out the sources of the usage in question. To this topic then, we must first direct our attention, in attempting a fresh illustration of the New Testament diction.

It is very difficult to ascertain the essential nature and principles of the vulgar Greek, as it was used in more ancient times. For it was not a single form, but differed according to the difference of nation; nor do we possess sources of information sufficiently copious for obtaining an accurate knowledge of the subject. Except some observations of grammarians, in which they notice the customary mode of speech, and remains of the comic poets, who imitated popular discourse, we have only fragments, inscriptions, and decrees of magistrates, which, even if they had come down to us entire, would be insufficient for the complete illustration of the matter in question. Of those, accordingly, who in a later age have illustrated the language of the New Testament, we find none who have comprehensively explained the origin and character of the vulgar speech from the time when the sacred writers flourished-but, if there were any who discovered in the New Testament traces of the later usage, they considered it sufficient, either to adduce passages of grammarians in which something is referred to the customary mode of speaking in later times, or only to notice those things of which they can quote from good writers no similar

I

examples. Let us then, in the first place, bring forward what can be stated on this whole subject.

It is agreed among all, that the ancient grammarians, who give rules for the Ionic, Doric, Æolic, and Attic dialects, are to be understood as speaking, not of the common modes of speech in the respective nations, but of such as were used by writers sprung of those communities, and employing their native dialects in written works. These grammarians enumerate four dialects, not because the Greek tongue had no other varieties, but because they found none employed by writers except those four; and it is from authors that their illustrations of the character and diversity of these dialects are taken. Those, therefore, are in error, who think that from the rules for the Greek dialects given by grammarians, any thing can be drawn, to illustrate the vulgar speech and its varieties. That a much greater number of national dialects existed, sufficiently appears from the testimony of Hesychius and others, who have remarked many peculiarities in the particular States, in respect both of the forms and of the signification of words. From these it fully appears how much truth there is