raise the veil, and to initiate him into those sublime mysteries, which terrestrial senses are incompetent to explore.

I shall close the present lecture, and with it the defence of the claims of the Hebrew language and literature, by pointing out the particular influence which the study of them must exercise on that of the New Testament. This view of the subject must especially recommend itself to the clergy, whose duty it is to teach the doctrines of Christianity as drawn from that source. But since it is the interest of Christians in general to be taught the principles of religion by able instructors, and to possess themselves a competent acquaintance with the sacred volume which is the depository of their faith; it is hoped, that the few moments to be devoted to this argument will not be considered as mispent, even by a general audience.

Every one knows that the New Testament was written in Greek. But perhaps every one does not know, that this Greek is very peculiar. Yet such is the fact. The language of the New Testament is widely different from that of ancient Greece and its national writers. Any one may convince himself of the truth of this by a slight examination. Whoever has learned Greek merely from the New Testament, will undoubtedly find the Greek of Demosthenes, of Aeschines, and of Thucydides, as strange and unintelligible as Arabic. He may be able to translate the whole of the former, but he will not be able to translate perhaps a single sentence from the works of these authors; and, on the other hand, if he understands these, the language of the New Testament will no longer be altogether strange to him, although still not altogether familiar. This betrays, too plainly to be mistaken, an intermixture of the peculiarities of a foreign dialect. And if the reader be at all acquainted with this dialect, he will immediately perceive it to be that of the later Hebrew, or, as it is more usually denominated, Syro-Chaldaic.

He meets, for instance, with idioms of the national language, which was vernacular in the provinces in which the authors of the New Testament lived, and among the persons from whom they descended. In many turns of expression, in the peculiar use of several particles, in the manner of connecting particular phrases and words, in the frequent repetition of certain figures of speech, he immediately recognizes men, accustomed from childhood to think in an oriental tongue, or according to its peculiarities.

And if he have no previous acquaintance with this intermin

gled language, the result will still be the same. Every foreign language, which a people receives merely as adventitious, and which they are forced to receive by outward circumstances, must unavoidably be commingled with the more ancient native tongue, if it cannot fully supplant this tongue; and it must be commingled most unavoidably by the lower classes, who have not acquired either language according to the rules of grammar, but merely by intercourse with others and through necessity."*

This view of the subject does certainly apply to the New Testament, the writers of which were of Hebrew extraction, and accustomed to think and speak in the Hebrew idiom. Other circumstances also contributed to modify their language; but it would not comport with my purpose to trace them to their source. All that my present argument requires is the fact, that the Greek of the New Testament is Hebraistic. There was a time, when a divine would have been branded with odium for making such an assertion. To say that the authors of the New Testament did not write pure classic Greek was, at one period, supposed to be an imputation on their divine authority. The controversy on this subject, which arose in Germany in the early part of the seventeenth century, and was not brought to a termination until the middle of the last, after it had extended into Holland and England, affords abundant evidence of this remark. It has been said of the controversy, that it was more remarkable for the learning than politeness of the disputants"plena quidem eruditionis, at non aeque plena humanitatis."† This is no doubt true. Still the question relating to the style of the New Testament was settled, and since that time the most able critics have maintained the opinion already stated, the correctness of which is now almost universally conceded.

The bearing of this point on the subject under consideration must be evident. If words occur in the New Testament, the meaning of which is modified by that of analogous words in Hebrew, if its phrases and figures and allusions are often Hebraistic; it becomes necessary for every one who would thoroughly comprehend his Greek Testament, to study his Hebrew

*See Einleitung in die theologischen Wissenschaften von G. J. Planck, II. p. 2 seq.

+ See Morus, Hermeneutica Novi Testamenti, Vol. I. p. 223. No. III.

67

Bible. In order to draw this conclusion the topic has been introduced.

Considering these views not merely as important, but as essentially necessary to be brought into practice by all who teach the sacred oracles of God's truth, I have ventured, thus imperfectly, to bring them forward. If, in the view of any, I have spoken too freely on this subject, let me appeal, in vindication, to an authority which, among protestants at least, must be acknowledged to be among the highest; I mean, the immortal Luther. "My knowledge of the Hebrew language," says the great Reformer, "is but limited; yet I would not barter it for all the treasures of the world." Many persons may regard this as an extravagant hyperbole; I do not wonder at his language. Appreciating the feeling that gave rise to it, out of the abundance of the heart, my mouth hath spoken.'

ART. V. ON THE PREVALence of the Greek Language in PALESTINE IN THE AGE OF CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES.

By John Leonard Hug, Prof. of Theology in the University of Freiburg in the Breisgau.*

MATTHEW was desirous of being understood in the country, which he intended should more immediately be influenced by his Gospel; it is therefore not superfluous, if we wish to form a judgment upon his situation as an author, to endeavour to obtain correct ideas of the state in which he found the language of the country. According to some, the Greek language had at that time acquired important prerogatives by the side

* See the Introductory Article in No. II. p. 209.-The following article constitutes Sect. 10 of the second volume of Hug's Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 3d edition, Stuttgard and Tübingen, 1826. This work has been translated from the German and published by the Rev. Daniel Guildford Wait, LL. D. London, 1827. The translation is very imperfect, sometimes even giving a sense directly contrary to the original. It was moreover inade from the second German edition. The present article is printed

of the national language; but if again we listen to others, we should doubt whether any one in Palestine understood Greek; whether Peter, John, James, Jude, or even Matthew had any knowledge of this language, which might be peculiarly expected from a man engaged in the business of collecting customs. But if we cast our eyes upon the changes which took place in those countries, we shall come to a very different result.

By the conquest of the Macedonians the state of Asia underwent many changes as to opinion, customs, science, and language, the history of which, from want of documents, will never be entirely developed. What I say here respecting the language, has reference chiefly to Palestine.

"What mean then (such are the words of an ancient author) Greek cities in barbarous countries, and the Macedonian language among Indians and Persians?" Even in Media also the Macedonians had built Grecian cities. On the Ti

from Wait's version, with very many corrections and important additions from the third edition of the original.

The subject is discussed by Hug, as is mentioned in the Introductory Article (p. 316), in connexion with the question respecting the original language of Matthew's Gospel. The author's opinion is in favour of a Greek original; and it was therefore proper for him to shew how extensively the Greek prevailed at that time in Palestine and the adjacent regions. This circumstance accounts for the manner in which the discussion is introduced, and for the paragraphs at the close.-ED.

1 The authors upon this subject have been specified by Kuinoel, in Fabric. Biblioth. Graec. Edit. Harles. T. IV. L. IV. c. 7. p. 760. To these add, Dominici Diodati J. C. Neapolitani de Christo Græce loquente Exercit. Neapoli, 1767. I could not obtain this treatise even at Naples.-Fr. Guil. Schubert, Dissertat. qua in sermonem, quo Evangel. Matthaei conscriptum fuerit, inquiritur. Götting. 1810.

2 Giambernado de Rossi, della lingua propria di Christo, etc. Parma, 1772. It is particularly directed against Diodati. The celebrated author sometimes confounds different ages; often makes use of bad weapons; but is a sturdy combatant.

3 Seneca Consolat. ad Helviam, c. 6.

4 Εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ ̔Ελληνίδες πόλεις κτίσματα τῶν Μακεδόνων ἐν τῇ Μεδίᾳ. Strabo, XI. 6.

gris, Seleucia was principally inhabited by Greeks; to the south-east was the magnificent Ctesiphon ; and to the northwest was Sittace.7

Babylon imitated Macedonia; in its neighbourhood lived Greeks and Macedonians. From thence along the Euphrates upwards lay Nicephorium, a Grecian city, surrounded also by other Greek towns; and further on in Mesopotamia was Charrae, a settlement of the Macedonians.10 But not to enter into details, we refer (in Appian) to a large catalogue of cities in further and hither Syria, which were reckoned to the Greeks.11 Tigranes, the Armenian, in his march to Phenicia by way of Syria, destroyed no less than twelve Greek cities.12 Between Syria and Babylonia we meet with the ruins of Palmyra, on which are found more Greek than Palmyrene inscriptions.13 Even some, written in the Palmyrene character, are nevertheless, in their language, Greek.14 In hither Syria, on the boun

5 Jos. Ant. XVIII. 9. 8. Οἰκοῦσι δὲ αὐτὴν (Σελεύκειαν) πολλοὶ τῶν Μακεδόνων, καὶ πλεῖστοι "Ελληνες. Dio Cass. XL. 16. ed. Tauchn. Σελεύκεια πλεῖστον τὸ ̔Ελληνικὸν καὶ νῦν ἔχουσα.

6 Jos. Ant. XVIII. 9. 9. Κτησιφῶντα. . . . πόλιν ̔Ελληνίδα. 7 Plin. H. N. VI. 31. "Oppidum ejus Sittace Graecorum: áb ortu est," should be thus pointed: "Oppidum ejus Sittace Graecorum; ab ortu est Sabata; ab occasu autem Antiochia."

8 Plin. H. N. VI. 30. Babylonia . . . . . libera hodie ac sui juris, Macedonumque moris. Joseph. Ant. XIII. 5. 11. xai rào οἱ ταύτῃ κατοικοῦντες "Ελληνες καὶ Μακεδόνες. λ.

9 Dio Cass. XL. 13. ̔Ο Κράσσος τά τε φρούρια καὶ τὰς πόλεις τὰς ̔Ελληνίδας μάλιστα, τάς τε ἄλλας καὶ τὸ Νικηφόριον ὠνομασμένον, προσεποιήσατο.

10 Dio Cass. XXXVII. 5. Kaggało, Mazedovov Tε aпIXOL Μακεδόνων τε ἄποικοι ὄντες.

11 Appian. de Reb. Syriac. LVII. Tom. I. p. 622, 23. edit. Schweigh. 12 Strabo. XI. 16.

13 Rob. Wood, the Ruins of Palmyra, otherwise Tadmor in the desert, Lond. 1753. fol. contains 26 Greek inscriptions, and only 13 Palmyrene. Also Corn. le Brun, Voyage au Levant, Paris 1714, gives from the original English accounts the Greek inscriptions, p. 345-366.

14 Barthelemy, Reflexions sur l'alphabet et sur la langue, dont on se servoit autrefois à Palmyre, in the Memoires de l'Academie des Inscript. et Belles Lettres, T. XLV. 8. p. 179 seq.