Skip to main content

Full text of "Introduction to the New Testament"

See other formats 


^     >^.^      - 


r^*^[  't^ 


^> 


f^M 


<^. 


THEOLOGICAL    SEMINARY,  ^ 
y  Princeton.  N.  J.  .^  ^       1^ 

->   t 

X7''7>    ^Tf^    jrrffi    ''^jP^ 

(kise.  Division     i ■.i..-^^  — 

Shelf,         Section.... 
Book,  - 

V,  \ 


INTRODUCTION 


TO    THE 


NEW  TESTAMENT, 

BY  J.   D.   MICHAELIS. 


VOL.  I.       PART  I. 


INTRODUCTION 

TO    THE 

NEW  TESTAMENT. 


BY 

JOHN  DAVID  IviICHAELIS, 

LATE  PROFESSOR  IN  THE   UNIVERSITY  OF  GOTTINGEN,   SCC. 
TRANSLATED    FROM 

THE  FOURTH  EDITION  OF  THE  GER3.IAN, 


CONSIDERABLY  AUGMENTED  WITH  NOTES, 

AND     A 

DISSERTATION 

ON  THE  ORIGIN  AND  COMPOSITION 

or     THE 

THREE  FIRST  GOSPELS. 

BY 

HERBERT  MARSH,  B.D.  F.R.S. 

FELLOW     OF    ST.     J0I1N"s     COLLEGE,        CAMJiKIDGE, 


VOL.    I.        PART    I 


THE    SECOND    EDITION. 


LONDON: 

PRINTED     F  O  II     r.     A  :.-  D     C.     K  I   V  I  K  G  T  0  ?f ^ 

^°    C2,    ST.    PA-!"s    CI;UUCII-YAUD. 

1802. 


Bye  and  Law,  Pr'nteri, 
St.  John's  Square,  Clerktnwell. 


TRANSLATOR'S  PREFACE. 


THE  Public  is  here  prefented  with  the  tranflation 
of  a  work,  which  is  held  in  high  eftimation  in 
Germany,  a  country  at  prefent  the  moft  diftinguifhed 
in  Europe  for  theological  learning.  The  firft  edition, 
which  appeared  in  1750,  the  only  one  that  exifts  in  an 
Englifh  tranflation,  though  it  met  with  a  favourable  re- 
ception, is  in  all  refpefts  inferior  to  the  prefent.  The 
learned  labours  of  our  celebrated  author,  during  almoft 
forty  years  that  have  elapfcd  between  the  publication  of 
the  firft  and  the  fourth  edition  printed  in  1788,  have 
not  only  produced  fuch  an  increafe  of  materials,  as  to 
render  it  at  leaft  fix  times  as  voluminous  as  the  former, 
but  have  had  very  material  influence  on  our  author's 
fentiments,  with  refpeft  to  feveral  important  points  of 
bibUcal  cridcifm.  In  a  letter,  with  which  he  honoured 
the  tranflator,  he  calls  his  firft  performance  the  work  of 
a  novice,  and  in  the  fliort  preface  prefixed  to  the  German 
original  of  the  fourth  edition,  he  exprcflfes  himfelf  in  the 
following  modeft  and  fenfible  manner.  *  Whenever  I 
'  refleft  on  the  year  1750,  when  the  firft  edition  of  this 

*  Introdudlion  appeared,  which  I  publiflied  at  that  time 
'  chiefly  as  a  guide  for  my  academical  ledures,  and 
'  compare  it  with  the  more  complete  editions  of  1765, 
'  and  1777,  I  feel  a  fatisfadion,  and  even  a  degree  of 

*  aftonifl^ment,  at  the  progrefs  of  learning  in  the  prefent 

*  age  :   and  as  during  the  laft  ten  years  in  particular  the 

*  moft  rapid  advances  have  been  made  in  literature,  the 
'  prefent  edition  of  this  work,  which  is  a  kind  of  ge- 
'  neral  repofitory,  has  received  a  proportional  increafe. 
'  I  candidly  confefs,  not  only  that  my  own  private  know- 
«  ledge  at  the  time  of  my  firft  publication  was  inferior 
<  to  what  it  fliould  and  might  have  been,  but  that  the 

a  *  performance 


TRANSLATOR  S    PREFACE. 

performance  itfelfwas  written  In  too  much  hafte  :  ana 
yet  this  very  ImperfecT:  edition  had  the  honour  of  being 
tranllated  into  Englifh,  and  of  undergoing  a  re-im- 
prefTion  even  at  the  time  when  the  fecond  much  more 
complete  edition  was  already  publlfhed  in  Germany. 
The  republic  of  letters  is  at  prefent  in  poflefTion  of 
knowledge,  of  which  it  had  no  idea  in  the  middle  of 
this  century  ;  and  I  may  venture  to  affirm,  that  the 
laft-mentloned  period  bears  the  fame  analogy  to  the 
year  1787,  as  the  Hate  of  infancy  to  that  of  manhood. 
We  were  unable  at  that  time  to  form  an  adequate 
judgement  on  many  important  topics,  and  the  opinions 
of  the  learned  were  divided  on  the  mod  ancient  and 
moft  valuable  manufcripts.  Wetfteln's  edition  of  the 
New  Teftament,  which  was  printed  in  1751  and  1752, 
■kindled  a  new  fire,  the  blaze  of  which  afforded  during 
fome  time  only  a  fpecies  of  twilightj  becaufe  the  learned 
critic  himfelf  had  formed  a  falfe  judgement  on  thefc 
important  manufcripts,  and  accufed  them  of  being 
corrupted  from  the  Latin.  The  authority  of  Wetftein 
procured  impHcit  confidence  in  his  opinion ;  and  a 
lapfe  of  many  years  was  neceffary  before  a  proper  ufe 
could  be  made  of  his  copious  and  valuable  colledtions, 
and  an  inference  deduced  more  confonant  to  the  truth, 
than  the  fentiments  entertained  by  the  author  himfelf. 
The  fyftem  of  biblical  criticifm  has  been  placed  in  a 
new  light,  and  reduced  to  a  ftate  of  greater  certainty : 
but  it  is  unneceilary  to  fwell  the  preface  with  a  de- 
fcription  of  the  treafures  that  haVe  been  opened,  and 
the  difcoverics  that  have  been  made  in  this  enlightened 
age,  as  they  are  arranged  under  their  refpeftive  heads 
in  the  courfe  of  the  prei'ent  Introdudlion.' 
The  reader  will  perceive  from  what  is  here  faid  by  our 
author,  that  the  work  is  purely  critical  and  hiflorical, 
and  will  therefore  expefl  to  find  no  difcuflions  of  con- 
troverted points  in  fpeculative  theology,  which  belong 
to  a  different  province.  Independent  of  fed  or  party, 
his  intention  is  to  explain  the  Greek  Teftament  with  the 
fame  impartiality,  and  die  lame  unbiaffed  love  of  truth, 

with 


translator's   preface.  Ill 

with  which  a  critic  in  profane  literature  would  examine 
the  writings  of  an  Homer  or  a  Virgil.  Nor  does  it  enter 
into  the  nature  of  his  defign  to  give  a  defcription  of  the 
Jewifli  fefts,  the  drefs  and  manners  of  the  Eall,  the 
weights  and  meafures  that  were  ufed  in  Paleftine,  or  the 
geography  and  chronology  neceflary  to  a  right  under- 
ilanding  of  the  Bible  ;  fubjefts,  with  which  he  fuppofes 
his  readers  already  acquainted,  as  they  have  been  treated 
by  a  great  variety  of  authors,  which  it  is  here  unnecef- 
fary  to  enumerate.  The  German  original  confifts  of 
two  quarto  volumes,  the  firft  of  which  contains  an 
examination  of  the  title,  authenticity,  infpiration,  and 
language  of  the  New  Teftament,  the  quotations  from 
the  Old  Teftament,  the  various  readings,  ancient  ver- 
fions,  and  manufcripts  of  the  Greek  Teftament,  the 
quotations  of  the  fathers,  critical  and  theological  con- 
jefture,  commentaries  and  editions  of  the  Greek  Tefta- 
ment, accents  and  other  marks  of  diftinftion,  with  the 
ancient  and  modern  divifions  of  the  facred  text.  The 
fecond  volume  contains  a  particular  introdu6lion  to  each 
individual  book  of  the  New  Teftament. 

The  firft  part  alone  is  now  prefented  to  the  Public  in 
an  Englifh  tranllation ;  and  that  the  reader  may  have 
fome  notion  of  what  he  is  to  expedt  from  this  learned 
work,  I  will  give  a  fhort  review  of  its  contents.  Each 
chapter  contains  a  feparate  diflertation  on  fome  important 
branch  of  facred  criticifm,  in  which  there  is  united  fuch 
a  variety  of  matter,  as  would  be  fufficient,  if  dilated 
according  to  the  ufual  mode  of  writing,  to  form  as  many 
diftina  publications.  In  the  chapter,  which  relates  to 
the  authenticity  of  the  New  Teftament,  the  evidence 
both  external  and  internal  is  arranged  in  fo  clear  and 
intelligible  a  manner,  as  to  affbrd  conviftion  even  to 
thofe,  who  have  never  engaged  in  theological  inquiries : 
and  the  experienced  critic  will  find  the  fubjeft  difcuflfed 
in  fo  full  and  comprehenfive  a  manner,  that  he  will  pro- 
bably pronounce  it  the  moft  complete  eflay  on  the  au- 
thenticity of  the  New  Teftament  that  ever  was  publifhed. 
The  chapter  which  relates  to  the  infpiration  of  the  New 
a  2  Teftament, 


IV  TRANSLATOR  S    PREFACE. 

Tcftamcnt,  contains  a  variety  of  very  fenfiblc  and  judi- 
cious remarks;  and  thougli  the  intricacy  of  the  fubjeft 
has  fometimes  involved  our  author  in  obfcurity,  yet  few 
writers  will  be  for.nd  who  have  examined  it  with  more 
cxa(5^.n<:fs.  The  language  of  the  New  Teftament  is  ana- 
lyfed  in  the  fourth  chapter  with  all  the  learning  and  in- 
genuity, for  which  our  author  is  fo  eminently  diftin- 
guifhed  ;  the  different  fources  of  its  peculiar  exprefTions 
he  has  diftincStly  pointed  out,  and  arranged  under  their 
refpeClive  iicads :  and  though  he  appears  to  have  fome- 
times fallen  into  error,  in  the  application  of  rules  to  par- 
ticular cafes,  yet  no  objc6lion  can  be  made  to  the  prin- 
ciples themfelves.  In  the  fifth  chapter,  where  he  ex- 
amines the  paflages  which  the  Apoftles  and  Evangelifls 
have  quoted  from  the  Old  Teftament,  he  takes  a  diftind 
view  of  the  feveral  parts  of  the  inquiry,  and  confiders 
whether  thefe  quotations  were  made  immediately  from 
the  Septuagint,  or  were  tranflations  of  the  Hebrew, 
whether  their  applicadon  is  literal  or  typical,  and  whe- 
ther the  facred  writers  did  not  fometimes  accommodate 
to  their  prefent  purpofe  exprefTions  and  pafTages,  which 
in  themfelves  related  to  different  fubjefls.  In  the  fixth 
chapter,  which  contains  an  account  of  the  various  read- 
ings of  the  Greek  Teftament,  he  fhews  the  different 
caufes  which  gave  them  birth,  and  deduces  clear  and 
certain  rules  to  guide  us  in  the  choice  of  that  which  is 
genuine  :  he  enters  fully  and  completely  into  his  fub- 
je<5t,  and  fliews  himfelf  a  perfeft  mafter  in  the  art  of 
criticifm.  The  fcventh  chapter,  which  contains  a  review 
of  the  ancient  verfions  of  the  New  Teftament,  is  not 
only  critical,  but  hiftorical,  and  comprifcs  in  itfelf  fuch 
a  variety  of  information,  as  makes  it  difficult  to  deter- 
mine, whether  it  moft  excels  in  affording  entertainment 
or  conveying  inftru6tion.  The  eighth  chapter  relates 
to  the  Greek  manufcripts,  and  after  fome  previous  dif- 
fertations  in  regard  to  the  fubjedl  in  general,  contains  a 
critical  and  hiftorical  account  of  all  the  manufcripts  of 
the  Greek  Teftament,  which  have  been  hitherto  col- 
lated.    This  is  a  fubjc(^,  which  muft  be  highly  inte- 

refting 


translator's  preface.  nr 

reftlng  to  every  man  engaged  in  facred  criticlfm,  and  I 
may  venture  to  pronounce,  that  whatever  expedlations 
the  reader  may  form  upon  this  head,  he  will  find  them 
fully  gratified  by  our  learned  author.  The  quotations 
from  the  New  Teftament  in  the  works  of  ecclefiaftical 
writers,  form  the  fubjeft  of  inquiry  in  the  ninth  chap- 
ter, in  which  our  author  examines  the  various  modes, 
in  which  it  is  fuppofed  that  thefe  quotations  were  made, 
and  confiders  how  fir  they  wi^e  made  from  mere  me- 
mory, and  how  far  we  may  con  fide  r  them  as  faithful 
tranfcripts  from  the  manufcripts  of  the  New  Teftament, 
which  the  writers  refpeftively  ufed.  Having  thus  ex- 
amined the  text  of  the  Greek  Teftament,  its  various 
readings,  and  the  three  grand  fources  from  which  they 
muft  be  drawn,  namely,  the  Greek  manufcripts,  the 
ancient  verfions,  and  the  quotations  in  the  works  of  ec- 
clefiaftical writers,  he  proceeds,  in  th£  tenth  chapter,  to 
examine  fuch  readings,  as  either  are,  or  have  been  in- 
troduced into  the  facred  text  on  mere  conjecture.  He 
allows  that  critical  emendations,  which  have  no  reference 
to  points  of  doftrine,  are  fometimes  allowable  ;  but  he 
highly  inveighs  againft  theological  conje6lure,  and  main- 
tains that  it  is  inconfiftent  to  adopt  the  New  Teftament, 
as  the  ftandard  of  belief  and  manners,  and  yet  to  aflert  the 
privilege  of  rejeding  or  altering,  without  authority,  what- 
ever coutradiifls  a  previoufly  aftlim.ed  hypothefis.  He  is  of 
opinion  that  there  is  no  medium  between  adopting  in  ge- 
neral the  dodlrines,  which  theNewTeftamcnt  literally  con- 
tains, and  rejecting  the  whole  as  an  improper  criterion  of 
faith.  The  eleventh  chapter  contains  only  a  chronological 
account  of  the  authors  who  have  coUeded  various  readings 
to  the  Greek  Teftament :  but  the  twelfth  chapter  con- 
tains a  very  excellent  review  of  all  the  critical  editions 
of  the  Greek  Teftament  from  the  year  15 14,  when  the 
Complutenfian  was  printed,  down  to  the  prcfent  time. 
He  like  wife  confiders  the  imperfeftions,  which  have 
hitherto  attended  fuch  editions  as  are  printed  with  va- 
rious readings,  and  delivers  the  plan,  and  the  rules,  on 
which  a  perfect  edition,  according  to  his  opinion,  ihould 
a  J  be 


Vi  TRANSLATOR'S    PREFACE. 

be  formed.  The  kfl:  chapter,  which  relates  to  the  marks 
of  diftinclion  in  the  Greek  Teftament,  and  the  divifions 
which  have  been  made  at  different  times  in  the  facred 
text,  will  be  mofl:  interefting  to  thofe,  who  are  engaged 
in  the  examination  of  Greek  manufcripts:  but  as  many 
practical  rules  are  deduced  from  the  inquiry,  it  will  be 
likewife  of  importance  to  every  man  who  is  employed  in 
the  ftudy  of  divinity  at  large. 

With  refpe6l  to  the  tranflation,  though  its  merits  or 
demerits  muft  be  determined  by  the  public,  it  may  not 
be  improper  to  explain  in  a  few  words  the  plan,  on  which 
I  have  proceeded.  As  the  flrufture  of  the  German  pe- 
riods is  widely  different  from  that  of  the  Englifh,  and 
the  llyle  of  our  author,  notwithflanding  his  confummate 
erudition,  is  not  only  devoid  of  elegance,  which  is  unne- 
ceiTary  in  critical  difquifitions,  but  is  in  general  harfh 
and  uncouth,  a  literal  tranflation  of  this  learned  work 
would  have  been  unavoidably  offenfive  to  an  Englilh  ear. 
In  tranflating  the  works  of  a  Wieland  or  a  RoufTeau,  a 
deviation  from  the  original  would  be  wholly  unpardon- 
able, becaufe  it  is  the  bufmefs  of  a  tranflator  not  only  to 
convey  the  fentiments  of  his  author,  but  to  preferve  if 
poffible  the  beauty  of  the  drefs,  in  which  they  are  dif- 
played.  But  where  neither  beauty  nor  even  neatnefs  is 
vifible,  it  ceafes  to  be  a  duty  to  retain  the  peculiarities, 
which  in  a  tranflation  would  be  ftill  greater  blemifhes, 
than  in  the  original.  I  have  feldorn  therefore  given  a 
clofe  tranflation,  except  in  matters  of  verbal  criticifm, 
and  have  very  frequendy  been  obliged  to  new-model 
whole  periods.  I  have  paid  however  the  ftrideft  atten- 
tion to  the  fenfe  and  fpirit  of  the  original,  which,  after  a 
refidence  of  five  years  in  a  German  Univerfity,  I  have  lefs 
reafon  to  fsar  that  I  have  miftaken,  than  that  in  confe- 
quence  of  a  long  abfence  from  my  native  country,  I  may 
have  been  fometimes  guilty  of  incorrednefs  in  the  ftyle 
of  the  tranflation.  A  writer,  who  by  long  habit  is  more 
familiarized  with  a  foreign  than  with  his  native  language, 
infenfibly  adopts  its  modes  of  exprefTion;  and  it  is  pof- 
fible, and  even  probable,  that  this  very  circumftance  may 

have 


TRANSLATOR  S    PREFACE.  Vll 

have  often  led  me  into  the  error  which  I  have  ftudioufly 
endeavoured  to  avoid.  I  hope  however  to  be  favoured 
with  the  indulgence  of  the  learned,  and  if  this  publica- 
tion Ihould  be  deemed  worthy  of  a  fecond  edition,  to 
which  the  merits  of  the  author  though  not  of  the  tranf- 
lator  are  juftly  entided,  every  improvement  that  may  be 
propofed  will  be  thankfully  accepted,  and  carefully  no- 
ticed. Another  alteration  which  I  have  taken  the  liberty 
to  make  is,  that  I  have  transferred  to  the  margin  a  variety 
of  references  that  are  placed  in  the  text  of  the  original, 
becaufe  they  wholly  interrupt  the  fluency  of  the  ftyle : 
but  I  have  deviated  from  this  rule  wherever  the  quota  - 
tions  themfelves  form  the  fubjed  of  difcourfe.  I  have 
likewife  divided  the  work  into  chapters  as  well  as  feftions, 
though  the  latter  divifion  alone  is  admitted  into  the  ori- 
ginal, which,  though  more  convenient  in  quoting  from 
this  Introduftion,  occafions  frequent  confufion  in  the 
ftudy  of  the  work  itfelf. 

When  I  firft  engaged  in  the  prefent  tranfladon,  I  had 
no  other  objed  in  view,  than  to  prefent  the  public  with 
a  faithful  copy  of  the  original.  But  being  at  that  time 
particularly  employed  in  the  fludy  of  theology,  I  was 
led  by  curiofity,  or  a  thirft  of  knowledge,^  not  only  to 
examine  the  numerous  paflages,  whether  of  the  Hebrew 
Bible  or  Greek  Teftament,  of  writers  ancient  or  modern, 
Afiadc  or  European,  to  which  our  author  referred,  but 
likewife  to  read  with  attention  the  moft  celebrated  works, 
in  which  the  various  points  were  difcufTed,  that  are  the 
fubjedls  of  the  prefent  Introduftion.  From  thefe  inqui- 
ries there  refulted  a  variety  of  obfervations,  which  I  com- 
mitted to  paper,  with  references  to  the  German  original, 
becaufe  at  that  time  I  had  no  other  objed  in  view,  than 
my  own  inltrudion.  Where  the  matter  was  too  exten- 
five  to  be  comprifed  in  a  fmall  compafs,  I  noted  dowa 
the  volume  and  the  page,  in  the  author  or  authors,  ia- 
which  it  was  treated  at  large,  that  I  might  know  in  future 
where  I  Ihould  feek  for  information,  if  ever  I  had  leifure 
Qv  inclination  to  profecute  the  inquiry.  Having  col- 
Icd.ed  in  this  manner  from  various  fources  a  number  of 
a  /^  mate- 


Vlll  TRANSLATOR  S    PREFACE. 

materials,  which  ferved  either  to  illuftrate  our  author's 
Introduclion  where  it  was  obfcure,  to  corredt  it  where  it 
feemed  erroneous,  or  to  fupply  what  appeared  to  be  de^ 
feftive,  with  vouchers  and  authorities  for  each  obferva- 
tion,  I  thought  it  might  be  of  ufe  to  the  reader,  if  I 
adapted  them  to  the  Hnglifli  tranflation,  and  fubjoined 
them  as  an  aj^pendix  to  each  volume.  They  will  fave 
him,  at  leaft,  the  trouble  of  collecting  materials  for  him- 
felf,  which  would  be  attended  with  no  inconfiderable 
labour,  and  enable  him  to  turn  at  once,  without  either 
trouble  or  lofs  of  time,  to  the  volume  and  the  page  of 
each  author,  where  he  will  find  more  ample  information 
than  can  be  contained  in  the  compafs  of  a  note.  Of 
thefe  references  there  are  feveral  thoufands,  and  that  the 
reader  may  never  be  at  a  lofs  in  referring  to  the  quoted 
authors,  I  have  in  general  at  the  firil  quotation  given 
the  full  title  of  the  work,  and  if  it  has  gone  through 
feveral  editions,  I  have  always  mentioned  that,  which  I 
particularly  meant.  To  the  notes,  which  are  formed  on 
the  plan  above  defcribed,  I  have  added  others  of  a  dif- 
ferent kind.  I  have  in  general  given  extracts  from  the 
German  works  to  which  our  author  refers,  efpecially 
from  his  Orientalifche  and  Exegetifche  Bibliothek,  be- 
caufe  thefe  are  fources  which  are  inacceffible  to  molt 
Fnglifh  readers,  and  our  author  is  frequently  more  con- 
cife  than  he  otherwife  would  have  been,  on  the  prefump» 
tion  that  the  lull-mentioned  work  in  particular  is  in  the 
hands  of  thofe  who  read  his  Introduclion.  And  fmce  feveral 
very  important  publications  in  biblical  criticifm,  by  Alter, 
Adler,  Birch,  Miinter,  &c.  have  made  their  appearance, 
fmce  the  laft  edition  of  our  author's  Introdufticn,  and  con- 
tain very  valuable  materials,  with  which  he  would  have 
enriched  his  own  work,  if  he  had  publiflied  only  three 
years  later,  I  have  endeavoured,  as  far  as  my  imperfect 
knowledge  of  the  fubjeft  would  permit,  to  communi- 
cate under  each  refpeClive  head,  the  information  which 
could  not  be  conveyed  by  our  author  himfelf.  I  have 
like  wife  occafionally  introduced,  in  the  body  of  the  notes, 
fomc  Ihort  dilTertaiions  on  fubjeds  of  facred  criticifm, 

efpecially 


TRANSLATOR  S    PREFACE.  IX 

cfpecially  in  the  chapters  which  relate  to  the  ancient 
verfions,  the  manufcripts,  and  the  editions  of  the  Greek 
Teftament. 

Thefe  are  the  additions,  which  I  have  ventured  to  lay 
before  the  public,  as  an  appendix  to  the  original  work 
of  Michaelis,  and  for  which  perhaps  I  Ihould  requeft  the 
indulgence  of  the  public.     I  candidly  own  that  I  com- 
menced the  prefent  undertaking,  without  that  knowledge 
and  experience  in  facred  criticifm,  which  I  ought  to  have 
poflefTcd.     My  knowledge  of  the  Oriental  languages  ex* 
tends  no  further,    than  to  enable  me  to  make  out  a  paf-. 
fage  by  the  help  of  a  grammar  and  a  lexicon  j   nor  had 
the  other  branches  of  theological  learning  engaged  my 
attention,  when  I  firft  entered  on  the  work,  which  I  now 
deliver  to  the  public.     Confined  by  ficknefs  in  a  foreign 
country,  I  fought  rather  to  araufe  and  to  inftrud  myfelf, 
than  to  edify  mankind ;  but  as  I  have  altered  my  origi- 
nal plan,    and  prefume  to  publifh  the  fruits  of  my  re- 
fearches,  I  muft  hope  that  indufl-ry  has  in  fome  meafure 
fupplied  the  deficiencies  of  knowledge.     Perhaps  it  will 
be  thought  to  favour  of  prefumption,   that  I  have  often 
ventured  to  call  in  queftion  the  opinions  of  our  author : 
but  as  no  man  is  exempt  from  the  danger  of  miftake, 
and  neither  the  moft  profound  erudition  nor  the  cleareft 
underftanding  can  at  all  times  feciire  us  from  error,  it 
may  be  naturally  expeded  that  various  palTages  even  m 
the  writings  of  Michaelis  muft  be  liable  to  objection. 
Though  impreffed  with  the  moft  profound  veneration 
for  the  memory  of  a  man,  who  is  now  no  more,  of  a 
man,  whofe  name  will  be  ever  uttered  with  refpeft,  as 
long  as  learning  is  an  objea:  of  efteem,  yet  the  duty, 
which  we  owe  to  truth,  is  fuperior  to  that  which  can 
be  claimed  by  the  greatcft  names,  or  the  moft  exalted 
chara6lers.     Unbiaffed  therefore  by  prejudice,  and  with 
a  freedom,  to  which  every  writer  is  entitled^  I  have  care- 
fully examined  the  afTcrtions  and  opinions  of  our  author, 
and  wherever  they  appeared  to  be  erroneous,   I  have 
ftated,    as  clearly  as  I  was  able,  the  reafons  which  in- 
duced me  to  diflcnt.     I  fubmit  however  the  whole  to  the 

decifion 


X  TRANSLATOR'S    PREFACE. 

decifion  of  the  reader ;  and  whatever  mlftakes  I  have 
made,  for  in  a  work  of  fuch  extent  as  the  prefent,  mif- 
takes  are  unavoidable,  I  fhall  not  be  alhamed,  as  foon 
as  they  are  pointed  cut  with  coolnefs  and  candour,  to 
acknowledge  and  retraft  them. 

Laftly,  I  muft  beg  leave  to  caution  thofe,  who  com- 
pare the  German  original  with  the  Englifh  tranflation, 
and  find  that  the  references  to  the  quoted  authors  are 
fometimes  different  in  the  latter,  with  refpeft  to  the 
figures  denoting  the  volume  or  the  page,  the  chapter  or 
the  verfe,  not  immediately  to  conclude  that  the  refer- 
ences in  the  tranflation  are  erroneous.  For  as  I  have  at 
all  times  confulted  the  quoted  authors,  I  have  tacitly 
correfted  the  Errata  of  the  German  original,  which  are 
more  numerous,  than  any  man  would  imagine,  who  was 
not  concerned  in  literary  publications.  In  this  refpe6t 
therefore  the  tranflation  has  an  advantage  over  the  ori- 
ginal itfelf,  except  where  new  typographical  errors  have 
been  made,  which  1  hope  are  not  numerous,  becaufe  I 
have  corredled  the  prefs  myfelf,  and  have  paid  particular 
attention  to  the  accuracy  of  the  references,  fmce  mif- 
takes  in  thefe  are  not  like  other  errata,  which  in  general 
corred:  themfelves. 

Before  I  conclude,  I  mufl  return  thanks  to  the  Uni- 
verfity,  of  which  I  have  the  honour  to  be  a  member^ 
for  its  liberal  afTiftance,  in  defraying  the  expences  of  this 
publication. 


JOHN  S  COtLECE,  CAM! 
APRIL  2,  1793. 


CONTENTS. 


VOL.  I.   PART  I. 


CHAPTER     I. 

Of  the  the  title  usually  given  to  the  writ- 
ings OF  THE  NEW  COVENANT  -^  PAGE  I 


CHAPTER     II. 

OF    THE    AUTHENTICITY     OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

Sect.  I. 
Importance  of  this  Inquiry,  and  its  influence  on  the  quef- 
tion  of  the  divine  origin  of  the  Chriftian  religion.  4 

Sect.  II. 
Of  ohjeSfions  made  to  thefe  writings  in  general,  and  of 
thofe  of  Fauflus  the  Manichaan  in  particular.    —     ij 

Sect.  III. 
The  New  Teflament  is  proved  to  he  genuine  on  the  fame 
grounds^  as  the  works  of  profane  Authors.  —     23 

Sect.  IV. 
Pofitive  grounds  for  the  authenticity  of  the  New  Tefla- 
ment. —  —  —  —     30. 

Sect.  V. 
Impofjibility  of  a  forgery  ariftngfrcm  the  nature  of  the 
thing  itfelf  —  —  —     31 

Sect. 


Xll  CONTENTS    TO    VOL.    I.    PART   I. 

Sect.  VI. 
Tejlimonies  of  the  Fathers ^  and  other  Chrijiian  writers 
of  the  jirjl  centuries.  —  —  pace31 

Sect.  VII. 

Teflimomcs  of  the  Heretics  of  the  fir fl  centuries.       —     35 

Sect.  VIII. 

Jewijh  and  Heathen  teflimonies  for  the  authenticity  of 

the  New  Teji anient.  —  — .  —     3^ 

Sect.  IX. 
Antieni  Verfions,  —  —  —     44 

Sect.   X. 
Internal  Evidence ;  andfirfl  that  derived  from  the  fiyle 
of  the  New  Tefl anient.        —  —  —     4^ 

Sect.    XI. 
^Coincidence  of  the  accounts  delivered  in  the  New  Tefl  a- 
went  with  the  hifiory  of  thoje  titnes.        —        —    49 

Sect.  XIL 
Ohje5lions  drawn  from  real  or  apparent  contradi5lions 
between  the  accounts  of  -profane  authors ^  and  thofe  of 
the  New  Teflament,  particularly  thoJe  of  St.  Luke.      54 


CHAPTER     III. 

OF  THE  INSPIRATION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Sect.   I. 
Of  the  difference  between  canonical  and  apocryphal  books; 
and  whether  the  truth  of  the  Chriflian  religion  necef- 
farily  depends  on  the  New  Teflamenfs  being  injpired.     70 

Sect.  II. 
OftU  criterion  by  which  In/piration  mujl  he  determined. 


CONTENTS  TO  VOL.  I.    PART  I.  Kill 

and  of  the  application  of  this  criterion  to  the  writings 
of  the  Apofhks,  Theje  writings j  if  genuine j  are  in- 
Jpired,  —  —  —  PAGE  75 

Sect.  III. 

Ofthofe  writings  of  the  New  Tefiament  which  were  not 
written  by  the  Apofiks,  hut  hyafjiflants  of  the  Apoflles.     8  7 


CHAPTER    IV. 

OF    THE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

Sect.  I. 

The  greatefi  part  of  the  New  Tefiament  was  written  in 
Greek.  Reajon  of  its  being  written  in  that  language,     97. 

Sect.  II. 

Hardouin^s  extraordinary  hypothecs  of  a  Latin  Original. 

103 

Sect.  III. 
Thefiyle  of  the  New  Tefiament  is  Hebraic  Greek  like 
that  of  the  Septuagint.  —  — -  —  ill 

Sect.  IV. 

Whether  the  peculiar  flyle  of  the  New  Tefiament  isfuch 
a  fault  ^as  militates  againflits  divine  infpir  at  ion.  Dif- 
putes  concerning  the  purity  of  the  fiyle  of  the  New 
Tefiament.  —  —  • —  —  116 

Sect. V. 
HebraifmSjRabbiniJmSjSyriafmSy  Chaldaifms,  Arahifms.  1 23 

Sect.  VI. 
Two-fold  error  into  which  critics  have  fallen  in  rfpe5f 
to  the  Hcbraifms.  —  —  —  140 

Sect.  VII. 
The  language  of  the  New  Tefiament  has  a  tirMure  of 
the  Alexandrine  idiom.  •—  —  —  i43 

Sect. 


xiv  CONTENTS    TO    VOL.  I.    PART    I. 

Sect.  VIII. 
Of  the  CiUciJms  difcovered  in  the  writings  of  St.  Paut, 
and  of  the  fiyle  of  St.  Paul  in  general.  page  149 

Sect.  IX. 

Perfian  Words.  —  —  —  ^59 

Sect.  X. 
Latinifms.  —  —  —  —  162 

Sect.  XI. 
Idiotifmsy   bad  Greek  exprejfwnsy  Attic  and  common 
Greek  J  'poetical  words.  —  —  —  166 

Sect.  XII. 
Solecifmsj  or  grammatical  errors.         —  —  173 

Sect.  XIII. 
Inference  to  he  deduced  from  thefe  premifes,  refpe^ing 
the  knowledge  necejfary  for  the  under/landing  of  the 
New  Tefl anient.  —  —  —  17^ 

Sect.  XIV. 
Tl^e  remarks  of  the  foregoing  fe5lion  confirmed  by  the 
experience  of  what  has  hitherto  been  performed  or 
negleHed  in  expounding  the  New  Tejlament,        —  i  g  i 


CHAPTER    V. 


OF     THE     QUOTATIONS     FROM      THE      OLD     TESTA- 
MENT   IN    THE    NEW. 

Sect.  I. 
Of  pcijfages  horrowedy  or  quoted  from  the  Old  Tefia- 
ment  in  general.  —  —  —  200 

Sect.  II. 

Of  quotations  in  proof  of  do5f  vines  J  or  the  completion  of 
prophecies :  of  the  difficulties  attending  them,  and  in 
what  manner  thefe  difficulties  may  pojfihly  he  removed.  209 

Sect, 


CONTENTS    TO   VOL.    I.    PART    I,  XY 

Sect.  III. 
The  Old  Teftament  is  quoted  very  frequent ly^  but  not 
always,  from  the  Septuagint,  —  page  215 

Sect.  IV. 
Two  hypothefes  hy  Schuh  and  Ernejiiy  with  a  thirdly 
the  author,  relative  to  the  quotations  from  the  Sep- 
tuagint,  —  —  —  —  22S 

Sect. V. 
Whether  apocryphal  pajfages,  that  is,fuch  as  are  not 
contained  in  our  Hebrew  and  Greek  Bibles,  arejome- 

times  quoted  in  the  New  Teftament.         —        236 

Sect.  VI. 
Of  the  Rabbinical  mode  of  quotation  in  the  New  Tefta- 
ment, —  _  __  =-243 


CHAPTER    VI. 

critical    enquiry    into   the    various   read- 
ings OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Sect.  I. 
The  Autographa,  or  original  manufcripts  of  the  New 
Teftament  are  loft.              —             —             .—  246 
Sect.  II. 
Whether  the  early  lojs  of  the  Autographa  has  occafioned 
miftakes  in  all  the fubfequent  copies.     Two-fold  edi- 
tion of  the  books  of  the  New  Teftament,  one  before, 
the  other  after,  the  death  of  the  Apoftles,  253 

Sect.  III. 

Various  Readings,  of  which  only  one  can  be  the  true 
reading,  were  unavoidable  in  the  New  Teftament,     257 
Sect.  IV. 
Difference  between  Errata,  and  Farious  Readings,        260 

Sect.  V. 
U^hether  our  Faith  is  affe^ed  hy  the  Various  Readings. 

Sect. 


Xvi  CONTENTS    TO    VOL.  I.    PART  I. 

Sect.  VI. 
Of  the  origin  of  the  Various  Readings,  and  the  beji 
methods  of  dif covering  their  different  caufes,     page  26 S 

Sect.  VII. 
Five  caiifes  cf  the  Various  Readings.  —        •—  270 

Sect.  VIII. 
Firft  Caufe.     The  omiffion,  addition,  or  exchange  of 
letters,  fyllables,  or  words,  from  the  mere  carcleffnefs 
of  tranjcrihers.  —  — •  —  271 

Sect.  IX. 
Second  Caufe.    Miflakes  of  the  tranfcrihers  in  regard 
to  the  true  text  of  the  original.  —  —  28  J 

Sect.  X. 
Third  Caufe.     Errors  or  imferfe5lions  in  the  antient 
manujcript,  from  which  a  tranfcriber  copied.      —  295 
Sect.  XI. 
Fourth  Caufe.     Critical  conjecfure,   or  intended  im- 
provement of  the  original  text.  —  —  304 
Sect.  XII. 
Fifth  Caufe.    Wilful  corruptions,  to  ferve  the  purpofes 
of  a  party,  whether  orthodox  or  heterodox.           —  320 

Sect.  XIII. 
General  rules  for  deciding  on  the  Various  Readings.      328 


CONTENTS  TO  VOL.  I.  PART.  II. 

NOTES  TO  Chap.  I.  —  page  343 

■                      Chap.  II.  —  —  349 

■      Chap,  III.                 —  —  374 

I                      Chap.  IV.  —  —  390 

— — —  Chap.  V.  •— •  ....  470 

"                 Chap.  VI.                —  «—  493 

INTRO- 


INTRODUCTION 

TO    THE 

SACRED    WRITINGS 

4 

OF    THE 

NEW      COVENANT, 


CHAP.      I. 


OF    THE    TITLE    USUALLY    GIVEN    TO    THE    WRITINGS    OF 

THE    NEW    COVENANT. 

ri^HE  Collc6lion  of  Writings  compofcd  after  the 
X  alcenfion  of  Chrift  and  acknowledged  by  his  fol- 
lowers to  be  divine  is  known  in  general  by  the  name  of 
K»ivn  Sioohm.  This  title,  though  neither  given  by  divine 
command,  nor  applied  to  thefe  writings  by  the  apoftles, 
was  adopted  in  a  very  early  age  ',  though  the  precife  time 
of  its  introdudion  is  uncertain,  it  being  juftified  by  feve- 
ral  paflages  in  fcripture  %  and  warranted  by  the  authority 
of  St,  Paul  in  particular,  who  calls  the  facred  books  be- 
fore the  time  of  Chrift  zj-aXat«  Sixhm  ^.  Even  long  be- 
fore that  period  either  the  whole  of  the  Old  Teftament, 
or  the  five  books  of  Mofes  were  entitled  (SjgXiov  J^iaSjinnf, 
or  Book  of  the  Covenant'. 

As  the  word  S^ocUy-n  admits  of  a  twofold  interpretation, 
we  may  tranllate  this  title  either  The  New  Covenant  or 

the 

*  Matth.  xxvl.  28.     Gal.  lii.  17.     Heb.  vlll.  8.  ix.  15—20, 
W  a  Cor.  iii.  14.  '  »  M»«.  i.  57. 

A 


2  Title  to  the  wyitings  of  the  New  Covenant,  chap.  i. 

the  New  Teftament.  The  former  tranflation  muft  be 
adopted,  if  rcfped  be  had  to  the  texts  of  fcriptiire,  from 
which  the  name  is  borrowed,  fince  thofe  paffages  evi- 
dently convey  the  idea  of  a  covenant"';  and  befides,  a 
Being  incapable  of  death  can  neither  have  made  an  old, 
nor  make  a  new  teftament.  It  is  likewife  probable  that 
the  earliefl:  Greek  difciples,  who  made  ufe  of  this  expref- 
fion,  had  no  other  notion  in  view  than  that  of  Covenant. 
We  on  the  contrary  are  accuftomed  to  give  this  facred 
colleftion  the  name  of  Tedament ;  and  fince  it  would 
be  not  only  improper,  but  even  abfurd  to  fpeak  of  the 
Teftament  of  God,  we  commonly  underftand  the  Tef- 
tament of  Chrift,  an  explanation  which  removes  but  half 
the  difficulty,  fince  the  new  only,  and  not  the  old  had 
Chrift  for  its  teftator. 

The  name  of  New  Tefl:ament  is  derived  from  the 
Latin  Verfion,  in  which  ^kxSukti,  even  in  thofe  pafi^ages 
where  contraft  or  covenant  is  clearly  the  fubjeft  of  dif- 
courfe,  is  tranflated  Teftamentum.  But  this  muft  be  re- 
garded rather  as  an  harfh  Grecifm  than  as  an  error  ^  in 
the  Latin  Tranflator,  who  rendering  a  word,  that  admits 
in  the  original  of  the  double  fenfe  of  Will  and  Contraft, 
iifed  Teftamentum  in  the  fame  extent  of  meaning,  con- 
fidering  teftor  to  convey  tlie  idea  of  a  bond.  Whoever 
reads  the  ninth  Chapter  of  Genefis  in  the  vulgate  *,  will 
be  convinced  that  the  tranfiator  underftood  by  Tefta- 
mentum fimply  a  covenant.  Ecce  ego  excito  teftamen- 
tum meum  vobis,  (fays  God  to  thofe  who  were  faved 
from  the  Deluge).  Hoc  fignum  tcftamenti  mei,  quod 
ego  ponam  inter  me  et  vos  et  omnem  animam  vivam,  et 
erit  fignum  tcftamenti  reterni  inter  me  et  inter  terram  ^ 
Et  memor  ero  teftamenti  mei  quod  eft  inter  me  et  inter 
vos  et  omnem  animam  vivam.  This  teftamentum  which 
God  declares  he  will  remember,  is  a  covenant,  never  to 
deftroy  again  the  earth  by  a  general  deluge. 

The 

<  See  my  Expofitlon  of  the  Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews  2. 
e  The  word  inter  from  its  reciprocr.l  fenfe  evidently  ftiews  that  tefta- 
mentum here  fignifies  a  covenant. 


CHAP.  I.  Title  to  the  writings  of  the  New  Covenant.         3 

The  facred  writers  themfelves  have  no  general  name 
for  the  whole  collecflion  \  which  neither  was  nor  could 
be  made  as  long  as  the  Apoftles  lived,  it  being  uncertain 
what  produftions  might  (till  proceed  from  their  hands ; 
and  the  Gofpel  of  St.  John  was  undoubtedly  written  at 
a  very  late  period,  and  ftill  later,  as  many  fuppofe,  the 
book  of  revelation.  The  Apoftles  feldom  quote  either 
from  their  own  writings,  or  from  thofe  of  the  other  Apof- 
tles, fmce  they  were  at  that  time  too  recent  to  be  gene- 
rally known  in  all  the  churches  :  but  in  thofe  cafes  in 
which  quotations  are  ufed  they  exprefs  themfelves,  "  I 
wrote  to  you  in  an  epiftle  ^"  or  ''  As  our  beloved  brother 
Paul  alfo  according  to  the  wifdom  given  unto  him  hath 
written  unto  you^,"  &c.  In  thete  and  fimilar  inftancea 
they  refer  only  to  fuch  epiftles  as  had  been  written  to  the 
fame  community  to  which  they  were  writing  themfelves^: 
to  the  epiftles  of  St.  Paul  alone  are  fuch  references  to  be 
found,  and,  what  is  a  fingular  circumftance,  to  thofe  rules 
which  are  loft  ^. 

The  expreftion  likewife  wao-a  y^oi(pny  which  is  ufed  by 
St.  Paul  in  his  fecond  epiftle  to  Timothy  \  can  hardly 
fignify  his  own  writings  and  thofe  of  the  other  Apoftles, 
fmce  according  to  the  tenor  of  the  whole  pafTage  it  con- 
veys the  fame  meaning  with  n^cx,  y^x^i^xrx  ufed  in  the 
preceding  fentence,  fcriptures  which  Timothy  had  learnt 
from  a  child,  and  which  could  mean  therefore  the  writ- 
ings of  the  Old  Teftament  alone,  not  thofe  of  the  Apof- 
tles and  Evangelifts  ^ 

The  above  remarks,  though  unimportant  in  them- 
felves, afford  however  an  opportunity  of  making  a  gene 
ral  obfervation  which  we  ftiall  find  of  confiderable  weight 
in  the  fequel,  '  That  the  Apoftles  who  fo  frequently  quote 
the  writings  of  the  Old  Teftament  rarely  quote  thofe  of 
the  new.  They  were  at  that  time  too  recent,  and  too  litde 
known  to  the  Chriftians  in  general  to  form  a  fubjei5l  of 
quotation,  fmce  otherwife  St.  Paul  would  hardly  have 
omitted,  in  writing  his  firft  epiftle  to  the  Corinthians,  to 
quote  in  the  fifteenth  chapter  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew, 

whole 

'  I  Cor.  V.  5.  «  »  Pet.  ill.  15.  »>  Ch.  iii.  16. 

A    2 


4  Authenticity  of  the  New  Teji  anient,     chap.  n. 

whofe  writings  bore  teftimony  to  the  refurreftion  of 
Chrift'.  We  have  the  flime  reafon  to  believe  that  the 
epiftles  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Galatians,  ThefTalonians,  and 
Corinthians  were  not  known  at  Rome  at  the  time  when 
he  wrote  his  epiftlc  to  the  Romans.  The  caufe  of  fuch 
omilTions,  which  take  place  in  every  cpiftolary  corre- 
fpondence,  will  lerve  likewife  to  explain  the  appearance  of 
fimilar  ncgledt  in  the  epiftles  of  Clemens  Romanus. 


CHAP.       II. 

OF    THE    AUTHENTICITY    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

SECT.      I. 

Importance  of  this  inquiry,  and  its  influence  on  the  queflion 
of  the  divine  origin  of  the  Chriflian  religion  '. 

BEFORE  we  proceed  to  examine  the  various  grounds 
for  the  authenticity  of  the  New  Teftament,  it  may 
not  be  improper  to  premife  a  few  obfervations  on  the  im- 
portance of  this  inquiry,  and  its  influence  in  determining 
the  divinity  of  the  Chriftian  religion.    And  we  fhall  find 
its  influence  to  be  fuch,  as  to  make  it  a  matter  of  furprife 
that  the  adverfaries  of  Chrifl:ianity  have  not  confl:antly 
made  their  firfl:  attacks  upon  this  quarter.     For,  if  they 
admit  thefe  writings  to  be  as  antient  as  we  pretend,  and 
really  compofed  by  the  perfons  to  whom  they  are  afcribed, 
though  we  cannot  from  thefe  premifes  alone  immediately 
conclude  them  to  be  divinely  infpired,-yet  an  undeniable 
confequence  is  the  truth  and  divinity  of  the  religion  it- 
felf  *.     The  Apoftles  allude  frequently  in  their  epiftles  to 
the  gift  of  miracles,  which  they  had  communicated  to 
the  Chriftian  converts  by  the  impofition  of  hands  in  con- 
firmation of  the  dodlrine  delivered  in  their  fpeeches  and 
writings,  and  fometimes  to  miracles  which  they  themfclves 
had  performed '.    Now  if  thefe  epiftles  are  really  genuine, 
it  is  hardly  pollible  to  deny  thofe  miracles  to  be  true.  The 
cafe  is  here  entirely  diflcrent  from  that  of  an  hiftorian, 

who 


SECT.  I.        Authenticity  of  the  New  Teftament.  5 

who  relates  extraordinary  events  in  the  courfe  of  his  nar- 
rative, fince  either  credulity  or  an  aftual  intention  to  de- 
ceive may  induce  him  to  defcribe  as  true  a  feries  of  falfe- 
hoods  refpeding  a  foreign  land,  or  diftant  period.  Even 
to  the  Evangelifts  might  an  adverfary  of  the  Chriftian  re- 
ligion make  this  objedion :  but  to  write  to  perfons  with 
whom  we  (land  in  the  neareft  connexion,  *  I  have  not 
only  performed  miracles  in  your  prefence,  but  have  like- 
wife  communicated  to  you  the  fame  extraordinary  endow- 
ments,' to  wi%|Bn  this  manner,  if  nothing  of  the  kind 
had  ever  happened,  would  require  fuch  an  incredible 
degree  of  effrontery,  that  he  v/ho  polTefled  it  would  not 
only  expofe  himfelf  to  the  utmoft  ridicule,  but  giving 
his  adverfaries  the  faireft  opportunity  to  deted  his  impof- 
ture  would  ruin  the  caufe,  which  he  attempted  to  fupport. 
St.  Paul's  firft  epiftle  to  the  ThefTalonians  is  addreffed 
to  a  Chriftian  community,  which  he  had  lately  founded, 
and  to  which  he  had  preached  the  Gofpel  only  three 
labbath  days'.  A  fudden  perfecution  obliged  him  to  quit 
this  community,  before  he  had  given  it  its  proper  degree 
of  confiftence,  and,  what  is  of  confequence  in  the  prefent 
inftance,  he  was  proteded  neither  by  the  power  of  the 
magiftrate,  nor  the  favour  of  the  vulgar.  A  pretended 
wonder-worker,  who  has  once  drawn  the  populace  to  his 
party,  may  eafily  perform  miracles,  and  fafely  proclaim 
them.  But  this  very  populace,  at  the  inftigation  of  the 
Jews,  who  had  confiderable  influence,  excited  the  infur- 
reftion,  which  obliged  St.  Paul  to  quit  the  town  ■".  He 
fends  therefore  to  the  ThefTalonians,  who  had  received 
the  Gofpel,  but  whofe  faith  he  apprehended  might  waver 
through  perfecution,  authoridcs  and  proofs  of  his  divine 
million',  of  which  authorities  the  firft  and  chief  are  mi- 
racles, and  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghoft.  Ort  to  luayyHXiov 
m^m  iv.  gyt^mOi)  f»f  u^af  ij/  Aoyw  jm.okjv  aAAa  xat  i\i  ^uva/^ti"",  xa» 

i  A£ts  xvii.  2.  Jc  Aflsxvil.  5 — 10.  1  i  Theff.  i.  5 — 10. 

m  Au»a(AK  fignlfies  here  as  well  as  in  many  other  paflages  the  power 
of  working  miracles.  It  is  properly  a  Chaldaifm  from  JHII^J*  which 
fignifies  I.  Power.  2.  Miracle S.  See  my  note  to  this  paiTage^,  and  tht 
principal  text,  Mark  vi.  5. 

A   3 


6  Authenticity  of  the  New  Tejiametit.     chap.  ii. 

i\i  ■nri/EUju.ari  a-yiw  iv  izXn^oipo^ioi.  sroXXr.  Is  it  pofTible  with- 
out forfeiting  all  pretenfions  to  common  fcnfe  that,  in 
writing  to  a  community,  which  he  had  lately  eftablifhed, 
he  could  fpeak  of  miracles  performed,  and  gifts  of  the 
Holy  Ghoft  communicated,  if  no  member  of  the  fociety 
had  fecn  the  one,  or  received  the  other  ? 

He  appeals  to  the  fame  evidence  with  refpe6t  to  the 
Corinthians,  who  were  highly  diffatisfied  both  with  him, 
and  his  do6trinc,  being  prejudiced  againft  him  by  his 
numerous  antagonifts,  who  unitingviolence  with  authority 
watched  every  opportunity  ofdeteding  errors,  and  catched 
at  every  failure,  that  might  refute  and  confound  him ". 

K«t  0  Xoyog  [xa  xai  to  Kri^vy[xx  fxa  ax  iv  zrn^oiq  (TO(pia.q  Xoyoig, 
«AA'  £1/  ocTi-o^ci^Ei  ■Z!7i/£'jjuaT0?  Kxi  ^\j]/a,y.ioog .     ^^£U^a  flgnifies  III 

the  writings  of  St.  Paul  in  general  and  in  this  epiftle  in 
particular  the  extraordinary  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  fuch 
as  the  gift  of  languages,  and  others  which  are  defcribed 
in  the  twelfth,  thirteenth,  and  fourteenth  chapters. 

To  the  Jewifli  converts  likewife,  who  were  in  danger  of 
becoming  apoftates  from  the  religion,  which  they  had 
adopted,  he  reprefents  the  greatnefs  of  their  crime,  if  they 
rejeded  a  religion,  to  which  God  bore  witnefs  with  figns 
and  wonders,  and  with  divers  miracles,  and  gifts  of  the 
Holy  Ghoft  °.  And  he  reminds  them  in  another  paflage' 
that  they  had  tailed  of  the  heavenly  gift  (i.  e.  the  New 
Covenant)  and  were  made  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghoft. 

In  the  fame  manner  St.  Paul  attempting  to  convince 
the  Galatians,  who  had  departed  from  the  purity  of  the 
Gofpel,  that  it  was  necefTary  to  abolifh  the  Mofaic  law 
propofcs  the  following  queftion  ^, '  Received  ye  the  Spirit 
by  the  works  of  the  law,  or  by  the  hearing  of  faith  ?' 
Would  an  impoftor  endowed  with  that  degree  of  judge- 
ment, which  iio  one  can  deny  to  St.  Paul  who  has  read 
attentively  his  epiftles  particularly  thofc  to  Timothy,  and 
/his  various  tranfaftions  recorded  in  the  a6ls  of  the  apof- 
tlcs,  appeal  againft  the  avowed  enemies  of  the  new  re- 
ligion not  only  to  miracles  performed  by  himfelf,  but  to 

fupernatural 

s  I  Cor.  H.  4.  •  Heb.  ii.  1—4. 

t  Heb.  vi.  4,  5.  1  Gal.  iii.  5, 


S£CT.  r.       Authenticity  of  the  New  Tefiament,  7 

fupernatural  endowments  imparted  to  the  very  perfons  to 
whom  he  wrote,  if  they  could  have  replied,  '  We  are 
ignorant  of  thefe  endowments,  we  underftand  not  what  is 
meant  by  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  ?' 

The  fame  apoftlc  in  his  firft  epiftle  to  the  Corinthians' 
corrects  the  abufe  of  certain  fpiritual  gifts,  particularly 
that  of  fpcaking  divers  kinds  of  tongues,  and  prefcribes 
rules  for  the  employment  of  thefe  fupernatural  talents : 
he  enters  into  a  particular  detail  of  them,  as  they  exifted 
in  the  Corinthian  community,  reafons  on  their  refpeftive 
worth  and  excellence,  fays  they  are  limited  in  duration, 
no  diftinguifhing  mark  of  divine  favour,  nor  fo  important 
as  faith  and  virtue,  the  love  of  God,  and  charity  for  our 
neighbour.  Now  if  this  epiftle  was  really  written  by  St, 
Paul  to  the  Corinthians,  and  they  had  aftually  received 
no  fpiritual  gifts,  no  power  imparted  by  extraordinary 
means  of  fpeaking  foreign  languages,  the  proper  place  to 
be  affigned  him  were  not  among  impoflors,  but  among 
thofe  who  had  lofh  their  undcrftanding.  A  juggler  may 
deceive  by  the  dexterity  of  his  hands,  and  perfuade  the 
ignorant  and  the  credulous  that  more  than  human  means 
are  requifite  for  the  performance  of  his  extraordinary  feats, 
but  he  will  hardly  perfuade  thofe,  whofe  underftandings 
remain  unimpaired,  that  he  has  likewife  communicated 
to  his  fpedlators  the  power  of  working  miracles,  and  of 
fpeaking  languages  which  they  had  never  learnt,  were 
they  confcious  of  their  inability  to  perform  the  one,  or 
fpeak  the  other.  It  is  true  that  this  argument  would  lofe 
its  force  on  the  hypothefis,  which  Semler  has  adopted  in 
his  explanation  of  this  epiille%  viz.  that  St.  Paul  alludes 
in  the  abovementioned  chapters  not  to  fupernatural  gifts, 
but  merely  to  certain  offices  in  the  church,  the  exercife 
of  which  required  only  natural  knowledge  and  ability ; 
and  that  the  gift  of  tongues  refpedls  thofe  foreigners  who 
were  emyloyed  as  minifters  in  the  Corinthian  church,  in 

order 

»  Ch.  xii.  xlii.  xiv. 

»  I.  S.  Semleri  paraphrafis  In  primam  Paul!  ad  Corinthios  epiftolam 
cum  notis,  et  Latinarum  tranflationum  excerptis.  Hal?e  Magdeburgic» 
1773. 

A   4 


8  Authenticity  of  the  New  Teftament.     chap.  n. 

order  that  ftrangers  who  frequented  the  city  whether 
Syrians,  Arabians,  or  Egyptians  might  hear  the  Gofpel 
in  their  native  language '.  But  I  can  hardly  perfuade 
myfclf  that  an  impartial  reader,  who  attends  to  the  con- 
nexion of  thefe  feveral  chapters,  will  be  of  Semler's  opi- 
nion :  this  at  leafl:  is  certain,  that  no  profcfled  adverfary 
of  the  Chriftian  religion  has  ever  had  recourfe  to  this 
evafion,  notwithftanding  Theologians  ^  themfclves  have 
paved  the  way  for  fimilar  explanations.  A  circumftantial 
refutation  of  this  new  and  extraordinary  hypothefis  would 
be  too  prolix  for  the  prefent  treatife  ' ;  a  commentary  on 
the  epiftle  itfelf,  lliould  I  ever  write  one,  would  be  the 
proper  place  to  introduce  what  at  prefent  I  muft  confine 
to  my  public  leftures '°. 

To  fuppofe  that  an  impoftor  could  write  to  the  con- 
verts or  adverfaries  of  the  new  religion  not  only  thefe, 
but  even  fubfequent  epiftles  with  a  degree  of  triumph 
over  his  opponents,  and  yet  maintain  his  authority,  im- 
plies ignorance  and  ftupidicy  hardly  to  be  believed,  not 
only  in  the  Hebrews  and  Galadans,  but  even  in  the  in- 
habitants of  Theflalonica  and  Corinth,  cities  which  never 
lay  under  the  weight  of  fo  heavy  a  fufpicion.  Credulous 
as  the  Chriftians  have  been  in  later  ages,  and  even  fo 
early  as  the  third  century,  no  lefs  fevere  were  they  in 
their  inquiries,  and  guarded  againft  deception  at  the  in- 
troduction of  Chrillianity.  This  chara6ter  is  given  them 
even  by  Lucian  "  who  vented  his  fadre  not  only  againft 
certain  Chriftians",  who  had  fupplied  Peregrinus  with 
the  means  of  fubfiftence,  but  alfo  againft  heathen  oracles 
and  pretended  wonders.  He  relates  of  his  impoftor 
(Pfeudomands)  that  he  attempted  nothing  fupernatural 
in  the  prefence  o(  the  Chriftians  and  Epicureans.  This 
Pfeudomantis  exclaim.s  before  the  whole  aftembly,  '  Away 
with  the  Chriftians,  away  with  the  Epicureans,  and  let 
thofe  only  remain  who  believe  in  the  Deity"  !'  (xs-jr^u- 
evTff  TO)  0£w)  upon  which  the  populace  took  up  ftones,  to 

drive 

»  See  the  Orientallfche  Bibllothek.7,  Vol.  I.  p.  99—102. 
u  De  morte  Peregrini,  §  12,  13.   16.     Ed.  Reita,  Tom.  III.  p.  334— 
338.  34.1. 


SECT.  I.       Authenticity  of  the  New  Tejiament.  9 

drive  away  the  fufpicious'',  while  the  other  philofophers 
Pythagoreans,  Platonifts,  and  Stoics,  as  credulous  friends 
and  prote6lors  of  the  caufe,  were  permitted  to  remain"^. 
This  author,  who  lived  in  the  middle  of  the  fecond  ceif- 
tury,  was  chiefly  acquainted  with  the  Chriflians  of  Syria, 
who  were  moftly  of  Jewifh  origin  ",  and  much  lefs  en- 
lightened than  the  Chriflians  of  Greece.  If  we  afcend 
Hill  higher,  we  find  that  the  chief  reafon,  which  occa- 
fioned  the  Gofpel  of  Luke,  was  a  defire  of  contradifling 
or  correding  the  accounts  of  divers  miracles,  which  un- 
grounded reports  had  brought  into  general  circulation. 
But  fetting  thefe  circumftances  afide,  and  admitting  the 
primitive  Chriflians  to  have  been  credulous  even  in  the 
highefl  degree,  it  is  yet  impofTible  that  they  could  imagine 
themfclves  endowed  with  the  power  of  fpeaking  languages 
to  which  they  were  utter  ftrangers  :  and  fuch  epiflles  as 
they  received  from  St.  Paul  could  no  impoflor  have  writ- 
ten, and  flill  remain  their  apoflle. 

1  have  acknowledged  above,  that  the  arguments,  which 
have  been  here  adduced,  are  not  applicable  to  the  re- 
lation which  the  Evangelifls  give  of  the  miracles  of  Chrifl, 
becaule  in  this  refpeft  they  are  merely  hiflorians.  But 
the  three  firfl  Gofpels,  admitting  them  to  be  genuine, 
demonflrate,  though  on  different  principles,  yet  with  equal 
certainty  the  truth  of  the  Chrillian  religion,  becaufe  they 
contain  prophecies  which  were  afterwards  fulfilled.  Were 
they  compofed  by  the  authors  to  whom  they  are  afcribed, 
they  mufl  have  been  written  before  the  commencement 
of  the  Jewifh  war  and  the  deflruflion  of  Jerufalem,  that 
of  St.  Luke  in  particular  of  which  the  A(5ls  of  the  Apoftles 
are  a  continuation,  a  hiflory  compiled  in  the  fecond  year'* 
of  St.  Paul's  imprifonment  at  Rome,  and  which  ceafes 
before  the  commencement  of  the  troubles  in  Judea.  And 
yet  they  contain  a  plain  and  circumflantial  account  of  this 
impending  calamity',  and  determine  the  period,  when  this 

predidion 

w  Alexander  feu  Pfeudomantis,  §  25.  38.  Tom.  II.  p.  432,  233.  z44» 
345. 

X  They  abandoned  Peregrlnus  becaufe  he  had  eaten  unclean  meats.  TH 
moite  Peregrini,  §  16, 

y  Matth.  xxiv,     Mark  xiii.    Luke  xxi.  5— '36, 


lo  Authenticity  of  the  New  Tejlament.     chap.  ir. 

predi(?l:ion  was  to  be  accomplifhed :  of  which  mention  is 
likewife  made  in  the  epiftles  ^,  where  we  find  what  ex- 
pe(!^ations  were  railed  upon  this  fiibjefl  by  the  prophecy 
of  Chrift".  It  were  a  bold  aflertion  that  by  accident 
alone  was  fulfilled  a  predi6lion  thus  circumftantially  de- 
livered, and  thus  precife  in  limiting  the  period  of  its  ac- 
complifhment.  *  Verily  I  fay  unto  you  this  generation 
fhall  not  pafs,  till  all  thefe  things  be  fulfilled/  Bcfides, 
the  knowledge  of  it  had  been  fo  induflrioufly  propagated 
by  the  Apoftles  among  the  feveral  communities,  that  the 
truth  of  this  prediction  feemed  in  a  great  meafure  to 
determine  the  truth  of  the  religion  :  they  would  therefore 
hardly  have  ventured  to  expofe  both  themfelves  and  their 
fe6l  to  fo  dangerous  a  trial,  had  no  fuch  prophecy  been 
given  by  Chrift.  Let  it  be  objedled  that  human  fagacity 
were  fufRcient  to  forefee  that  the  misfortunes,  which  had 
long  threatened,  muft  at  laft  fall  upon  the  Jews,  fmce 
the  florm  had  been  gathering  at  a  diftance,  before  it 
burft:  forth  with  violence  :  but  precifely  to  determine  not 
only  that  feries  of  events  recorded  by  St.  Matthew^,  but 
even  the  period  of  its  accomplifliment  is  furely  beyond 
the  reach  of  human  forefight.  We  may  go  ftill  further, 
and  deny  that  human  penetration  could  have  forefeen  in 
that  age  even  the  event  itfelf,  of  which  Jofephus  ih  his 
hiftory  of  the  Jewifh  war  affords  the  ftrongeft  proof.  For, 
although  there  exifted  fo  early,  as  the  year  in  which 
Chrift  was  crucified,  various  caufes  which  afterwards  con- 
tributed to  the  ftorm,  that  broke  over  Jcrufalem,  yet 
from  thefe  caufes  neither  the  deftruftion  of  the  city,  nor 
even  the  Jewifh  war  would  have  followed,  had  not  a 
number  of  unexpected,  and  at  that  time  improbable 
circumftances  arifcn,  of  which  no  one  by  human  means 
during  the  Hfe  of  Chrift,  or  even  the  lives  of  St.  Peter 
and  St.  Paul  could  have  had  the  fmalleft  conception. 
The  injuftice  of  the  Roman  Governors,  which  at  length 
excited  a  general  rebellion,  did  not  arife  to  fuch  a  pitch 
as  to  become  intolerable  till  long  after  the  death  of  Chrift  j 
the  adminiftration  of  Pilate  compared  with  that  of  his 

fucceflbrs 

*  Heb.  x«  25.  36—39.     James  v.  1—8.  »  Ch.  xxiv.  6—31. 


SECT.  I.        Authenticity  of  the  New  Tefiament.  \  \ 

fucceflbrs  was  virtuous,  and  the  government  alfo  of  thefe 
when  compared  with  that  of  Geffius  Florus''  the  laft  Pro- 
curator of  Judfca,  whofe  cruelties  drove  the  nation  to 
defpair,  and  who  purpofely  forced  them  to  an  open  re- 
bellion, in  order  to  avoid,  what  the  Jews  had  threatened, 
an  accufation  before  the  Roman  Emperor.  This  Florus 
was  the  fucceffor  of  Albinus,  and  Albinus  that  of  Feftus, 
under  whofe  adminiftration  St.  Paul  was  fent  prifoner  to 
Rome.  No  political  wiiclom  could  have  predided  thefe 
events  fo  early  as  the  crucifixion,  or  even  during  the  pe- 
riod \n  which  were  written  the  apoftolic  epiftles.  The 
troops  likewife  which  lay  in  garrifon  at  Cccfarea,  and  after- 
wards fanned  into  an  open  flame  the  fparks  of  rebellion, 
which  feemed  almoft  extinguifhed,  had  been  commanded 
by  the  emperor  Claudius  to  leave  their  native  country, 
and  march  into  Pontus,  he  intending  to  fupply  their  place 
by  a  garrifon  more  attached  to  Rome.  Had  this  com- 
mand been  executed,  it  is  probable  that  no  Jewifh  war 
would  have  followed,  and  no  def|-ru6tion  of  Jerufalem. 
But  they  fent  a  fuppliant  embafTy  to  Claudius,  and  ob- 
tained permilTion  to  remain.  Jofephus  makes  on  this 
occafion  the  following  remark,  '■  Thefe  are  the  perfons, 
who  occafioned  the  dreadful  calamities  which  befel  the 
Jews,  and  laid  during  the  government  of  Florus  the 
foundation  of  thofe  troubles,  which  afterwards  broke  out 
into  an  open  war,  on  which  account  they  were  baniflied 
from  the  province  by  order  of  Vefpafian  ^  The  circum- 
flance  which  gave  birth  to  thefe  misfortunes  is  fo  trifling 
in  itfelf,  that  independent  of  its  confequences  it  would 
hardly  deferve  to  be  recorded  ^  In  the  narrow  entrance 
to  a  fynagogue  in  Csefarea  fome  perfon  had  made  an 
ofi^ering  of  birds,  merely  with  a  view  to  irritate  the  Jews. 
The  infult  excited  their  indignation,  and  occafioned  the 
Ihedding  of  blood.  Without  this  trifling  accident,  which 
no  human  wifdom  could  have  forefeen  even  the  day  be- 
fore it  happened,  it  is  pofllble  that  the  prophecy  of  Chrift 

would 

>  Jofephus  de  Bello  Judaico,  Lib.  II.  c.  14,  15, 

«  Jofeph.  Antiquitat.  Lib.  XIX.  c.  9.  f.  2. 

*  Jofephus  de  Bello  Judaico>  Lib,  II.  c.  xiv.  f.  5, 


1 2  Authenticity  of  the  Neiv  Tejlament .     c  h  a  p .  1 1 . 

would  never  have  been  fulfilled.  For  the  Jews  were  re- 
folved  at  all  events  to  avoid  an  open  rebellion,  well 
knowing  the  greatncfs  of  their  danger,  and  fubmitted  to 
be  opprelTcd  by  the  Roman  Governor,  in  the  hope  of 
laying  their  complaints  before  the  throne  of  the  emperor. 
But  Florus  regardlefs  of  the  fubmiiTion  and  intreaties  of 
the  Jews,  and  even  of  the  interceffion  of  Berenice,  de- 
fignedly  converted  this  private  quarrel  into  public  hofti- 
lities,  and  compelled  the  Jewifh  nation  to  rebel  againft 
its  will.  But,  notwithftanding  this  open  rebellion,  a  va- 
riety of  circumllances'  occurred,  which  feemed  to  render 
the  deftru6tion  of  the  temple  an  event  highly  improbable ; 
the  recall  of  Vefpafian  into  Italy  when  Jerufalem  was  in 
danger,  and  the  gentle  charafter  of  Titus  "^  who  fuc- 
ceeded  to  the  command  of  the  Roman  army  in  Judea 
gave  litde  ground  to  fufpeft  fo  dreadful  a  calamity.  It 
appears  therefore  from  this  whole  detail,  whofe  length 
the  dignity  of  the  fubjedl  will  excufe,  that  no  human 
wifdom  during  the  life  of  Chrift  could  have  forefeen  the 
deftrudlion  of  the  temple,  and  therefore  that  the  wifdom 
which  uttered  the  prophecy  was  divine. 

So  important  then  is  the  queftion  whether  the  books  of 
the  New  Teftament  be  genuine,  that  the  fame  arguments 
which  demonftrate  the  authenticity  of  thefe  writings^, 
evince  at  the  fame  time  the  truth  of  our  religion. 

SECT. 

e  Jofephu^  de  Bello  Judaico,  Lib.  II.  c.  19.  Lib,  IV.  c.  9,  and  Abul- 
fedae  Defcriptio  .^gypti,  Arab,  et  Lat.  cum  notis  Michaelis,  Goettingae» 
1776.  p.  lai. 

f  The  bed  treatifes  upon  this  fubje£l  are  Lardner's  Credibility  of  the 
Gofpel  Hiftory,  and  Lefs's  Truth  of  the  Chrirtian  Religion  "7.  The 
former  of  thefe  works,  which  has  been  cenfured  for  its  prolixity,  con- 
tains a  very  large  colleftion  of  teftimonies  from  the  Fathers  and  other 
antient  writers,  and  is  highly  valuable  to  thofc  who  would  examine  the 
whole  feries  of  evidence  for  the  authenticity  of  the  New  Teftament. 
The  works  of  Lardner  have  been  lefs  read,  than  they  deferve:  every 
one  intcrefted  in  this  inquiry  ftiould  poflefs  them,  were  it  only  for  occa- 
fional  reference,  and  they  are  indifpenfable  to  a  clergyman,  who  cannot 
remain  indifferent  on  fo  important  a  fubjeft,  and  whofe  duty  is  not  only  to 
believe  but  to  b€  convinced.  The  latter  of  thefe  works  is  more  agree- 
able 


SECT.  II.      Authenticity  of  the  Neio  Tejlament*  ij 


SECT.      II. 

Of  ohje^ions  made  to  theje  writings  in  general,  andof  thofe 
of  Faujlus  the  Manichaan  in  particular. 

\jrARIOUS  Sceptics  have  pre  fumed  to  conteft  the 
antiquity  of  thefe  writings  in  a  body,  and  to  deny 
that  they  were  compofed  in  the  firft  century  by  thofc 
authors  whofe  names  they  bear.  The  queftion  here  to 
be  examined  is  the  charge  that  is  laid,  and  in  what  man- 
ner the  charge  muft  be  anfwercd,  with  refped  to  thefe 
writings  in  general:  the  objeftions  which  have  been  made 
to  the  authenticity  of  particular  books,  fuch  as  the  Re- 
velation of  St.  John,  his  fecond  and  third  epiftles,  the 
fecond  epiftle  of  St.  Peter,  &c.  will  be  examined  in  the 
fecond  part  of  this  work. 

The  moft  celebrated  who  have  betrayed  a  fufplcion  of 
this  fort  are  to  be  found  among  the  moderns.  A  pafTage 
in  Toland's  life  of  Milton  ^  has  given  ground  to  fuppofe 
that  he  entertained  thefe  fentiments ;  but  in  his  defence  of 
the  life  of  Milton  he  difavows  his  having  meant  the 
writings  which  we  receive  as  infpired,  nor  do  the  words 
on  which  the  charge  is  founded  neceflarily  imply  fuch  a 

conftrudion, 

able  to  read  becaufe  prolixity  Is  avoided,  and  it  is  eafy  to  overfee  the 
whole  chain  of  reafoning  at  a  fingle  view '8,  Various  teftimonies,  which 
Lardner  had  quoted,  are  omitted  by  Lefs,  becaufe  they  were  not  fuffici- 
ently  convincing,  and  he  has  fupplied  what  Lardner  had  omitted.  Every 
reader  will  remark,  in  perufing  this  treatlfe,  what  I  have  learnt  in  fre- 
quent converfation  with  the  author,  that  it  is  the  refult  of  a  confcien- 
tjous,  even  anxioufly  confclentious  inquiry,  which  he  had  inftituted  for 
his  own  private  conviftion.  Doubts,  on  which  Lardner  never  thought,  he 
has  felt  and  proved. 

To  thefe  authors  then  I  refer  my  readers  for  more  perfeft  fatisfaftioa 
upon  this  fubjetSt,  who  will  excufe  me  therefore  if,  inftead  of  quoting  at 
length  the  teftimonies  of  the  antlents  for  the  antiquity  of  the  New  Tefta. 
ment,  I  content  myfelf  with  arranging  the  arguments  under  their  re- 
fpeftive  heads,  and  introducing  occafionally  fuch  remarks  as  appear  to 
be  new. 

C  See  Toland's  Life  prefixed  to  his  works,  p.  27 — 36,  and  Moflielm'l 
VindlcisB  antiquse  Chriftianorum  difclplinae  contra  Tolandum,  p.  91-^ 
104.. 


14  Authenticity  of  the  New  Tejlament.     chap.  ir. 

conftruflion,  though  the  author  probably  entertained  opi- 
nions, which  haJ  he  lived  in  the  prefent  age,  he  might 
have  more  openly  avowed.  Yet  though  he  believed  not 
the  truth  of  the  Chriftian  religion  he  had  too  much  faga- 
city  to  make  an  objedlion  that  militates  againfl:  every 
degree  of  probability.  But  an  anonymous  Italian  ven- 
tured in  a  letter  to  le  Clerc  to  advance  the  following  fuf- 
picion.  '  It  is  pofllble  that  in  the  fifth  century  during 
the  period  in  which  the  Goths  overran  Italy,  four  perfons 
of  fuperior  underftanding  might  unite  in  forging  the  writ- 
ings of  the  apoftles,  as  well  as  of  the  fathers,  and  falfify 
fome  paflages  of  Jofephus  and  Suetonius  in  order  to  in- 
troduce into  the  world  by  the  means  of  this  impofture  a 
new  and  more  rational  religion.'  Thefe  four  perfons 
who  muft  have  been  very  converfant  in  the  Jewifh  The- 
ology, and  in  both  Jewifli  and  Heathen  antiquity,  are 
therefore  charged  with  the  immenfe  labour  of  forging  all 
the  writings  of  the  Fathers,  and  of  inventing  that  variety 
of  ftyle  and  fentiment  by  which  they  are  diftinguilhed. 
But  he  could  hardly  attribute  to  them  a  lefs  laborious 
undertaking,  fince  the  writings  of  the  New  Teilament 
are  not  only  quoted  by  the  Fathers,  but  likewife  ex- 
pounded in  voluminous  commentaries.  In  fa6t  this  were 
infufRcient,  fince  the  writings  of  the  heretics,  nay  even  of 
thofe  who  were  enemies  to  the  Chriftian  religion,  fuch  as 
Porphyry  for  inftance,  who  endeavoured  by  his  fatirical 
objeflions  to  turn  the  New  Teilament  into  ridicule,  and 
whofc  works  therefore  a  falfe  though  pious  zeal  has  at 
length  annihilated,  mufh  have  likewife  made  a  part  of  this 
wonderful  forgery.  To  this  letter,  whofe  author  through 
ignorance  of  the  real  ftate  of  the  cafe  had  fixed  on  too 
late  a  century,  le  Clerc  has  given  a  ferious  and  folid  an- 
fwer  in  his  Bibliotheque  ancienne  et  moderne  \ 

There  is  likewife  a  paffage  of  the  fame  import  in  Lord 
Bolingbroke's  Letters  on  the  Study  of  Hiftory  %  in  which 
he  expofes  a  want  of  judgement  in  thofe,  who  attempt  to 
vindicate  the  antiquity  of  the  facred  writings  by  exam- 
ples drawn  from  the  fathers  of  the  firft  century,  with  a 
defign  to  prove,  that  thefe  fathers  had  read  the  Gofpels, 

though 


SECT.  II.      Authenticity  of  the  New  Teftament.  15 

though  the  inftances  alledged  amount  to  no  demonftra- 
tion.  For  a  more  particular  account  of  his  objedlion,  as 
well  as  for  the  anfwer,  I  fliall  refer  my  readers  to  the 
works  of  Dr.  Lefs,  whom  this  pointed  remark  of  Boling- 
broke  has  led  to  a  more  accurate  inveftigation  of  the 
fubje6t  ^  in  his  '■  Truth  of  the  Chriftian  Religion.' 

it  is  fomewhat  extraordinary  that  the  adverfaries  of 
Revealed  ReUgion,  and  even  Bolingbroke  himfclf,  chufe 
feldom  to  make  their  attacks  in  a  dire6l  and  immediate 
manner :  they  feem  fenfible,  thofe  at  leaft  among  them 
who  have  fenfe  and  knowledge,  of  the  difficulties  with 
which  this  pretended  forgery  in  fo  late  a  period  muft  be 
attended,  and  apprehenfive  it  might  betray  the  weaknefs 
of  their  caufe  to  pronounce  at  once  the  whole  colleflion 
an  impofture. 

The  fufpicions  which  have  been  raifed  by  authors  of 
the  prefect  century  are  by  no  means  fo  dangerous,  as 
thofe  excited  by  earlier  writers.  The  fame  objeftions 
advanced  in  the  third  or  fourth  century  have  infinitely 
more  weight;  and  as  an  inftance  of  this  fort  is  really  to 
be  found  among  the  Manichseans,  it  cannot  in  our  pre- 
fent  enquiry  be  paffed  over  in  filence.  There  are  pre- 
ferved  in  the  works  of  Auguflin  feveral  paflages  from 
Fauflus  the  Manichsan,  who  pronounces  on  this  fubjed 
with  a  degree  of  decifion.  In  replying  to  thefe  words  of 
the  orthodox  Chriftians,  *  If  ye  adopt  the  Gofpel,  ye  can- 
not fail  of  beheving  the  whole  of  its  contents "•■  he  fays 
even  the  Orthodox  did  not  confider  themfelves  bound  to 
obferve  all  that  was  contained  in  the  Old  Teftament, 
and  proceeds'  '  an,  fi  patris  teftamentum  habet  aliqua,  in 
quibus  parum  debeat  audiri  (patris  enim  effe  vultis  Ju- 
daicam  legem,  cujus  novimus  quam  multa  vobis  horro- 
rem,  quam  multa  pudorem  faciant,  ut  quantum  ad  ani- 
mum  jam  dudum  ipfi  judicaveritis  earn  non  effe  fmce- 
ram',  quamvis  partim  pater  ipfe  ut  creditis  digitofuo 

eam 

*»  Auguftiims  contra  Fauftum.     Lib.  XXXII.  c.  2. 
i  The  orthodox   had  fomftimes  recourfe  to  thw  evafion  in  their  coh- 
troverfies  with  the  GnofticB,   and  perhaps  with  the   Manichaeans,   when 

prefled 


1 6  Authenticity  of  the  "New  Tejlament,     chap.  ir. 

cam  vobis,  partim  Moyfes  fcripferit,  fidelis  et  integer) 
folius  putatis  filii  tcftamentum  non  potuifTe  corrumpi, 
folum  non  habere  aliquid  quod  in  fe  dcbcac  improbari  ? 
prrefertim  quod  nee  ab  ipfo  fcriptum  conftat,  nee  ab  ejus 
apoftolis,  fed  longo  poft  tempore  a  quibufdam  incerti 
nominis  viris,  qui  ne  fibi  non  haberetur  fides  fcribentibus 
quse  nefcirent,  partim  apoftolorum  nomina,  partim  eorum, 
qui  apoflolos  fequuti  viderentur  fcriptorum  fuorum  fron- 
tibus  indiderant,  afleverantes  fecundum  eos  fe  fcripfifle 
qujE  Icripferunt.  Qiio  magis  mihi  videntur  injuria  gravi 
adfecifle  difcipulos  Chrifti,  quia  qujE  diilona  iidem  et  re- 
pugnantia  fibi  fcriberent,  ea  referrent  ad  ipfos  et  fecun- 
dum eos  hasc  fcribere  fe  profiterentur  evangelia,  quas 
tantis  funt  referta  erroribus,  contrarietatibus  narrationum 
fimul  ac  fententiarum,  ut  nee  fibi  prorfus  nee  inter  fe 
ipfa  ccnveniant.'  The  conclufion  he  thence  draws  is 
nearly  the  fame  with  that  of  feveral  of  the  moderns,  who 
have  lefs  openly  maintained  the  above  premifes,  viz.  that 
thofe  parts  of  the  New  Teftament,  which  tend  to  edifica- 
tion and  improvement,  ought  to  be  admitted,  and  the 
remainder  of  thcfe  writings  rejefted  ^.  But  it  would  be 
better,  in  my  opinion,  to  philofophize  on  the  fubjecl  of 
religion  independent  of  the  Chriftian  fyftem,  than  to 
make  extracts  from  a  book,  where  we  have  liberty  to 
accept  or  refufe. 

Another  objedion  is  in  the  j**  Chap,  of  the  xxxiii* 
book,  in  which  he  introduces  a  text  of  fcripture '  fre- 
quently ufed  in  the  Manichasan  controverfy,  on  which 
he  remarks  that  St.  Luke  in  the  parallel  paffage  ^  makes 


prefied  by  their  adverfarles  with  fuch  exprefllons,  as  *  God  repented,' 
&c  J.  and  unable,  in  confequence  of  their  ignorance  in  philology,  to  give 
a  proper  reply.  See  my  DifTertatio  de  indiciis  Gnofticae  philofophiae 
tempore  LXX  interpretum,  in  the  Syntagma  commentationum.  Pars  II. 
p,  a66,  267. 

k   Quse  quia   nos    legentes    animadvertimus    cordis    ©btutu   faniflimo,  - 
sequiflimum  judlcavimus,   acceptis  utilibus  ex  iifdem.   Id  elt,   iis  qux  et 
fidem  noftram  aedificent,  et  Chrifti  Domini  atque  ejus  Patris,  omnipotentis 
Dei  propagent  gloriam,  csetera  repudiare,  qu»  nee  ipforum  majeftati,  nec 
fidei  noftrae  conveniant. 

'  Matth,  viii.  11. 


SE  c  T .  I  r .      Authenticity  of  the  Neio  Teftament,  \  y 

no  mention  of  Abraham,  Ifaac  and  Jacob,  and  that  be- 
fide  this  omiflion  a  variety  of  contradidions  are  to  be 
found  between  the  two  evangelifts.     Nee  immerito  nos 
ad  hujiifmodi  fcripturas  tam  inconfonantes  et  varias  nun- 
quam  fane  fine  judicio  et  ratione  aures  adferimus,  per- 
pendimus  utrum  eorum  quidque  a  Chriflo  dici  potucrit 
nee  ne.     Muka  enim  a  majoribus  veftris  eloquiis  Do- 
mini noflri  inferta  verba  funt,  qus  nomine  fignata  ipfius 
cum  ejus   fide  non  eongruunt :  pr^efertim,  quia  ut  jam 
f^epe  probatum  a  nobis  eft,  nee  ab  ipfo  hse  funt,  nee  ab 
apoftolis  ejus  feripta,  fed  multo  poft  eorum  afliimtionem 
a  nefcio  qui  bus,  et  inter  fe  non  eoneordantibus  femi-ju- 
da^is,  per  famas  opinionefque  comperta  fiint :  qui  tamen 
omnia  eadem  in  apoftolorum  Domini  conferentes  nomina, 
vel  eorum,  qui  fecuti  apoftolos  viderentur,  errores  ac 
mendacia  fua  feeundum  eos  fe  fcripfifle  mentiti  funt  ^ 
Fauftus  prefuppofes  then  the  New  Teftament  to  contain 
a  variety  of  true  accounts  relating  to  the  actions  and 
doftrines  of  Chrift  and  his  Apoftles,  but  that  the  feveral 
books  are  not  merely  interpolated  (in  which  cafe  the 
queftion  would  belong  to  another  part  of  this  work)  but 
compolcd  by  certain  unknown  perfons,  who  living  in  a 
much  later  period  than  thofe,  to  whom  thefe  writings  are 
afcribed,  have  confounded  in  their  narratives  truth  with 
falfehood.     He  infifts  even  that  the  very  titles  Evange- 
lium  feeundum  Matth^eum,  &e.  are  a  proof  that  they 
were   not  written  by  the  Evangelifts  themfelves,    but 
merely  a  compilation  according  to  what  the  Evangelifts 
in  a  former  period  had  verbally  taught.     He  frequently 
afllgns  reafons,   though  they  are  in  general  extremely 
weak,  why  certain  pafl^ages  cannot  pofiibly  have  been 
written  by  the  apoftle  or  evangelift  to  whom  they  are 
afcribed",  and  from  the  grounds  on  which  he  maintains 
the  fpurioufnefs  of  thefe  parts  he  concludes  againft  the 
authenticity  of  the  whole. 

Beaufobre  (Hiftoire  de  Manichee,  tom.  I.  p.  298)  is 
of  opinion  that  Fauftus  made  an  exception  in  favour  of 
the  Gofpel  of  St.  John,  and  believed  it  to  be  genuine ', 

But 

«  Lib.  XXX.  c.  i.  €t  Lib,  XXXL  c.  u 

B 


f 8  Authenticity  of  the  New  Tejlament.     chap.  it. 

But  even  that  admits  a  doubt.  Fauftus  (L.ib.  XVII.  c.  i.) 
fpeaking  of  the  words  ufed  by  Chrifl,  Matth.  v.  17. 
*  Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  deflroy  the  law  and  the 
prophets,'  fays,  Quis  hoc  teftatur  dixifle  Jefum  .''  Mat- 
thasus  !  Ubi  dixifle  ,?  In  monte  !  Qiiibufnam  prasfenti- 
bus  ?  Petro  Andrea,  Jacobo  et  Johanne,  quatuor  his 
tantum,  casteros  enim  nondum  elegerat,  nee  ipfum  Mat- 
th^um.  Ex  his  ergo  quatuor  unus,  id  eft,  Johannes, 
cvangelium  fcripfit :  Ita  !  Alicubi  hoc  ipfe  commemo- 
rat  ?  Nufquam  !  Quomodo  ergo  quod  Johannes  non  tef- 
tatur, qui  fuit  in  monte,  Matth<Eus  hoc  fcripfit  qui  longo 
intervallo  poftquam  Jefus  de  monte  defcendit  fecutus  eft 
cum  ?  Ac  per  hoc  de  hoc  ipfo  primo  ambigitur  utrum 
Jefus  tale  aliquid  dixerit  quia  teftis  idoneus  tacet,  loqui- 
tur autem  minus  idoneus.  Here  it  is  evident  that  the 
obje6l  of  Fauftus  was  to  confute  the  orthordox,  by  ufmg 
their  own  weapons  without  acknowledging  them  to  be 
genuine^.  Nor  muft  we  conclude  that  a  Manichsean 
admitted  the  authenticity  of  the  New  Teftament,  be- 
caufe  he  quoted  it  either  in  fupport  of  his  own  tenets,  or 
in  confutation  of  the  arguments  advanced  by  his  oppo- 
nents. This  miftake  has  been  committed  by  Lardner, 
who  in  the  long  article  relating  to  the  Manichaeans,  which 
contains  fo  much  beautiful  hiftorical  matter,  appears 
rather  as  the  warm  advocate  for  the  Chriftian  caufe,  than 
the  cool  and  impartial  inquirer  into  truth. 

The  name  then  of  Manich^ean  fo  celebrated  In  the 
third  and  fourth  centuries  may  feem  a  weighty  hindrance 
to  the  Chriftian  caufe  :  if  the  doubts  were  aftually  raifed 
in  fo  early  a  period,  the  authenticity  of  thefe  writings 
may  appear  in  danger.  We  ftiould  have  reafon  to  fear 
thefe  apprehenfions  to  be  grounded,  had  the  objeftions 
been  made  by  men  converjant  in  literary  hiftory,  philo- 
logy, and  criticifm ;  but  the  matter  begins  to  bear  a 
different  appearance  the  moment  we  reflect  that  they 
proceeded  from  philofophers,  who  without  further  know- 
ledge than  that  of  their  "it^,  and  even  ignorant  of  Greek, 
attempted  to  weave  their  favourite  maxims  into  the  reli- 
gion of  Chrift.  I  will  divide  my  remarks  upon  this  llib- 
jecl  into  the  following  heads. 

I  ft.  Ic 


SECT.  II.     Authenticity  of  the  New  Tefiament.  19 

I  ft.  It  is  by  no  means  certain  that  all  the  Manich^eans 
judged  fo  unfavourably  of  the  writings  of  the  New  Tefta- 
ment  as  Fauftus,  who  lived  in  Africa,  a  country  unenlight- 
ened, and  unacquainted  with  any  other  than  the  Latin 
language  ;  and  we  have  no  reafon  to  conclude  the  fame 
of  Manes,  and  of  thofe  who  lived  in  a  ftiil  earlier  period. 
But  admitting  it  to  be  true  that  Manes,  who  lived  in  the 
middle  of  the  third  century,  had  entertained  the  fame 
fentiments,  ftill  they  would  be 

2dly.  The  fentiments  of  a  ftranger,  and  one  totally 
unqualified  to  form  an  adequate  judgement. 

If  a  man  acquainted  with  natural  philofophy,  or  verfed 
in  the  mazes  of  metaphyfics,  but  at  the  fame  time  igno- 
rant of  Greek,  fhould  attempt  to  criticife  on  the  Iliad, 
and  deny  it  to  be  the  produftion  of  Homer,  there  is  no 
one  who  would  attend  to  his  objedlions.  But  he  pofTeffes 
penetration  and  judgement :  Admitted  j  yet  he  is  devoid 
of  thofe  very  qualities  which  are  requifite  to  judge  of  the 
antiquity  of  the  Iliad,  a  knowledge  of  hiftory  and  lan- 
guage. To  make  the  matter  more  pointed  -,  fuppofe  a 
fenfible  and  learned  Mandarine,  who  bore  an  eminent 
rank  among  the  literati  of  his  own  country,  fhould  come 
from  China,  and  without  the  knowledge  of  the  German 
maintain  that  the  confeiTion  of  Augfburg,  compofed  in 
1530,  were  a  forgery  of  later  times,  it  is  hardly  probable 
that  any  one  would  liften  a  moment  to  the  grounds  of 
his  dilbelief. 

But  this  was  exa6lly  the  cafe  with  Manes.  He  ap- 
pears to  have  been  endowed  with  a  confiderable  (hare  of 
penetration,  well  verfed  in  the  Perfian  or  a  ftill  more 
Eaftern  philofophy,  and  often  fuperior  to  the  orthodox  in 
the  fubtleties  of  difpute.  But  the  Greek  language  was 
totally  unknown  to  him'°,  and  the  learned  language 
which  he  ufed  was  Syriac.  Shall  this  perfon  then,  who 
prefumed  to  reform  the  Chriftian  religion  by  his  Perfian 
philofophy,  be  deemed  capable  of  deciding  on  the  authen- 
ticity of  a  work  written  originally  in  Greek  ?  He  was  not 
only  un  jualified  to  read  the  New  Teftam.ent  in  the  ori- 
ginal, but  was  like  wife  devoid  of  every  idea  of  Grecian 
B  2  and 


20  Authenticity  of  the  New  Tejlament.     chap.  ii. 

and  other  European  literature,  was  unable  to  read  the 
works  of  the  fathers,  heretics  and  enemies  of  the  Chrillian 
religion,  from  whicli  alone  can  be  decided  whether  the 
writings  attributed  to  the  apoflles  are  as  antient  as  we  pre- 
tend, whether  they  have  been  acknowledged  from  the 
earlieft  times  as  authentic  and  genuine,  or  whether  a  pe- 
riod elapfed  from  the  death  of  the  apoftles,  in  which  they 
were  unknown,  and  after  which  they  were  fuddenly  and 
unexpeiledly  brought  to  light. 

3.  Fauflus,  the  only  Manicha^an  of  whom  we  have 
pofitive  accounts  that  he  denied  the  books  of  the  New 
Teftament  to  have  been  written  by  thofe  authors  to  whom 
they  are  afcribed,  and  who  lived  an  hundred  and  fifty 
years  ftill  later  than  Manes,  was  likewife  as  unqualified  to 
inveftigate  this  fubjeft.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  he  was 
endowed  with  fenfe  and  penetration,  and  poflelTed  of, 
what  Auguftin  himfelf  allows,  a  fhare  of  eloquence,  but 
he  was  fo  partial  a  difputant  that  his  word  is  of  little 
weight.  Ignorant,  as  were  moft  of  the  African  writers, 
of  the  Greek  language  ",  and  acquainted  with  the  New 
Teftament  merely  through  the  channel  of  the  Ladn 
Tranflation,  he  was  not  only  devoid  of  a  fufficieiit  fund 
of  learning,  but  illiterate  in  the  higheft  degree.  An  ar- 
gument which  he  brings  againft  the  genuinenefs  of  the 
Gofpel  affords  fufficient  ground  for  this  affertion,  for  he 
contends  that  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew  could  not  have 
been  written  by  St.  Matthew  himfelf,  becaufc  he  is  al- 
ways mentioned  in  the  third  perfon.  Thefe  are  his  very 
words,  Matthaium  hcec  non  fcripfifie  fed  alium  fub  no- 
mine ejus,  quod  docet  et  ipfa  lectionis  ejufdem  Matthjei 
oblique  narratio.  Quid  enim  dicit?  ct  cum  tranfiret  Jefus 
vidit  hominem  fedentem  ad  telonium,  nomine  Mat- 
thasum,  et  vocavit  eum,  et  ille  confefrim  furgens  fecutus 
eft  eum,  ac  non  potius  dicat  '  vidit  me,  et  vocavit  me,  et 
fecutus  fum  eum  j'  nifi  quia  conftat  hsec  Matthasum  non 
fcripfifle  fed  alium  nefcio  quern  fub  ejus  nomine  '\  A 
man  capable  of  fuch  an  argument  muft  have  been  igno- 
rant not  only  of  the  Greek  writers,  the  knowledge  of  which 
could  not  have  been  expecled  from  Fauftus,  but  even  of 

the 


SECT.  II.     Authenticity  of  the  New  Tcft anient,  21 

the  Commentaries  ofCjEfar.  And  were  it  thought  impro- 
bable that  fo  heavy  a  charge  could  be  laid  with  juftice  on 
the  fide  of  his  knowledge,  it  would  fall  with  double  weight 
on  the  fide  of  his  honefty,  and  induce  us  to  fuppofe  that 
preferring  the  arts  of  fophiftry  to  the  plainnefs  of  truth  he 
maintained  opinions  which  he  believed  to  be  falfe. 

4.  His  other  arguments  are  not  built  on  hiftorical 
ground,  but  founded  merely  on  fuch  principles  as  thofe, 
on  which  he  m,aintains  that  the  dodlrine  attributed  to  St. 
Paul  '  that  all  meats  are  clean,'  could  never  have  been 
delivered  by  the  apofi:le  himfclf,  for  which  he  chufes  to 
affign  the  following  reafons.  *  The  do6lrine  is  falfe  in 
itielf,  inconfiftent  with  the  precepts  of  Chrift,  and  a  ma- 
nifeft  contradiflion  of  the  law  of  Mofes,  whofe  authority 
is  acknowledged  by  the  orthodox  themfelves.'  His  own 
words  on  i  Tim.  iv.  i.  are  as  follows.  N'unquam  plane 
tibi  ego  hasc  ab  apoftolo  difta  eflTe  confenferim,  nifi  antea 
confitearis  ipfe  Moyfen  et  prophetas  doilrinas  attulifTe 
dasmoniorum,  &c."  In  fhort  he  ufes  dogmatical  argu- 
ments in  a  queftion  hiftorical  and  critical  relating  to  the 
antiquity  of  the  New  Teftament,  which  alone  is  fufficient 
to  overthrow  the  whole  of  his  reafoning. 

5.  Such  were  the  maxims  adopted  by  a  fe6>:  in  other 
refpe6ts  not  void  of  fenfe  and  fagacity,  but  whofe  ufual 
praftice  it  was  to  rejeft  all  principles  that  did  not  cor- 
refpond  with  their  philofophy  '',  a  philofophy  not  founded 
on  the  evidence  of  reafon,  but  containing  a  colleftion  of 
antient  tenets  delivered  dow^n  to  them  by  oral  tradition. 
Now  as  they  had  really  a  high  opinion  of  Chrift  '"^  and  his 
apoulcs,  they  thought  proper  in  refpeft  to  the  New  Tefta- 
ment to  make  the  following  diftinftion.  "  Either  thefe 
wridngs  harmonize  with  our  philofophy,  or  admit  at  leaft 
of  fuch  an  explanation  °  as  correfponds  v/ith  our  general 
principles,  in  which  cafe  they  proceed  from  Chrift  and 
his  apoftles,  and  give  additional  weight  to  the  truth  cf 
our  do6lrines,  or  they  contradid  our  philofophy,  in  which 

inftance 

n  Lib.  XXX.  c.  i. 

0  For  inftance  John  vlii.  44,  they  explained  0  Trarij^  at;Ta  by  pater 
diaboli  'S. 


22  Authenticity  of  the  New  Tejlameni.     chap.  n. 

indance  they  ceafe  to  have  the  force  of  evidence,  and 
could  not  have  been  taught,  or  written  by  Chrift,  and  his 
difciples."  As  examples  of  the  latter  kind  were  too  nu- 
merous to  be  explained  on  the  principles  of  interpolation, 
there  remained  no  other  refource  than  boldly  to  pro- 
nounce the  whole  to  be  fpurious.  This  then  was  their  re- 
fuge, though  they  allowed  the  compilers  of  the  forgery 
to  have  interfperfed  in  their  colle6lion  various  maxims 
and  precepts,  of  which  they  admitted  the  truth  and  uti- 
lity. But  it  were  more  rational  to  deny  at  once  the  au- 
thority of  Chrift,  than  to  adopt  fo  ill-grounded  a  dif- 
tinftion. 

6.  To  the  objeflions  of  Fauftus,  Auguftin  gives  the 
following  anfwer'*^,  'For  the  fame  reafons  for  which  the 
writings  of  Hippocrates,  and  other  Greek  or  Roman  au- 
thors are  maintained  to  be  genuine,  we  conclude  the 
books  of  the  New  Teftament  to  have  been  written  by 
thofe  to  whom  they  are  afcribed.'  To  which  reply  he 
might  have  added,  *  as  the  time  of  the  apoftles  is  lefs  far 
removed  from  the  prefent,  our  evidence  is  fo  much  the 
greater.'  The  other  fathers  who  hved  in  the  age  of  the 
Manichseans,  particularly  Jerom  a  contemporary  of  Fauf- 
tus, have  fcarcely  condefcended  to  mention  his  name. 
He  appears  to  have  made  the  fame  impreflion  as  Har- 
duin,  with  his  pretended  forgery  of  claffic  writers  in  the 
ages  of  monkilh  barbarifm,  to  whofe  arguments  a  com- 
mentator on  Horace  would  hardly  deign  to  reply.  The 
decifive  and  peremptory  '  Conftat'  therefore  of  Fauftus  is 
not  to  be  underftood  as  if  hiftorical  arguments  could  be 
urged  againit  the  antiquity  of  the  New  Teftament,  but 
is  fimply  grounded  on  the  arguments  delivered  above, 
which  induced  the  Manichseans  of  Africa  to  believe  it  a 
forgery. 

The  obfervations,  which  have  hitherto  been  made, 
have  a  two-fold  influence  on  our  prefent  inquiry. 

I.  It  is  certain  that  the  New  Teftament  exifted  at  the 
time  of  this  controverfy,  fince  to  criticife,  and  pronounce 
a  book  to  be  fpurious  implies  at  leaft  it's  exiftence.  Fauftus 
therefore  will  ferve  as  an  irreproachable  witnefs  againft 

thofe 


SECT.  ir.     Authenticity  of  the  New  Tejiament.  23 

thofc  who  pretend  it  is  a  forged  produdion  of  the  fifth 
century.  ' 

2.  Manes  read  and  quoted  '^  from  the  writings  of  the 
New  Teftament ;  yet  he  was  ignorant  of  Greek,  and  ac- 
quainted with  no  other  learned  language  than  Syriac. 
The  New  Teftamentexifted  therefore  in  that  early  period 
not  only  in  the  Greek  original  but  likewife  in  the  Syriac 
trandation,  which  was  ufe'd  by  the  Chriftians  of  Perfia. 
This  is  a  matter  of  confiderable  importance  on  the  quef- 
tion  of  the  antiquity  of  the  New  Teflament.  Befides, 
the  Syriac  tranflation  is  ftill  more  antient  than  the  age  of 
Manes,  as  will  be  Ihewn  in  its  proper  place. 


SECT.      III. 


The  New  Tejiament  is  proved  to  be  genuine  on  the  fame 
grounds  J  as  the  works  of  profane  Authors. 

EUSEBIUS  P  divides  the  books  of  the  New  Tefta- 
ment  into  the  three  following  clafTes  '. 
I.  0^oAoy«,a£i/a,  i.  e.  Books  of  Undoubted  authority, 
and  univerfally  received  in  the  church  as  genuine.  Under 
this  clafs  he  reckons  the  four  Gofpels,  the  Afts  of  the 
Apoftles,  all  the  epiftles  of  Paul,  the  firft  epiftle  of  Peter, 
and  the  firft  epiftle  of  John.  To  which,  fays  he,  might 
be  added  the  Revelation  of  John,  which  others  rank  un- 
der the  third  clafs.  It  belongs  therefore  properly  to  the 
Second  clafs,  which  contains  the  books  whofe  authority 
is  maintained  by  fome  and  denied  by  others.  It  feems 
likewife  that  he  confiders  the  epiftle  to  the  Hebrews  as 
belonging  to  this  clafs,  notwithftanding  fo  much  has 
been  difputed  whether  St.  Paul  be  the  author  or  not. 
At  aU  events  he  is  juftified  in  fo  doing,  fince  the  name  of 
Paul  is  not  mentioned  in  the  fuperfcription,  the  epiftle 
therefore  would  not  be  fpurious,  were  it  written  by  an- 
other hand  :  and  being  univerfally  allowed  to  be  a  pro- 
dudion  of  the  apoftolic  age,  it  deferves  in  this  refpeft  the 

name 

P  Hift.  Ecclef.  Lib.  in.  c.  xxv. 
154 


24  yiuthenticity  of  the  New  Tefiament,     chap.  ir. 

name  which  Eufebius  has  given  it.  But  whenever  in 
the  courfe  of  this  Introduftion  I  fpeak  of  thofe  writings 
which  have  been  iiniverially  received  by  the  Church,  I 
mean  not  to  be  underftood  either  of  the  Revelation  of  St. 
John,  which  properly  belongs  to  the  fccond  clafs,  or  of 
the  epiftle  to  the  Hebrews,  fince  it  would  be  always  ne- 
ceflary  to  add  this  explanation  *  univerfally  admitted  to 
be  antient,  though  its  author  is  uncertain.' 

2.  Ai/TtAfyOiWSvaj  yvu3^i[xx  $'  a*  oi/,w<;  roif  otoAAok,  doubtful, 

but  acknowledged  by  the  moft  to  be  genuine  *.  To  this 
clafs  he  reckons,  as  he  himfelf  exprclfes  it,  "  the  epiftles 
afcribed  to  James  and  Jude,  the  fecond  of  Peter,  with 
the  fecond  and  third  of  John,  whether  they  were  written 
by  the  Evangelifl,  or  another  perfon  of  the  fame  name^'* 
He  is  of  opinion  that  they  may  be  received  as  genuine 
produ6lions  of  the  apoftoHc  age,  even  if  they  were  not 
written  by  the  Evangelifl. 

3.  No9«,  fpurious.  In  this  clafs  he  ranks  among  other 
writings  "  The  Hiftory  of  Paul,  The  Shepherd,  The 
Revelation  of  Peter,  The  Epiftle  of  Barnabas,  The  Doc- 
trines of  the  Apoftles,  and  perhaps  likewife  the  Revela- 
tion of  John,"  &c. 

Our  prefent  inquiry  will  be  confined  to  the  Homolo- 
goumena,  not  in  refpeft  to  each  book  in  particular,  a 
matter  belonging  to  the  fecond  part  of  this  work,  but  in 
refpedl  to  thefe  writings  in  general*.  Thefe  Homolo- 
goumena  we  receive  as  the  genuine  works  of  Matthew, 
Mark,  Luke,  John  and  Paul,  for  the  fame  reafons  as  we 
believe  the  writings  to  be  genuine,  which  are  afcribed  to 
Thucydides,  Xenophon,  Polybius,  Cicero,  Caefar,  Livy, 
&:c.  namely,  becaufe  they  have  been  received  as  fuch 
without  contradi(5lion  from  the  earlieft  ages,  when  it  was 
eafy  to  obtain  the  beft  information,  and  becaufe  they 
contain  nothing  which  excites  the  fmalleft  fufpicion  of 
the  contrary.  In  faft  this  argument  when  applied  to  the 
facred  writings  is  much  ftronger,  than  when  applied  to 
the  greateft  part  of  profane  writers,  fmce  the  teRimonies 
alledged  to  fupport  the  authenticity  of  the  New  Tefta- 
jnent  come  much  nearer  the  times^  in  which  its  authors 

livcdj 


SECT.  III.     Authenticity  of  the  New  Tefiament.  25 

lived,  than  thofe  adduced  in  favour  of  many  Greek  and 
Roman  clafTics,  vvhofc  authority  was  never  doubted.  And 
thefe  were  read  originaUy  only  by  a  fingle  nation,  and  in 
a  fingle  corner  of  the  world,  while  the  New  Teftament 
was  read,  and  received  as  genuine  in  three  quarters  of  the 
globe,  by  its  adverfaries  as  well  as  by  its  friends,  in  coun- 
tries the  mod  remote,  and  moft  different  from  each  other 
in  language  and  manners,  acknowledged  in  every  Chrif- 
tian  community  as  a  work  of  the  Apoflies  and  Evange- 
lifts,  not  only  by  the  orthodox  Chrifbians,  but  alfo  by 
thofe,  who  ifiiiTentcd  from  the  eftabliflied  rule  of  faith,  with 
this  only  difference  that  the  latter,  at  the  fame  time  that 
they  acknowledged  the  writings  in  general  to  be  genuine, 
contended  that  certain  pafliiges  were  corrupted:  till  a  fc6t 
arofe  in  the  eaftern  part  of  Afia,  a  fe£t  ignorant  of  the 
Grecian  literature  and  language,  v;hich  thought  proper 
to  pronounce  the  New  Teftament  to  be  fpurious,  becaufe 
the  precepts  of  the  Gofpel  con  trad  ifted  the  tenets  of  their 
philofophy.  But  if  thefe  writings  were  forged  in  the  pe- 
riod that  elapfed  between  the  death  of  the  Apoftles,  and 
the  earlieft  evidence  for  their  authenticity,  how  was  it 
poffible  to  introduce  them  at  once  into  the  various  Chrif- 
tian  communities,  whofe  connexion  was  intercepted  by 
diilance  of  place,  and  difference  of  language?  And  thofe 
difcipJes  of  the  Apoftles  which  were  ftill  alive  would 
furely  not  have  failed  to  detedl  and  confute  fo  glaring  an 
impofture. 

It  is  generally  thought  fufficient  to  fhew  the  writings 
of  a  claffic  author  to  be  genuine,  if  fome  one  among  the 
antients  has  merely  fpoken  of  the  work,  as  Cicero,  Hir- 
tius,  and  Suetonius  have  done  of  Cjefar's  defcriptions  of 
his  own  campaigns,  without  quoting  paffages  from  the 
book  itfelf.  But  it  may  be  objeded,  '  It  is  pofllble  indeed 
that  Csfar  may  have  written  fuch  a  treatife,  but  how  can 
we  be  certain  that  the  Commentaries  which  we  afcribe  to 
him  as  their  author  were  the  fame  which  Cicero,  Hirtius, 
and  Suetonius  read  ?  Is  it  credible  that  Casfar  was  the  au- 
thor of  ail  hiftory  in  v/hich  fo  frequent  remarks  are  in- 
terlperfed  to  the  difparagement  of  the  Germans,  remarks 

which 


26  Authenticity  of  the  New  Tejiament.     chap.  ii. 

which  excite  even  a  fufpicion  of  their  timidity,  when  it  is 
fliid  in  the  very  beginning  of  the  work  that  the  Gauls 
themfelves  acknowledged  the  Germans  to  be  their  fupe- 
riors  in  bravery  ?  Can  iufpicions  like  thefe  proceed  from  a 
general  who  was  in  a  great  meafure  indebted  to  his  Ger- 
man auxiharies  for  the  vidory  of  Pharfalia,  a  circum- 
llance  again  omitted  to  be  mentioned  in  the  Bellum 
Civile  ?  Are  thefe  the  Commentaries  fo  commended  by 
Cicero  and  Hirtius,  and  to  which  the  latter  applied  the 
obfervation  :  prasrepta,  non  pr^ebita  facultas  fcriptoribus 
videtur  ?  Could  thefe  Commentaries  have  exifted  in  the 
days  of  Florus,  who  likewife  defcribes  the  battle  of  Phar- 
falia, and  eftimates  the  number  in  both  armies  at  three 
hundred  thoufand,  befide  the  auxiliaries,  when  the  num- 
ber given  in  the  Commentaries  is  fo  confiderably  inferior  ? 
Could  Florus  have  been  better  acquainted  with  the  (late 
of  the  army  than  Casfar,  and  would  he  have  negleded  to 
derive  his  inteUigence  from  the  beft  pofTible  accounts, 
had  fuch  accounts  at  that  time  exifted  ?' 

Objeftions  like  thefe  to  the  authenticity  of  Csefar  would 
be  anfwered  by  every  critic  in  claffical  literature  not  with 
a  ferious  reply,  but  with  a  fmile  of  contempt.  Yet  weak 
and  trivial  as  thefe  arguments  may  appear,  they  are 
flronger  than  fuch  as  can  with  juftice  be  applied  to  the 
writings  of  the  New  Teftament,  which  is  not  only  men- 
tioned by  the  earlieft  fathers  as  being  written  by  thofe 
Evangelifts  and  Apoftles,  to  whom  we  afcribe  them,  but 
quoted  and  explained  at  fuch  confiderable  length,  as 
leaves  no  pofllbility  of  a  doubt,  that  the  writings,  to  which 
they  allude,  are  the  very  fame  with  thofe,  which  have  been 
tranfmitted  to  us  under  that  tide. 

In  fact  the  objeftions,  which  have  hitherto  been  made, 
have  not  even  the  appearance  of  probability,  and  when 
reduced  to  plain  and  fimple  terms,  amount  only  to  this 
fingle  queftion,  Is  it  not  poffible  that  the  New  Teftament 
is  a  forgery  ?  A  conclufion  therefore  is  drawn  a  pofte  ad 
efie,  a  conclufion  which  would  banifti  from  the  world 
many  of  the  valued  productions  of  antiquity. 

Since  then  the  adverfaries  of  the  Chriftii^n  Religion 

have 


SECT.  III.     Authenticity  of  the  New  Tejlament.  27 

have  advanced  all  that  zeal,  penetration,  and  learning  can 
afford  to  prove  the  New  Tellament  to  be  fpurious,  with- 
out being  able  to  produce  a  folid  argument  in  its  disfa- 
vour, it  would  not  be  unreafonable  to  conclude  againfl 
the  poflibihty  of  a  real  objedion,  and  that  therefore  thefc 
writings  are  genuine.  But  inftead  of  immediately  drawing 
this  inference  from  thefe  premifes  alone,  I  will  arrange 
under  their  feveral  heads  the  reafons  which  may  induce  a 
critic  to  fufped  a  work  to  be  fpurious. 

1.  When  doubts  have  been  made  from  its  firfb  appear- 
ance in  the  world,  whether  it  proceeded  from  the  author 
to  whom  it  is  afcribed. 

1.  When  the  immediate  friends  of  the  pretended  au- 
thor who  were  able  to  decide  upon  the  fubjeft  have  de- 
nied it  to  be  his  produ6lion. 

3.  When  a  long  feries  of  years  has  elapfed  after  his 
death,  in  which  the  book  was  unknown,  and  in  which  it 
muft  unavoidably  have  been  mentioned  and  quoted,  had^ 
it  really  exifled. 

4.  When  the  flyle  is  different  from  that  of  his  other 
writings,  or,  in  cafe  no  other  remain,  different  from  that 
which  might  realbnably  be  expefted. 

5.  When  events  are  recorded  which  happened  later 
than  the  time  of  the  pretended  author. 

6.  When  opinions  are  advanced  which  contradi6l  thofe 
he  is  known  to  maintain  in  his  other  writings.  Though 
this  latter  argument  alone  leads  to  no  pofitive  conclu- 
fion,  fince  every  man  is  liable  to  change  his  opinion,  or 
through  forgetfulnefs  to  vary  in  the  circumftances  of  the 
fame  relation,  of  which  J  ofephus  in  his  Antiquities,  and 
War  of  the  Jews,  affords  a  ftriking  example. 

Now  of  all  thefe  various  grounds  for  denying  a  work 
to  be  genuine,  not  one  can  be  applied  with  juftice  to  the 
New  Teftament.  It  is  true  that  Fauftus,  (whofe  name  I 
muft  again  introduce,  fmce  modern  fceptics  have  ob- 
jefted,  without  afligning  reafons  for  their  doubts,)  con- 
tends that  paffages  may  be  found  in  the  fame  Gofpel,  or 
the  fame  Epiftle,  which  are  a  contradidion  to  each  other. 
But  this  objection  is  different  from  that  allcdged  in  the 

iaft 


i8  Authenticity  of  the  New  Tejiament.      chap.  ii. 

laft  of  the  above-mentioned  clafles,  and  cannot  be  applied 
in  the  prefent  inftance.  To  avoid  confufion  we  muft 
make  the  following  diftindion.  If  a  work  whofe  au- 
thenticity is  queftioned,  contains  principles  diametrically 
oppofite  to  thofe  which  are  maintained  in  the  indifput- 
able  writings  of  the  author,  to  whom  the  work  in  queftion 
is  afcribed,  it  may  juftly  be  confidered  as  fpurious.  But 
no  fuch  inference  can  be  drawn  from  feeming,  or  even 
real  contradictions  in  one  and  the  fame  work,  the  crite- 
rion being  in  that  cafe  wanting  which  alone  can  determine 
the  matter  in  difpute.  Thefe  premifes  decide  nothing 
with  refped  to  the  author's  name,  and  the  only  con- 
clufion  to  be  made  is,  either  that  the  author  was  not  fuffi- 
ciently  precife,  or  that  the  paffages  alledged  are  either 
corrupted,  or  falfely  underftood. 

It  has  likewife  been  objefted  that  not  only  the  fame 
Evangelift  contradicts  himfelf,  but  that  the  different 
Evangelifts  often  contradid  each  other.  Were  the  in- 
ftances  adduced  in  fupport  of  this  afTertion  more  happily 
felefled  than  they  really  arc,  or  did  they  even  amount 
to  a  demonftration,  it  would  not  follow  that  the  Gofpels 
were  not  written  by  thofe,  "V^hofe  names  they  bear,  but 
only  that  the  authors  were  not  infallible.  Whoever  fludies 
with  accuracy  any  part  whatfoever  of  antient  or  modern 
hiftory,  will  frequently  find  not  only  apparent  but  real 
contradictions,  yet  no  one  would  therefore  conclude  the 
writings  of  fuch  hiflorians  as  Livy,  Jofephus,  or  Tacitus 
to  be  fpurious. 

There  are  feveral  pafTages  in  the  NewTeftament  which 
differ  from  the  accounts  of  Jofephus,  a  writer  who  throws 
fo  much  light  on  the  evangelic  hiftory  \  that  he  deferves 
more  diligently  to  be  ftudied.  Now,  fuppofing  thefe 
difficulties  were  not  to  be  removed  by  any  critical  con- 
jecture, that  neither  the  beginning  of  the  fecond  chapter 
of  St.  Luke  were  to  be  reconciled  with  the  relation  of 
Jofephus  or  Tacitus,  nor  St.  Luke's  account  of  Theudas^ 
with  that  of  the  former  of  thefe  hiftorians,  the  queftion 
would  fcill  remain  to  be  determined,  which  author  were 

1  Afts  V.  36. 


SECT.  III.     Authenticity  of  the  New  Tejiament.  29 

in  the  right :  and  admitting  it  to  be  decided  in  favour  of 
Jofephus,  and  that  St.  Luke  committed  a  chronological 
miftake  in  afcribing  a  wrong  date  to  the  rebellion  of 
Theudas,  it  would  militate  not  againft  the  authenticity 
of  the  A6ls  of  the  Apoftles,  but  only  againft  the  infpira- 
tion  of  the  author.  The  cafe  would  be  entirely  diffe- 
rent, could  pafTages  be  found  in  the  Adls  of  the  Apoftles, 
in  which  events  were  recorded  that  happened  later  than 
the  death  of  the  author,  fuch,  for  inftance,  as  an  account 
of  the  falfe  MeftiahBarcochab^  in  the  time  of  the  emperor 
Hadrian,  whence  we  might  reafonably  conclude  the  book 
to  have  been  written  in  a  fubfequent  period.  But  nothing 
of  this  nature  can  be  produced,  which  militates  cither 
againft  the  Ads  of  the  Apoftles,  or  any  other  part  of  the 
New  Teftament.  In  ftiort,  to  recapitulate  the  fix  heads 
abovementioned.  i.  It  cannot  be  lliewn  that  any  one 
doubted  of  its  authenticity  in  the  period  in  which  it  firft 
appeared.  1.  No  antient  accounts  are  on  record,  whence 
we  may  conclude  it  to  be  fpurious.  3.  No  confiderable 
period  elapfed  after  the  death  of  the  Apoftles,  in  which 
the  New  Teftament  was  unknown,  but  on  the  contrary 
it  is  mentioned  by  their  very  contemporaries,  and  the  ac- 
counts of  it  in  the  fecond  century  are  ftill  more  nume- 
rous. 4.  No  argument  can  be  brought  in  its  disfavour 
from  the  nature  of  the  ftyle,  it  being  exa6lly  fuch  as  might 
be  expefted  from  the  Apoftles,  not  Attic  but  Jewilh 
Greek.  5.  No  fa6ls  are  recorded,  which  happened  after 
their  death.  6.  No  doftrines  are  maintained,  which  con- 
tradift  the  known  tenets  of  the  authors,  fmce  befide  the 
New  Teftament,  no  writings  of  the  Apoftles  exift. ,  But, 
to  the  honour  of  the  New  Teftament  be  it  fpoken,  it  con- 
tains numerous  contradidions  to  the  tenets  and  do6trines 
of  the  fathers  in  the  fecond  and  third  century,  whofe  mo- 
rality is  different  from  that  of  the  Gofpel,  which  recom- 
mends fortitude  and  fubmiffion  to  unavoidable  evils,  but 
not  that  enthufiaftic  ardour  for  martyrdom,  for  which 
thofe  centuries  are  diftinguiftied' ;  and  alludes  to  cere- 
monies which  in  the  following  ages  were  either  in  difufe 

or 


JO  Authenticity  of  the  New  Tejiament.     chap,  ii, 

or  totally  unknown ',  all  which  circumftances  infallibly 
demonftrate  that  the  New  Teftament  is  not  a  production 
of  either  of  thofe  centuries. 


SECT.       IV. 

Pofitive  grounds  for  the  authenticity  of  the  New  Tejiament^, 

IT  appears  from  what  has  hitherto  been  faid,  that  there 
is  not  the  fmalleft  reafon  to  doubt  of  the  authenticity 
of  thefe  writings,  and  that  they  are  as  certainly  genuine, 
as  the  moft  indifputable  works  of  the  Greeks  and  Ro- 
mans. One  might  fuppofe  that  this  were  fufRciently 
latisfadory  for  every  man,  who  had  not  an  uncommon 
inclination  to  Scepticifm.  But  as  the  truth  of  the  Chrif- 
tian  religion  is  grounded  upon  this  important  article,  and 
the  New  Teftament  contains  an  account  of  miracles  per- 
formed, and  prophecies  afterwards  fulfilled,  both  of  which 
demand  a  higher  degree  of  evidence  than  ufual  events, 
and  doubts  therefore  might  arife,  whether  the  New  Tef- 
tament were  not  written  after  the  fulfilling  of  the  pro- 
phecies, it  is  no  longer  a  matter  of  curious  fpeculation, 
but  a  confcientious  and  rational  inquiry,  if,  not  fatisfied 
with  refuting  the  arguments  in  its  disfavour,  we  feek 
likewife  the  pofitive  grounds  of  its  authenticity.  Thefe 
pofitive  grounds  may  be  arranged  under  the  three  fol- 
lowing heads. 

1.  The  impofllbility  of  a  forgery,  arifing  from  the  na- 
ture of  the  thing  itfelf. 

2.  The  antient  Chriftian,  Jewifli,  and  Heathen  Tef- 
timonies  in  its  favour. 

3.  Its  own  internal  evidence. 

Thefe  fhall  be  feverally  confidered  in  the  remaining 
feflions  of  this  chapter. 

«■  For  inftance,  Baptifm  for  the  Dead^,  i  Cor.  xv.  29.  and  other  cuftoms 
mentioned  Ch.  xi.  which  in  thofe  centuries  were  either  obfolete,  or  fo 
feldom  ufed,  that  perhaps  many  who  are  well  acquainted  with  ecclefiaftical 
hi/tory  can  recoiled  no  example. 

SECT. 


SECT.  VI.     Authenticity  of  the  New  Teftament,  3 1 

ft 

SECT.      V. 

JmpoJfibiUty  of  a  forgery  arifing  from  the  nature  of  the 
thing  itfelf. 

IT  has  been  mentioned  in  the  firft  chapter  of  this  work 
that  St,  Peter  has  quoted  the  epiftles  of  St.  Paul,  and 
the  reafon  has  been  given  why  fuch  quotations  are  fo 
feldom  to  be  found  in  tiie  New  Teftament,  viz.  becaufc 
they  were  too  recent,  at  that  time,  to  be  generally  knownj 
not  becaufe  the  Apoftles  were  unacquainted  with  each 
other's  writings.  Now  of  thefe  Apoftles  St.  John  lived 
later  than  the  death  of  Domitian,  and  no  impoftor  during 
his  life  could  be  fo  abfurd  as  to  invent  and  diftribute 
writings  under  his  name,  and  that  of  the  other  Apoftles ; 
and  admitting  even  fo  abfurd  an  attempt,  they  could 
never  have  been  received  without  contradiction  in  all 
the  Chriftian  communities  of  the  three  feveral  quarters 
of  the  globe.  It  is  equally  impoftible  that  they  could 
have  been  forged  between  his  death,  and  the  middle  of 
the  fecond  century,  fince  there  lived  during  that  period 
immediate  difciples  of  St.  John,  and  of  the  other  Apoftles. 
And  from  the  middle  of  the  fecond  throughout  all  the 
following  centuries,  the  accounts  are  too  numerous  to 
admit  the  fuppofition  of  a  later  forgery. 


SECT.      VI. 

Tejiimonies  of  the  father Sy  and  other  Chrijiian  writers  of 
the  fir fl  centuries. 

IN  our  inquiry  into  the  early  origin  of  thefe  writings, 
it  is  natural  to  direft  our  firft  attention  to  the  perfons 
who  read  and  ftudied  them  ;  and  we  muft  here  be  guided 
by  the  evid:;nce  of  the  fathers  of  the  firft  centuries ;  or, 
if  their  works  be  loft,  by  the  fragments  colleded,  and 
prefcrved  by  the  accurate  Eufebius.  The  Apoftolic  fa- 
thers, as  they  are  called,  Ignatius  and  Polycarp,  who  fpeak 

of 


32  Authenticity  of  the  New  Tejlament,     chap.  ii. 

of  particular  books  of  the  New  Teftament',  deferve  efpe- 
cially  to  be  mentioned,  fince  it  is  manifefl:  from  their 
writings,  that  fo  early  as  the  firft  century  the  New  Tefta- 
ment not  only  exifted,  but  was  received  as  genuine.  If 
the  adverfaries  of  the  Chriftian  religion  contend  that  the 
works  of  thefe  fathers  like  wife  arc  a  forgery*,  we  can  pro- 
duce fo  early  as  the  beginning  of  the  fecond  century  the 
evidence  of  Papias',  who  knew  the  daughters  of  Philip 
mentioned  in  the  A6ts  of  the  Apoftles,  and  without  doubt 
therefore  a  number  of  the  immediate  difciples  of  the 
Apoftles  themfclves ;  and  after  Papias  the  authority  of 
Juftin  Martyr  *,  who  wrote  fo  early  as  the  hundred  and 
thirty-third  year  of  the  Chriftian  ?era.  And  from  this 
period  is  the  number  of  thofe,  who  have  not  only  quoted, 
but  commented  on  the  New  Teftament,  fo  very  confider- 
able,  that  no  Sceptic  can  have  recourfe  to  the  defperate 
refuge  of  fuppofmg,  either  that  all  thefe  writings  are  a 
forgery,  or  that  the  New  Teftament  was  not  confidered  in 
thofe  ages  as  antient  and  genuine.  In  the  third  century 
the  name  of  Origen  deferves  particularly  to  be  remem- 
bered, a  writer  of  profound  erudition,  and  critical  judge- 
ment, and  acquainted  with  numberlefs  authors  of  anti- 
quity, which  in  our  days  are  totally  unknown.  But  to 
introduce  the  long  feries  of.fathers,  who  fucceflively  ap- 
pear as  evidence  for  the  New  Teftament,  and  to  quote 
the  various  paftages  in  fupport  of  its  authenticity  would 
be  not  only  too  prolix  for  the  prefent  undertaking,  but 
even  ufelefs  after  the  learned  labours  of  Lardnr.r  %  to 
■whofe  works,  and  thofe  of  Lefs  ^  I  refer  my  readers  for 
further  information  ;  and  will  employ  the  remaining  part 
of  this  fedlion  in  endeavouring  to  clear  up  a  difficulty, 
which  has  perplexed  the  critics  in  theological  fiterature. 

It  has  been  aiked,  if  the  books  of  the  New  Teftament 
were  really  written  by  the  perfons,  to  whom  they  arc 
afcribed,  what  can  be  the  reaibns,  that  the  Apoftles  fo 
feldom  allude  to  the  writings  of  each  other,  and  that 
their  writings  again  are  fo  feldom  mentioned  and  quoted 
by  the  Apoftolic  fathers.  The  lormer  of  thefe  qucftions 
has  been  anfwered  in  the  tirft  chapter,  and  with  refpe6l 

to 


SECT.  VI.     j^uthenttcity  of  the  New  Tejlament.  ^^ 

to  the  latter  it  may  be  remarked  that  the  firft  century 
was  not  the  age  of  quotation  even  among  profane  writei  s'', 
being  the  very  reverfe  of  the  prefent,  in  which  it  has 
been  fafhionable  to  fill  whole  pages  with  paiTages  from 
other  authors.  And  if  the  Old  Teftament,  which  was 
read  by  the  Jews  and  Chriftians  from  their  childhood, 
made  an  exception  to  that  rule,  yet  this  exception  cannot 
be  applied  to  die  New  Teftament,  of  which  the  feveral 
parts  were  written  at  different  periods,  and  were  probably 
not  colledled  into  a  volume  before  the  end  of  the  firft 
century.  It  is  therefore  no  objc6lion  to  the  New  Tefta- 
ment, if  it  is  fo  feldom  cited  by  the  Apoftolic  fathers ; 
and  even  could  any  one  be  produced,  who  had  not  made 
a  fingle  reference  to  thefe  writings,  it  would  prove  as  little 
againft  their  authenticity,  as  St.  Paul's  never  having 
quoted  the  epiftles  of  St.  Peter,  or  the  Gofpels  of  St. 
Matthew  and  St.  Luke.  On  the  contrary,  this  very  cir- 
cumftance  affords  a  ftrong  prefumption  that  the  writings 
of  thefe  fathers  themfelves  are  genuine,  and  that  they  were 
compofed  by  contemporaries  of  the  Apoftles,  at  a  time 
when  the  feveral  books  of  the  New  Teftament  were  not 
univerfally  known,  nor  become  like  the  Old  Teftament 
a  part  of  Chriftian  education.  This  is  an  obfervation 
which  has  not  efcaped  thofe,  who  have  attempted  in  later 
ages  to  introduce  their  own  produ6lions  under  the  names 
of  the  early  Chriftians,  as  appears  from  the  fpurious  ho- 
milies of  Clemens  Romanus,  and  the  difputation,  which 
is  there  related  between  St.  Peter,  and  Simon  the  Ma- 
gician. 

But  the  omiffion  of  a  fingle  quotation  in  the  genuine 
epiftle,  as  it  is  called,  of  Clemens  RomanUs  to  the  Corinf- 
thians  is  not  only  ftriking,  but  can  excite  a  ftronger  fu- 
picion  againft  the  antiquity  of  the  New  Teftament,  than 
the  united  arguments  of  its  profeffed  enemies.  Flis  chief 
objeft  in  this  epiftle  is  to  convince  the  Corinthians  of  the 
Refurreftion  of  the  dead,  and  he  quotes  to  that  purpofe 
a  variety  of  paffages  from  the  Old  Teftament,  all  of 
which  excepting  Job  xix.  £5 — 27.  prove  in  faifl  nothing ; 
and  after  reading  this  epiftle  one  is  racher  inclined  to 
C  doubt. 


34  JutheHiicity  hf  the  New  Teftament.     chap.  ri. 

doubt,  than  believe  s.  do6lrine  fo  badly  fupported.  Now 
thequeftion  naturally  arifes,  how  is  it  pofhble,  if  the  firft 
epiftle  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Corinthians  at  that  time  really 
exifted,  that  Clement  could  ncglcdl  to  mention  the  fif- 
teenth chapter,  in  which  the  very  do6trine,  which  he 
willied  to  demonftrate,  was  not  only  fupported  by  the 
beft  arguments,  but  maintained  by  the  authority  of  a 
divine  apoftle^  ? 

Dr.  Lefs,  who  was  the  firft  pcrfon  that  difcovered  this 
difficulty,  has  likewife  explained  it  in  the  following  man- 
ner, viz.  he  is  of  opinion  diat  the  objedl  of  Clement  was 
rather  to  fliew  die  harmony  between  the  Old  and  New 
Teftament  on  the  fubjeft  of  the  refurredion  of  the  dead, 
than  to  demonftrate  a  doftrine  which  he  prefuppofed  to 
be  true  ;  that  a  paflage  is  really  to  be  found  in  the  forty- 
fcventh  chapter'  in  which  he  recommends  the  firft  epiftle 
of  St.  Paul  to  the  Corinthians,  and  as  the  contents  of  this 
epiftle  were  well  known  to  the  Corinthians,  he  thinks  it 
fufficient  to  quote  the  Old  Teftanient,  without  introduc- 
ing particular  pallages  from  the  New.  This  explanation 
may  ferve  to  remove  the  difficulty  on  the  fuppofidon  that 
this  epiftle  of  Clement  be  genuine.  But  I  am  rather  in- 
clined to  entertain  the  fame  fendments  of  this  epiftle,  as 
the  learned  entertain  in  general  of  the  other  works  attri- 
buted to  this  antient  father'.  The  name  of  Clement 
feems  well  adapted  to  recommend  a  fiftion,  and  the 
author  appears  to  betray  the  impofture  by  a  too  ftudied 
afiedation  of  the  mode  of  writing  in  the  firft  century. 

Having 

tsiPi  avTH  T£,  x«t  Kj?(p«  TE  xai  AttoXAw. 

t  Wetftein  difcovered  a  Syriac  tranflation  of  two  epiftles  of  Clement 
of  Rome,  «vhich  he  believed  not  only  to  be  genuine  but  even  canonical, 
and  publlflied  them  under  the  following  title:  Dvx  epiftolje  dementis 
Romani  ex  co;lice  manufcripto  N.  T.  Syriaci  nunc  primum  erutas :  edidit 
Jo.  Jac.  Wetftenius,  Lugd.  Bat.  1775.  I"  anfwer  to  which  Lardner  wrote 
a  Difiertation  on  the  two  epiltles  afcrlbed  to  Clement  of  Rome,  lately 
pv\bri(lied  by  Mr.  Wetftein,  London,  1753.  See  alfo  Two  letters  from 
Vajema  to  WeiTelyig  and  HemUaauis,  1754.  '0, 


SECT.  vii.     Authenticity  of  the  New  Tejlament,  3^ 

Haying  obferved  it  to  be  fafhionable  in  thole  days  to 
avoid  quotations,  he  has  carried  the  rule  fo  far  as  to 
tranlgrels  the  bounds  of  probability '. 


SECT.       VIL 

Tejiimonies  of  the  Heretics  of  the  firfi  centuries, 

THE  evidence  to  be  derived  from  the  heretical 
writers  of  the  firft  centuries  is  ftili  more  important 
in  proving  the  New  Teftament  to  be  genuine,  than  even 
that  of  the  orthodox  fathers.  It  was  the  pradice  of  the 
former  not  only  to  falfify,  or  wrongly  explain  pardcular 
pafFages,  but  to  erafe  fuch,  as  were  not  to  be  reconciled 
with  their  own  private  tenets.  Now  this  very  circum- 
ftance  is  a  pofidve  proof,  that  they  confidered  the  New 
Teftament,  with  exception  to  thefe  fmgle  pafifages,  to  be 
a  genuine  work  of  the  Apoftles.  They  might  deny  an 
apoftle  to  be  an  infallible  teacher,  and  banilli  therefore 
his  writings  from  the  facred  canon,  but  they  no  where 
contend  that  the  apoftle  is  not  the  author.  This  confef- 
fion  from  the  mouth  of  an  adverfary  is  the  cleareft  evi- 
dence that  can  be  given,  and  as  it  was  made  in  a  period, 
and  under  circumftances,  when,  had  obje6lions  been  pof- 
fible,  they  would  infallibly  have  been  produced,  it  ferves 
as  an  irrefiftible  argument  that  the  New  Teftament  is  a 
genuine  work  of  the  Apoftles. 

The  teftimonies  of  this  kind,  which  afford  fuch  pofi- 
tive  evidence,  have  not  been  colleded  in  the  fame  man- 
ner, as  thofe  of  the  orthodox  fithers.  Lardner,  who  has 
made  fo  ample  a  colle6lion  of  the  former  in  his  Credi- 
bility of  the  Gofpel  Hiftory,  has  almoft  entirely  neglefted 
the  latter',  not  becaufe  they  were  unknown  to  him,  but 
becaufe  he  regarded  them  as  unfavourable  to  the  Chrif- 
tian  caufe:  not  confidering  that  for  that  very  reafon  their 
evidence  is  the  fafeft  that  can  be  produced.  They  may 
deny  as  often  as  they  pleafe  the  divine  miffion  of  the 
Apoftles,  or  the  authenticity  of  pardcular  paffages,  fmcc 
c  2  by 


^6  Authenticity  of  the  New  Tejiament.     chap.  if. 

by  fo  doing  they  imply  the  authenticity  of  the  work  in 
general.  Whoever  maintains  at  prefent  that  i  John  v.  7. 
was  not  written  by  the  Apoftle,  prefuppofes  the  remainder 
of  the  epiftle  to  be  genuine. 

A  colleftion  of  this  nature  would  fwell  this  chapter  to 
a  fize  difproportionate  to  the  reft  of  the  work,  and  render 
neceflfary  difquifitions,  which  would  be  improper  in  a 
general  introdu6Vion  to  the  New  Teftament.  I  wifh  that 
fome  one  among  the  learned,  who  is  better  qualified  than 
myfelfj  would  attempt  the  colledion,  which  would  be  a 
valuable  fupplement  to  the  works  of  Lardner.  At  pre- 
fent I  will  mention  only  a  couple  of  examples,  which  may 
ferve  as  a  fpecimen  of  the  reft. 

Cerinthus  %  a  contemporary  of  St.  John,  as  we  are  in- 
formed by  the  antient  hiftorians,  maintained  the  necef- 
fity  of  circumcifion,  and  the  obfervation  of  the  Mofaic 
law}  and  becaufe  St.  Paul  delivered  in  his  epiftles  a  con- 
trary doctrine,  Cerinthus  with  the  reft  of  his  fe6t  denied 
him  to  be  a  divine  apoftle.     Tov  §t  UxmKov  a^THin  Six  to  (j-v 

•CTEiOeo'S'aj  T'/i  TS'ipiTOfjt.Yi.  AXXa,  y^xt  tJtSaAAao-j^  aurov  ^kx.  to  a^n- 
XHcai,  oaoi  iv  vofxu)  ^ixon^aB'i  rng  ^ot^irog  i^nn<Ta.ri,  y.ai  on  sav 
7!jioiTiiJi.vnc3'£j  X^tfo?  LijM.af  isn  w^£A7)(r£».  Epiphanius  adv. 
Hrerefes,  xxviii.  5.^  It  follows  therefore,  ift,  that  the 
epiftles  of  St.  Paul  exifted  in  the  firft  century,  and  thofe 
too  the  very  fame  which  we  have  at  prefent,  becaufe  they 
are  not  only  mentioned  but  quoted  *.  2dly,  That  Ce- 
rinthus and  his  followers,  inftead  of  denying  thefe  epiftles 
to  have  been  written  by  St.  Paul,  allow  them  to  be  a 
genuine  work  of  that  apoftle,  fince  they  contend  for  that 
very  reafon,  that  he  was  a  teacher  of  falfehood.  The 
Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew  on  the  contrary  was  approved  by 
the  Cerinthians,  becaufe  it  contained  nothing  contrary  to 
their  tenets  K  This  Gofpel  therefore  exifted  in  the  firft 
century,  and  was  acknowledged  to  have  been  written  by 
St.  Matthew. 

The  Ebionites,  a  Chriftian  fed:  of  Jewifti  original, 
who  lived  in  the  land  of  Bafan  and  its  neighbourhood, 
in  Pella,  Cocaba,  Aftaroth,  and  Carnaim,  adopted  as 
their  principal  rule  of  faith  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew  % 

though 


SECT.  vii.     Authenticity  of  the  New  Tejiament.  37 

though  they  corrupted  it  by  various  alterations  and  addi- 
tions ;  but  they  rejefted  the  authority  of  St.  Paul,  be- 
caufe  his  epiftles  contradided  the  Levitical  law,  that  is, 
they  believed  him  to  be  the  author  of  thefe  epiftles,  and 
held  him  for  that  reafon  to  be  a  falfe  apoftle.  1  will 
quote  the  words  of  Epiphanius,  who  being  a  native  of 
Paleftine,  and  acquainted  with  the  Hebrew  language, 
was  able  to  obtain  the  beft  information  concerning  the 
Nazarenes  and  Ebionites.  He  fays,  "  they  had  the  Afts 
of  the  Apoftles,  with  various  additions,  which  go  fo  far 
as  to  accufe  St.  Paul  of  the  artifices  of  a  falfe  Apoftle. 
They  fay  that  St.  Paul  has  himfelf  confefled,  that  he  was 
born  at  Tarfus,  and  conclude  therefore  that  he  was  by 
birth  a  Greek,  appealing  to  his  own  words,  I  am  a  native 
of  Tarfus,  a  citizen  of  no  mean  city ".  They  pretend  that 
his  father  and  mother  were  Greeks,  that  he  came  to  Je- 
rufalem,  where  he  fell  in  love  with  the  daughter  of  the 
High  Prieft,  and  that,  in  order  to  marry  her,  he  became 
aprofelyte,  and  permitted  himfelf  to  be  circumcifed:  but 
as  the  marriage  did  not  take  place,  he  was  highly  offend- 
ed, and  wrote  againft  circumcifion,  the  fabbath,  and  the 
law"'. "  And  again,  §  25,  "  what  have  I  not  to  anfwer  to 
their  blafphemies  againft  St.  Paul,  that  they  take  him  for 
a  Grecian  and  a  Heathen,  who  afterwards  became  a  pro- 
felyte,  &c."  Eufebius"  gives  the  fame  defcription  of  the 
Ebionites,  and  relates  *  that  they  rejedled  all  his  epiftles, 
and  called  him  an  apoftate,  becaufe  he  departed  from 
the  Levitical  law.'  If  this  fedt  which  exifted  fo  early, 
being  originally  compofed  of  Chriftians,  who  had  fled 
from  Jerufalem  to  Pella,  notwithftanding  the  inconve- 
niences, which  they  muft  have  felt  from  the  authenticity 
of  St.  Paul's  epiftles,  ftill  acknowledged  him  to  be  the 
author  ^,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  he  was  confidered 
as  fuch  from  the  very  earlieft  ages. 

Of  the  heretics,  who  prove  the  authenticity  of  the 
New  Teftament  by  the  circumftance  of  their  erafmg  and 
altering  the  text  in  order  to  make  it  harmonize  with 

their 

•  Aas  xxl.  39,  w  Epiphan,  Haeref,  xxx.  ^  i6, 

»  Hilt.  Egcl.  Lib.  III.  g.  xxvii. 

c  3 


3?  Authenticity  of  the  New  Tefiament.     chap,  ir, 

their  own  doflrines,  we  may  produce  Marcion^  as  an  in- 
llance.     He  lived  in  the  beginning  of  the  lecond  century, 
and,  after  having  difcharged  during  feveral  years  the  office 
of  prieft,  he  quitted  the  eftablifhed  church,  to  publilh 
his  heretical  tenets  fo  early  as  the  year  136 ".     He  lived 
therefore  in  an  age,  when  he  could  eafily  have  difco- 
vered  if  the  writings  of  the  New  Tefiament  had  been 
forged  after  the  death  of  the  Apoftles.  And,  as  he  thought 
himfelf  grofsly  infulted  by  the  orthodox  party,  he  could 
not  be  wanting  in  inclination  to  make  a  difcovery,  which 
would  have  afforded  him  the  rnoft  ample  means  of  re- 
venge.    He  had  likewife  the  experience  derived  from  an 
acquaintance  with  foreign   countries,    having    travelled 
from  his  birth-place  Sinope  to  Rome,  where  he  after- 
wards refided,  in  order  to  obtain  a  repeal  of  the  excom- 
munication, which  had  been  denounced  againit  him  by 
his  native  church.      But  in  the  vaft  extent  of  country, 
which  lies  between  Sinope  and  Rome,  he  was  unable  to 
difcover  the  fmalleft  trace  of  the  New  Teftament's  being 
a  forgery.     He  was  obliged  therefore,  in  order  to  anfwer 
his  purpofes,  to  have  recourfe  to  other  means.    The  Gof- 
pel  of  St.  Matthew,  the  Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews,  with  thofe 
of  St.  Peter  and  St.  James,  as  well  as  the  Old  Tefiament 
in  general,  he  faid  were  writings  not  for  Chriflians,  but 
for  Jews.     Of  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Luke,  and  the  ten  epiflles 
of  St.  Paul,  viz.   to  the  Romans,  Corinthians,  GalatianSj 
Ephefians,    CoIofTians,    Philippians,    ThefTalonians  and 
Philemon,  he  undertook  a  very  fevere  critical  recenfion, 
and  publifhed  for  the  ufe  of  his  difciples  a  new  edition 
of  thefe  books,  in  which  many  pafTages  confiderably  dif- 
fered from  the  generally  received  one.     Among  thefe 
pafTages,  which  Epiphanius  has  colledcd  in  the  eleventh 
ie6lion  of  his  forty-fecond  herefy,  are  real  inflances  of 
what  modern  critics  call  vari^  leftiones  ''\  of  which  feve- 
ral have  been  received  as  genuine,  and  which  were  pro- 
bably occafioned  by  the  manufcripts  of  Marcion  differ- 
ing in  various  readings  from  thofe  of  Epiphanius.     Had 

he 

y  In  determining  the  date  I  have  been  directed  by  Walch's  Hiftory  of 
the  Heretics,  Vol.  I.  p.  50Z, 


SECT.  VIII.     Authenticity  cf  the  New  Tefiament.  39 

he  relied  here,  he  would  have  remained  irreproachable, 
but  as  this  was  not  fufficient  to  anfwer  his  purpofe,  he 
fpared  not  a  fingle  text,  that  contradided  his  own 
opinions  '°. 

The  inference  to  be  deduced  from  what  has  been  here 
advanced  is  this.  That  between  the  years  126  and  160 
in  all  the  countries,  which  lay  between  Sinope  and  Rome, 
no  accounts  could  be  found  that  the  books  of  the  New 
Tefiament  were  fpurious,  and  newly  impofed  on  the 
world  after  the  deceafe  of  the  Apoftles,  who  died  in  the 
period  that  elap fed  between  the  years  69  and  100.  We 
mull  not  here  forget  to  remark  that,  among  the  books 
acknowledged' by  Marcion  to  be  genuine,  are  thofe  very 
epillles  of  St.  Paul,  which  afford,  as  we  have  fhewn  in 
the  firil  lc6lion  of  this  chapter,  the  Urongeft  demonftra- 
tion  of  the  truth  of  our  religion. 


SECT.       VIII. 

Jewijh  and  Heathen  teftimonies  for  the  authenticity  of  the 
Neiv  Tefiament. 

THE  Jewifh  and  Heathen  teftimonies  to  the  authen- 
ticity of  the  New  Tefhament  are  equally  impor- 
tant with  thofe,  which  have  been  lafl  mentioned,  and 
Lardner  has  made  a  very  large  colledion  of  them  in  a  ■ 
book  ^  written  for  that  purpofe.  Very  early  Heathen 
writers  can  be  produced,  who  confidered  it  as  a  work  of 
the  Apoftles  and  Evangelifts,  and  Chryfoftom  remarks 
very  juftly  in  his  fixth  Homily  to  the  firil  epiftle  to  the 
Corinthians',  that  Celius  and  Porphyry,  two  enemies  of 
the  Chriftian  religion,  are  powerful  witnefTes  for  the  an- 
tiquity of  the  New  Teftament,  fince  they  could  not  have 
argued  againft  the  tenets  of  the  Gofpel,  had  it  not  exifted 

in 

*  Laige  coUeftion  of  antient  Jewifh  and  Heathen  Teftimonies  to  the 
Truth  of  the  Chriftian  Religion,  1764.— 1767,  4.  Vol.  ^to. 
a  Tom.  X.  p.  47. 

C4 


40  Authenticity  of  the  New  Tejiament.     chap.  ii. 

in  that  early  period.     His  words  are  as  follows,  Uocvoi 

Jf  v.<m  01  xaS'  nixm  ii^ny.ori<;   mu   a^^xioTriTK  [xcc^tv^yktc/a  ruv 
(iiQXiuv    oi    TSiPi  KsAtroi/,   xxi   tov  BoiroiViUTnv   tov  [ait^  skuhov. 

I  will  not  appeal  to  the  evidence  of  Lucian  ^  fince, 
though  he  fpeaks  of  the  writings  of  the  Chriftians,  which 
the  Impoftor  Peregriniis  expounds  to  them,  he  mentions 
none  of  thefe  writings  by  name;  and fmce  the  Chriftians, 
with  whom  Lucian  was  acquainted,  made  a  diftindion 
between  clean  and  unclean  meats,  for  a  violation  of 
which  law  they  quitted  the  fociety  of  Peregrinus  %  and 
as  the  Nazarcnes  frequented  the  neighbourhood  of  Lu- 
cian's  refidence,  he  had  probably  heard  only  of  the  Old 
Teftament  and  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew, 
which  were  adopted  by  the  Nazarenes  ^,  as  the  only  rule 
of  faith.  But  it  is  worthy  of  remark  that  facred  writings 
of  the  Chriftians  were  known  to  an  heathen  author  To 
early  as  the  middle  of  the  fecond  century,  were  it  only 
the  Hebrew  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew. 

His  contemporary  Celfus,  who  wrote  againft  the  Chrif- 
tians in  the  latter  half  of  the  fecond  century,  not  only 
mentions  by  name,  but  quotes  paffages  from  the  books 
of  the  New  Teftament,  fo  that  it  is  certain  they  were 
the  fame  as  we  have  at  prefent.  But  inftead  of  fv/ell- 
ing  this  introduction  with  extracts  from  Celfus  ',  I  refer 
my  readers  to  the  valuable  works  of  La^dner^  The 
following  obfervation  however  deferves  attention.  Celfus 
reproaches  the  Chriftians  with  having  frequently  three  or 
four  different  readings  for  the  fime  text,  or,  as  he  ex- 
prefles  it,  that  they  had  altered  the  Gofpel  three  or  four 
different  times,  and,  when  prefled  by  their  adverfaries, 
recurred  to  that  reading,  which  beft  fuited  their  pur- 

pofc. 

b  Luciamis  de  morte  Peregrlni,  §  ii,  /.xt  luv  ^i^Xuv  t«?  (j.iv  s^Yiymo 
xcii  ^n3-a.(pit,  und  §  12,  EiTa  ^UTrtot,  -is-cixEAa  naiy.ofji.i^ero,  xoci  Xoyoi  lE^ot 
uvruv  sXayovTo,  but  tliis  laft  paflage  feems  rather  to  allude  to  the  words  of 
confecration  in  the  lacrament. 

c  §  i6.  d  Epiphanius,  Hasref.  xxix.  c.  7- 

,    e  Jevvifl)  and  Heathen  Ttftimonies,  Vol.  II.  Ch.  xviii.  CeSi.  3. 


SECT.  VIII.     Authenticity  of  the  New  Teji anient.  41 

pofe  *".  Origen  anfvvers  very  properly  that  he  knew  of  no 
alterations  except  fiich  as  were  made  by  the  Gnoftics, 
Marcionites,  Valentinians,  and  others,  who  dilTented 
from  the  eftablifhed  church  *.  In  this  cafe  the  queftion 
belongs  to  the  foregoing  fedion,  and  is  an  additional 
confirmation  from  the  mouth  of  an  adverfary  that  the 
Gnoftics  (for  to  thofe  only  is  applicable  what  Celfus  often 
fays  of  the  Chriftians)  acknowledged  the  books  of  the 
New  Teftament  to  have  been  written  by  the  Apoftles, 
which,  it  is  true,  they  altered  in  particular  texts,  that  it 
might  the  better  correfpond  with  their  own  tenets.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  is  polTible  that  the  alterations,  with 
which  Celfus  reproaches  the  Chriftians,  were  nothing 
elfe  than  various  readings,  fuch  for  inftance  as  Mark  i.  2. 
where  the  reading  in  feveral  manufcripts  is  iv  Wa-ona,  ra 
sr^oipJiTrj,  in  which  inftance  a  Chriftian  might  reply  to 
Celfus,  '  we  find  in  other  manufcripts  iv  roiq  upotpnTxi?,* 
From  this  hypothefis  it  follows  that  the  New  Teftament 
had  exifted  a  confiderable  time,  and  been  very  frequently 
tranfcribed,  fince  otherwife  three  or  four  different  read- 
ings would  hardly  have  been  found  to  the  fame  text. 

The  teftimony  of  Porphyry  is  ftill  more  important, 
than  that  of  Celfus.  He  lived  indeed  an  hundred  years 
later  than  the  laft  mentioned  evidence,  but  this  defi- 
ciency in  point  of  time  is  abundantly  fupplied  by  his  pro- 
found learning,  and  feverely  critical  examination  of  the 
facred  writings.  He  was  born  in  the  year  233,  of  Tyrian 
origin,  and  called  in  his  native  language  Malcho  ^ :  he 
is  alfo  ftyled  the  Batanean  from  Bafan  ^  the  country  of 

his 

f  Orlgenes  contra  Celfum,  Lib.  II.  c.  27.  See  alfo  Lardner's  Jewifli 
and  Heathen  Teftimonies,  Vol.  II.  p.  275. 

g  Not  Meleck,  as  Lardner  has  written  it  by  miftake,  which  is  Hebrew, 
not  Syriac  the  language  of  Porphyry.  It  were  better  to  retain  the  GfeeJc 
M«^xo?>  which  comes  much  nearer  to  the  original. 

J>  He  might  have  been  of  Tyrian  origin  though  born  in  the  country 
of  Bafan,  in  which  Tyrian  colonies  were  fettled.  It  is  generally  fup- 
pofed  that  Batanea  is  a  city,  and  the  opinion  is  grounded  on  a  paflagc 
in  Stephanus  de  Urbibus,  p.  156.  Bccraveai,  a-vvoima,  "Evfioci;,  but  I 
would  rather  tranflate  fl-f»o»x»«,  a  diftrift  containing  feveral  cities,   than 

uiiderfland 


42  Authenticity  of  the  New  Tejiament.     chap.  ii. 

his  birth.  Unfortunately  for  the  prefent  age,  the  mif- 
taken  zeal  of  the  Chriftian  Emperors  has  banilhcd  from 
the  world  a  fet  of  writings  ^  which  could  eflentially  ferve 
the  caufe  of  Chriftianity,  and  every  real  friend  of  our 
religion  would  gladly  give  the  works  of  a  pious  father  to 
refcue  thofe  of  Porphyry  from  the  flames  ^  His  objec- 
tions to  particular  pafTages  of  the  New  Teftament  have 
been  briefly  collefled  by  Mill  in  Iiis  Prolegomena*,  and 
more  at  length  by  Lardner  in  his  Jewifli  and  Heathen 
Teftimonies ",  who  remarks  that  even  in  the  few  frag- 
ments that  remain  there  is  mention  made  of  the  Gofpels 
of  St.  Matthew,  St.  Mark,  and  St.  John,  the  A6ls  of  the 
Apoftles,  and  the  epiftle  to  the  Galatians.  What  then 
might  we  not  conclude,  were  the  works  of  Porphyry 
entire,  efpecially  as  Jerom  fpeaks  of  numberlefs  paflages 
which  were  the  objefts  of  his  criticifm.  Now  it  appears 
from  the  very  objeflions  that  the  books,  to  which  Por- 
phyry alludes,  are  the  fame  which  we  pofTefs  at  prefent, 
and  that  it  never  occurred  to  him  to  deny  that  they  were 
written  by  the  Apoftles  and  Evangehfts,  whom,  as 
authors  of  thefe  writings,  he  pronounces  illiterate,  and 
unable  to  quote  properly  even  the  Old  Teftament' :  but 
to  St.  Paul  he  lays  a  charge  of  a  different  nature. 

It  is  univerfally  allowed  that  Porphyry  is  the  moft  fen- 
fible,  as  well  as  moft  fevere  adverfary  of  the  Chriftian 
religion,  that  antiquity  can  produce.  He  was  verfed  not 
only  in  political,  but  philofophical  hiftory,  as  appears 
from  his  Lives  of  the  philofophers :  and  we  are  indebted 

to 

wnderftand  it  of  a  fingle  town.  The  circuraftance  that  Bafan  was  the 
country  either  of  Porphyry's  birth,  or  refidence,  we  Ihall  find  of  im- 
portance. 

i  Sea.  702,  703  5.  "  Vol.  III.  Ch.  xxxvii.  fefl.  76. 

1  An  inftance  of  this  kind  is  the  objeftion  which  he  made  ^to  Matt. 
xiii.  35,  and  Mark  i.  27,  where  he  fays  the  Evangelifts  pretend  to  have 
quoted  Ifaiah,  when  in  fa£l  they  have  quoted  Afaph  or  Malachi.  Now 
it  is  worthy  of  remark  in  our  prefent  inquiry,  that  Porphyry  lays  this 
charge  to  the  Evangelifts,  as  it  is  improbable  that  he  would  have  been 
guilty  himfelf  of  the  fault  which  he  afcribes  to  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark, 
and  quote  from  their  writings,  unlefs  he  had  believed  them  to  be  the 
authors. 


SECT.  vni.     Authenticity  of  the  Nezv  Tefiament.  43 

to  him  for  fome  of  the  beft  hiftorical  accounts  for  ex- 
plaining the  prophecies  of  Daniel,  as  may  be  gathered 
f«om  the  extrafls,  which  are  preferved  in  the  commen- 
tary of  Jerom  upon  that  fubjed: :  the  explanations  of 
Porphyry  are  for  the  mod  part  fuperior  to  thofe  of  the 
learned  father;  his  accurate  and  extenfive  knowledge  of 
hiftory  enabled  him  to  apply  thofe  paflages  to  Antiochus 
Epiphanes,  where  Jerom  could  difcover  nothing  but  an 
account  of  Antichrifl ;  and  if  the  twelfth  book  of  the 
writings  of  Porphyry  were  now  remaining,  we  fhould 
probably  find  it  to  be  the  beft  commentary  on  the  book 
of  Daniel.  His  acquaintance  with  the  Chriftians  was  not 
confined  to  a  fingle  country,  but  he  had  converfed  with 
them  in  Tyre,  in  Sicily,  and  in  Rome  :  his  refidence  in 
Bafan  afforded  him  the  beft  opportunity  of  a  ftrid  inter- 
courfe  with  the  Nazarenes,  who  adopted  only  the  Hebrew 
Gofpei  of  St.  Matthew  3  and  his  thirft  for  philofophical 
inquiry  muft  have  induced  him  to  examine  the  caufe  of 
their  reje6ling  the  other  writings  of  the  NewTeftament, 
whether  it  was  that  they  confidered  them  as  fpurious,  or 
that,  like  the  Ebionites,  they  regarded  them  as  a  genuine 
work  of  the  Apoftles,  though  not  divinely  infpired.  En- 
abled by  his  birth  to  ftudy  the  Syriac,  as  well  as  the  Greek 
authors,  he  was  of  all  the  adverfaries  to  the  Chriftian  re- 
ligion the  beft  qualified  for  inquiring  into  the  authenticity 
of  the  facred  writings.  He  pofTefTed  therefore  every  ad- 
vantage which  natural  abilities,  or  political  fituation 
could  afford,  to  difcover  whether  the  New  Teftament 
was  a  genuine  v/ork  of  the  Apoftles  and  Evangelifts,  or 
whether  it  was  impofed  upon  the  world  after  the  deceafe 
of  its  pretended  authors.  But  no  trace  of  this  fufpicion 
is  any  where  to  be  found,  nor  did  it  ever  occur  to  Por- 
phyry to  fuppofe  that  it  was  fpurious. 

The  prophecy  of  Daniel  he  made  no  fcruple  to  pro- 
nounce a  forgery,  and  written  after  the  time  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes:  his  critical  penetration  enabled  him  to  dif- 
cover the  perfeft  coincidence  between  the  prediclions 
and  the  events,  and  denying  divine  infpiration  he  found 
no  other  means  of  folving  the  problem.     In  fupport  of 

this 


44  Authenticity  of  the  New  Tejiament.      chap.  ir. 

this  hypothefis  he  ufes  an  argument  which  is  an  equal 
proof  of  his  learning  and  fagacity,  though  his  objedlion 
does  not  affect  the  authority  of  the  prophet;  viz.  from  a 
Greek  Paronomafia  which  he  difcovered  in  the  hiftory 
of  Daniel  and  Sufanna"",  he  concludes  the  book  to  have 
been  written  originally  in  Greek,  and  afterwards  tranf- 
lated  into  Hebrew  ^  Is  it  credible  then  that  fo  faga- 
cious  an  inquirer  could  have  failed  to  have  difcovered  a 
forgery  with  refped  to  the  New  Teftament,  had  a  for- 
gery exifted  :  a  difcovery  which  would  have  given  him 
the  completeft  triumph  by  ftriking  at  once  a  mortal  blow 
on  the  religion,  which  he  attempted  to  deftroy  ? 

To  the  evidence  of  Porphyry  might  be  added  that  of 
the  Emperor  Julian,  but  as  he  lived  an  hundred  years 
later,  and  was  alfo  inferior  to  Porphyry  in  his  critical 
inquiries,  I  fhall  make  no  further  obfervations  upon  this 
fubject,  but  refer  my  readers  to  the  works  of  Lardner", 


SECT.       IX. 

Antient  Verfions. 


ANOTHER  important  evidence  for  the  antiquity 
of  the  New  Teftament  are  the  antient  verfions,  of 
which  fome  were  made  fo  early  as  the  firft  century,  viz. 
a  Syriac,  and  feveral  Latin  verfions,  which  latter  abound- 
ing in  Hebraifms  and  Syriafms  even  in  a  greater  degree, 
than  the  original  were  manifeftly  made  by  native  Jews, 
and  therefore  produftions  of  the  firft  century.  Thefe 
verfions  I  barely  mention  at  prefent,  as  I  fhall  examine 
them  more  fully  in  their  proper  place.  A  book  there- 
fore fo  early  and  fo  univerfally  read  throughout  the  Eaft 
in  the  Syriac,  and  throughout  Europe  and  Africa  in  the 
Latin  tranflation,  muft  be  able  to  lay  claim  to  a  high 
antiquity.     To  the  ftrange  and  trivial  hypothefis  that  the 

New 

m  v.  54,   55,  between  cr%ivo>  and  (rynan-     V.  58,  59,  between  'ssfWQt 
and  ^paai.     See  the  Orient.  Bibl.  Vol.  IV.  p.  16  and  24  9. 
n  Jewifli  and  Heathen  Teftimonies,  Ch.  xlvi,  Seft.  4  '*. 


SECT.  X.      Authenticity  of  the  New  Tefiament.  45 

New  Tefiament  was  forged  in  the  fifth  century  after  the 
conquefl  of  Italy  by  the  Goths,  the  Gothic  Verfion  of 
Ulphilas  which  was  made  in  the  preceding  century  may 
ferve  for  a  fufHcicnt  anfwer :  but  it  would  be  a  wade 
of  time  to  dwell  any  longer  in  refuting  fuch  trifling 
objedlions. 


SECT.       X. 


Internal  Evidence  \  and  fir  ft  that  derived  from  the  ftyle  of 
the  New  Teftament. 

THE  firfl  and  principal  of  the  internal  marks  of  au- 
thenticity is  the  language  of  the  New  Tefiament, 
which  is  written  in  a  flyle  that  mufl  be  flriking  not 
only  to  every  man  accuftomed  to  the  Greek  of  the  clafTic 
authors,  but  even  to  thofe  who  are  acquainted  only  with 
the  writings  of  the  fathers.  It  is  principally  diflinguifhed 
by  the  Hebraifms  and  Syriafms,  with  which  thefe  writ- 
ings abound,  a  circumflance  too  often  confidered  as  a 
fault,  which  pious  ignorance  even  fo  late  as  the  prefent 
century  has  attempted  to  wipe  away :  not  knowing  that 
thefe  very  deviations  from  Grecian  purity  afford  the 
flrongefl  prefumption  in  its  favour.  They  fhew  it  to 
have  been  written  by  men  of  Hebrew  origin,  a  produ6lion 
therefore  of  the  firfl  century,  fmce  after  the  deceafe  of 
the  Jewifh  converts  to  Chriflianity  we  find  hardly  any 
inflance  of  Jews  who  turned  preachers  of  the  Gofpel ; 
and  the  Chriflian  fathers  were  for  the  mofl  part  totally 
ignorant  of  Hebrew.  This  diflinguifhing  mark  is  to  be 
found  in  all  the  books  of  the  New  Tefiament,  though  in 
different  degrees,  even  in  the  epiflles  of  St.  Paul,  and 
the  A6ls  of  the  Apoflles,  though  the  former  fufiiciently 
evince  that  the  author  was  mafler  of  the  Greek,  and  the 
latter  contains  various  examples  not  only  of  pure  but  ele- 
gant language.  Nor  have  thefe  idioms  the  appearance  of 
art  and  defign,  being  exa6lly  fuch  as  might  be  expecled 
from  perfons,  who  ufed  a  language  fpoken  indeed  where 
they  livedj  but  not  the  dialed  of  their  country.     And  if 

the 


46  Authentidty  of  the  New  Tejiament,     chap,  ir, 

the  New  Teflament  were  a  forgery  of  the  fecond  or  third 
century,  its  author,  the  better  to  difguife  his  impofture, 
muft  have  ftudied  to  imitate  the  ftyle  of  writing,  which 
might  have  been  expeded  from  the  Apoftles ;  a  fuppo- 
fition  totally  incredible.  For  the  lower  order  of  Chriftians 
v/as  too  deficient  in  criticifm  to  perceive  thefe  various 
fhades,  and  too  wanting  in  tafte  to  execute  the  under- 
taking with  fuccefs,  while  the  learned  fathers  of  the  fecond 
and  two  following  centuries  exercifed  their  talents  in 
fearching  into  the  authenticity  of  the  writings  already 
received  :  and  had  the  fathers  of  thofe  ages  been  inclined 
to  impofe,  they  were  moftly  devoid  of  the  means,  fince 
thofe,  who  are  ignorant  of  Hebrew  and  Syriac,  would 
hardly  introduce  Hebraifms  and  Syriafms  into  their  writ- 
ings. The  Nazarenes  on  the  contrary,  who  underftood 
Hebrew,  accepted  only  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew,  and 
muft  therefore  remain  innocent  of  the  charge  of  having 
forged  the  reft  of  the  facred  writings.  The  difficulty  of 
imitating  the  oriental  ftyle  is  felt  only  by  thofe,  who  are 
converfant  with  the  eaftern  writers,  and  the  modern  no- 
vels, written  even  by  men  of  tafte  and  genius  under  the 
title  of  Oriental  Tales,  are  as  diftant  from  the  Aftatic 
mode  of  v/riting,  as  they  deviate  from  the  European. 
And  yet  if  the  New  Teftament  be  a  forgery,  the  Chrif- 
tians  of  the  fecond  and  third  century  muft  be  fuppofed 
capable  of  an  imitation,  which  cannot  be  diftinguifhed 
from  an  original.  On  the  contrary,  the  language  of  the 
early  fathers,  though  not  always  the  pureft  clalTic  Greek, 
has  no  refemblance  to  that  of  the  New  Teftament,  not 
excepting  the  works  of  the  few  who  had  a  knowledge 
of  the  Hebrew,  Origenes,  Epiphanius  or  Juftin  Martyr, 
from  whom  as  a  native  of  Paleftine  it  might  with  fomc 
reafon  be  expeded. 

Should  any  one  reply  that  the  fame  Hebraic  mode 
of  writing,  which  I  have  ufed  as  an  argument  in  favour 
of  the  New  Teftament,  is  found  likewife  in  a  very  high 
degree  in  the  book  of  Revelation,  of  which  it  is  doubted, 
and  that  with  juftice,  whether  it  were  written  by  St.  John, 
and  alfo  in  ieveral  apocryphal  books,  which  we  have 

long 


SECT.  X.      Authenticity  of  the  New  Teftament.  47 

long  rejedled  from  the  facred  canon,  I  would  give  the 
following  explanation.  It  cannot  be  concluded  from 
thefe  premifcs  alone  that  the  facred  books  of  the  New 
Teftament  were  written  by  thofe  particular  perfons  to 
whom  they  are  afcribed,  but  only  that  they  were  com- 
pofed  either  by  native  J  ews,  or  by  perfons  who  by  con- 
tinual intcrcourfe  with  that  nation  had  infenfibly  adopted 
the  Jcwifh  ftyle.  It  follows  therefore  from  what  has 
been  faid  above  that  they  were  written  before  the  year 
120,  a  conclufion  fufficient  to  anfwer  our  prefent  purpofe 
when  applied  to  the  books  of  undoubted  authority ". 

But  fimilar  as  thefe  wridngs  are  to  each  other  in  ori- 
ental idioms,  they  are  equally  diftinft  and  charadleriftic 
in  the  particular  ftyle  of  their  refpedive  authors.  They 
cannot  then  have  proceeded  from  the  hands  of  a  fmgle^ 
impoftor,  and  the  fuppofition  of  their  being  arj  accidental 
colledion  of  fpurious  writings  from  different  authors  is 
attended  nearly  with  the  fame  difficulties,  as  the  former 
hypothefis.  Whoever  reads  with  attention  the  thirteen 
epiftles  of  St.  Paul  (for  at  prefent  I  do  not  include  the 
epiftle  to  the  Hebrews)  muft;  be  convinced  that  they 
were  all  written  by  the  fame  author,  who  has  fo  many 
diftinguifhing  marks  that  he  is  not  eafy  to  be  miftaken  '. 
On  all  thefe  thirteen  epiftles  is  impreffed  the  chara6ter 
of  a  man  well  verfed  in  the  Grdek  language,  and  pof- 
feflcd  of  general  erudition,  who  could  ufe  the  fineft  and 
even  fevereft  irony,  without  rejeding  the  rules  of  de- 
cency, but  who  in  confequence  of  his  Jewifti  original, 
and  his  indifference  with  refpedl  to  ftyle,  abounded  in 
Hebraifms  and  Syriafms,  and  fometimes  borrowed  from 
the  place  of  his  birth  even  the  provincial  expreffions  of 
Cilicia.  An  equal  degree  of  fimilarity  is  to  be  found  be- 
tween the  Gofpel  and  Epiftle  of  St.  John  i  and  the  only 
compofitions  of  the  fame  author  which,  notwithftanding 
their  general  refemblance,  betray  a  difference  of  ftyle,  are 
the  Gofpel  of  St.  Luke  and  the  A6ls  of  the  Apoftles;  his 
Gofpel  abounding  with  harfti  and  uncouth  Hebraifms^ 
while  the  Ads  of  the  Apoftles,  though  not  free  from 

Hebraifms, 


48  Authenticity  of  the  New  Teftament.     chap.  rr. 

Hebraifms,  are  written  in  a  language  that  approaches 
nearer  to  purity  and  claflical  correftnefs.  The  reafon 
of  this  difference  will  be  explained  at  large  in  the  fecond 
part. 

The  writings  of  St.  John  and  St.  Paul*  difcover  marks 
of  an  original  genius,  that  no  imitation  can  ever  attain, 
which  always  betrays  itfelf  by  the  very  labour  exerted  to 
cover  the  deception  ;  and  if  we  confider  attentively  the 
various  qualities  that  compofe  the  extraordinary  charadler 
of  the  latter  Apoftle,  we  fhall  find  it  to  be  fuch,  as  no 
art  could  ever  imitate.  His  mind  overflows  with  fenti- 
ment,  yet  he  never  lofes  fight  of  his  principal  objedt, 
but  hurried  on  by  the  rapidity  of  thought  difclofes  fre- 
quently in  the  middle  a  conclufion  to  be  made  only  at 
the  end.  To  a  profound  knowledge  of  the  Old  Tefl:a- 
ment  he  joins  the  acutenefs  of  philofophical  wifdom, 
which  he  difplays  in  applying  and  expounding  the  facred 
wridngs  ;  and  his  explanations  are  therefore  fometimes  fo 
new  and  unexpefted,  that  fuperficial  obfervers  might  be 
tempted  to  fuppofe  them  erroneous.  The  fire  of  his 
genius,  and  his  inattention  to  ftyle,  occafion  frequently 
a  twofold  obfcurity,  he  being  often  too  concife  to  be 
underftood  except  by  thofe  to  whom  he  immediately 
wrote,  and  not  feldom  on  the  other  hand  fo  full  of  his 
fubjeft,  as  to  produce  long  and  difficult  parenthefes,  and 
a  repetition  of  the  fame  word  even  in  different  fenfes. 
With  a  talent  for  irony  and  fatire  he  unites  the  moft 
refined  fenfibility,  and  tempers  the  feverity  of  his  cen- 
fures  by  expreffionsof  tendernefs  and  affedlion  ;  nor  does 
he  ever  forget  in  the  vehemence  of  his  zeal  the  rules  of 
modefty  and  decorum.  He  is  a  writer  in  fliort  of  fo  fin- 
gular  and  wonderful  a  compofidon,  that  it  would  be  dif- 
ficult to  find  a  rival.  That  truly  fenfible  and  fagacious 
philofopher  Locke  was  of  the  fame  opinion,  and  con- 
tended that  St.  Paul  was  without  an  equal  \ 


SECT. 


SECT.  XI.     Authenticity  of  the  Nezv  Tefiament.  45 

SECT.       XL 

Coincidence  of  the  accounts  delivered  in  the  New  Teftament 
with  the  hiftory  of  thoje  times  \ 

WHOEVER  undertakes  to  forge  a  fet  of  writings 
and  afcribe  them  to  perfons  who  lived  in  a  for- 
mer period,  expofes  himfelf  to  the  iitmoft  danger  of  a 
difcordancy  with  the  hiftory  and  manners  of  the  age,  to 
which  his  accounts  are  referred  ;  and  this  danger  in- 
creafes  in  proportion,  as  they  relate  to  points  not  men- 
tioned in  general  hiftory,  but  to  fuch  as  belong  only  to 
a  fingle  city,  "i^di^  religion,  or  fchool.  And  of  all  books, 
that  ever  were  written  there  is  none,  if  the  New  Tefta- 
ment is  a  forgery,  fo  liable  to  deteftion  :  the  fcene  of 
a6lion  is  not  confined  to  a  fingle  country,  but  difplayed 
in  the  greateft  cities  of  the  Roman  Empire ;  allufions 
are  made  to  the  various  manners  and  principles  of  the 
Greeks,  the  Romans,  and  the  Jews,  which  are  carried 
fo  far  with  refpefl  to  this  laft  nation,  as  to  extend  even 
to  the  triftes  and  follies  of  their  fchools.  A  Greek  or 
Roman  Chriftian,  v/ho  lived  in  the  fecond  or  third  cen- 
tury, though  as  well  verfed  in  the  writings  of  the  antients 
as  Euftathius  or  Afconius,  would  have  been  ftill  wanting 
in  Jewlih  literature  -,  and  a  Jewifti  convert  in  thofe  ages, 
even  the  moft  learned  Rabbi,  would  have  been  equally 
deficient  in  the  knov/iedge  of  Greece  and  Rome.  If 
then  the  New  Teftament,  thus  expofed  to  detection, 
had  it  been  an  impofture,  is  found  after  the  fevereft  re- 
fearches,  to  harmonize  with  the  hiftory,  the  manners, 
and  the  opinions  of  the  firft  century,  and  fince  the  more 
minutely  we  inquire,  the  more  perfect  we  find  the  coin- 
cidence, we  muft  conclude  that  it  was  beyond  the  reach 
of  human  abilides  to  effeftuate  fo  wonderful  a  deception. 
I  ftiall  not  enter  into  a  particular  detail  of  the  many 
examples  that  may  be  produced,  as  the  taflc  has  been 
fo  ably  executed  by  Lardner^,  but  ftiall  confine  myfelf 
to  a  few  particular  remarks. 

That 

P  In  the  Fiift  Part  of  his  Credibility  of  the  Gofpel  Hiftory. 

D 


50  Authenticity  of  the  New  Teftament.     chap.  ir. 

That  learned  writer  has  employed  much  diligence  and 
erudition  in  anfwering  an  objeAion  to  St.  Matthew's  re- 
lation of  the  mafilicrc  in  Bethlehem  drawn  from  the 
filence  of  Jcfephus  upon  that  fubjedl  *.  His  anfwer  is  in 
my  opinion  fatisfaflory,  and  the  objection  will  be  ftill 
diminiflied  if  we  take  into  confideration  the  fize  of  the 
town,  which  was  fmall  and  infignificant.  Admitting  the 
inhabitants  to  amount  to  a  thoufand,  the  number  of 
males  born  yearly  would  be  between  ten  and  twenty, 
and  fince  thofe  only  were  murdered  who  were  two  years 
old  and  under,  it  is  not  probable,  allowing  for  natural 
deaths  in  that  period,  that  more  than  twenty  children 
fuffered  on  that  occafion.  It  was  fufficient  for  this  pur- 
pofe  to  employ  private  affaflins,  and  there  was  no  necef- 
lity  for  iflliing  a  public  order.  Jofcphus  then  might  be 
cither  ignorant  of  the  faft,  or  think  it  too  infignificant  to 
relate,  when  compared  with  the  greater  cruelties  of  He- 
rod in  Jerufalem.  But  were  the  objeftion  unanfwerable, 
it  would  afFecl  not  the  New  Teftament  in  general,  but 
merely  the  two  firft  chapters  of  St.  Matthew,  which  may 
be  feparated  from  the  reft  of  the  Gofpel,  becaufe  it  is 
ftill  a  queftion  whether  they  belong  to  ic  or  not '. 

When  obfcure  paflages,  which  have  perplexed  the 
moft  learned  of  the  commentators,  can  at  once  be  ex- 
plained by  a  more  minute  knowledge  of  the  fpecial  hif- 
tory  of  the  times,  it  affords  fufficient  proof  that  the  New 
Teftament  is  not  an  invention  of  later  ages.  Of  this  the 
following  may  fcrvc  as  examples. 

We  read  in  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Luke  "^  the  anfwer  of 
John  the  Baptift  to  the  foldiers,  who  demanded  of  him, 
laying,  What  fhall  we  do  ?  a  queftion  of  importance  in 
the  Chriftian  miorality,  whether  the  life  of  a  foldier  be 
agreeable  to  the  precepts  of  the  Gofpel.  But  v^at  has 
hitherto  occafioned  fo  much  difficulty  is,  who  thcfe  fol- 
diers were.  Some  of  the  commentators  have  explained 
them  by  the  guards  of  the  temple,  others  by  Roman 
foldiers,  who  would  not  probably  have  frequented  the 
baptifm  of  St.  John,  though  Gnnius  goes  fo  far  as  to 
determine  their  particular  deftination,  laying  they  were 

fuch 

«  Ch.  ii.  I4« 


SECT.  XI.     Authenticity  of  the  Neiv  Teftament.  51 

fuch  as  rpent  their  lives  in  garrifon,  and  never  took  the 
field  but  on  the  greateft  emergency.  Now  it  happens 
that  the  exprcffion  ufed  by  St.  Luke  is  not  foldiers 
(rfiKTJWTai)  but  the  participle  r^aTfusiafi/oi,  i.  e.  men  under 
arms,  or  men  going  to  battle.  Whence  thefe  perfons 
came,  and  on  what  particular  account,  may  be  found  at 
large  in  the  hiltory  ofjofephus'.  Herod  the  tetrarch  of 
Galilee  was  engaged  in  a  war  with  his  father-in-law  Are- 
tas,  a  petty  king  in  Arabia  Petrsa,  at  the  very  time  in 
which  John  was  preaching  in  the  wildernefs.  Mach^- 
rus,  a  fortrcfs  fituated  on  an  hill  not  far  from  the  eaftern 
fliore  of  the  dead  fea,  on  the  confines  of  the  two  coun- 
tries, was  the  place  in  which  John  was  imprifoned  and 
afterwards  beheaded.  The  army  of  Herod  then  in  its 
march  from  Galilfea  pafled  through  the  country,  in  which 
John  baptized,  which  fufficiently  explains  the  doubt, 
who  the  foldiers  were,  that  propofed  to  him  the  above 
queftion.  So  minute  a  coincidence  in  a  circumftance 
overlooked  by  Grotius,  and  the  reft  of  the  commenta- 
tors, would  be  hardly  difcovered  in  a  forgery  of  later  ages. 

Another  inftance  is  to  be  found  in  the  account  of 
St.  Paul's  appearance  before  the  council  in  Jerufalem, 
and  his  anfwer  to  Ananias'.  Here  again  the  learned 
have  met  with  confiderable  difficulties. 

I.  Who  this  Ananias  was  ?  a  queftion  which  Krebs 
has  explained  in  his  remarks  taken  from  Jofephus*, 
having  Ihewn  him  to  be  the  fon  of  Nebedeni. 

1.  How  it  can  be  reconciled  with  Chronology  that 
Ananias  was  called  at  that  time  High  Prieft,  when  it  is 
certain  from  Jofephus,  that  the  time  of  his  holding  that 
office  was  much  earlier. 

3.  How  it  comes  to  pafs  that  St.  Paul  fays,  "  I  wift 
not,  brethren,  that  he  was  the  High  Prieft:"  fince  the 
external  marks  of  office  muft  have  determined  whether 
he  were  or  not ;  a  jeft  would  have  ill  fuited  the  gravity 
of  a  tribunal,  and  a  falfehood  ftill  lefs  the  charader  of 
St,  Pauh 

On 

»  Antlq.  Lib.  XVIII.  c.  v.  fed.  i,  «.  a  Ads  xxiii.  2—5. 

D    2 


52  Authtnticity  of  the  New  Tejlament.     chap.  ir. 

On  all  thefe  obfcurities  is  thrown  the  fiilleft  light,  as 
jfoon  as  wir  examine  the  fpecial  hiilory  of  that  period,  a 
light  which  is  not  confined  to  the  prefent,  but  extends 
itJclf  to  the  following  chapters,  infomuch  that  it  cannot 
be  doubted  that  this  book  was  written,  not  after  the  de- 
ftruflion  of  Jerufalem,  but  by  a  perfon  who  was  con- 
temporary to  the  events,  which  are  there  related. 

Ananias  the  fon  of  Ncbedeni  was  High  Priefl  at  the 
time,  that  Helena  queen  of  Adiabene  fupplied  the  Jews 
with  corn  from  Egypt*,  during  the  famine  which  took 
place  in  the  fourth  year  of  Claudius,  mentioned  in  the 
eleventh  chapter  of  the  A6ls.  St.  Paul  therefore,  who 
took  a  journey  to  Jerufalem  at  that  period  ",  could  not 
have  been  ignorant  of  the  elevation  of  Ananias  to  that 
dignity.  Soon  after  the  holding  of  the  firft  council,  as 
it  is  called,  at  Jerufalem,  Ananias  was  difpoflciTed  of  his 
office,  in  confequence  of  certain  a6ts  of  violence  between 
the  Samaritans  and  the  Jews,  and  fent  prifoner  to  Rome  *, 
whence  he  was  afterwards  releafed  and  returned  to  Jeru- 
falem. Now  from  that  period  he  could  not  be  called 
High  Prieft  in  the  proper  fenfe  of  the  word,  though  Jo- 
fephus*  has  fometimes  given  him  the  title  of  a^y^n^ixx; 
taken  in  the  more  extenfive  meaning  of  a  Prieft,  who 
had  a  feat  and  voice  in  the  Sanhedrim  ^j  and  Jonathan, 

though. 

t  Jofephi  Antiquit,  Lib.  XX.  c.  v.  feft.  2.  ^  Afts  xv. 

w  Jofephi  Antiquit.  Lib.  XX.  c.  vi.  feft.  2. 

X  Antiquit.  Lib.  XX,  c.  ix.  feft.  2.     Bell.  Jud.  Lib.  II.  c.  xvii.  feft.  9. 

y  AeviEPEK  in  the  pi.  number  is  frequently  ufed  in  the  N.  T-  when 
allufion  is  made  to  the  Sanhedrim,  which  was  divided  into  the  following 
clafll-s.  I.  Ap%tEf£i?,  High  Priefts,  2.  U^iaQvn^tn,  Elders,  or  Heads  of 
families,  who  had  a  voice  in  the  Sanhedrim.  3.  r^a^/xaTti;,  or  Afieflbrs  on 
the  Bench  of  the  Learned.  Jolephus  likewife,  in  the  laft  period  of  the  Jewl/h 
ftate,  ules  u^ei?  and  ag%»E^sK  in  oppofition  to  each  other  (Antiquit.  Lib.  XX. 

C.  vlii.   f.  8.)    c|a7rT£Ta»    y.cn  tuk;   a.^y^n^iva-1    ra»"K    'G''§o?   t«?   (£^eK> 

Toa-xvTn  ^i  ra?  a^p^jE^sa;  y.xri\a.Ziv  ctvcu^t^ct  y.ai  rcXfji.01,,  u^e  y.cn  izrEf/twEfsf 

S^ixaraj.    And  again,  c.  ix.  f»  2.    It  is  to  be  lamented  that  he  no  where 
V  precifely 


SECT.  XI.     Authenticity  of  the  New  Tejlament.  53 

though  we  are  not  acquainted  with  the  circumftances  of 
his  elevadon,  had  been  railed  in  the  mean  time  to  the 
fupreme  dignity  in  the  Jewifh  Church.  Between  the 
death  of  Jonathan,  who  was  murdered  "^  by  order  of  Fe- 
lix, and  the  High  Priefthood  of  Ifuiael,  who  was  invefted 
with  that  o.lirc  by  Agnppa%  elapfed  an  interval,  in  which 
this  dignity  continued  vacant.  Now  it  happened  pre- 
cifely  in  this  interval  that  St.  Paul  was  apprehended  in 
Jerufalem:  and,  the  Sanhedrim  being  deftitute  of  a  Pre- 
fident,  he  undertook  of  his  own  authority  the  difcharge 
of  that  ofHce,  which  he  executed  with  the  greateft  ty- 
ranny ^  It  is  poli^.ble  therefore  that  St.  Paul,  who  had 
been  only  a  few  days  in  Jerufalem,  might  be  ignorant  that 
Ananias,  who  had  been  difpoflcired  of  the  Priefthood, 
had  taken  upon  himfelf  a  truft  to  which  he  was  not  en- 
titled ;  he  might  therefore  very  naturally  exclaim,  "  I 
wift  not,  brethren,  that  he  was  the  High  Pried  !"  Ad- 
mitting him  on  the  other  hand  to  have  been  acquainted 
with  the  fafl,  the  exprcfTion  muft  be  confidcred  as  an 
indired  reproof,  and  a  tacit  refufal  to  recognize  ufurped 
authority. 

A  pafTage  then,  which  has  hitherto  been  involved  in 
obfcurity,  is  brought  by  this  relation  into  the  clearcft 
light  i  and  the  whole  hiftory  of  St.  Paul's  imprifonmenc, 
the  confpiracy  of  the  fifty  Jews  "  with  the  confent  of  the 
Sanhedrim,  their  petition  to  Feftus  to  fend  him  from 
Casfarea  with  an  intent  to  murder  him  on  the  road  ^^  are 
fafts  which  correfpond  to  the  chara6ler  of  the  times  as 
defcribed  by  Jofephus,  who  mentions  the  principal  per- 

fons 

preclfely  determines  the  meaning  of  a.^x\toi\4.,  but  It  appears  from  varjows 
paflTages  of  the  N.  T.  that  it  muft  have  of  e  of  the  following  fenfes — either 
all  thofe  priefts  who  had  a  feat  in  the  Sanhedrim,  or  the  heads  of  the 
twenty-four  clafTes  into  which  the  order  of  priefts  was  divided,  or  fuch  as 
had  formerly  dilchargcvl  the  office  of  High  Prieft,  and  aiter  quitting  that 
charge  retained  a  feat  in  the  Sanhedrim  5. 

X  Jof.  Ant.  L.  XX.  c.  viii.  f.  5.  »  Ant.  Lib,  XX.  c.  vili.  f.  8» 

^  Ant,  L.  XX.  c.  ix,  f.  z.  c  Afls  xxiii.  xa — 15. 

<  A<Jls  XXV.  3. 

D   3 


54  Authenticity  of  the  New  Tefiament.     chap.  ii. 

fons. recorded  in  the  A61s,  and  paints  their  profligacy  in 
colours  even  ftronger  than  thofc  of  St.  Luke. 

Whoever  attentively  reads  the  New  Teftament  will 
continually  find  examples  of  this  nature.  And  it  is  fuf- 
ficient  in  anfwer  to  the  queftion,  '  Is  the  New  Tefiament 
antient  and  genuine  ?'  to  reply,  *  Compare  it  with  the 
hiftory  of  the  times,  and  you  cannot  doubt  of  its  au- 
thenticity^.' 


SECT.       XII. 

Ohje5iions  drawn  from  real  or  apparent  contradi^ions  be- 
tween the  accounts  of  profane  authors^  and  thoje  of  the 
New  Tefiament,  particularly  thofe  of  St.  Luke. 

IT  cannot  be  denied,  that  in  a  few  particular  fads  the 
writings  of  the  New  Teftament  difagree  either  really, 
or  apparently,  with  the  relations  which  have  been  given 
by  profane  hiftorians.  Of  all  the  facred  authors,  there  is 
no  one,  who  fo  frequently  Hands  expofed  to  this  charge 
as  St.  Luke,  who  in  all  other  refpedls  appears  to  the  mod 
advantage  when  put  in  competition  with  other  writers ; 
and  perhaps  I  am  not  miftakcn  when  I  affert,  that  as 
many  doubts  of  this  nature  may  be  raifed  againfl  St, 
Luke  alone,  as  againft  the  other  Apoftles  and  Evange-^ 
lifts  put  together. 

Thefe  hiftorical  obje(5tions  muft  be  divided  into  two 
feparate  clafles,  which  we  muft  take  care  not  to  con- 
found. 

1.  Such  as  would  demonftrate  a  book  not  to  have 
been  written  by  the  author,  to  whom  it  is  afcribed. 

2.  Such  as  would  prove  only  that  the  author  was  mif- 
taken,  and  therefore  not  divinely  infpired. 

The  former  kind  alone  belongs  properly  to  this  (tc- 
tion  J  but  as  it  may  appear  difficult  to  make  the  proper 
diftincflion,  and  examples  of  the  latter  fort,  if  too  nume- 
rous in  any  work,  would  depreciate  its  authority,  to  avoid 
recurring  hereafter  to  the  fame  fubjed,  I  will  give  in- 
ii^nces  of  both. 


SECT.  XII.     Authenticity  of  the  Neiv  Tejiament.  55 

To  the  firft  clafs  belongs  tlic  following,  which  is  al- 
moft  the  only  inftance  to  be  found.     St.  Paul  relates  in 
his  fecond  cpiftle  to  the  Corinthians*,  that  in  Damafcus 
the  governor  under  Aretas  the  king,  kept  the  city  of  the 
Damafcenes  with  a  garrifon,  defirous  to  apprehend  himj 
and  that  through  a  window  in  a  bafl^et  he  was  let  down 
by  the  wall,  and  efcapcd  his  hands.     The  queftion  which 
naturally  ai  ifes  is,  what  authority  could  a  governor  under 
Aretas,  a  petty  king  in  Arabia  Petrcea,  have  in  Damaf- 
cus, a  city  belonging  to  the  Romans  ?  We  read  neither 
in  the  works  of  Jofephus,  nor  in  thofe  of  any  other 
author,  that  Damafcus  was  ever  fubjecl  to  the  dominion 
of  Aretas;  and  to  judge  from  the  eighteenth  book  of  the 
Jewifh  ^Antiquities'",  which  correfponds  with  the  period 
of  St.  Paul's  journey  to  Damafcus,  the  city  mufl:  have  be- 
longed at  that  very  time  to  the  Romans,  fmce  Flaccus  is 
defcribed  as  judge  in  a  difpute  between  the  Damafcenes 
and  Sidonians  relating  to  the  boundary  of  the  two  dif- 
trids.     And  what  increafes  the  difficulty  is  the  circum- 
ftance  that  the  governor,   who  might  be  fuppofed  an 
heathen,  was  fo  partial  to  the  Jews,  that  St.  Paul  was  ex- 
pofed  to  more  danger  than  in  Jerufalem  itfelf.     Now,  if 
this  defcripcion  of  the  circumftances  of  St.  Paul's  efcapc 
were  an  aflual  violation  of  hi-ftorical  truth,  it  would  prove 
not  only  that  the  epifde  was  not  divinely  infpired,  but 
that  the  Apoftle  was  not  the  author,  fmce  he  could  not 
have  been  ignorant,    during   his  Itay  at  Damafcus,  to 
whom  the  city  was  fubject,  and  whether  the  Governor 
was  an  heath  .^n  or  a  Jew. 

The  force  of  thefe  objedtions  has  been  confiderably 
weakened,  in  a  diiTcrtation  publilhed  in  1755,  ^^  ^^^' 
narca  Aretse  Arabum  regis  Paulo  infidiantc,  by  J.  G. 
Heyne,  who  has  fhewn  it  to  be  highly  probable,  firft, 
that  Aretas,  againil  whom  the  Romans  not  long  before 
the  deadi  of  Tiberius  made  a  declaration  of  war,  which 
they  negleded  to  put  in  execution,  took  the  opportunity 
of  feizing  Damafcus,  which  had  once  belonged  to  his 
anceftors  -,  an  event  omitted  in  Jofephus,  as  forming  no 

part 

e  Ch,  xi.  32.  f  Cap.  vi.  fea.  3. 

D    4 


^6  Authenticity  of  the  New  Tejlamoit.     chap.  n. 

part  of  the  Jewifli  Hiftory,  and  by  the  Roman  Hiflo- 
rians  as  being  a  matter  not  flattering  in  itfelf,  and  be- 
longing only  to  a  dillant  province;  fccondly,  that  Aretas 
was  by  religion  a  Jew,  a  circumftance  the  more  credible, 
when  we  reflect  that  Judaifm  had  been  widely  propagated 
in  that  country,  and  that  even  kings  in  Arabia  Felix  had 
recognized  the  law  of  Mofes.  The  difficulty  then  is  fo 
far  removed,  that  it  crafes  to  create  fufpicion  againft  an 
epiftle,  which  has  fo  many  evident  marks  of  authenticity  j 
and  it  is  only  to  be  regretted  that,  in  order  to  place  the 
fubjeft  in  the  cleared  point  of  view,  we  are  not  fuffici- 
ently  acquainted  with  the  particular  hiftory  of  Damafcus. 
I  can  produce,  however,  a  fragment  which  is  taken  from 
an  antient  tradition  prefcrved  in  the  TabuljE  Syrike  of 
Abulfeda^j  but  I  would  recommend  to  thofe  who  would 
criticife  on  this  matter,  to  read  the  Arabic  Original,  and 
not  the  Latin  Tranflation.  In  fpeaking  of  the  great 
mofque  at  Damafcus,  he  fays,  "  the  walls  exifted  from 
the  days  of  the  Sabii,  (i.  e.  Heathens)  whofe  houfe  of 
worfliip  (temple)  it  had  been.  Afterwards  it  belonged 
to  the  Jews,  and  after  that  again  to  idolaters.  About  this 
time  John,  the  fon  of  Zacharias,  (i.  e.  the  Bapdfl)  was 
put  to  death,  and  his  head  (luck  on  that  gate  of  the 
inofque  which  is  called  the  gate  Girun.  From  that  time 
the  Chriftians  had  it  in  poffelTion,  and  kept  it  till  the  be- 
ginning of  the  Muhammedan  religion."  It  appears  then 
that  this  houfe  of  worfl:iip,  which  was  originally  a  Hea- 
then temple,  was  in  the  hands  of  the  Jews  about  the 
time  of  John  the  Baptift,  and  that  it  afterwards  returned 
to  its  former  deftination.  Now  this  is  hardly  to  be  ex- 
plained on  any  other  than  the  following  hypothefis,  viz. 
that  Aretas,  who  was  a  contemporary  of  John  the  Baptift, 
made  a  conqueft  of  Damafcus,  and  being  himfelf  a  Jew, 
permitted  that  nation  to  convert  the  temple  into  a  fyna- 
gogue,  an  indulgence  hardly  to  be  expe6led  from  the 
Romans ;  and  that,  when  the  city  again  fubmitted  to  the 
arms  of  Rome,  the  temple  was  reftored  to  its  original 
poflefTors.  With  refpeft  to  the  head  of  John,  it  is  pro- 
bable that  this  part  of  the  account,  as  heard  by  Abulfeda, 

was 

«  jp.  15,  i6,  of  Koehler's  edition. 


SECT.  XII.     Authenticity  of  the  New  Tejlament.  57 

was  a  miftake,  and  that  the  antient  tradition  of  Damafcus 
had  been  disfigured  by  being  modelled  into  the  form  of 
Muhammcdan  manners.  It  is  true  that  John  was  be- 
headed at  that  period,  though  not  at  Damafcus  ;  but  the 
Jews  were  not  accuiLomed  to  adorn  their  fynagogues 
with  the  heads  of  the  executed.  Herod  on  the  other  hand 
would  have  avoided  a  meafure,  which  could  perpetuate 
the  memory  of  an  event  painful  to  himfelf  and  odious  to 
his  fubjefts,  and  Aretas  would  rather  have  canonizai 
than  have  expofed  to  public  fiiame  the  head  of  a  per^iT 
who  had  forfeited  his  life  for  cenfuring  the  marriage  of 
Herod  with  Herodias,  the  rival  and  enemy  of  Aretas*^ 
daughter.  If  that  part  of  the  tradition  be  true,  it  can 
mean  only  that  a  head  had  been  carved  in  ftone  over  the 
door  of  the  temple,  and  dedicated  to  John  the  Baptifl: 
during  the  time  that  the  city  was  fubjeft  to  Aretas,  for 
the  opinion  that  the  Jews  admitted  in  no  cafe  the  intro- 
duftion  of  images  is  ungrounded.  By  this  explanation 
then  the  paffage  in  the  epiflle  to  the  Corinthians  is 
not  only  freed  from  an  heavy  charge,  but  if  I  may  ufe 
the  exprefiion,  acquitted  with  honour.  And  hence  wc 
may  explain  the  reafon  why  the  Jews  were  permitted  to 
cxercife  in  Damafcus  perfecutions  ftill  feverer  than  thole 
in  Jerufalem,  where  the  violence  of  their  zeal  was  awed 
by  the  moderation  of  the  Roman  policy.  Of  this  we 
find  an  example  in  the  ninth  chapter  of  the  Ads,  where 
Paul  is  fent  by  the  High  Prieft  to  Damafcus  to  exercife 
againft  the  Chriftians,  cruelties  which  the  return  of  the 
Roman  governor  had  checked  in  Jud^a.  Thefe  ac- 
counts agree  likewife  with  what  is  related  in  Jofeplius, 
that  the  number  of  Jews  in  Damafcus  amounted  to  ten 
thoufand,  and  that  almoft  all  the  women  *",  even  thofe 
whofe  hulbands  were  heathens,  were  of  the  Jewifh  re- 


ligion '\ 


But 


h  The  eeremony  of  circumclfion  prevented  tbofe  of  the  male  fex  from 
becoming  converts  to  a  religion,  which  alone  was  agreeable  to  reafon, 
taught  the  doftrine  of  t'he  one  true  God. 

♦  Jofephus  de  Bello  Jud.  Lib.  II.  c.  xx.  f.  a. 


58  Authenticity  of  the  New  Tejlament.     chap,  ii. 

But  to  proceed  to  examples  of  the  fecond  kind.  Thefe 
are  fuch  as  would  fhew  a  writer  to  have  committed  a 
chronolop;ical  or  hiftorical  error,  and  therefore  that  he 
was  not  divinely  infpired,  but  afford  no  ground  to  con- 
clude that  he  was  not  the  author  of  the  wi-itings  which 
bear  his  name,  fince  miftakes  may  be  difcovered  in  the 
moft  accurate  hlflorian.  Could  it  be  proved,  for  in- 
ftance,  beyond  the  poffibility  of  a  doubt,  that  St.  Luke 
miftakcn  in  the  time  that  Qnirinius  held  the  taxation 
da?a,  or  that  Theudas  excited  a  fedition ;  were  it 
,n  that  he  had  wrongly  related  either  the  riot  of  the 
tian,  or  the  death '  of  John  the  Baptifl  -,  the  infe- 
rence indeed  might  be  deduced,  that  he  was  not  fo  ac- 
curate in  his  inquiries  as  he  had  promifed  in  the  preface 
to  his  Gofpel  -,  and  that  the  accounts,  which  he  gathered 
from  eye-witneiTes  to  the  feveral  fa61s,  were  either  falfely 
underftcod,  or  imperfcfcly  remembered :  but  fince  the 
name  determines  nothing  in  the  prefent  inftance,  and 
the  A6ls  of  the  Apoftles,  v/ith  the  Gofpel  afcribed  to  St. 
Luke,  muft  have  had  an  author,  there  is  no  ground 
whatfoever  for  denying  them  to  be  a  work  of  the  Evan- 
gclift,  and  afcribing  them  to  an  anonymous  writer. 

It  has  been  remarked  above,  that  the  chief  difficulties 
of  this  nature  are  to  be  found  in  St.  Luke,  who  was  not 
a  native  of  Paleftine,  but  having  accompanied  St.  Paul 
thither,  made  only  a  fhort  flay  in  Jcrufalem,  and  fpent 
the  greateft  part  of  his  time  in  Casfarea.  The  objection 
then  would  relate  only  to  the  writings  of  St.  Luke,  and 
not  to  thofe  of  the  Apoftles  Matthew,  John,  Paul,  and 
Peter.  St.  Luke  was  not  an  Apoftle,  and  I  muft  con- 
fefs,  that,  in  treating  this  fubjed  more  fully  in  the  fol- 
lowing chapter,  I  fhall  be  under  the  neccility  of  making 
a  diftinftion  between  the  infpiration  of  his  writings,  and 
thofe  of  the  above-named  Apoftles. 

But  even  admitting  fome  trifling  errors,  from  which 
no  human  being  is  exempt,  he  ceafes  not  to  be  a  moft 
valuable  hiftorian,  efpecially  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apoftles, 
where  he  fpeaks  either  as  eye-witnefs  himfelf,  or  in- 
ftruded  by  St.  Paul,  the  companion  of  his  journey.     It 

caiinot 


SECT.  XII.     Authenticity  of  the  New  Tejlament.  55 

cannot  be  denied,  on  the  other  hand,  that  this  hypothefis 
would  lower  the  degree  of  certainty  in  the  accounts  con- 
tained in  his  Gofpel  alone,  and  not  mentioned  by  the 
other  Evangelifts ;  and  would  in  fome  meafure  afFe6l  his 
beautiful  and  pathetic  relation  of  the  dying  malefador 
on  the  crofs,  a  relation  which  is  difficult  to  be  reconciled, 
without  violating  the  laws  of  criticifm,  with  that  of  St. 
Matthew  and  St.  Mark. 

But  impartiality  requires  that  we  fiiould  examine  this 
fubjeft  more  at  large,  and  inquire  who  are  the  writers 
that  contradict  him,  and  whether  the  difference  is  by 
no  explanation  to  be  removed.  The  principal  perfon  is 
Jofephus,  who  is  indeed  a  valuable  author,  but  whofe 
excellencies  by  no  means  exempt  him  from  the  danger 
of  error'']  and  I  could  produce  examples  not  only  of  his 
relating  the  fame  (lory  differently  in  different  places,  but 
even  where  he  is  equally  miftaken  in  each.  When  St. 
Luke,  then,  and  Jofephus  differ  in  their  accounts  of  the 
fame  fad,  the  queftion  is,  which  of  the  two  writers  has 
given  the  true  one  ?  And  here  it  is  not  a  little  extraordi- 
nary, that  without  further  inquiry  it  is  univerfally  deter- 
mined in  favour  of  the  latter,  as  if  Jofephus  were  in- 
fpired,  and  whoever  contradicted  him  muft  of  courfe  be 
miftaken.  This  is  a  method  of  proceeding  which  is 
applied  on  no  other  occafion ;  and  it  is  ufual,  when  we 
eilimate  the  refpedive  merits  of  two  hiftorians,  to  phce 
them  both  in  an  equal  balance,  that  the  fcaie  may  pre- 
ponderate in  flivour  of  the  moft  deferving.  And  among 
the  circumftances  which  tend  to  this  preponderance,  is 
furely  the  preference  <^v\t  to  an  hiflorian,  who  defcribes 
events  to  which  he  is  himfelf  contemporary,  above  him 
who  relates  from  hearfay  or  tradition,  or  to  an  author, 

who 

*  Tills  Is  not  the  place  for  pointing  out  the  miftakes  of  Jofephus,  but 
the  reader  may  find  many  examples  in  the  notes  whicli  I  have  fubjoined  to 
yny  tranflation  of  the  firft  book  of  the  Maccahees,  efpeciaily  p.  30—34., 
where  I  have  pointed  out  the  miftake  of  Jo  cphus  with  refpeft  to  the 
citadel  (A^i^a)  on  irount  Sion,  who  has  defciibed  it  as  litua  n  a  dif- 
ferent mountain,  to  which  Geographers,  leduced  by  his  authority,  have 
given  the  name  of  Acra  *, 


So  Authenticity  of  the  New  Tejlament.     chap.  it. 

who  makes  a  particular  lludy  of  that  fuigle  portion  of 
hiftory,  which  is  the  objeifl  of  inquiry,  and  is  perfonally 
acquainted  with  the  refpeftive  characters  which  are  in- 
troduced, above  an  author  who  writes  only  a-  general 
hiftory  of  a  nation  or  empire.  For  inftance,  if  I  wifhed 
to  be  minutely  informed  in  any  circutnftance  relating  to 
the  blockade  and  the  taking  of  Gottingen  by  the  French 
in  the  feven  years  war,  I  would  rather  have  recourfe  to 
an  author  who  had  written  a  particular  hiftory  of  that 
city,  than  to  one  who  had  written  a  hiftory  of  Germany 
at  large.  For  the  fame  reafon,  in  the  cafe  of  John  the 
Baptift's  imprifonment  and  death,  I  would  fooner  give 
credit  to  the  Evangelifts  than  Jofephus. 

The  difference  which  I  have  mentioned  between  a 
contemporary  and  a  later  hiftorian,  deferves  more  mi- 
nutely to  be  examined.  The  period  of  hiftory,  in  which 
we  are  moft  frequently  deficient,  is  that  whic'h  relates  to 
the  laft  twenty  or  thirty  years  before  our  birth,  and  the 
time  of  our  childhood  and  youth :  and  we  are  more  apt 
to  make  miftakes  in  matters  belonging  to  this  interval 
than  in  thofe  of  a  remoter  age.  The  reafon  is,  that  our 
hiftorical  works  ufually  ceafe  before  the  commencement 
of  that  period,  our  knowledge  therefore  of  the  former  part 
is  grounded  on  hearfay,  and  for  the  latter  part  we  are  too 
young  to  obferve  the  tranfa6lions  of  the  times.  In  the 
ages  of  antiquity  this  was  more  remarkably  the  cafe  than 
in  the  prefent  century,  in  v/hich  the  daily  papers  and  pe- 
riodical journals  may  fupply  the  place  of  more  regular 
annals ;  but  it  was  far  otherwife  in  the  days  of  Jofephus, 
who  had  no  predeceftbr  in  the  Jewifli  Hiftory,  from 
whom  he  could  derive  a  knowledge  of  the  times  that  im- 
mediately preceded  his  birth.  There  is  a  period  then  of 
forty  or  fifty  years,  in  which  even  with  the  moft  diligent 
inquiry,  he  was  more  expofed  to  error,  efpecially  in  the 
dates,  than  in  more  diftant  ages,  where  he  had  the  ad- 
vantage of  written  accounts.  This  period  is  eafy  to  be 
determined,  as  he  was  born  in  the  firft  year  of  Caligula, 
and  therefore  not  long  before  St.  Paul's  efcape  from  Da- 
mafcus';  it  commences  between  twenty  and  thirty  years 

before 

>  z  Cor.  xl,  32,  33. 


SECT.  XII.     Authenticity  cf  the  New  Tejiament.  6i 

before  his  birth,  and  continues  to  his  eighteenth  or  twen- 
tieth year,  before  which  time  he  was  hardly  capable  of 
colieding  materials  for  an  hiftory  ^  To  this  mull  be 
added,  that  he  fpent  three  years  in  the  defert  with  Banun, 
an  afcetic  enthufiaft,  whence  he  returned  in  his  one 
and  twentieth  year,  and  therefore  about  three  years  be- 
fore the  journey  of  St.  Paul  to  Jerufalem,  defcribed  in 
the  twenty-firfl:  and  twenty-fecond  chapters  of  the  Afts. 

To  apply  thefe  principles  to  one  of  the  moft  obvious 
contradi(flions  between  Jofephus  and  St.  Luke.  Ga- 
maliel"", in  a  fpeech  held  in  the  fame  year  in  which 
Chrift  was  crucified,  fpeaks  of  one  Theudas  who  had 
raifed  a  fedition  before  the  firft  taxation  of  the  Jews 
under  Quirinius " :  Jofephus  on  the  contrary  refers  the 
fedition  of  Theudas  to  the  government  of  Fadus  %  a 
period  eleven  years  later  than  the  time  in  which  Gama- 
liel made  his  fpeech ;  and  he  differs  fo  materially  from 
St.  Luke,  even  in  the  chief  circumflances,  as  to  give  it 
the  appearance  of  a  different  event.  The  Theudas  men- 
tioned in  the  A6ls  has  only  four  hundred  followers,  the 
Theudas  of  Jofephus  perfuades  a  very  confiderable  num- 
ber (rok  TjjXui-ov  o^Xov)  to  foUow  him  to  the  river  Jordan: 
the  former  is  mentioned  by  Gamaliel  as  an  iiiflance  in 
which  the  moderation  of  government  had,  without  the 
intervention  of  arms,  permitted  a  fedition  to  die  away  of 
itfelf ;  of  the  latter  Jofephus  fays  that  '  Fadus  left  not 
Theudas  and  his  party  in  quiet  poffeffion  of  their  fana- 
ticifm,  but  fent  a  troop  of  horfe,  who  killed  many  of 
them,  and  made  a  flill  greater  number  prifoners,  among 
whom  was  Theudas  himfelf,  whofe  head  was  cut  off  and 
brought  to  Jerufalem.' 

Now  if  thefe  oppofite  relations  are  not  to  be  recon- 
ciled, I  fhould  not  hefitate  a  moment  to  give  the  pre- 
ference to  St.  Luke.  It  is  true  that  the  point  in  queftion 
lay  without  the  circle  of  his  own  experience,  but  he  was 

on 

m  Afts  V.  34 — 36. 

n  This  appears  from  v.  37.  Msra  t«T9>  unrv  IsJa?  0  TuM>Mn^  en  Ta»; 

»  Antlquit.  Lib.  XX.  c.  v.  f.  j. 


6  2  jiuthenticity  of  the  New  'Teft  anient,     chap.  ir. 

on  the  other  hand  inftruifled  by  St.  Paul,  a  difciple  of 
GamaHel,  and  who  could  not  be  unacquainted  with  what 
his  mailer  had  publicly  fpoken  on  fo  remarkable  an  oc- 
cafion.  And  inftead  of  fuppofing  that  St.  Luke  has 
woven  into  the  fpeech  of  Gamaliel  an  account  of  an  in- 
furreftion  that  happened  later  than  the  period  of  his 
fpeaking,  I  fhould  rather  believe  that  St.  Luke  had  never 
heard  of  a  commotion  which  was  raifed  long  after  he  had 
quitted  the  province.  But  Jofcphus  was  only  nine  years 
of  age  when  Fadus  left  the  government  of  Jud^a:  a  mif- 
take  therefore  relating  to  the  tranfa6lions  of  thofe  days 
was  by  no  means  improbable,  and  the  miftake  is  eafy  to 
be  explained,  by  fuppofing  only  the  confufion  of  a  fmgle 
name.  There  lived  at  the  time  afiigned  by  the  fpeech  of 
Gamaliel  an  impoRor  of  the  name  of  Theudas,  who  ex- 
cited a  fedition  that  foon  dwindled  to  nothing,  and  is  not 
recorded  by  Jofephus :  but  during  the  adminiftration  of 
Fadus  there  arofe  an  infurreftion  of  a  more  ferious  na- 
ture, which  Jofephus,  in  writing  his  hiftory,  remembered 
from  the  days  of  his  childhood,  and  having  heard  of  a 
fimilar  difturbance  occafioned  by  Theudas,  confounded 
in  his  relation  of  the  lad  event  the  names  of  the  two 
impoftors  *. 

Another  remarkable  inflance  of  contradiction  between 
Jofephus  and  the  Evangelifls  is  the  relation  of  the  im- 
prifonment  and  death  of  John  the  Baptift.  The  caufe 
afcribed  by  the  Evangelifts  for  his  imprifonment  is  the 
liberty  he  had  taken  in  rebuking  Herod  for  his  marriage 
with  Herodias  the  wife  of  his  brother  Philip  p.  But  He- 
rod, notwithftanding  this  aft  of  violence,  refpefts  the  holy 
character  of  the  Baptift,  and  frequently  converfes  with 
him  on  different  fubjedls.  This  excites  the  jealoufy  of 
Herodias,  who  is  apprehenfive  that  a  continuance  of  this 
intercourfe  might  be  attended  with  danger  to  herfelf.  She 
takes  therefore  the  opportunity  of  an  unguarded  promife 
which  Herod  in   the  height  of  his  zeal  had  given  her 

daughter, 

P  This  Philip  is  called  Herod  in  the  writings  of  Jofephus,  a  matter 
which  has  been  long  fince  explained,  and  which  I  therefore  pafs  over  in 
iilencc  J. 


SECT.  XII.     Authenticity  of  the  New  Tejiament.  6^ 

daughter'',  to  demand  the  head  of  John  the  Baptift  in  a 
charger*:  a  requeft  which  Herod  in  confequcnce  of  his 
oath  is  unable  to  refufe.  Now  in  this  relation  there  is 
not  the  leaft  appearance  of  improbability,  the  ftory  as 
related  at  large  by  the  Evangelifts^  is  minute  and  cir- 
cumftantial.  St,  Matthew  and  St.  Mark  were  both  in 
the  number  of  Chrift's  difciples,  among  whom  was  the 
brother  of  St.  Peter  *  and  others  who  had  been  difciples 
of  John,  and  thofe  very  perfons  who  had  buried  the  body 
came  and  told  Jefus*.  No  hiftorian  then  whatfoever 
could  be  better  qualified  to  atteft  an -event,  than  St. 
Matthew  and  St.  Mark  were  the  imprifonment  and  death 
of  John  the  Baptift. 

On  the  other  hand  the  relation  of  Jofephus  has  no  in- 
ternal marks  of  improbability,  though  he  is  not  fo  cir- 
cumftantial  as  the  Evangelifts,  except  in  determining  the 
place  of  John's  imprifonment  and  death,  which  was  at 
Machaerus,  a  fortrefs  on  the  borders  of  Arabia  Petrsea. 
It  happened  therefore  during  the  campaign  which  Herod 
made  againft  Aretas,  and  hence  the  rcafon  that  the  mi- 
litary officers"  mentioned  by  St.  Mark  were  p  re  fen  t  at 
his  table.  Jofephus  then,  after  defcribing  John  as  a 
preacher  of  virtue,  and  one  who  recommended  the  puri- 
fying the  heart  not  by  baptifm  alone,  but  by  a  reforma- 
tion of  manners,  continues  his  relation  as  follows",  "  as 
the  number  of  perfons  that  flocked  to  him  daily  increafed 
(for  his  preaching  met  with  applaufe")  Herod  was  ap- 
prehenfive  that  the  aggrandifement  of  John's  authority 

might 

q  This  daughter,  whofe  name  was  Salome,  was  at  that  time  a  child :  for 
Herodias  had  quitted  her  firft  hufband  foon  after  Salome's  birth,  (Joleph. 
Ant.  L.  XVIII.  c.  V.  f.  4.)  a  circumftance  which  affords  a  fufficient  an- 
fwer  to  thofe  who  objefl  to  this  relation,  faying  that  it  was  unfultable  to 
the  dignity  of  a  princefs,  and  contrary  to  the  manners  of  the  age,  to  dance 
in  public  for  the  entertainment  of  the  court. 

'  Matt.  xlv.  1 — 13.     Mark  vl.  14—29.  s  John  i.  41  7, 

»  Matt.  xiv.  12.  »  XtXia^p/oi,  Mark  vi.  21. 

w  Antiquit,   Lib.  XVIII,  c.  v.  f.  2. 

X  In  thij  pafTage  I  would  rather  read  r^tOicrav  than  r^Srcrat  or  ■na^rida.v^- 


^4  Authenticity  of  the  New  Tejiament.     chap.  ir. 

might  end  in  a  rebellion,  fince  the  populace  refufed  no- 
thing that  he  commanded.  He  thought  it  therefore  more 
prudent  to  remove  him  in  time  before  any  accident  hap- 
pened, than  to  wait  till  it  was  arrived,  when  all  remedy 
might  be  fruitlefs.  On  this  fufpicion  therefore  John  was 
apprehended,  brought  to  the  above-mentioned  fortrefs 
Machaerus,  and  there  put  to  death.  But  the  Jews  were 
perfuaded  that  the  defeat  of  their  army,  which  happened 
foon  after,  was  inflifted  by  the  wrath  of  the  Deity  as  a 
punilhment  on  Herod." 

The  difference  between  thefe  accounts  is  flriking :  for 
according  to  Jofephus,  Herod  alone  is  to  blame,  who 
puts  John  to  death  on  a  fufpicion  that  is  totally  un- 
grounded, but  he  is  much  more  cxcufable  according  to 
the  Evangelifts,  who  relate  that  he  was  artfully  furprifed 
into  a  confent  againft  his  inclination  j  they  give  therefore 
a  proof  of  their  moderation  and  impartiality  in  relating 
the  death  of  a  friend,  qualities  which  mufl  excite  a  fa- 
vourable opinion  in  our  judgement  of  an  hiftorian.  If 
we  compare  the  Evangelifts  with  Jofephus  in  point  of 
age,  we  fhall  find  the  prefumption  ftill  greater  in  their 
favour :  Jofephus  was  born  fome  years  after  John  was 
beheaded,  and  was  neither  known  to  his  difciples,  from 
whom  he  could  have  derived  intelligence,  nor  interefted 
like  the  Evangelifts  to  inquire  minutely  into  the  circum- 
ftances  of  the  'event.  He  had  heard  in  general  terms, 
that  John  was  beheaded  by  the  command  of  Herod  a 
few  years  before  the  time  of  his  birth,  and  like  many 
profound  hiftorians  who  think  to  difcover  a  ferious  poli- 
tical reafon  for  events  that  were  occafioned  by  a  trifling 
accident,  afcribed  perhaps  a  caufe  which  had  no  other 
ground  than  his  own  imagination '.  This  at  leaft  is  cer- 
tain, that  if  we  found  the  fame  contradiction  in  the  re- 
lation of  a  faft  between  either  Greek,  or  Roman,  or  mo- 
dern hiftorians,  we  fhould  not  hefitate  to  prefer  the  au- 
thor who  was  contemporary  to  the  event  related,  and  who 
to  a  knowledge  of  the  perfon  defcribed  joins  minutenefs 
and  impartiality,  to  him  who  lived  in  a  later  period,  and 
wrote  a  general  hiftory,  of  which  the  fubjedt  in  queftion 
was  only  an  inconfiderable  part. 

As 


SECT.  XI  r.     Authenticity  of  the  New  Tejiament.  6$ 

As  this  laft  example  applies  chiefly  to  the  two  firft 
Evangelifts,  1  will  mention  another  which  applies  only  to 
St.  Luke,  and,  ferting  as  before  ini'piration  afide,  with- 
out which  no  comparifon  can  be  made,  examine  whicix 
of  the  two  hiftorians,  Jofephus  or  St  Luke,  is  moft  de- 
ferving  of  credit.  The  inflance  to  which  I  allude  is  t!ie 
hiftory  of  the  death  of  Herod  Agrippa'',  a  hiflory  in 
which  both  authors  agree  in  the  principal  point,  and 
yet  each  introduces  into  his  narration  circumftances  un- 
connecfled  with,  though  not  contradiflory  to  thofe  re- 
lated by  the  other.  They  are  likewife  unanimous  in  their 
opinion  of  the  caufe  of  the  painful  difeafc  which  befel 
Agrippa,  amid  the  acclamations  of  the  multitude,  and 
confider  it  as  a  punifhment  inflicted  by  the  immediate 
intervention  of  the  Deity.  According  to  both  hiftorians 
the  accident  happened  at  Casfarea  during  a  publick  fefti- 
vity,  in  which  Herod  appeared  in  folemn  pomp.  St. 
Luke  relates  that  he  had  been  offended  with  the  Tyrians 
and  Sidonians%  who  were  defirous  of  regaining  his 
friendfliip  %  becaufe  they  imported  from  his  dominions 
their  chief  articles  of  confumption.  For  this  purpofe 
they  bring  over  Blaftus  the  king's  chamberlain  to  their 
party,  and  Herod  confents  to  give  them  a  public  audi- 
ence, and,  according  to  the  manner  of  thofe  ages,  to 
make  them  a  fpeech  from  his  throne  ^  Jofephus  relates 
that  Herod  Agrippa  having  heard  on  his  arrival  at 
Csfarea,  that  a  feftival  was  to  be  celebrated  in  honour 
of  the  Roman  Emperor,  in  order  to  render  it  more  bril- 
liant, commanded  public  exhibitions  to  be  made  in  the 
theatre,  at  which  the  perfons  of  the  firfl:  rank  and  dig- 
nity in  the  province  were  prefent,  and  that  on  the  fecond 
day  of  thefe  exhibitions  happened  the  above-mentioned 
accident.     The  account  then  is  fo  far  not  contradidory 

to 

y  The  rational,  though  conclfe  account  given  hy  St,  Luke,  may  be  feen 
A6ls  xii.  19—23.  the  relation  of  Jofephus  is  contained  in  his  Antiquit, 
Lib.  XIX.  c.  viii.  f.  2. 

*  This  was  commonly  erefted  in  the  theatre  in  great  cities,  as  Wetftcin 
has  Ihewn  in  his  note  to  ARs  xix.  29. 

E 


66  Authenticity  of  the  New  Tejiament.     chap,  is, 

to  that  of  St.  Luke,  fince  deputies  from  Tyre  and  Sidon, 
though  not  mentioned  by  Jokphus,  might  have  been 
prefent  at  the  folemnity,  and  have  had  political  motives 
for  coming  at  that  time  to  Cjefarea,  independent  of  the 
public  games.  We  know  from  other  writers  that  thefc 
cities  were  obliged  to  draw  their  fupplies  of  corn  from 
foreign  countries;  the  circumftance  related  by  St.  Luke 
is  tlierefore  extremely  probable  in  itftlf,  and,  as  he  fpent 
two  years  at  C^farca"  fhortly  after  the  event,  he  had  the 
bell  opportunity  of  being  informed  of  the  truth.  But  it 
might  be  eafily  unknown  to  Jofephus,  who  wrote  in  a 
later  period,  and  who  betrays  by  his  very  language  that 
he  borrowed  his  accounts  from  a  Jewifh  tradition,  which, 
negleding  the  political  motive,  had  been  careful  only 
to  preferve  the  flory  of  the  public  exhibitions,  which 
being  unlawful  according  to  Jewifh  principles  were  con- 
fidered  perhaps  as  the  caufe  of  Herod's  misfortune. 

On  the  appointed  day  the  king  appears  in  royal  ap- 
parel, f^J'uo-a/u,£vof  KT^YiTx  (3a(rtAi>c»i',  as  St.  Luke  expreflfes 
it,  which  is  faying  all  that  is  neceflary  on  that  fubjeft  : 
but  Jofephus  relates,  "  that  he  came  at  break  of  day 
in  a  garment  woven  entirely  of  filver,  which  was  a  won- 
derful piece  of  workmanfhip,  and  as  the  beams  of  the 
rifing  fun  fell  on  it,  it  gave  a  wonderful^  luftre,  which 
was  terrible  to  behold."  This  is  a  defcription  which  no 
modern  hiftorian  would  wifh  to  have  written :  had  Jo- 
fephus himfelf  beheld  the  garment,  it  would  hardly  have 
appeared  fo  wonderful,  or  produced  fo  terrible  an  effedli 
and  the  circumftance  of  a  king's  appearing  in  his  robes 
of  ftate  at  break  of  day  is  attended  with  a  very  low  de- 
gree of  probability. 

The  exclamation  of  the  multitude  after  Herod  had 
finifhed  his  oration  is  according  to  St.  Luke  bin  ^uun  xat 


c  Afts  xxlil.  33.  xxiv.  27.  XXV.  I.  xXvl.  32.  and  that  St.  Luke  remained 
at  Cxfarea  with  St.  Paul  appears  from  his  manner  of  exprefTion  xxvli.  1. 

d  Jo/ephus  probably  tianflatPcl  from  fom:  Jewlfti  account  of  this  event, 
in  %vhich  the  words  THi^  ^n^'  ^<l'li  were  uled,  the  former  of  which  is 
commonly  tranflated  ^uiixctro: '.  hence  the  repetition  of  this  word  in  the 
fame  pafTage. 


SECT.  xir.     Authenticity  of  the  NeW  Tejiament,  6j 

XA  ocu^^xTTHj  which  is  fhort,  and  fuch  as  might  be  expefled 
from  a  fhoudng  populace  j  according  to  Jofephus  ?U|(*ei/»)j 

Tft^Ofi'  x^nrlofa  (re  S'i/tith?  ipucrEU?  oy,oKoys[j.;U{    Here  St.  Luke 

has  clearly  the  advantage  on  his  fide,  fince  Jofephus, 
through  affedation  of  a  florid  ftyle,  has  converted  the 
fudden  Ihout  of  a  multitude  into  a  rounded  period. 

They  are  unanimous  in  attributing  what  followed  to  a 
preternatural  caufe,  and  confider  it  as  a  punifhment  for 
Herod's  acquielcing  in  the  infamous  flattery  :  the  only 
difl^erence  is,  that  Jofephus  relates  it  in  better  Greek,  and 
St.  Luke  fays  in  a  ilyle  that  is  half  Hebrew,  the  angel  of 
the  Lord  fmote  him,  becaufe  he  gave  not  God  the  glory. 
With  refpecfl  to  the  nature  of  the  diforder,  they  both 
agree  in  its  being  a  complaint  in  the  bowels,  which  St. 
Luke  as  a  phyflcian  more  particularly  determines,  and 
fays  he  was  eaten  of  worms ;  but  the  account  of  Jofephus 
is  as  follows :  '  Soon  after  he  looked  up  and  beheld  an 
owl '°  fitting  on  a  cord  over  his  head.  This,  which  had 
been  formerly  a  mefienger  of  good,  he  then  confidered  as 
a  token  of  evil,  and  was  greatly  deje£led.  He  was  im- 
mediately attacked  with  a  violent  pain  in  his  bowels,'  &c. 
Here  then  I  can  make  no  further  commentary,  and  leave 
my  readers  to  determine  which  of  the  two  hiftorians  dc- 
ferves  the  preference. 

If  after  lb  minute  an  examination  of  this  lafl:  example, 
and  the  confequence,  which  mud  be  neceffarily  drawn 
from  it,  we  find  other  examples  of  difajreement,  it  is 
furely  unreafonable  to  condemn  St.  Luke  becaufe  he  is 
contradifled  by  Jofephus,  who,  as  Lardner*  has  obf^rved 
in  the  flory  of  the  Egyptian  impoftor,  is  fometimes  more 
difficult  to  be  reconciled  with  himfelfj  than  with  the  Evan- 
gelift^ 

But  it  cannot  be  denied  that  a  certain  paffage  may  be 
aliedged.in  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Luke*,  which  is  much  more 

diiiicult 

'  Credibility  of  the  Gofpel  Hiftory,  Part  1.  b.  li.  c.  8  n. 
f  Compare  A<5ls  xxi.  38.  with  Jolcphi  Antiquit.  Lib.  XX.  c<  vili,  f.  6. 
•nd  Bell.  Jud.  Lib.  IL  c.  xiii,  f.  5, 
I  Ch,  ii.  a, 

£  a 


68  Authenticity  of  the  New  Tejl anient,     cuap.11, 

difficult  to  be  refcucd  from  cenfiire,  becauft-  it  contra- 
di6ls  not  only  Jofcphus,  but  likewife  the  Roman  hifto- 
rians.  St.  Luke  relates,  in  the  beginning  of  the  fecond 
chapter,  that  C  hrifl:  was  born  during  the  taxation  of  Ju- 
dsea,  when  Qiiirinius  was  governor  of  Syria,  when  it  is 
certain  from  the  Roman  hiftorians,  that  Quirinius  was  at 
that  period  in  a  different  country.  This  is  not  the  place 
to  mention  the  various  conjeftures  of  the  commentators, 
in  order  to  reconcile  the  paffage  with  hiflorical  truth. 
The  mofl  plaufiblc  method  is  to  fuppofe,  that  inftead  of 
the  words  in  the  common  text  auT»  n  oiTroy^occpYi  zr^um 
tyipiTo  viyi[j.oi'ivovTo<;  Tr,?  Zu^ia?  Ku^rco?,  or  according  to  the 
Codex  Cantabrigienfis  Avm  ri  aircy^a^n  tyiviro  zy^um  " 
%yiiJ.ovi\jo\>roq,  &c.  the  author  originally  wrote  a\nn  n  a-Tro- 
ypoc^n  iyiuiTo  tt^wth,  •nrpo  rr?  nyiixoj/ivot/Tog  tv?  Ilvpia^  Ku- 
pHa  ",  and  that  the  words  tc-^o  tji?  had  been  left  out  by 
miftake  of  the  early  tranfcribers.  The  author  would 
then  allude  to  an  enrolment  of  the  Jews,  which  not  be- 
ing accompanied  with  taxation  occafioned  no  diflurb- 
ance,  and  is  therefore  not  recorded  by  Jofephus.  This  is 
a  critical  conjefture,  v/hich  would  be  allowed  in  a  pro- 
fane writer,  who  pofleffed  the  fame  credibility  with  St. 
Luke  ;  and,  as  it  is  certain  that  his  Gofpel  has  been  lefs 
correftly  tranfcribed,  than  the  other  parts  of  the  New 
Teftament,  there  is  an  additional  reafon  to  grant  him 
this  indulgence. 

A  contradidion  between  the  Evangelifts  and  the  Tal- 
mud, a  book  replete  with  fables,  compofed  long  after 
the  deftruftion  of  Jerufalem,  and  grounded  on  oral  tra- 
ditional will  hardly  be  adduced  as  an  argument  againft 
the  authenticity  of  the  Golpels.  The  diilindion  vvhich 
is  made  by  many,  between  that  which  is  related  in  the 
Talmud  as  coming  from  the  mouth  of  a  Rabbi,  who 
Jived  before  the  deftrudion  of  Jerufalem,  and  that  which 
is  there  related  as  coming  from  a  later  Rabbi,  is  totally 
ungrounded,  fmcc  the  qucftion  ilill  remains  to  be  deter- 
mined, whether  that  anticnt  Rabbi  had  really  afierted 
what  was  put  to  writing  fo  long  after  the  age,  in  which  he 
lived.     It  is  dierefore  a  poor  objection,  and  unworthy  of 

a  reply. 


SECT.  XII.     Authenticity  of  ihe  New  Tejlament,  69 

a  reply,  when,  in  order  to  invalidate  the  relation  of  Peter's 
denial  of  Chrifl:,  which  is  recorded  by  all  the  Evangclifts, 
of  whom  two  lived  a  confiderable  time  in  Jerufalem  *", 
and  St.  Mark  wrote  under  the  immediate  infpedlion  of 
St.  Peter  himfelf,  to  contend  that,  according  to  the  Bava 
Kama  '*,  cocks  were  not  permitted  in  Jerufalem  '^  This 
is  to  confute  an  hiilorian,  who  relates  an  event,  that  hap- 
pened in  the  city,  where  he  lived,  and  in  the  circle  of  his 
own  experience,  by  means  of  a  tradition  heard  a  century 
after  the  city  was  deftroyed.  To  this  mufl  be  added, 
that  what  the  Jews  relate  of  certain  privileges  belonging 
to  Jerufalem  is  not  only  contradidory  to  Jofephus,  but 
manifeftly  falfe,  as  E.  A.  Schulze  has  fully  fliewn  in  a  dif- 
fertation  thatdeferves  to  be  read,  De  fiftis  Hierofolymse 
privilegiis  *^  It  is  therefore  a  matter  of  furprife  that  this 
objeftion  from  the  Talmud  fhould  have  appeared  fo  im- 
portant to  many  learned  and  fenfible  writers.  Reland, 
who  has  taken  great  pains  on  this  fubjefl  in  his  efTay  De 
galli  cantu  Hierofolymis  audito,  is  willing  to  allow  '  fe- 
quum  efle,  ut  Judseis,  cum  de  fuis  rebus  narrant,  eandem 
fidcm  habeamus,  quam  Gra^cis  etRomanis  fcriptoribus:* 
but  he  ought  to  have  added  after  Judasis  the  words 
coaevis  aut  qui  coa^vos  legerunt,  and  then  the  argument 
from  the  Talmud  would  be  no  longer  applicable. 

The  objection  to  the  ftory  of  the  adulterefs^,  which 
militates  not  againft  the  Evangelift,  but  merely  againft 
a  paflagc  omitted  in  many  of  the  manufcripts,  may  be 
found  at  large  in  the  two  hundred  and  fixty-fecond  fec- 
tion  of  the  Mofaic  law '',  which  may  at  the  fame  time 
be  read  as  a  commentary  on  this  fedtion. 

t  Namely  St.  Mark  and  St.  John.     See  A£ls  xli,  i*.  and  Gal.  il,  1—9. 
i  John  viii.  J— xj. 


M 


CHAP. 


7©  In/piration  of  the  New  Tejlament.     chap.  hi. 

CHAP.       III. 

OF  THE  INSPIRATION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

SECT.      I. 

Of  the  difference  letween  canonical  and  apccryfhal  hooks  ; 
and  whether  the  truth  of  the  Chriftian  religion  neceffarily 
depends  on  the  New  Tejlamenfs  being  infpired. 

THE  doflrine  of  infpiration  is  a  frbjefb,  which  be- 
longs rather  to  the  province  of  dogmatic  theology  *, 
than  to  a  general  introduction  to  the  New  Teflament. 
I  prefuppofe  then  its  definition  *,  as  well  as  the  manner, 
in  which  it  differs  from  Revelation  ^  to  be  fufficiently 
known,  and  will  diredt  my  inquiries  to  the  influence  of 
this  qncflion  on  the  truth  of  our  religion. 

Thole  writings,  which  we  believe  to  have  been  infpired 
by  the  Deiry,  we  call  canonical,  becaufe  they  arc  the 
canon,  or  rule  of  our  faith,  and  moral  a61ions.  Whe- 
ther thofe,  who  introduced  the  exprefiion,  meant  to  con- 
vey precifely  this  idea,  is  of  no  importance  at  prefent, 
becaufe  I  fliall  not  refer  to  their  authority :  I  ufe  the 
word  in  the  fame  meaning,  in  which  it  is  generally  ac- 
cepted by  divines,  and  name  that  canonical,  which  is 
divinely  infpired  \ 

The  oppofite  to  canonical  is  apocryphal,  a  word  which 
miift  not  be  confidered  as  a  term  of  contempt,  or  as  de- 
preciating a  book,  to  which  it  is  applied.  But  thefe 
word  are  not  oppofite  to  each  other  in  fuch  a  fenfe,  that 
a  negation  of  the  one  neceflarily  implies  the  reality  of 
the  other,  fince  no  one  would  call  Tully's  Offices,  or  the 
works  of  Juftin  Martyr  apocryphal,  becaufe  they  are  not 
infpired.  Thofe  writings  only,  which  either  have  been 
confidered  as  canonical,  or  might  be  eafily  mifl:aken  for 
fuch  on  account  of  their  author  and  their  antiquity,  are 
termed  apocryphal,  v/hen  excluded  from  the  canon.  But 
this  exclufion  alone  by  no  means  derogates  from  their 
real  worth ;  and  although  there  are  many  under  this 
title,  which  are  manifeilly  fpuriousj  there  are  others  again 

which 


SECT.  I.        Jnfpiration  of  the  New  Tejlament.  7 1 

which  are  highly  deferving  our  cfteem.  The  firft  book 
of  the  Maccabtes  is  a  moft  valuable  hiftorical  monu- 
ment, written  with  great  accuracy  and  fidelity,  and  a 
work  on  which  more  reliance  is  to  be  placed,  than  on  the 
writings  of  Jofephus,  who  has  borrowed  from  it  his  ma- 
terials, and  frequentlv^  miftaken  their  meaning.  The 
fame  may  be  faid  of  Jefus  Sirach,  and  the  book  of  Wif- 
dom  :  and  the  title  prefixed  to  our  Apocrypha  is, '  Books, 
which  have  not  an  equal  rank  with  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
and  yet  are  valuable,  and  edifying  to  read.*  The  faine 
meaning,  in  which  the  word  is  ufcd  with  refpecft  to  the 
Old  Teftament,  muft  be  retained  when  applied  to  the 
New  :  and  we  mufl  be  careful  to  avoid  the  error  of  fup- 
pofing,  that  the  term  Apocryphal  Gofpel  neccfHirily  im- 
plies a  fpurious  production,  or  a  work  of  evil  tendency; 
but  we  mufl  confider  a  book  of  that  nature,  as,  what  it 
really  is,  a  hiftory  of  the  life  of  Chrift,  of  fo  high -anti- 
quity, that  it  might  pretend  to  a  place  in  the  facred 
canon,  but  which  we  believe  to  be  fimply  a  human  pro- 
duction. 

The  notion*  exprefled  by  the  word  Apocrypha  is  taken 
from  the  Jews,  and  though  the  word  itfelf  .is  of  Greek 
original,  it  cannot  be  explained  by  a  Greek  etymology, 
according  to  which  it  would  convey  a  much  higher  idea, 
and  fignify  writings  preferved  in  the  facred  recelles  of  the 
Temple.  It  is  nothing  more  than  a  tranflarion  of  the 
Rabbinical  word  tl^J,  which  fignifics  *  laid  afide,'  fo  as 
not  to  be  read  in  the  Synagogue  ""j  for  inftance  if  a  Copy 
of  the  Bible  had  two  miilakes  in  one  and  the  fame  page 
it  was  allowable  to  corre6V  them  ;  but  if  there  were  three 
miftakes,  the  book  muft  be  laid  afide^  (t^jl*  ti^bc^),  and 
they  ufed  the  fame  exprefiion  for  books,  which  were  not 
fuppofed  to  be  of  divine  authority.  Thus  Rabbi  Na- 
than fpeaking  of  the  Proverbs,  Solomon's  Song,  and  Ec- 
clefiaftes,  fays,  *  in  former  times  it  was  faid  of  thefe  books 
Vn  DU12J1,  i.  e.  they  are  apocryphal ''.'  But,  though  we 
have  borrowed  the  exprelTion  from  the  Jews,  we  are  not 
obliged  to  follow  their  example  in  the  diltinCtion  of  thofe 

writings, 
k  See  Buxturfs  Lexicon  Chald.  Talm.  Rabbin,  art.  Tl^l- 
E   4 


72  Lifpiratlon  of  the  New  Tejiament.     chap.  iir. 

writings,  to  which  it  is  applied  j  and  though  apocryphal 
books  of  the  Old  Teftament  were  not  allowed  in  the 
Jev.ifh  fynagogucs,  they  are  very  properly  read  in  the 
Chriflian  churches.  For  the  fame  reaibn,  fliould  we 
entertain  a  doubt  of  the  infpiration  of  St.  Mark,  and  St. 
Luke,  thf  it  Gofpels  might  frill  form  a  part  of  the  public 
fervice,  cfpecially  as  St.  John  himfelf  is  faid  to  have  re- 
commended them,  as  well  as  that  of  St.  Matthew. 

The  queftion,  whether  the  books  of  the  New  Tef- 
tament  are  infpired,  is  not  fo  important,  as  the  queftion 
whether  they  are  genuine.  The  truth  of  our  religion 
depends  upon  the  latter^,  not  abfolutely  on  the  former. 
Had  the  Deity  infpired  not  a  fmgle  book  of  the  New  Tef- 
tament,  but  left  the  Apoftlcs,  and  Evangtiifts  without 
any  other  aid,  than  that  of  natural  abilities  to  commit 
what  they  knew  to  writing,  admitting  their  works  to  be 
authentic,  and  polTefled  of  a  fufficient  degree  of  credi- 
bility, the  Chriflian  religion  would  ftill  remain  the  true 
one  *.  The  miracles,  by  which  it  is  confirmed,  would 
equally  demonftrate  its  truth,  even  if  the  perfons,  who 
atteflcd  them  were  not  infpired,  but  fimply  human  ^At- 
neiles ;  and  their  divine  authority  is  never  prefuppofed, 
when  we  difcufs  the  queftion  of  miracles,  but  merely 
their  credibility  as  human  evidence.  If  the  miracles  are 
true,  which  the  Evangelifts  relate,  the  doftrines  of  Chrift 
recorded  in  the  Gofpels  are  proved  to  be  the  infallible 
oracles  of  God :  and,  even  if  we  admit  the  Apoftles  to 
be  miftaken  in  certain  not  effendal  circumftances,  yet  as 
the  main  points  of  the  religion,  which  Chrift  commif- 
fioned  them  to  preach,  are  fo  frequently  repeated,  their 
epiftles  would  as  well  inftru6l  us  in  the  tenets  of  the 
Chriftian  fyftem,  as  the  works  of  Maclaurin  in  the  phi- 
lofopliy  of  Newton  ^  It  is  pofTible  therefore  to  doubt^ 
and  even  deny  the  infpiration  of  the  New  Teftament,  and 
yet  be  fully  perfuaded  of  the  truth  of  the  Chriftian  reli- 
gion :  and  many  really  entertain  thefe  fentiments  either 
publicly,  or  in  private,  to  whom  we  Ihould  render 
great  injuftice,  if  we  ranked  them  in  the  clafs  of  unbe- 
lievers '°. 

Yet 


SECT.  I.        Infpirfition  of  the  New  Tefidment.  yj 

Yet  the  Chriftian  religion  would  be  attended  with  dif- 
ficulty, if  our  Principium  cognofcendi  reded  not  on 
firmer  ground ;  and  it  might  be  objefted,  that  fufficient 
care  had  not  been  taken  for  thofe,  whofe  confciences 
were  tender,  and  who  were  anxioudy  fearful  of  miftaking 
the  fmalleft  of  the  divine  commands.  The  chief  articles 
indeed  of  Chriftianity  are  fo  frequently  repeated,  both 
by  Chrift  and  his  Apoftles,  that  even  were  the  New  Tef- 
tament  not  infpired,  we  could  entertain  no  doubt  of  the 
following  doftrines  :  *  Jefus  was  the  MelTias  of  the  Jews, 
and  an  infallible  meffenger  of  God :  he  died  for  our  ini- 
quity, and  by  the  fatisfa6lion  made  by  his  death  we  ob- 
tain remilTion  of  fins,  if  on  our  part  be  faith  and  amend- 
ment of  life :  the  Levitical  law  is  abolifhed,  and  divine 
precepts,  with  the  ceremonies  of  Baptifm  and  the  Supper 
of  the  Lord,  are  appointed  in  its  (lead  :  after  the  prefent 
follows  an  everlafting  life,  in  which  the  virtuous  fliali  be 
rewarded  and  the  wicked  punifhed,  and  where  Chrift 
himfelf  fhall  be  the  Judge.'  In  thefe  points,  on  account 
of  their  frequent  repetition,  it  is  hardly  poflible  to  be 
miftakcn ;  but  there  are  others  again,  in  which,  on  the 
above-mentioned  hypothefis,  we  fhould  be  left  in  anxious 
doubt.  I  will  not  mention  the  firft  chapter  of  St.  John, 
and  other  pafTages  which  relate  to  theoretical  fubjects, 
but  fuch  as  immmediately  concern  our  moral  actions,  and 
where  the  Chrillian  precepts  muft  determine,  whether 
we  (hall  adl  or  not.  For  inflance,  if  the  fource,  from 
which  we  derive  our  authority,  is  not  infallible,  is  it 
certain  that  Chrift  has  forbidden  the  taking  an  oath', 
which  is  permitted  by  the  tenets  of  the  Levitical  law, 
and  the  principles  of  moral  philofophy  }  And  is  St.  Paul, 
on  the  other  hand,  guilty  of  a  crime,  in  calling  the  Deity 
to  witnefs,  or  St.  Matthew  of  a  miftake,  in  relating  that 
Chrift  himfelf  replied,  when  adjured  by  the  living  God"*? 
Now  if  we  really  entertained  thefe  fcruples,  they  would 
occafion  the  greatell  anxiety,  fince  it  is  almoft  impoflible 
to  pafs  through  the  world,  without  taking,  on  fome  ac- 
cafion,  an  oath  j  and  we  ftiould  ceafe  to  be  ufetul  mem- 
]bers  of  fociety,  if  we  pretended  to  protedtion  from  the 

ftate, 

J  Matth.  V.  34,  ">  Matth.  xxvi.  63,  64, 


74  InJpiratio7i  of  the  New  Tejtament.     chat.  in. 

ftatc,  \^ithout  being  bound  ourfclves  by  rf'ciprocal  ob- 
ligations.— Is  the  command  of  Chrift  to  receive  injuries 
without  refiftance"  to  be  taken  in  a  literal  fenfej  and  is 
it  unlawful,  when  attacked,  to  repel  the  violence  ?  Are 
tlic  Apoftles  and  Evangeliils  mifcaken  when  they  deliver 
dodlrines,  which  contradilt  thefc  precepts  ?  And  what 
rule  of  conduft  ihall  be  adopted  by  him  who  is  obliged 
by  the  laws  of  his  country  to  ferve  in  war  ?  Muft  he  die 
a  martyr  to  this  maxim,  "  I  willi  to  be  protc6led  by 
others,  but  dare  not  proLe(5t  myfelf?" — Is  the  command 
ftill  binding  which  is  given  in  the  fifteenth  chapter  of 
the  A6ls  not  to  eat  biood  ?  It  is  true,  St.  Paul  explains 
this  command  in  his  firft  epiftle  to  the  Corinthians  in 
fuch  a  manner,  that  it  might  be  aboliilied,  as  foon  as 
the  Chriftian  communities  fhould  ceafe  to  contain  fo 
great  a  number  of  converted  Jews,  whofe  prejudices  re- 
tained from  the  Levitical  law  were  in  fome  meafure  to 
be  refpeded.  But,  as  St.  Paul  was  the  Apoflle  of  the 
Gentiles,  are  we  certain  that  he  has  not  made  too  great 
a  concefiion  in  their  favour? — Doubts  like  thcfe  might 
arife  in  an  anxious  mind,  on  a  fuppofition  that  the  writers 
of  the  New  Teftament  were  not  infpired "  \  and  the 
Chriftian  religion  would  be  really  a  misfortune,  if  we 
muft  remain  in  the  cruel  lufpence  whether  the  precepts, 
which  favour  of  feverity,  are  to  be  afcribed  to  the  Deity, 
and  thofe,  which  breathe  a  fpirit  of  gentlenefs,  to  human 
error. 

The  inference  then  to  be  deduced  from  what  has  been 
advanced  in  this  fcftion  is  as  follows  :  '  Inrpiration  is  not 
abfolutely  neceffary  to  conftitute  the  Truth  of  the  Chrif- 
tian religion,  but  it  is  neceflary  in  order  to  promote  its 
beneficial  effects.  If  the  parts  of  the  New  Teftament  are 
infpired,  they  make  collev5iivcly  a  fingle  entire  work,  in 
which  the  doubts  arifmg  in  one  pafiage  are  fully  ex- 
plained by  another  :  but  if  the  feveral  parts  of  the  New 
Teftament  are  not  infpired,  the  chain  by  which  they 
hang  together  is  deftroyed,  and  the  contradi6lory  paf- 
fages  muft  occafion  anxiety  and  diftruft  ".* 

Yet, 

»  Matth,  V,  39—41. 


fiiECT.  I.    ,    Injpiration  of  the  New  Tejlament,  y^ 

Yet,  after  weighing  with  all  that  care  and  caution, 
which  fo  important  a  rubjecl  requires,  the  arguments 
which  may  be  advanced  on  both  fides,  it  is  perhaps  ad- 
vifeable  to  divide  the  queftion.  To  the  Epiftles  Infpi. 
ration  is  of  real  confequence,  but  with  refpe6l  to  the 
Hiftorical  books,  viz.  the  Gofpels,  and  the  A6ls  of  the 
Ap'^fl.les,  we  (hould  really  be  no  lofer^s  if  we  abandoned 
the  fyftem  of  Infpiration,  and  in  fome  refpeifis  have  a 
real  advantage.  We  fhould  be  no  lofers,  if  we  con- 
fidered  the  Apoftles  in  hiftorical  fads  as  merely  human 
witnefles,  as  Chrift  himfelf  has  done  in  faying,  <  Ye  alfo 
/hall  bear  witnefs,  becaufe  ye  have  been  with  me  from 
the  beginning  ^'  And  no  one,  that  attempts  to  convince 
an  unbeliever  of  the  truth  of  Chriftianity,  would  begin 
his  demonftration  by  prefuppofing  a  dodlrine  which  his 
adverfary  denies,  but  would  ground  his  arguments  on 
the  credibility  of  the  E/angelifts  as  human  hiftorians, 
for  the  truth  of  the  miracles,  the  death,  and  the  refur- 
reftion  of  Chrift.  Even  thofe,  who  examine  the  grounds 
of  their  faith  for  their  own  private  convifMon,  muft  treat 
the  Evangelifts  as  human  evidence ;  fmce  ic  would  be 
arguing  in  a  circle  to  conclude  that  the  fadls  recorded  in 
the  Gofpels  are  true,  becaufe  they  are  infpired,  when  we 
conclude  the  fcriptures  to  be  infpired  in  confequence  of 
their  contents.  In  thefe  cafes  then  we  are  obliged  to  con- 
fider  the  Evangelifts  as  human  evidence,  and  it  would  be 
no  detriment  to  the  Chriftian  caufe  to  confider  them  at  all 
times  as  fuch  in  matters  of  hiftorical  fadl ".  We  find  it 
no  where  exprefsly  recorded  that  the  public  tranfadlions 
which  the  Apoftles  knew  by  their  own  experience,  and 
of  which  St.  Luke  informed  himfelf  by  diligent  enquiry, 
fhould  be  particular  objeds  of  divine  infpiration.  We 
fhould  even  be  confiderable  gainers,  in  adjufting  the 
harmony  of  the  Gofpels,  if  we  were  permitted  to  fuppofe, 
that  fome  one  of  the  Evangehfts  had  committed  an  im- 
material error,  and  that  St.  John  has  reftified  fome  tri- 
fling miftakes  in  the  preceding  Gofpels.  The  moft  dan- 
gerous objecT:ions  which  can  be  made  to  the  truth  of  our 
Kligion,  and  fuch  as  are  moft  difficult  to  anfwer,  ,are 

thofc 

^  John  xr.  tjt 


']6  Infpiraticn  cf  the  New  TeftAtnent.     chap.  iir. 

thofc  drawn  from  the  dilferent  relations  of  the  four  Evan- 
gelifts.  The  Fragments  publi*"hed  by  Leffing'*  infill 
chitfly  on  this  objedion  :  but  the  whole  vanifhes  into 
nothing,  unkfs  we  ourfelves  give  it  that  importance 
which  it  has  not  in  itfelr,  by  afiuming  an  unneceflary 
hyp')thefis.  Let  us  therefore  exanine  the  queftion  with 
coolnefs  and  impartiality,  the  only  mean  of  difcovering 
the  truth. 


SECT.      II. 


Of  the  criterion  by  which  Jnjpiration  miift  he  determined^  and 
of  the  application  of  this  criterion  to  the  writings  of  the 
Apofiles.     Thefe  writings,  if  genuine ^  are  infpired. 

AS  it  is  the  bufinefs  of  Dogmatic  Theology  to  ex- 
amine thofe  principles,  by  which  a  religion  is 
iliewn  to  have  been  revealed,  I  fhall  not  enter  into  the 
difcufTion  of  a  fubjecfl,  which  has  been  already  fo  ably 
handled.  I  take  for  granted  then  the  divine  miffion  of 
Chrift  and  his  Apoftles,  and  have  only  to  examine  the 
reafons,  which  induce  us  to  believe,  that  the  writings 
of  the  latter  are  not  merely  human  produ6lions,  but  in- 
fpired by  the  Deity.  I  fhall  here  avoid  entering  into 
thofe  difputes,  which  have  been  conducted  with  fo  much 
warmth,  and  fo  much  perplexity,  with  refped  to  deter- 
mining the  canon'. 

No  proteftant  can  appeal  on  this  fubjefb  to  the  teA 
timony  of  the  church*.  In  fafts,  which  fall  under  the 
notice  of  the  fenfes,  fuch  as  an  Apoflle's  having  written 
the  Book,  which  is  afcribed  to  him,  or  the  judgement 
he  has  given  of  the  writings  of  others,  the  evidence  of 
the  antient  contemporary  church  is  at  all  times  admif- 
fible,  and  its  teftimony  is  confirm.ed  by  that  of  the  he- 
retics. But  Infpiraticn  is  a  matter,  which  the  antient 
Church  could  neither  fee  nor  feel;  and  no  man  can  give 
evidence  of  that,  which  is  not  the  objedl  of  his  know- 
ledge :  ftill  lefs  can  we  appeal  to  any  later  church,  how- 
ever 


SECT.  ir.       Injpiration  of  the  New  Teflament.     '  77 

ever  dignified  its  name,  or  great  its  authority.  The 
church  of  the  eighteenth  century  can  teftify,  that  the 
facred  books  at  prefent  in  ufe  are  the  lame,  which  ex- 
ifted  in  the  feventecnth  century,  this  again  with  refpeft 
to  the  preceding,  and  fo  on  to  the  fourth  century  j  fur- 
ther, is  the  teftimony  of  the  church  of  no  value'. 

Whoever  appeals  to  the  evidence  of  the  church  to  de- 
termine a  book  to  be  canonical,  not  to  motion  that  it 
has  condemned  at  one  period,  what  it  has  approved  at 
another*,  muft  firll  decide  this  difficult  qupftion,  What 
is  the  church,  and  who  are  heretics  *  ?  If  we  anfwer. 
The  true  church  is  that  which  maintains  the  do6lrines 
delivered  in  the  infpired  writings  of  the  New  Teftament, 
and  if  in  anfwer  to  the  queftion.  How  do  you  know  that 
thofe  writings  are  infpired  ?  we  reply,  Becaufe  the  true 
church  has  determined  them  to  be  infpired, — we  mani- 
feflly  argue  in  a  circle. 

"  But  we  appeal  to  the  canon  of  the  Jews  with  refpe6t 
to  the  Old  Teftament :  fhall  the  Chriftian  Church  then 
have  lefs  authority  than  the  Jewifh  fynagogue  ?" — The 
difference  is  too  vifible  to  need  explanation,  and  the  bare 
teftimony  of  Jofephus  for  the  divine  infpiration  of  a  book 
of  the  Old  Teftament  is  of  more  weight,  than  the  deci- 
fion  of  the  Chriftian  Church  for  the  Divinity  of  a  book 
of  the  New,  even  were  all  the  fe(5ts  in  Chriftendom  united 
to  conftitute  that  church  ^  The  wridngs  of  the  Old  Tef- 
tament are  confirmed  not  only  by  St.  Paul,  but  by  Chrift; 
himfelf :  on  their  authority  therefore  we  rely,  and  not  on 
that  of  the  fynagogue.  But  we  have  no  Apoftle  to  vouch 
for  the  canon  adopted  by  the  Chriftian  Church,  fmce  the 
colleftion  of  canonical  books  was  made  after  the  death 
of  the  Apoftles  ;  or,  admitting  it  to  be  made  during  the 
latter  part  of  the  life  of  St.  John,  he  has  left  no  written 
evidence  of  his  approbation  of  the  canon,  and  oral  tra- 
dition is  very  infufficient  on  fo  important  a  fubjed. 

An  inward  fenfation  of  the  effedts  of  the  Holy  Ghoft, 

and 

*  The  Nazarenes  and  Ebionltes  accepted  only  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Mat- 
thew,  which  Was  rejeaed  by  the  Marcionites,  who  admitted  no  other 
Gofpel  than  that  of  St.  Luke, 


78  Infpiration  of  the  New  Tejlament,     chap.  iij. 

and  the  confcioufncfs  of  the  utility  of  thefe  writings  in 
improving  the  heart,  and  purifying  our  morals,  are  cri- 
terions  as  uncertain  as  the  foregoing.  With  refpe(5t  to 
that  inward  fenfation,  I  muft  confefs  that  I  have  never 
experienced  it  in  the  whole  courfe  of  my  life ;  nor  are 
thofe  perfons,  who  have  felt  it,  either  deferving  of  envy, 
or  nearer  the  truth,  fince  the  Muhammedan  feels  it,  as 
"Well  as  the  Chriftian.  And,  as  this  internal  divine  fen- 
fation is  the  whole  proof,  on  which  Muhammed  grounded 
his  religion p,  which  fo  many  millions  have  adopted,  wc 
muft  naturally  conclude  it  to  be  felf-deccit.  The  other 
teft  is  likewife  infufFicient,  fince  pious  fendments  may  be 
excited  by  works,  that  are  fimply  human,  by  the  writ- 
ings of  philofophers,  or  even  by  do6lrines  founded  on 
error:  and  if  it  were  poffible  to  draw  a  conclufion  from 
thefe  premifes,  the  premifes  themfelves  are  uncertain, 
fmce  there  are  inftances  of  men  of  the  moft  defpicabk 
charafler,  who  have  fancied  they  had  attained  the  higheft 
pitch  of  holinefb''. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  a  more  fatisfadory  proof,  and 
for  that  purpofe  (hall  divide  the  books  of  the  New  Tef- 
tament,  which  we  receive  as  canonical,  into  two  feparate 
claffcs,  which  we  muft  take  care  not  to  confound.  The 
greater  number  bear  the  names  of  Apoftles,  namely 
Matthew,  John,  Paul,  James,  Peter,  and  Jude  :  others 
again  were  not  written  by  Apoftles,  but  by  their  com- 
panions and  aftiftants,  viz.  the  Gofpels  of  St.  Mark  and 
St.  Luke,  and  the  A6ls  of  the  Apoftles. 

With  refpedt  to  the  writings  belonging  to  the  firft  of 
thefe  claftes,  their  infpiration  depends  on  their  authen- 
ticity. .  If  they  are  written  by  the  Apoftles,  to  whom 
they  are  afcribed,  we  confider  them  as  divinely  infpired  j 
if  not  written  by  Apoftles,  they  can  make  no  pretenfion 
to  infpiration.  For  inftance,  ii  the  Revelation,  and  two 
laft  cpiftles  of  St.  John,  and  the  fecond  epiftle  of  St. 
Peter  were  written  by  thofe  Apoftles,  we  muft  conclude 
them  to  be  infpired,  otherwife  no  rcafon  whatfoever  can 

ba 

P  See  the  Oaent.  Bibliotb.  Vol    III.  p.  91  -55** 
1  See  Orient.  Bibl.  Vol,  IIL  p.  88—957. 


SECT.  ir.       Infpiration  of  the  New  Tefl anient,  j^ 

be  afligned  for  drawing  that  conclufion.  The  {lime  may- 
be faid  of  the  epiillcs  of  James  and  Jude,  of  which  it 
muft  at  the  fame  time  be  obferved,  that  it  is  not  fuffi- 
cient  to  fay  they  might  be  genuine  though  not  written 
by  thofe  Apoftles,  but  by  two  other  perfons  of  thofe 
names  in  the  firfl  century.  For  in  that  cafe,  thouiih 
genuine,  they  would  ceafe  to  be  infpired,  unlefs  we  chofe 
to  ground  our  reafoning  on  the  decifions  of  a  council,  or 
the  authority  of  a  Pope.  Even  that  cxceiltnt  epiftie  to 
the  Hebrews  would  ceafe  to  -be  divine,  if  it  came  not 
from  the  hand  of  Paul.  It  would  ftill  remain  a  moft  va- 
luable work,  by  which  we  are  not  only  edified  and  im- 
proved, but  by  which  we  have  difcovered  a  variety  of 
truths  contained  in  the  Old  Teftament,  that  without  it- 
would  perhaps  never  have  been  known,  and  yet  when 
difcovered  feem  obvious  to  reafon  :  but  we  could  no 
longer  conHder  it  as  divinely  infpired,  an  infallible  prin- 
cipium  cognofcendi. 

It  will  be  afked  on  what  argument  the  pofition  is 
grounded,  that  the  wrirings  of  the  Apoftles  if  genuine 
are  infpired  ?  I  anfwer  then,  as  far  as  I  am  able  to  dif-  ' 
cover,  '  on  the  teftimcny  of  Chrifb  and  his  Apoftles, 
which  is  credible  and  facred,  becaufe  they  have  con- 
firmed their  doctrines  by  numberlefs  miracles.*  But 
'  where  is  this  evidence  recorded  ?'  it  will  be  again  ob- 
jecTted ;  the  Apoftles  have  no  where  faid,  like  the  antient 
prophets,  *  The  word  of  the  Lord  came  unto  Paul,* 
*  Thus  faith  the  Lord,  fpeak  to  the  Corinthians,'  &c. 
Do  the  Apoftles  themfelves  require  us  to  believe  them 
infpired,  and  do  we  not  confer  on  them  a  greater  ho- 
nour, than  they  themfelves  expe6led  !  I>et  us  hear  how- 
ever their  evidence,  and  that  of  Chrift  himfelf. 

It  is  certain  in  the  f.rft  place,  that  the  Apoftles  muft 
be  regarded  not  only  as  prop:  yts,  but  as  greater  than 
prophets.  Chrift  fays  that  John"  the  Baptift  is  a  prophet, 
and  more  than  a  prophet,  and  adds,  '  Verily  I  fay  unto 
you,  among  them  that  are  born  of  women  there  has  not 
.  rifen  a  greater  than  John  the  Baptift  :  notwithftanding 
he  that  is  leaft  in  the  kingdom  of  Heaven  is  greater 

^haa 


8o  Injpratton  of  the  New  Tejtament.     chap.  irr. 

than  he'.  Now  it  is  manifeft  from  the  context  that  the 
terms  great  and  little  are  applicable  only  to  the  word 
prophet.  The  lead  prophet  therefore  of  the  New  Tefta- 
ment  is  greater  than  John  the  Baptift,  and  all  the  pro- 
phets of  the  Old.  If  this  is  not  to  be  referred  to  the 
Apoftles,  I  know  not  who  are  the  prophets  in  the  king- 
dom of  God^  It  is  true  that  in  the  beginning  of  the 
New  Teftament'°  there  were  other  prophets"  who  had 
received  their  fpiritual  gifts  from  the  bands  of  the  Apof- 
tles  :  but,  fetting  afide  the  fuperiority  which  this  very 
communication  neceflarily  implies,  we  conflantly  find  in 
the  epiftles  that,  whenever  mention  is  made  of  the  feve- 
ral  offices  in  the  church,  prophets  are  ranked  in  the  lift 
as  inferior  to  apoftles.  St.  Paul  in  treating  of  the  gifts 
of  the  Holy  Ghofh  fays  exprefsly,  *  God  hath  fet  fome 
in  the  church  firft  apoftles,  fccondly  prophets,  thirdly 
teachers,  after  tliat%'  &c.  and  in  the  following  verfe  ob- 
ferves  precifely  the  fame  order.  '  Are  all  apoftles,  are  all 
prophets,  are  all  teachers'%'  &c.  Likewife  in  his  epiftle 
to  the  Ephefians',  fpeaking  of  the  diver fity  of  gifts  and 
offices  in  the  church  he  fays,  '  and  he  gave  fome,  apof- 
tles, and  fome,  prophets j  and  fome,  paftors  and  teachers; 
to  which  laft  clafs  belonged  thofe  who  were  afilftants  to 
the  Apoftles,  fuch  as  Mark,  Luke,  Timothy,  and  Titus. 
In  the  fecond  chapter"  of  the  fame  epiftle  he  likewife 
places  them  before  the  antient  prophets. 

Whenever  therefore,  in  this  fenfe  of  the  word  Apoftle, 
an  epiftle  begins  in  the  following  manner,  *  Paul  an  apof- 
tle of  Jefus  Chrifty'  or  ftrengthened  by  the  following  ad- 
dition, *  Paul  an  Apoftle  not  of  men ^  neither  by  man^  but  by 
Jefus  Chrift  and  God  the  Father y  who  rafed  him  from  the 
dead'^y  ^  Paul  an  Apoftle  of  Jefus  Chrift y  by  the  will  of  God, 
or  by  the  commandment  of  God'^y  is  it  not  a  ftronger  affer- 
tion  of  the  epiftle's  being  divine,  than  when  a  writer  of 
the  Old  Teftament  begins  his  book  by  ftiiing  himfelf  a 

prophet 

»  Mark  xi.  9— ii.  s  i  Cor.  xii,  28.  ' 

iCh.  iv.  II.  «  V.  10.  wGal.  i.  I. 

X  1  Cor.  i.  I.      2  Cor.  i,       Ephef.  I.  x.      Coloff.i.  t.      t  Tim.  i.  3, 
«  Tim.  i.  1.     Tit.  i.  1—3, 


SECT.  ir.       Injpration  of  the  New  Tefi anient*  8l 

prophet  of  God  ? — But  fuch  expreflions  as  Paul  an  apof- 
tle,  John  an  apoille,  &c.  are  not  prefixed  to  all  the 
epiflles,  ilill  lefs  to  the  Gofpels. — I  grant  it,  and  draw 
in  that  cale  no  proof  of  infpiration  from  the  title  j  but  at 
the  fame  time  no  inference  can  be  made  of  the  contrary, 
lince  the  abfence  of  thofe  expreflions  is  no  more  an 
argument  againft  the  infpiration  of  a  book  of  the  New 
Teftament,  than» againft  the  infpiration  of  the  hiftorical 
and  moral  books  of  the  Old  Teftament,  particularly  the 
Pfalms,  which  are  fo  often  quoted  in  the  New  Teftament 
as  divine. 

If  we  confider  Chrift's  more  immediate  promifes  of 
infpiration  to  the  Apoftles,  we  fhall  find,  that  he  has 
given  them  in  the  moll  proper  fenfe  of  the  v/ord,  at  three 
feveral  periods,  ift,  when  he  fent  the  Apoftles  to  preach 
the  Gofpel  ^,  idly,  in  holding  a  public  difcourfe  relating 
to  the  Gofpel,  at  which  were  prefent  a  confiderable  mul- 
titude "^j  jdly,  in  his  prophecy  of  the  deftru6lion  of  Je- 
rufalem  *.  Now,  whoever  reads  thefe  palTages  muft  be 
convinced  that  they  relate  not  to  ordinary  gifts,  or  the 
ufual  endowments  of  Providence,  for  the  Holy  Ghoft,  or 
divine  infpiration,  is  particularly  mentioned,  *  it  is  not  ye 
that /peak,  but  the  Holy  Ghoji,'  and  again,  '  it  is  not  ye  that 
/peak,  but  the  Jpirit  of  your  Father  which  fpeaketh  in  you* 
for  which  reafon  it  was  forbidden  them  to  take  thought 
before  hand,  what  they  fhould  fpeak  ;  and  this  promife 
was  not  confined  to  the  matter,  which  fhould  be  fug- 
gefted  to  them,  but  was  extended  to  the  very  manner,  in 
which  they  ftiould  utter  it.  It  is  true  that,  when  we 
argue  from  their  infpiration  on  thefe  occafions  to  the  in- 
fpiration of  their  writings,  we  draw  a  conclufion  a  mi- 
nore  ad  majus,  but  it  is  a  conclufion  to  which  no  rational 
objedion  can  be  made :  for,  if  they  were  to  expedt 
infpiration  for  thofe  fpeeches  and  anfwers,  which  were 
only  temporary,  and  in  which  they  appeared  rather  as 
advocates  than  teachers,  how  much  more  reafon  had  they 

tQ 
y  Matth.  x.  19,  20,  z  Luke  xii.  11,  12. 

2  Mark  xiii.  11.     Luke  xxi,  14,  15. 


Si  Injpiration  of  the  New  Tejlament.     chap.  iir. 

to  cxpeft  infpiration  in  thofe  writings,  which  were  to 
ferve  as  a  ftandard  of  faith  to  poflcrity  !  To  the  future 
writings  of  the  ApoRles  Chrift  undoubtedly  alluded  when 
he  faid  to  Peter,  '  Thou  art  Peter  (i.e.  a  Rock),  and 
upon  this  rock  I  ivill  build  my  church,  and  the  gates  of  Hell 
Jhall  not  -prevail  againft  it.'  The  word  Rock  can  refer 
only  to  Peter '',  on  whofe  evidence  for  Chrifl:  and  his 
Gofpel  the  faith  of  the  church  was  to  be  founded,  not 
only  of  that  church,  which  heard  him  preach,  but  of  th.e 
future  church  even  to  the  lateft  ages,  fince  its  duration 
is  defcribed  as  unlimited,  and  never  to  be  fubdued  by 
the  powers  of  darknefs.  But  on  what  evidence  of  Peter 
fhall  the  prefent  church,  or  even  that  of  the  third  and 
fourth  century,  ground  its  faith  as  on  a  rock  ?  Surely  not 
on  the  verbal  teftimony  of  the  Apoftle,  which  may  hap- 
pen to  be  preferved  by  oral  tradition,  a  vehicle  that  ever 
adds  more  falfehood,  than  it  finds  original  truth.  This 
would  be  a  very  unliable  rock  :  but  unfortunately  we  are 
here  forfaken  by  tradition,  for  of  the  doftrines,  which 
Peter  verbally  delivered,  we  have  hardly  any  fragments 
remaining,  and  even  in  the  fourth  century  when  the 
learned  Eufebius  coUefted  all  that  it  was  pofllble  to  find, 
the  colledion  was  as  fcanty  as  at  prefent.  The  Apoftle 
then  could  by  no  other  means  become  the  Rock,  on 
■which  the  future  church  fliould  build  its  faith,  and 
againft  which  the  gates  of  Hell  fl:iould  not  prevail,  than 
by  leaving  written  and  lafting  evidence  of  the  truth  of 
Chriftianity  '■*.  This  written  evidence  is  contained  in  his 
epiflles,  and  perhaps  in  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Mark,  which 
was  written  under  his  direcLion. 

Another  promife,  which  was  firft  given  to  Peter,  and 
afterwards  extended  to  all  the  Apoftles,  was  that  what 
they  forhad  on  earth  fjjould  be  forbidden  in  Heaven,  and 
what  they  ■perrnitted  on  earth  permitted  in  Heaven '°.  This 
is  more  than  can  be  afcribed  to  any  prophet  of  the  Old 
Teflament,  who  were  not  at  all  times  infpired'^,  and 
what  they  commanded  or  forbad  could  then  only  be  con- 
fide red 

b  Matth.  xvl.  19.  xvlli,  18.     Aiw  correfnonds  to  HDi^)  which  fignifies 
♦  to  bind,'  and  metaphoiically  <  to  forbid.' 


SECT.  II.     Infpiration  of  the  Ne-w  Tejiament,  '    83 

fidered  as  the  command,  or  prohibition  of  the  Deity,  when 
thev,,exprersly  declared  that  they  fpoke  from  infpiration. 
If  dheji  this  authority  was  given  to  the  Apoftles  without 
referve,  it  is  manifeft  that,  as  often  as  they  appeared  as 
teachers  of  the  G  'pel,  they  were  attended  by  a  conftanc 
infpiration,  and  of  courfe  when  they  committed  the  pre- 
cepts of  Chriilianity  to  writing:  or  we  muft  have  re- 
courfe  to  the  hypothefis,  that  the  Deity  permitted  errors 
to  intrude  themfelves  into  the  morality  of  the  Gofpel, 
which  v/ill  therefore  not  be  laid  to  our  charge  at  the 
general  retribution.  This  indeed  is  highly  improbable, 
but,  whichfoever  hypothefis  we  adopt,  we  fnall  come  to 
this  conclufion,  that  the  moral  precepts,  which  are  con- 
tained in  the  writings  of  tiie  Apoitles,  are  for  us  com- 
mands of  the  Deity. 

The  promifes,  which  were  given  by  Chrifl  in  the 
night  preceding  his  death,  of  the  continual  affiftance  of 
the  Holy  Ghoft,  deferve  particular  attendon :  and,  what 
renders  them  of  more  importance  on  the  prefent  queftion 
is,  that  they  are  recorded  in  the  Gofpel  of  St.  John ",  who 
wrote  with  a  particular  view  to  fupport  the  authority  of 
the  Apoftles  againft  the  Gnofhics.  ,  In  the  fourteenth 
chapter**  Chriil:  aflures  the  Apoftles,  that  he  will  fend 
them  after  his  departure  a  teacher  or  reminder',  that 
he  may  abide  with  them  for  ever,  *  even  the  Spirit  of 
truth,'  and  adds,  *  for  he  dwelleth  with  you,  and  fhall 
be  in  you.'  A  proof,  that  no  allufion  is  made  in  the  pre- 
fent inftance  to  what  is  called  in  the  fyftem  of  Dogmatic 
Theology  ordinary  gifts,  without  which  no  man  can  be 
a  Chriftian,  and  which  therefore  the  Apoftles  muft  have 
long  pofTefTed,  but  to  thofe  extraordinary  gifts,  which 
were  imparted  on  the  day  of  Pentecoft,  is  not  to  be 
expefled  here,  becaufe  it  belongs  to  another  province '^ 
But  I  beg  my  readers  to  be  attentive  to  thofe  paflages 

which 

c  Ch.  xlv.  XV.  xvi.  i  V.  16,  17. 

«  'cjy.^a.y.Mro(i,  which  is  improperly  tranflated  *  Comforter.'  I  was  firft 
led  to  this  explanation '*  by  a  palTage  in  Philo  de  mundi  opificio,  ehn  h 
"BOi^uy.T^rtru  (tk  7«g  'i'  tTfJojj)  pf^ro-auEnj?  o  ©to?. 

Philonis  Opera,  Tom.  I.  p.  5.  ed.  Mangey, 

F    2 


84  Injpiration  of  the  New  Tejiament.     chap.  iir. 

which  are  printed  in  Italics,  and  to  examine  if  they  do 
not  imply  a  conftant  infpiration  whenever  the  Apoftles 
afllime  their  office  of  Preachers  of  the  Gofpel.  They  were 
to  teflify  of  Chrifi,  becaufe  they  had  been  with  him  from 
the  beginning,  and  knew  all  that  he  had  taiiglu  and 
done  "* :  the  promifed  Teacher  was  to  teflify  through 
them,  and  to  convince  the  worlds  They  had  the  afiu- 
rance  then,  that,  whenever  they  proclaimed  the  truth  of 
the  Gofpel,  they  fliould  be  afTifted  by  the  Holy  Ghoft  S 
an  alTiftance  which  they  had  not  during  the  life  of  Chrift, 
or  before  the  miraculous  gifts  were  imparted  on  the  day 
of  Pentecoft.  It  confifted  therefore  not  in  the  ordinary 
gifts,  as  they  are  called,  but  in  real  and  proper  infpira- 
tion. Now  can  we  fuppofe,  that  the  Apoftles  enjoyed 
this  infpiration,  when  they  preached  the  Gofpel  in  ha- 
rangues heard  only  by  a  few,  and  that  it  ceafed,  when- 
ever they  commenced  the  more  important  tafk  of  de- 
livering the  Chriftian  precepts  in  writings,  which  were 
to  ferve  as  the  bafis  of  faith  and  knowledge  to  all  man- 
kind ?  And  where  is  it  faid,  among  all  the  above-men- 
tioned palTages,  that  this  afTiftance  fhould  be  confined 
to  verbal  teilimony,  and  that  the  Apoftles  dared  not  de- 
liver written  evidence,  without  forfeidng  all  pretenfions 
to  the  promifed  aid  ?  The  Holy  Ghoft  was  to  aflift  them, 
not  only  in  thofe  fubjedts,  in  which  they  had  not  *"  been 
inftrufted  by  Chrift,  but  likewife  in  matters  to  the  know- 
ledge of  which  they  might  have  attained  by  human 
means.  By  the  natural  powers  of  memory  alone  they 
might  have  recorded  thofe  fpeeches  of  Chrift,  which  they 
themfelves  had  heard,  though  expofed  to  the  danger  of 
having  falfcly  underftood,  not  accurately  remembering, 
or  of  omitdng  do6lrines,  which  v/ere  neccflary  to  be 
known.  For  thefe  reafons  Chrift  affures  them,  that  the 
Holy  Ghoft  fhall  bring  all  things  to  their  remembrance, 
whatever  he  had  faid  unto  them'.  When  the  Apoftles 
therefore,  St.  Matthew  and  St.  John,  relate  thofe  pre- 
cepts of  Chrift,  which  they  themfelves  had  heard,  they 

write 

f  John  XV,  26,  27,  xvl.  7— XI.  S  John  xvl.  7. 

">  John  xvi,  11—15.  i  Johnxiv.  26. 


SECT.  II.      Infftration  of  the  New  Tejiament.  85 

write  indeed  from  their  own  memory,  but  under  the 
protecftion  of  the  Spirit,  who  fecures  them  from  the  dan- 
ger of  miftake :  and  we  muft  of  courfe  conclude  that 
their  Gofpels  are  infpired. 

Let  us  now  examine  what  the  Apoftles  themfelves  fay 
of  their  own  inlpiration.     St.  Paul  aflerts  that  he  had  his 
Gofpel  not  of  men,  nor  even  of  other  Apoftles,  but  from 
the  immediate  revelation  of  Chrift:  ^  himfelf.     Even  an 
outward  ceremony,  the  celebration  of  the  facrament,  he 
fays  that  he  has  received  from  the  Lord' :  it  is  no  won- 
der then  that  God  revealed  unto  him  by  his  Spirit  truths 
which  lie  beyond  the  reach  of  human  philofophy™.     St. 
Peter  like  wife  fays  of  the  ApolHes,  that  they  preached 
the  Gofpel  with  the  Holy  Ghoft  fent  down  from  Heaven". 
From  thefe  paffages  it  appears  that  the  Apoftles  were 
Prophets,  and  that  in  an  higher  ^cn^^:  than  the  Prophets 
of  the  Old  Teftament,  though  it  does  not  immediately 
follow  that  their  writings  were  infpired.     But  even  this 
ceafes  to  be  a  queftion,  when  we  read  what  St.  Paul  has 
written  on  another  occafion,  who  in  anfwer  to  the  com- 
plaints of  the  Corinthians,  that  his  harangues  were  de- 
void of  the  graces  of  oratory,  replies  in  the  following 
manner  :  «  JVe  [peak  not  in  the  words,  which  man's  wijdom 
teacheth,  but  which  the  Holy  Ghoji  teacheth,  comparing  Jpi^ 
ritual  things  with  Jpiritual  ^'     Now  it  is  impoffible,  that 
this  can  be  confined  to  fpeeches  which  laft  for  an  inftant, 
and  be  excluded  from  writings  that  will  remain  for  ever : 
nor  do  the  words  of  the  Apoftle  in  the  leaft  degree  imply 
fo  narrow  a  confirudion. 

He  appeals  in  the  firft  epiftle  to  the  Corinthians  p,  not 
only  to  the  community  in  general,  but  to  thofe  who 
were  prophets  or  fpiritual,  to  acknowledge,  that  the  things 
that  he  wrote  unto  them  were  the  commandment  of  the 
Lord.  In  the  feventh  chapter  of  the  fame  Epiftle  he 
makes  a  diftindlion  between  that,  which  he  writes  as  the 

command 

k  Gal.  i.  11,  ,2T9.  ,  iCor.xI.  23*0, 

^     »  1  Cor.ii.  10.  n  I  Pet.  I.  ,2. 

•  I  Cor.ii.  13",  P  Ch.  xiv.  37,  38. 


86  Jnjpiration  of  the  New  Tejiament.     chap.  iir. 

command  of  God,  and  that  which  he  writes  as  his  own 
private  advice  j  and  with  rerpe6i:  to  certain  queftions,  that 
had  been  propofed  to  him,  fays  '^  I  have  no  commandment 
of  the  Lord,  yet  I  give  my  judgement  as  one  that  hath 
obtained  mercy  of  the  Lord  to  be  faithful."  It  is  a  matter 
of  furprife,  that  an  argument  has  been  drawn  from  this 
paflage  againft  the  infpiraiion  of  his  epiftles,  and  of  ftill 
greater  furprife,  that  the  obje6lion  fhould  appear  fo  im- 
portant that  the  commentators  have  attempted  to  defend 
the  infpiration  of  theie  very  pafTages,  by  referring  to  the 
fortieth  vcrfe  of  the  feventh  chapter,  in  which  St.  Paul, 
after  having  delivered  his  own  opinion,  adds  '  I  think 
alfo  I  have  the  Spirit  of  God.'  But  thofe  counfels,  which 
St.  Paul  gives  as  of  his  own  authority,  and  in  which  he 
himfelf  protefts  againft  infpiration,  it  is  agreeable  to 
common  fenfe  to  fuppofe  were  not  infpired  "  :  and  there 
can  be  no  reafon,  when  the  Corinthians  afk  his  advice  on 
points,  on  which  he  has  no  infpiration,  why  he  fhould 
not  give  it  according  to  the  dicflates  of  human  reafon 
only,  when  he  himfelf  exprefsly  declares  it.  On  the  con- 
trary, this  very  argument  is  a  proof  of  the  infpiration  of 
his  epiftles  in  general,  fince  no  exception  can  be  made 
till  a  rule  has  been  eftablifhed. 

If  the  fecond  epiftle  of  Peter  be  genuine,  which  I  really 
believe,  it  contains  a  paiTage  ^  which,  though  generally 
overlooked,  is  of  great  importance  to  the  prefcnt  queftion. 
He  had  fpoken  of  the  epiftles  of  St.  Paul,  in  which,  or 
in  the  fubjedls  of  which  he  treated,  (for  here  is  a  varia- 
tion "■)  '  there  were  fome  things  hard  to  be  underftood, 
"which  they,  that  were  unlearned  and  unftable,  wrefted 
as  tliey  did  alfo  the  other  fcriptures  (ra?  AOiriAS  y^!x.q>oc<;) 
unto  their  own  deftru.'^ion.'  Here  it  is  certain  that  ra? 
y^atpaf  is  ufed  for  the  facred  writings  y.ocr  iloyjn,  in  the 
fame  fenfe,  as  the  Jews  applied  it  to  the  Old  Teftament, 
and  the  words  raj  AOIIIAS  fct  the  epiftles  of  St.  Paul, 

at 

<  Ch.  ill,  J 6. 

»  {V  OK  and  iv  «K,  the  former,  which  is  the  ufual  reading,  referring  fo 
the  fiibjefts  j  the  latter,  which  feems  to  be  the  beft  reading,  to  the  ejpiftles 
themfdlves. 


SECT.  Ill-     lufpiration  of  the  New  Teftament.  $y 

at  lead  as  many  as  exifled  at  that  time,  on  the  fame  level 
with  the  Old  Teftament,  and  refer  to  them  as  a  part  of 
thofc  writings,  which  fecundum  excellentiam  are  ftyled 
aj  y^a^ai,  or,  as  we  Ihould  exprefs  it,  the  Bible. 


SECT.       III. 


Of  thoje  writings  of  the  New  Teftament y  which  were  not 
ivritten  by  Apofiles,  but  by  affiflants  of  the  Apflles. 

BESIDE  thofe  books  of  the  New  Teftament,  which 
we  have  fhewn  to  be  infpired  as  having  been  writtea 
by  Apoftles,  there  are  three  which  were  written  by  their 
afTirtants,  viz.  the  Gofpels  of  St.  Mark  and  of  St.  Luke 
and  the  A6ts  of  the  Apoftles.  The  queftion  is,  what  are 
the  grounds  for  placing  thefe  like  wife  in  the  canon  ? 

I  muft  confefs,  that  I  am  unable  to  find  a  fatisfadlory 
proof  of  their  infpiration,  and  the  more  I  inveftigate  the 
fubjecl,  and  the  ofcener  I  compare  their  writings  with 
thofe  of  St.  Matthew  and  St.  John,  the  greater  are  my 
doubts.  In  the  third  edition  of  this  work,  I  delivered 
the  arguments  for  and  againft  their  infpiration  with  a 
degree  of  uncertainty,  which  fide  of  the  queftion  I  fhould 
prefer,  though  rather  inclined  to  the  affirmative ;  at  pre- 
fent,  though  I  fliall  deliver  my  fendments  in  the  fame 
cautious  uncertainty  as  before,  I  am  ftrongly  inclined  to 
the  negative.  That  thefe  books  were  written  by  affiftants 
of  the  Apoftles  affords  no  proof  of  their  infpiration, 
even  could  it  be  fliewn,  what  is  not  grounded  on  hifto- 
rical  evidence,  but  merely  on  probable  conjefture,  that 
St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke  were  endowed  with  the  extraor- 
dinary gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  as  appears  to  have  been 
the  cafe  with  St.  Paul's  affiftant  Timothy  %  and  the  dea- 
cons mentioned  in  the  A6ts  of  the  Apoftles  *.  For  a  dif- 
ciple  might  poflefs  the  gift  of  miracles,  be  able  to  reftore 
the  fick,  to  fpeak  languages  which  he  had  never  learnt, 
and  even  be  endowed  with  the  fpirit  of  prophecy,  though 

his 

*  2  Tim.  i.  6,  t  Aas  vi.  3--8, 

F4 


88  Infpiration  of  the  New  Tejlament.     chap.  hi. 

his  Writings  were  not  infpired " :  a  quality  which  we  have 
no  reafon  to  afcribe  to  the  works  of  a  prophet,  except, 
when  he  declares  as  fuch,  that  what  he  writes  is  infpired, 
and  that  he  in  thofe  inftances  alTumes  that  charadler. 
But  this  neither  St.  Mark  nor  St.  Luke  have  declared  in 
any  part  of  their  writings. 

It  has  been  objefted  to  thofe,  who  have  grounded  their 
arguments  for  infpiration  on  the  chara6ter  of  an  Apoftle's 
afiiftant,  that  according  to  thofe  principles  we  muft  re- 
ceive the  genuine  epiftle  of  Clemens  Romanus,  and  thofe 
of  the  other  apoftohc  fathers  as  divine.  Now  this  ob- 
jedion  is  carried  too  far,  fince  there  is  a  manifeft  differ- 
ence between  perfons,  who  were  fimply  contemporaries 
of  the  Apoftles,  and  thofe  who  were  their  conftant  friends 
and  companions.  Yet  it  would  be  difficult  to  fnew  the 
juftice  of  this  conclufion,  *  a  difciple  accompanied  an 
apoftle  on  his  journies,  therefore  his  writings  are  infpired.' 

Another  proof  which  has  been  given  is  much  ftronger 
than  the  former,  viz.  that  the  Apoftles  themfelves  have 
recommended  thefe  bocks  as  canonical.  If  that  be  true, 
all  doubt  of  their  canonical  authority  is  removed.  But 
which  of  the  Apoftles  has  given  this  recommendation  or 
teftimony,  and  where  is  it  recorded  ?  In  iheir  epiftles,  at 
leaft  in  refpeft  to  St.  Luke,  no  trace  is  to  be  found.  For 
thofe  pafiages,  in  which  St.  Paul  fays,  ^  my  Gofpel,'  have 
no  refrrence  to  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Luke,  as  I  ftiall  fhew  in 
the  fccond  part  of  this  work.  We  cannot  therefore  allcdge, 
in  favour  of  St.  Luke's  Gofpel,  what  Eufcbius'',  without 
taking  it  upon  l^.imfclf, ^relates  in  the  name  of  others, 
*  they  fay  (<pa(r»)  that  St.  Paul  alludes  to  the  Gofpel  of 
St.  Luke  when  he  fpeaks  of  his  own  Gofpel,  '  Agreeable 
to  my  Gofpel.*  St.  John  likewife,  who  outlived  all  the 
Apoftles,  and  to  whole  evidence  appeal  has  been  made 
for  the  arrangement  of  the  canon,  or  at  leaft  for  the 
authority  of  the  three  firft  Gofpels,  writes  not  a  fy liable 
on  that  fubjefl  either  in  his  Gofpel,  or  his  Epiftles. 

When  it  is  faid,  that  the  Apoftles  have  verbally  re- 
commended to  the  Chriftians  the  reading  this,  or  that 

parti- 

u  I  Cor.  xii.  8—11.  28,  29.  v  Hift.  Ecclef.  Lit).  HI-  c-  4- 


SECT.  III.     Iiifpiration  of  the  New  Tefiament.  S9 

particular  Gofpel,  the  queftions  which  naturally  arife  arc 
I  ft.  What  have  they  fliid,  and  have  they  declared  them 
to  be  infpired  ?  adly,  How  do  we  know  that  they  have 
given  this  advice  ?  They  might  have  commended  a  book 
as  containing  genuine  hiftorical  accounts,  without  vouch- 
ing for  its  inlpiration ;  and,  when  even  this  commenda- 
tion is  grounded  not  on  the  evidence  of  thofe,  who  heard 
it  from  the  Apoftles  themfelves,  but  on  the  uncertain 
accounts  of  later  writers,  the  argument  has  little  weight. 
Eufebius  is  the  oldeft,  indeed  the  only  colledor  of  ac- 
counts, from  whom  we  can  derive  information;  an  au- 
thor, by  no  means  prejudiced  againft  St.  Luke,  for  he 
cxprefsly  declares  his  writings  to  be  infpired.  He  fays 
that^  St.  Luke  has  given  proofs  of  a  more  fpiritual,  and 
fublime  medical  knowledge,  which  he  had  received  from 
the  Apoftles  in  two  books  divinely  infpired  {iv  cTuo-j  3-£07r- 
>i\J7oi:;  PigAioif).  But  what  teftimonics  of  the  Apoftles  is 
he  able  to  produce  in  fupport  of  this  affertion  .?  Except 
the  inftance  already  mentioned,  Vv'hich  appeared  even  to 
him  to  be  an  uncertain  tradition,  the  whole  evidence  refts 
on  the  two  following  examples.  In  the  twenty- fourth 
chapter  of  the  third  book  he  writes  as  follows,  *  they  fay 
((padi)  that  St,  John,  who  had  till  that  time  preached 
only  by  word,  was  induced  to  write  a  Gofpel  by  the  fol- 
lowing motive.  The  three  firft  Gofpels,  which  were  at 
that  time  univerfally  known,  he  had,  as  is  reported,  ac- 
cepted as  genuine,  and  teftified  their  truth  {a.-nohloc<T^ct\, 

f/.iv   <f>x(riu    oiXvhiocv   avToig    iTVifj.x^Tv^nc-a.Mra,')  ;    but   found  in 

them  no  account  of  the  firft  years  of  Chrift's  miniftry,* 
&c.  It  appears  then  that  Eufebius  did  not  take  upon 
himfelf  to  vouch  for  the  truth  of  this  aftertion,  but  relates 
merely  the  report  of  others :  and  even  if  no  objedion 
could  be  made  to  this  pallage  on  other  grounds,  the  ufe 
of  that  fufpicious  word  (px<Ti  is  fufficient  to  render  the 
evidence  highly  uncertain.  For  the  reports  of  perfons 
unknown,  without  argument  and  without  authority,  can 
decide  nothing  on  a  fubjcft  of  fuch  confequence.  Be- 
fides,  the  motive  here  alledged  to  induce  St.  John  to 
write  his  Gofpel  is  quite  different  from  that,  which  is 

ufually 


tjo  Tnjpiraticrt  of  the  New  Tejiament.     chap.  irr. 

ufually  given,  as  will  appear  from  the  fecond  part  of  this 
work.  But,  if  we  admit  the  whole  relation  to  be  certain, 
what  inference  is  to  be  drawn  from  it  ?  Not  that  thofe 
writings  were  infpired,  but  only  that  they  were  upon  the 
whole  hiftorically  true  '. 

The  other  inftance  is  in  the  eighth  chapter  of  the  fifth 
book,  where  he  makes  the  following  quotauon  from  Ire- 
nasus,  *  after  the  death  of  Peter  and  Paul,  Mark  com- 
mitted to  wridng  what  Peter  had  verbally  taught,  and 
Luke  the  companion  of  Paul  compofed  a  book  of  the 
Gofpel  which  he  had  preached.'     (K«i  Asjta?  §i^  o  axo- 

AsOof  TJccvXis,   TO    utt'  tKiivs    yivpv(r(ro[ji.£]/ov   ivxyUx^ov   sv   jSjSAjw 

xuTi^To).'  But  this  teftimony  amounts  to  nothing.  To 
compofe  a  Gofpel  from  what  had  been  preached  by  an 
Apoftle,  is  not  the  fame  as  being  infpired  by  the  Deity. 
Befides,  the  relation  of  Irenseus  is  manifeftly  erroneous, 
for  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Luke  muft  have  been  written  during 
the  life  of  St.  Paul,  fince  the  Ads  of  the  Apoftles,  which 
are  a  continuation  of  the  Gofpel,  were  finidied  before  the 
death  of  the  Apoftle  *  :  and  we  may  remark  of  Irenasus 
in  general  that,  though  he  is  a  very  antient  evidence,  he 
is  not  always  to  be  relied  on,  becaufe  his  works  contain 
many  excepdonable  pafifages.  The  obfervation  of  Ter- 
tullian  ^  which  Lardner  adds  '  to  corroborate  the  above, 
*  nam  et  Lues  digeftum  Paulo  adfcribere  folcnt  -,  capit 
magiftrorum  videri,  quas  difcipuli  promulgarint,'  affords 
as  little  or  rather  lefs  fatisfaftion  than  the  former  in- 
ftance ^  efpecially  when  we  confider  that  he  makes  a  dif- 
tindlion  between  Apoftles,  and  Apoftolic  men ',  calling 
thofe  properly  Gofpels  which  were  written  by  the  former, 
viz.  St.  Matthew  and  St.  John,  and  lefs  valuing  that, 
which  alone  was  accepted  by  Marcion,  the  Gofpel  written 
by  St.  Luke. 

The  circumftances  relating  to  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Mark 
appear  to  be  fomewhat  difterent.  It  will  appear  from 
the  fecond  part  of  this  work,  that  according  to  a  very  an- 
tient  tradition  ^  St.  Peter  having  been  informed  that  St, 
Mark  had  begun  to  write  a  Gofpel  at  the  requeft  of  the 

Romaji 

*  Adv.  Marcloncm,  Lib.  iv.  c.  5. 


SECT.  III.     Injfiration  of  the  New  Teftament.  o\ 

Roman  Chriftians,    expreiTed  at  the  inftigation  of  the 
Holy  Ghoflj  his  approbation  of  their  zeal  and  thirft  for 
knowledge,  and  commanded  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Mark  to 
be  read  in  the  churches.     I  will  go  even  a  ftep  further 
than  others  have  done  \  and  fliew  that  a  paffao-e  in  the 
fecond  epiftle  ^  of  St.  Peter  (an  epiftle  indeed  not  Included 
in  the  o^oAoy«^£^a)  refers  to  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Mark,  which 
St.  Peter  promoted,  and  furniOied  the  author  with  mate- 
rials.    St.  Mark  wrote  then  with  the  approbation  and 
under  the  proteAion  of  an  Apoftle  \  and  fo  far  he  may 
be  faid  to  have  written  by  divine  authority.     If  infpira- 
tion  can  be  afcribed  to  an  author  who  by  the  mediate  or 
immediate  command  of  the  Deity  compofes  a  work  by 
the  aid  of  his  own  natural  abilities,  in  the  fame  manner, 
as  an  hifloriographer  is  commiffioned  by  his  fovereic^n  to 
write  a  hiftory,  St.  Mark  was  undoubtedly  infpired  '"^  but 
froni  fuch  infpiration  it  does  not  follow  that  he  was  in- 
fallible, and  in  fome  immaterial  inftances  he  feems  to 
have  erred.      Infpiration  in  the  ufual  fenfe  of  the  word 
conveys  a  much  higher  notion,  and  implies  not  only  a 
divine  command  to  write,  but  immediate  aiTfftance  from 
the  Deity  in  writing,  fo  as  to  fecure  the  author  from  the 
danger  of  miftake :  and  in  this  literal  and  fublime  mean- 
ing it  is  uled  by  thofe,  who  with  the  utmoft  difficulty 
and  not  feldom  by  unnatural  explanations  attempt  to  re- 
concile St.  Mark  with  St.  Matthew,  or  to  Ihew  that  he  is 
no  where  correfted  by  St.  John.     This  peculiar  infpira- 
tion, this  fupernatural  aid  and  infallibility,  is  not  to  be 
mferred  from  the  approbation  or  encouragement  of  St 

V^^i*^  ^"T?  ^^^''^^  °P^"^°"  ^^  j"ft'  (which  I  advanced 
the  firft,  and  by  which  I  ftill  abide,  without  knowing  how 
many  have  acceded  to  it  fmce  the  fecond  edition  of  this 
work)  that  St.  Peter  alludes  in  his  fecond  epiftle  *  to  the 
Gofpel  of  St.  Mark,  no  inference  can  be  made  in  regard 
to  Its  divine  infpiration,  but  only  to  its  general  credibi- 
lity and  excellence,  as  being  promoted  and  patronized  by 

an 
y  Gh.  i.  15. 

•  Ch.  i.  15.    T.'nHhL<r„  Jj  ix«s.,7,   ,^t,,  ^,^„j  ^^^^  ^^^  ^^^^  ^^^^^^^  ^^^ 


92  Injpiration  of  the  New  Tejlament.     chap,  hi, 

an  Apoftle.  If  a  prophet,  or  an  ApoRle,  fliould  encou- 
rage me  to  write  a  hiftory,  for  which  I  had  already  col- 
lected materials,  and  promifed  at  the  fame  time  to  aflift 
and  furnifh  me  with  accounts  which  he  could  atteft  as 
cye-witnefs,  he  would  not  by  fo  doing  communicate  to 
me,  and  to  my  writings,  his  divine  infpiration.  A  com- 
munication of  tiiat  nature  is  fo  extraordinary  a  fad,  as  to 
be  inadmiflible  without  the  flrongeft  evidence. 

If  my  explanation  of  the  palTage  be  rejeded,  and  we 
abide  by  the  teftimony  of  the  antients,  i.  e,  oral  tradition, 
a  century  or  two  after  the  death  of  the  Apoflles,  the  evi- 
dence for  St.  Mark's  infpiration  is  ftill  lefs  fatisfaftory. 
St.  Peter  is  informed,  that  St.  Mark  writes  a  Gofpel  at 
the  requeft  of  the  Romans :  he  was  therefore  according 
to  that  account  not  the  perfon,  who  firft  promoted  the 
work  ;  but  at  the  inftigation  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  (a  cir- 
cumftance  v.'hich  we  learn  from  writers  who  lived  one  or 
two  hundred  years '°  after  the  event),  he  teftified  his  ap- 
probation: Of  what?  of  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Mark  ?  By  no 
means :  he  applauds  only  the  zeal  of  the  Roman  con- 
verts. But  he  commands  the  Gofpel  to  be  read  in  the 
churches.  This  part  of  the  tradition  appears  to  be  fufpi- 
cious,  and  it  remains  a  queftion  whether  the  wridngs  of 
the  New  Teftament,  which  were  at  that  time  not  col- 
leded  into  a  volume,  were  publicly  read  in  the  churches, 
and  formed  a  part  of  the  Sunday  fervice.  But,  if  we  ad- 
mit it  to  be  true,  it  is  no  argument  of  infpiration,  and 
proves  only  that  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Mark,  was  hiftorically 
cxaft,  and  of  general  utility.  We  read  in  our  own 
churches  the  Apocrypha,  and  the  Liturgy,  without  fup- 
pofing  them  to  be  infpired. 

For  the  decifion  of  this  point  then,  we  muft  have  re- 
courfe  at  laft,  Proteftants  as  well  as  Catholics,  to  the 
teftimony  of  the  antient  church,  which  from  the  earlieft 
ages  has  received  the  Gofpels  of  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke 
as  canonical.  This  it  probably  would  not  have  done,  as 
it  is  contended,  if  the  Apoftles,  Paul,  Peter,  and  John, 
who  were  alive  at  their  publication^  had  not  declared 
them  to  be  divine. 

To 


SECT.  in.     hjpiration  of  the  New  Tefiamerit,  93 

To  do  juftice  to  this  argument,  we  muft  take  notice, 
that  it  refts  the  divinity  of  thefe  writings  not  on  the  judge- 
ment of  the  church,  but  on  the  teftimony  of  a  fa6b.  We 
are  obliged  daily  to  rely  on  the  evidence  of  others  in 
matters  of  faft,  but  to  depend  on  the  opinion  of  another, 
without  examining  the  grounds  of  that  opinion,  would 
be  a  prn?judicium  auftoritatis ;  and  we  can  have  no  reafon 
to  believe  any  church  whatfoever,  whether  antient  or 
modern,  our  own  or  a  foreign  one,  to  be  infallible.  To 
this  muft  be  added  the  difficulty  of  determining  what  is 
the  church,  for  not  every  fed:  of  Chriftians  has  received 
the  Gofpels  of  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke;  as  the  Nazarenes 
and  Ebionites,  for  inftance,  adopted  only  the  Hebrew 
Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew.  If  we  reply,  that  we  do  not  ac- 
knowledge that  church  to  be  the  true  one,  we  fall  again 
into  the  circle,  that  was  mentioned  in  the  fortner  fedion. 

But  this  argument  is  founded  not  on  the  opinion  of 
the  church,  but  on  its  evidence  of  a  faft,  and  that  faft 
is,  the  actual  declaration,  which  the  Apoftles  muft  have 
made  of  the  authority  of  thefe  writings  :  and  this  evidence 
is  not  the  evidence  of  a  modern  church,  which  cannot 
bear  witnefs  to  the  aftions  of  the  Apoftles,  but  that  of 
the  antient  contemporary  church.  If  this  church,  it  is  con- 
tended, had  not  heard  from  the  Apoftles,  that  the  writings 
of  their  affiftants  were  divine,  thdfe  writings  would  not 
have  been  received  in  the  facred  canon,  and  if  they  had 
not  been  in  the  canon  at  the  end  of  the  firft  century,  they 
would  not  have  been  received  in  the  fecond  and  follow- 
ing centuries  fo  generally,  and  without  contradidion. 

But  here  we  have  no  evidence  of  a  fad,  that  was  ac- 
ttaally  feen  or  heard,  or  ever  delivered  on  record,  but  only 
a  conclufion  from  other  fads,  and  is,  what  is  called  in 
law,  an  artificial  proof.  Befides,  other  objedions  mio-ht 
be  made  to  the  validity  of  this  argument.  Admitnng 
the  Apoftles  to  have  recommended  thefe  writings,  it  is 
no  proof  of  their  infpiration  :  and  is  it  not  poftibie,  that 
the  primitive  church  accepted  them  as  works  indifpenf- 
able  to  a  Chriftian,  on  account  of  the  importance  of  their 
contents,  and  that  by,  infenfible  degrees  they  acquired  the 

charader 


94  Injfiration  of  the  New  Tejlament.     chap.  iif. 

characfler  of  being  infpired  ?  This  qucftion  is  indeed  no 
argument,  but  in  the  total  abfence  of  hiftorical  accounts-, 
it  is  fufficient  to  weaken  the  force  of  an  argument  founded 
on  evidence  merely  negative  ;  fmce  not  a  fyllable  can  be 
quoted  to  this  purpofe  from  the  antient  church,  and  our 
authorities  are  taken  from  that  of  a  later  period. 

Two  circumftances  muft  be  added  with  refped  to  the 
Gofpel  of  St.  Luke,  the  one  in  its  favour,  the  other  in  its 
disfavour. 

1 .  Marcion,  who  lived  in  the  firft  part,  or  toward  the 
middle  of  the  fecond  century,  and  therefore  about  feventy 
or  eighty  years  after  the  time  when  St.  Paul  and  St.  Luke 
were  at  Rome,  rejeds  the  other  Gofpels,  and  adopts  only 
that  of  St.  Luke.  Marcion  himfelf  had  been  at  Rome, 
and  was  able  to  derive  the  beft  information  of  what  St. 
Paul  had  declared  of  that  Gofpel.  Now  the  queflion  is, 
whether  it  was  the  force  of  telVimony,  that  induced  him 
to  give  this  Gofpel  fo  decided  a  preference  ?  This  we  may 
certainly  decide  in  the  negative  :  for  we  know  that  Mar- 
cion paid  no  attention  to  the  evidence  and  tradition  of 
the  church,  and  he  adopted  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Luke,  not 
becaufe  he  believed  it  to  be  infpired,  but  becaufe  he  be- 
lieved it  to  be  genuine,  and  lefs  corrupted  than  the  other 
Gofpels.  He  rejeded  in  the  New  Teftament  whatever 
v/as  contrary  to  his  own  principles,  and  he  preferred  the 
Gofpel  of  St.  Luke,  becaufe,  with  fome  few  alterations, 
it  contained  the  feweft  contradidions  to  his  own  tenets. 
This  circumftance  therefore  is  of  no  weight. 

2.  The  beginning  of  St.  Luke's  Gofpel"^  has  been 
very  frequently  alledged  as  an  argument  againft  its  in- 
fpiration.  Now  it  does  not  appear  to  me  that  a  diligent 
inquiry  on  the  part  of  an  author  himfelf  neceflarily  pre- 
cludes infpiration,  the  objed  of  which  is  not  to  reveal  to 
a  writer  of  an  hiftorical  work  fads  totally  unknown,  but 
only  to  fecure  him  from  error ;  otherwife  he  v/ould  for- 
feit all  pretenfions  to  credibility  unlefs  he  were  believed 
to  be  infpired.  Even  Mofes  has  compofed  the  greateft 
part  of  the  book  of  Genefis  from  antient  documents ;  the 
hiftory  of  his  own  time  he  has  written,  not  by  a  revela- 

tioa 

»  Ch.  i.  X— 4, 


SECT.  III.     Infpiration  of  the  New  Tejlament.  g^ 

tion  of  things  before  unknown,  but  as  eyc-witnefs  to  the 
fads  which  he  relates,  and  even  quotes  a  war-ff3ng  of  the 
Amorites  *,  in  proof  of  a  particular  event.  But  on  the 
other  hand  St.  Luke  himfelf  makes  no  pretenfion  to  in- 
fpiration ",  and  whoever  reads  his  Gofpel  without  pre- 
judice will  confider  it  as  a  human  produ6lion.  That  ex- 
prelTion  in  the  preface,  v.  3,  e^o^e  xa.y.01,  affords  no  evi- 
dence of  his  having  written  by  divine  command,  or  even 
at  the  inftigation  of  an  Apoftle.  And  this  exprefllon  is 
fo  remarkable,  that  in  order  to  cover  the  defeft,  the 
Gothic,  and  the  old  Latin  tranflation  in  the  Codex  Vero- 
nenfis  of  Blanchini,  have  added  the  words  Holy  Ghoft, 
placuit  mihi  et  fpiritui  fandlo.  To  an  hiftorian  then  who 
writes  in  this  manner  we  have  no  reafon  to  afcribe,  from 
the  uncertain  tradition  of  a  later  period,  a  fupernatural 
endowment^  which  can  only  be  believed  on  the  furefl: 
authority. 

Another  objecHiIon  which  may  be  made  to  St.  Mark, 
and  in  a  ftill  higher  degree  to  St.  Luke,  are  the  contra- 
dictions found  in  their  Gofpels  to  the  relations  of  St. 
Matthew  and  St.  John,  Apoflles  who  were  eye-witnefles 
of  the  fads,  which  they  record.  They  differ  indeed  lefs 
frequently  from  the  latter  than  from  the  former  Apoflle, 
becaufe  they  have  but  little  matter  in  common  with 
his  Gofpel.  Now,  though  it  is  true  that  the  greatefl  part 
are  only  apparent  contradidions,  there  are  others  again 
where  fo  much  art  and  fineffe  are  difplayed,  to  make  the 
accounts  coincide,  that  there  is  no  room  for  any  other 
conclufion,  than  that  one  of  the  Evangelifts  is  miflaken. 
As  we  can  hardly  attribute  an  error  to  St.  Matthew  or 
St.  John,  we  fliall  be  obliged  to  allow,  that  the  other 
Evangelifts  were  capable  of  miftake,  and  I  have  found 
examples  whrre  St.  John  appears  in  a  delicate  manner 
to  have  correded  the  faults  of  his  predecelTors.  This  lafl 
obfervation  I  fhall  have  occafion  to  apply  in  the  fecond 
part  of  this  work,  when  I  treat  of  the  Harmony  of  the 
Gofpels,  and  I  have  fpoken  of  it  at  large  in  my  Hiftory 
of  the  Refurre:!ion,  as  well  in  the  preface,  as  in  the 
book  itfelf.     Should  1  live  to  publi£h  my  Tranflation  of 

the 

»  Numbers  xxi.  27, 


56  Injpration  of  the  New  Tejiament,     chap.  \\i» 

the  New  Tcflamenr,  which  is  now  ready  for  the  prefs,  a 
ftill  greater  number  of  examples  will  be  given  in  the 
notes  to  the  four  Evangelifts.  If  the  word  infpirarion 
therefore  be  taken  in  fuch  a  fenfe  as  to  include  infallibi- 
lity, we  can  fcarcely  believe,  that  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke 
were  infpired.  The  violent  methods  which  have  been 
ufed  to  reconcile  their  accounts  with  thofe  of  the  other 
Evangelifts,  and  the  infupcrable  difficulty,  which  has 
hitherto  attended  the  harmony  of  the  Gofpels,  have  caft 
a  dark  fhade  on  our  religion,  and  the  truth  and  fimpli- 
city  of  its  hiftory  have  been  almoft  buried  under  the 
weight  of  explanations.  No  one  has  applied  this  objec- 
tion with  fo  much  force,  and  fo  much  danger  to  the 
Chriftian  religion,  as  the  anonymous  author  of  the  Wol- 
fenbiittel  Fragments  publifhed  by  Leffing,  efpecially 
with  refpeft  to  the  Refurre6lion.  But  the  greateft  part 
of  thefe  objeftions  are  deprived  of  their  force,  if  we  al- 
low the  fallibility  of  thefe  two  Evangelifts,  nor  refolve 
to  defend  with  obftinacy  a  poft,  that  is  hardly  to  be 
maintained. 

This  conceflion  is  no  difadvantage  either  to  ourfelves 
or  the  two  Evangelifts  j  the  fpeeches  which  they  have 
recorded  of  Chrift  and  his  Apoftles  make  a  part  of  their 
Hiftory,  and  we  confider  their  contents,  not  as  the  fenti- 
ments  of  thofe  who  relate,  but  of  thofe  who  delivered 
them.  Though  their  Gofpels  were  not  infpired,  they 
would  retain  their  real  excellence,  and  remain  indifpen- 
fable  to  every  Chriftian.  If  St.  Luke  had  not  recorded 
events,  which  are  unnoticed  by  the  other  Evangelifts, 
we  fhould  have  been  ignorant  of  many  important  articles 
in  the  hiftory  of  Chrift,  and  that  of  John  the  Baptift. 
Even  the  commencement  of  his  miniftry,  and  the  year 
of  his  death,  could  without  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Luke  be 
determined  with  no  precifion.  His  A6ls  of  the  Apoftles 
is  one  of  the  beft  written  hiftorical  books,  either  of  the 
Old  or  New  Teftament;  and  if  we  had  been  deprived  of 
this  document,  we  ftiould  not  only  have  remained  with- 
out knowledge  of  the  rife  and  progrefs  of  the  primitive 
church,  a  matter  of  great  confequence  in  determining. 

the 


SECT.  I.         Language  of  the  New  Tejiament,  97 

the  truth  of  our  religion,  but  without  the  means  of  ex- 
plaining the  epiftles  of  St.  Paul,  on  which  the  A6ls  of 
the  Apoftles  throw  the  cleared  light.  Could  therefore 
any  one  demonftrate,  that  St.  Luke  wTote  without  in- 
fpiration,  and  limply  as  a  careful  hiftorian,  according  to 
the  plan  vvhich  he  propofes  in  his  preface,  I  fhould  ftill 
read  his  Gofpel,  and  A<5i:s  of  the  Apoftles,  with  the  fame 
attention  as  at  prefent :  and  we  fhould  have  the  parti- 
cular advantage  of  being  freed  from  difficulties,  which 
are  almoft  infurmountable.  The  chief  hiftorical  ob- 
je6lions  which  are  drawn  from  profane  authors  have  re-» 
ipeft  to  St.  Luke ;  and  if  we  can  refolve  to  abandon  the 
infpiration  of  his  writings,  as  well  as  thofe  of  St.  Mark^ 
we  fhall  eflentially  fcrve  the  caufe  of  Our  religion,  and 
difarm  bur  adverfaries  at  once,  by  depriving  them  of 
that  pretext,  to  deny  the  truth  of  Chrifiianity,  which 
they  derive  from  contradidions  not  wholly  to  be  re* 
moved  '**, 


CHAP.       IV. 

bF    triE    LANGUAGE    OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT'* 

SECT.      L 

'the  gredteji  part  of  the  Neix)  Tejiament  was  written  m 
Creek.     Reajon  of  its  being  written  in  that  language, 

TH  E  books  of  the  New  Teftament  in  general  were 
written  originally  in  Greek,  except  the  Gofpel  of 
St.  Matthew,  and  the  epillle  to  the  Hebrews.  The  reafon 
for  excepting  thefe  books,  which  I  believe  to  be  tranf- 
lations  from  the  Hebrew,  will  be  given  in  the  fecond 
part  of  this  work,  and  may  be  found  in  the  preface  to 
my  expofition  of  the  epiftle  to  the  Hebrews. 

It  is  obviousj  that  not  any  holinefs,  or  peculiar  pre- 
rogative of  the  Greek  language,  could  have  determined 
the  Deity  a  priori  to  give  it  the  preference,  and  that  the 
canonical  auchoricy  of  a  book  of  the  New  Teftament  has 
G  no 


9?  Language  of  the  New  Tejiament.     chap.  rv. 

no  rjclation  to  the  language  in  which  it  was  written. 
This  indeed  has  fometimes  been  afTerted,  and  it  has  been 
argued  on  that  ground,  that  the  original  of  St.  Matthew's 
Gofpel,  and  of  the  epiftle  to  the  Hebrews,  could  not 
have  been  Hebrew.  But  where  is  that  pofition  to  be 
found  in  the  Bible,  that  every  canonical  booi^  of  the  New 
Teftament  mud  have  been  written  originally  in  Greek, 
or  how  can  it  be  (hewn  from  the  nature  of  the  thing  it- 
fclf  ?  It  is  true,  that  whoever  is  perfuaded,  that  the  Gof- 
pel of  St.  Matthew,  and  the  epiftle  to  the  Hebrews,  exift 
not  in  a  tianflation,  but  in  the  original,  may  contend 
that  all  the  books  of  the  New  Teftament  were  written  in 
Greek:  but  this  would  be  only  an  hiftorical  pofition, 
and  could  not  be  applied  to  thefe  two  excepted  books, 
■without  arguing  in  a  circle.  This  falfe  conclufion  has 
probably  been  occafioned  in  proteftant  countries  by  the 
following  caufe.  In  the  public  ledlures  *  on  dogmatical, 
and  polemical  Theology,  it  is  aflumed  as  a  chara6leriftic 
mark  of  the  canonicity  of  a  book  of  the  Old  Teftament, 
that  it  be  written  in  Hebrew  or  Chaldee.  Now  for  the 
authority  of  the  Old  Teftament  we  rely  on  the  teftimony 
of  Chrift  and  his  Apoftles,  who  have  confirmed  the 
canon  of  the  Jews,  of  which  all  the  books  are  written  in 
thofe  languages.  This  principle,  the  bafis  of  whicli  has 
been  falfely  underftood,  is  transferred  from  the  Old  to 
the  New  Teftament,  which,  as  well  as  the  former,  has 
been  fuppofed  to  have  its  canonical  language  :  and  hence 
has  arifen  that  pofition  received  in  dogmatical  Theology, 
that  every  canonical  book  in  the  New  Teftament  was 
written  originally  in  Greek. 

It  is  difficult  to  comprehend  in  what  refpeft  the  lan- 
guage of  the  New  Teftament  is  related  to  its  Divinity. 
The  univerfal  church,  or,  to  ufe  an  expreffion  of  the 
Bible,  the  whole  people  of  God,  confifted  not  merely  of 
perfons  who  fpoke  Greek,  but  of  nations  wlio  fpoke  a 
great  variety  of  languages:  the  body  of  the  church,  into 
which  the  numerous  heathen  converts  were  engrafted, 
confifted  of  Jews,  among  whom  were  many  thoufands, 
who  fpoke  not  Greek,  but  Hebrew  or  Chaldee ;  perhaps 

the 


SECT.  I.        Language  of  the  New  Teftament.  pd 

i\\t  greateft  part  of  thofe  who  at  the  time  of  the  deftruc, 
tion  of  Jerufalem  fled  to  Pella,  and  other  neighbouring 
cities  of  Syria.  To  argue  therefore  a  priori  (though  ar- 
guments of  that  nature  when  applied  to  the  Deiry  are 
generally  without  foundation)  it  feems  becoming  the 
wifdom  of  Providence  to  have  permitted  at  lead  a 
part  of  the  infpired  writings  to  be  written  in  the  lan- 
guage, which  was  fpoken  by  the  mother  church.  But 
it  is  to  no  purpofe  to  examine  in  v;hat  language  the  New 
Teftament  might  have  been  written,  ^nd  the  only  quef- 
tion  of  importance  is,  in  what  language  it  adually  was 
written. 

The  fuppofition,  that  God  has  chofen  in  his  wifdom 
the  Greek  language,  as  a  vehicle  of  revelation,  becaufe 
it  was  ai  that  time  the  language  moft  generally  known, 
is  as  little  to  the  purpofe,  as  the  formerargument.  No 
language  is  fo  widely  extended,  as  to  be  underftood  by 
a  tenth  part  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  globe  i  whatever 
then  the  Deity  had  adopted  as  a  fource  of  religious  in- 
formation, the  greater  part  of  mankind  muft  have  de- 
lived  their  knowledge  from  tranflations,  and  We  know 
that  the  Chriftians  of  the  Eaft  read  the  New  Teftament 
at  a  very  early  period  in  the  Syriac,  and  thofe  of  Africa 
and  the  Weftern  part  of  Europe  in  the  Latin  verfioni 
Befides,  the  duration  q>{  a  language  is  itfclf  limited,  and 
that,  which  is  at  prefent  the  moft  general  in  Europe, 
may  in  a  thoufand  years  have  ceafed  to  be  a  living  lan- 
guage:  even  the  Greek,  which  was  underftood  in  Italy 
and  Gaul,  which  in  confcquence  of  Alexander's  victories 
was  introduced  into  Egypt,  and  fpread  throughout  the 
Eaft,  has  been  confined  fince  the  feventh  century  within 
a  very  narrow  compafs.  Almoft  all  Europe  has  loft  the 
advantage  of  receiving  it  as  the  language  of  literature, 
ahd  not  only  in  the  ages  of  ignorance,  but  even  in  the 
cighteerlth  century,  we  may  complain  of  the  negleft  of 
Grecian  learning.  It  might  feem  then  not  Unworthy  the 
wifdom  of  Providence  to  have  chofen  the  Latin  language, 
as  the  mean  of  revelation  ;  and  Hardouin  has  aftually 
endeavoured  to  prove  that  the  New  Teftament  was  writ- 
G 1  ten 


foo  Lajigu/tge  of  the  Neto  Tejlament.      chaf.  iv. 

ten  originally  in  that  language.  Another  critic  might 
for  the  fame  reafon  propofe  the  Arabic,  which  fince  the 
ieventh  century  has  been  fpoken  in  a  greater  extent  of 
country,  than  the  Greek  in  its  moft  flourifhing  period. 
But  in  this  chain  of  reafoning  a  circumfVance  has  been 
ufually  omitted,  which  entirely  alters  the  nature  of  the 
argument.  The  language  of  the  New  Teftament  is  fo 
intermixed  with  Hebraifms,  that  many  native  Greeks 
might  have  found  it  difficult  to  underfland  it,  or  have 
been  deterred  from  the  attempt  by  the  nature  of  the  llyle. 
This  at  leaft  is  certain,  that  if  Plutarch,  and  the  philo- 
fophic  Tacitus,  who  likewife  was  acquainted  with  the 
Greek,,  had  been  able  to  read  the  hiftorical  books  of  the 
Old  Teftament  in  the  Greek  tranflation,  they  would 
never  have  committed  fuch  grofs,  and  fometimes  ridicu- 
lous miftakesj  relating  to  the  Jewiih  nation  ;  and,  as  that 
tranflation  exifted  long  before  that  period,  it  is  highly 
probable  that  the  ftyle  of  the  Septuagint,  which  is  fimilar 
to  that  of  the  New  Teftament,  was  the  caufe  of  its  not 
being  read  by  the  Greeks  and  Romans.  It  could  hardly 
then  be  the  intention  of  Providence  in  the  choice  of  a 
language,  to  adopt  any  one  in  particular,  becaufe  it  was 
moft  generally  known ;  fince  the  divine  Will  not  only 
might  have  been,  but  actually  has  been  communicated  to 
the  greateft  part  of  mankind  through  the  medium  of  tranf- 
lations.  We  muft  confider  it  however  as  a  bleffing  of 
Providence,  that  a  language  was  adopted,  which  was  in- 
telligible to  fo  many,  and  for  the  underftanding  of  which 
fo  many  critical  helps  are  ftill  remaining;  though  thcfe 
are  rather  confequences  of  the  New  Teftament's  being 
written  in  Greek,  fince  a  divine  revelation  naturally  in- 
duced mankind  to  cultivate  the  language  in  which  it 
was  delivered. 

The  true  reafon,  why  the  greateft  part  of  the  New 
Teftament  was  written  in  Greek,  is  fimply  this,  that  it 
was  the  language  beft  underftood  both  by  writers,  and 
readers.  Kad  St.  Paul  written  to  a  community  in  the 
Roman  province  of  Africa,  he  might  have  written  per- 
haps in  Latin ;  but  epiftles  to  the  inhabitants  of  Corinth, 

Galatia, 


SECT.  I,        Language  of  the  New  Tejlament.  loi 

Galatia',  Ephefus,  Philippi,  and  ThciTalonica,  to  Ti- 
mothy, Titus,  and  Philemon,  from  a  native  of  Tarfus, 
could  hardly  be  expeifted  in  any  other  language  than 
Greek.  The  fame  may  be  faid  of  the  epiftles  of  St. 
Peter,  which  are  addrcfTed  to  the  Chriftians  of  different 
countries,  who  had  no  other  language  in  common  than 
the  Greek  j  and  likewife  of  the  epiftles  of  St.  James, 
who  wrote  to  Jews,  that  lived  at  a  diftance  from  Palef- 
tine,  and  were  ignorant  of  Hebrew  ♦.  The  native  lan- 
guage of  St.  Luke,  as  well  as  of  Theophilus,  to  whom 
he  addreiTed  his  Gofpel,  and  Ads  of  the  Apoftles,  ap- 
pears to  have  been  Greek ;  and  that  St.  John  wrote  his 
Gofpel  in  that  language,  and  not  in  Hebrew,  is  by  no 
means  a  matter  of  furprife,  fince  he  wrote  at  Ephefus. 

With  refpeft  to  the  epiftle  to  the  Romans,  it  may  be 
a(ked  indeed  why  St.  Paul  did  not  write  in  Latin  ?  Now, 
whoever  propofes  this  queftion  muft  prefuppofe,  that  St. 
Paul  was  mafter  of  the  Latin  language  in  fuch  a  degree, 
as  to  find  no  difficulty  in  wridng  it,  a  matter  which  re- 
mains to  be  proved.  I  make  no  doubt,  that  St.  Paul 
was  acquainted  with  the  Latin ;  but  between  undcr- 
llanding  a  language,  and  being  able  to  write  it,  is  a  very 
material  difference.  As  St.  Paul  was  a  native  of  Tarfus, 
his  native  language  was  Greek  j  he  had  travelled  during 
leveral  years  through  countries,  in  which  no  other  lan- 
guage was  fpoken,  and  when  he  addrefled  the  Roman 
centurion  at  Jerufalem,  he  fpoke  not  Latin,  but  Greek. 
Is  it  extraordinary  then,  that  in  writing  to  the  inhabit 
tants  of  Rome  he  Ihould  have  ufed  a  language,  which 
was  there  fo  generally  underftood  ?  It  has  been  long  re- 
marked, that  Greek  was  at  that  time  as  well  known  in 
Rome,  as  French  in  any  court  of  modern  Europe :  that 
according  to  Juvenal*  even  the  female  fcx  made  ufe  of 
Greek  as  the  language  of  familiarity  and  palfionj  and 
that  in  letters  of  friendlhip,  Greek  words  and  phrafcs  were 
introduced  with  greater  freedom,  than  French  cxpref- 
fioDs  in  German  letters,  as  appears  from  Cicero's  epiftles 
to  Atticus,  and  from  thofe  of  Auguftus  preferved  in  the 

works 

a  Sat.  VI.  V.  185—191, 


102  iMnguage  of  the  New  Tejlament.     chap,  iv, 

works  of  Suetonius ".  To  this  muft  be  added  a  material 
circumftance,  that  a  great  part  of  the  Roman  Chriftians 
confided  of  native  Jews,  who  were  better  acquainted 
with  Greek,  than  with  Latin,  as  either  they  themfelves, 
or  their  anceftors,  had  come  from  Greece,  Afia  Minor, 
or  Egypt,  in  which  Greek  was  the  language  of  the 
country.  At  leaft  they  read  the  Bible  in  that  language  ^ 
as  no  Latin  trariflation  of  the  Old  Teflament  at  that 
time  exifted ;  and,  the  Chriftian  church  at  that  period 
confiding  chiefly  of  Jews,  the  heathen  converts  in  Rome 
were  of  courfe  under  the  neceflity  of  accudoming  them- 
felves to  the  Greek  language.  In  diort,  St.  Paul  in  his 
epidle  to  the  Romans  made  ufe  of  a  language,  in  which 
alone  thofe  who  were  ignorant  of  Hebrew,  could  read 
the  Bible.  What  has  been  here  advanced  refpefting  the 
epidle  to  the  Romans  is  equally  applicable  to  the  Greek 
of  St.  Mark,  on  the  fuppofition  that  it  was  written  at 
Rome. 

To  the  above  arguments  may  be  added  the  example 
of  Jofephus,  who,  as  well  as  the  Apodlcs,  was  by  birth 
a  Jew.  He  even  lived  in  Rome,  which  is  more  than 
can  be  faid  of  St.  Paul  and  St.  Mark,  who  refided  there 
only  a  certain  time :  he  was  likewife  younger  than  either  ; 
he  came  to  Italy  at  an  age,  which  is  highly  fuitable  to 
the  learning  of  a  language,  and  previous  to  that  period 
had  fpent  feveral  years  in  the  Roman  camp.  The  Jewifli 
Antiquities,  the  Hidory  of  the  Jewidi  War,  and  the  ac- 
count of  his  ov/n  life,  he  wrote  undoubtedly  with  a  view 
of  their  being  read  by  the  Romans  ;  and  yet  he  com- 
pofed  all  thefe  vvritings  in  Greek,  He  exprefles  his  mo- 
tive for  writing  his  Greek  account  of  the  Jcwidi  war  in 
the  following  terms "" :  **  that  having  written  in  his  native 
language  (i.  e.  the  Hebrev/  dialed  at  that  time  fpoken) 
^  hidory  of  the  war,  in  order  that  Parthians,  Babylor 
fiians,  Arabians,  Adiabencs,  and  the  Jews  beyond  the 
Euphrates  might  be  informed  of  thofe  events,  he  was 
now  refolved  to  write  for  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  who 

fe  Suftonhis  in  Vita  Oaudii,  cap.  ir, 
f  EcU.  Jud.  Prooemiura,  feft,  2, 


SECT.  II.        Language  of  the  Hew  Tejiament.  103 

had  not  been  engaged  in  the  campaigns,  a  more  certain 
account  than  had  hitherto  been  given."  The  motives 
which  induced  Jofephus  to  write  in  Greek,  are  full  as 
applicable  to  St,  Paul  and  St.  Mark,  and  his  example 
alone  is  lufficient  to  refute  the  objecflions  of  Hardouin, 
which  fhall  be  confidcred  in  the  following  fedion. 


SECT.       II. 

Hardcutns  extraordinary  hypothefts  of  a  Latin  Original^, 

THIS  very  learned,  but  at  the  fame  time  whimfical 
critic,  affcrted  in  his  commentary  on  the  New 
Teftament,  that  what  we  call  the  Latin  tranflation  is  in 
fa6l  the  original,  and  that  the  Greek  Teftament  is  no- 
thing more  than  an  infigniticant  tranflation  by  an  un- 
known hand.  The  late  Baumgarten  has  written  againft 
this  incredible  fuppofuion  a  treatife  publifhed  in  1742, 
and  entitled  Vindicias  Textus  Gr^ci  Novi  Tellamenti 
contra  Harduinum.    • 

The  opinion  of  Hardouin,  which  he  himfelf  has  de- 
livered in  a  confufed,  and  fometimes  contradi6lory  man- 
ner, is,  that  all  the  writings  of  the  Apoftles  were  com- 
poled  in  Latin.  He  allows,  that  they  might  have  writ- 
ten certain  parts  in  the  Greek  language  (nonnulla  Gra^ce 
etiam  fortaffis),  and  thinks  it  probable  that  the  Gofpel 
of  St.  Matthew,  and  perhaps  even  the  other  Gofpels, 
with  the  Revelation  of  St.  John,  were  written  in  Hebrew, 
in  v/hich  cafe  the  Latin  would  be  only  a  tranflation, 
which  an  amanuenfls  made  in  the  prefence  of  an  Apoftle, 
and  which  the  Apoftle  himfelf  correded.  In  another 
pafllige  he  is  of  opinion  that  St.  Paul,  during  the  time  of 
his  imprilbnment  in  Rome,  tranflated  into  Latin  his  own 
epiftles,  which  he  had  written  originally  in  Greek.  But, 
as  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  originals,  as  written  by  the 
Apoftles,  are  entirely  loft,  we  have  no  other  dependence 
than  on  the  Latin  Text,  as  the  prefent  Greek  Teftament 
iii  only  an  imperfed  tranQation  from  the  Latin  by  fomi 
G  4  vnknow* 


I04  Language  of  the  New  Tejlament.       chai».  iv. 

unknown  author.  He  fuppofcs  likewife,  that  St.  Paul 
had  a  Greek  amanuenfis,  who  wrote  in  Greek  what  the 
Apoftle  di'flated  in  Latin,  and  this  amanuenfis  he  be- 
lieves to  have  been  Titus  ;  yet  he  afterwards  abandons 
this  opinion,  fays  that  Titus  could  not  have  been  the 
amanuenfis,  as  he  had  a  Roman  name,  and  that  this 
extemporary  tranflation  could  not  be  the  text  which  we 
have  at  prefent.  He  makes  a  fingle  exception  to  the 
epiftle  of  Philemon,  which  he  believes  to  have  been 
written  in  Greek,  but  the  original  rauft  have  been  ac- 
companied with  a  Latin  tranflation,  as  the  epiftle  was 
addrefled  not  only  to  Philemon,  but  alfo  to  his  wife, 
who  was  named  Appia,  and  therefore  of  Roman  origin  : 
but  our  prefent  Greek  epiftle  to  Philemon  is  only  a  tranf- 
lation of  the  genuine  Latin  verfion,  which  was  made  by 
St.  Paul  himfelf. 

To  relate  thefe  opinions  is  at  the  fame  time  to  refute 
them.  They  contain  a  feries  of  aflTertions,  that  are  not 
only  groundlefs,  but  contradiftory  to  all  antiquity ;  to 
the  accurate,  and  authentic  accounts  of  Jerom,  who  hav- 
ing correfted  the  Latin  verfion,  publifhed  it  as  we  have 
it  at  prefent  j  and  even  to  the  catholic  church,  which  it 
was  the  objeft  of  Hardouin  to  ferve.  Befides,  the  hypo- 
thefis  itfelf  is  of  fo  extraordinary  a  nature,  that  it  would 
find  difficulty  to  procure  belief,  though  attefted  by  the 
moft  credible  witnefles.  That  Latin  had  become  the 
current  language  at  Corinth  and  Philippi,  becaufe  Ro- 
man colonies  had  been  planted  there,  and  that  in  fuch  a 
degree,  as  to  make  it  necelTary  to  write  in  Latin  to  the 
Corinthian  and  Philippian  communities,  is  highly  im- 
probable }  but  that  Latin  epiftles  were  written  to  the  in- 
habitants of  Theflalonica,  Ephefus,  Coloftk,  Pontus, 
Gahtia,  Cappadocia,  Afia,  and  Bithynia'',  exceeds  the 
bounds  of  belief  A  Greek  epiftle  to  Philemon,  accom- 
panied with  a  Latin  tranflation  for  his  wife,  muft  really 
excite  a  fmile,  as  it  naturally  iuggefts  the  queftion,  whe^ 
ther  the  married  couple,  of  which  the  hufband  fpoke  no 
Latipj  and  the  wife  no  Greek,  were  not  obliged  to  con- 

dua 

rf  \  Pet.  i.  t. 


SECT.  II.         Language  of  the  New  Tejla)nent,  105 

dii6t  their  familiar  converfation  by  the  means  of  an  in- 
terpreter ?  How  extraordinary  is  the  relation  of  two  ama- 
nucnfes,  to  which  St.  Paul  dilated  at  the  fame  time,  of 
which  the  one  wrote  the  language  delivered  by  St.  Paul, 
the  other  an  extemporary  tranflation ;  and  how  incre- 
dible to  every  one  accuftomed  to  the  fmgular  ftyle  of  the 
Apoftle  !  On  a  verfion  made  in  this  manner,  no  reliance 
could  be  placed,  and  if  Hardouin  means  the  prefent 
Vulgate,  he  degrades  it  to  a  much  lower  degree  than 
feems  to  have  been  his  real  intention,  fince  a  verfion  of 
this  nature  could  never  be  put  in  competidon  with  that, 
which  we  receive  as  the  Vulgate,  a  tranflation  on  which 
time  and  attention  was  bellowed,  and  which  afterwards, 
by  order  of  Pope  Damafus,  was  revifed  and  correfled  by 
Jerom.  And  what  increafes  the  difficulty  is  St.  Paul's 
lingular,  and  characfleriftic  mode  of  writing,  whofe  pe- 
riods devoid  of  art,  with  long  and  numerous  parenthefes, 
betray  a  mind  fo  full  of  its  fubjecb,  that  the  ftyle  is  often 
neglecled,  and  fometimes  replete  with  obfcurity.  A  lan- 
guage delivered  in  this  manner  to  tranflate  inftantly,  and 
with  accuracy,  was  furely  beyond  the  power  of  any  ama- 
nuenfis,  to  whom  a  great  part  of  the  periods  muft  have 
appeared  unintelligible,  before  they  were  finifhed.  But 
Hardouin  has  not  been  able  to  produce  a  fingle  inftance 
of  an  author,  who  was  thus  dictated  to  two  amanuenfes 
at  the  fame  inftant :  and  the  more  we  direft  our  attention 
to  the  times  of  the  Apoftles,  the  more  incredible  this 
aflertion  muft  appear,  as  no  writer,  who  compofed  in 
Greek,  could  even  think  of  a  Latin  tranflation,  fince  the 
original  itfelf  was  intelligible  to  Romans,  as  well  as 
Greeks. 

It  is  indeed  difficult  to  determine  with  any  degree  of 
accuracy,  what  particular  verfion  is  fuppofed  by  Hardouin 
to  be  the  original  text  of  the  Apoftles ;  and  whichfoever 
we  believe  him  to  have  meant,  the  hypothefis  is  attended 
in  them  all  with  equal  difficulty.  Catholic  readers  un- 
derftand  probably  the  Vulgate,  which  after  being  revifei^ 
by  the  popes  Pius  the  fourth  and  fifth,  Sixtus  the  fifth, 
and  Clement  the  eighth,  was  pronounced  by  the  church, 

though 


io6  Language  of  the  New  Tejiameni.      chap.  rv. 

though  in  a  fenfe  quite  different  from  that  of  Hardouin, 
to  be  authentic.  But  this  fuppofition  involves  too  great 
an  abfurdity,  as  the  Vulgate  has  been  univerfally  received 
as  a  tranflation  from  the  Greek,  and  Jerom  himfelf  re- 
lates, in  what  manner  he  revifed  and  corredled  it.  If  he 
means  the  old  Latin  verfion,  which  exifted  before  the 
time  of  Jerom,  the  point  remains  ftill  undetermined,  as 
that  learned  father  fpeaks  not  only  of  copies  which  dif- 
fered in  various  readings  from  each  other,  but  of  great 
numbers  of  even  totally  diftinft  tranflations.  If  this 
really  be  the  meaning  of  Hardouin,  he  attacks  the  church 
of  Rome  in  a  more  fevere  and  immediate  manner  than 
was  ever  done  even  by  a  Proteftant,  and  argues  againft 
the  authority  of  at  leafi:  fix  popes,  and  the  decifions  of 
the  council  of  Trent.  If  an  antient  Latin  text  in  the 
pofTefiion  of  the  church  before  the  time  of  Jerom  was  the 
original  work  of  the  Apoflles,  and  the  Greek  Teftament 
only  an  infignificant  tranflation,  it  was  the  highefl  pitch 
of  folly  to  fet  afide  the  genuine  original,  to  take  meafures 
for  procuring  a  faithful  tranflation,  and  in  order  to  ren- 
der this  tranflation  as  cor  red  as  pofllble,  to  compare  it 
carefully  with  the  Greek,  which  was  itfelf  only  a  verfion 
of  no  value.  The  object,  which  Hardouin  had  in  view 
in  compofing  his  commentary,  is  likewife  a  matter  of  un- 
certainty, and,  as  it  appeared  not  till  after  his  death,  fufpi- 
cions  have  been  entertained  by  many  that  he  was  a  fecret 
enemy  to  the  Chrifliian  religion.  But  without  further 
inquiring  into  his  motives,  let  us  examine  the  arguments 
alledged  in  fupport  of  his  hypothefis. 

I.  "  The  Latin  language  was  better  underllood  in  all 
the  provinces  of  the  Roman  empire  than  the  Greek ;  it 
was  underftood  even  at  Jerufalem,  fince  an  infcription 
was  written  in  Latin  on  the  Crofs  of  Chrifl:." 

But  Hardouin  cannot  deny  that  Greek  was  fpoken  in 
Greece  and  Afia  Minor,  and  that  the  Roman  colonifts 
who  fettled  at  Philippi  and  Corinth  were  obliged,  in  or- 
AtT  to  converfe  with  the  natives,  to  learn  their  language, 
TJo  one  will  deny  that  Latin  was  underftood  hy  many 
perfons  in  Jerufalem,  but  Hardouin  weakens  the  force  of 

his 


SECT.  II.      Language  of  the  Neiv  Tejiament.  107 

his  own  argument  by  adding  that  the  Latin  infcription 
was  written  on  the  crofs  on  account  of  the  foreigners  who 
came  from  Italy  *.  The  Latin  ufed  in  a  provincial  court 
of  juflicc,  cfpecially  in  pafling  fentence,  was  a  mark  of 
fubjeftion  to  the  Romans,  but  no  proof  that  Latin  was 
underftood  by  the  province  at  large.  This  argument  is 
therefore  inapplicable  to  all  the  epiftles  of  St.  Paul  and  to 
moft  of  the  other  books  of  the  New  Teftament.  The 
province  of  Egypt  had  not  long  been  reduced  under  Ro- 
man authority,  and  Greek  ftill  continued  to  be  fpoken, 
though  the  country  was  fubjeft  to  Rome,  l^  St.  Luke 
therefore  wrote  his  Gofpel  in  that  country,  it  was  reafon- 
able  to  fuppofe  that  he  would  write  in  Greek,  and  equally 
fo  whether  he  wrote  in  Afia  Minor,  Palefline,  or  Greece. 
The  Jews  in  general,  who  lived  fcattered  in  the  different 
parts  of  the  Roman  empire,  fpoke  that  language :  the 
epiftle  therefore  of  St.  James  cannot  be  ranked  amongft 
thofe  writings  which  might  be  fuppofed  to  have  been 
originally  in  Latin ;  and  as  the  main  body  of  the  Chrif- 
tian  communities,  not  excepting  thofe  in  Rome,  confided 
of  Jews,  the  argument  of  Hardouin  lofes  all  its  weight, 
even  when  applied  to  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Mark,  and  the 
epiftle  to  the  Romans. 

2.  "  The  Deity  mud  have  forefeen  that  the  Latin  lan- 
guage would  in  after  ages  become  more  general,  and  it 
is  therefore  reafonable  to  believe  that  he  infpired  the  New 
Teftament  in  that  language." 

Now  this  is  to  apply  a  weak  dogmatical  argument  to 
a  queftion  that  is  merely  hiftoricalj  no  reafoning  a  priori 
can  determine  what  adlually  has  or  has  not  happened, 
and  our  knowledge  is  much  too  confined  to  draw  the 
prefumptive  conclufion  that  thofe  meafures  which  appear 
to  us  the  bed,  are  the  meafures  adopted  by  the  Deity. 
The  quedion  dill  remains  to  be  decided,  whether  Latin, 
on  the  whole,  and  taking  each  century  into  the  account, 
has  been  more  general  ^han  Greek.  For  a  more  parti- 
cular anfwer  to  his  argument,  I  refer  my  readers  to  the 
p-catife  of  Baumgarten,  who  very  properly  obferves  that 

Hardouin 

e   A(5ls  ii.  ip. 


io8  Language  of  the  Ne-u)  Tejlament.     chap.  iv. 

Hardouln  has  taken  not  the  leall  notice  of  the  Greek 
church. 

2'  *'  St.  Paul  diftated  his  epiftle  to  the  Romans  to  a 
perfon  whole  name  was  Tertius*^:  now  this  is  a  Roman 
name,  and  the  Tertii  were  a  family  of  great  diftinflion 
in  Rome :  confequently  the  epiftle  muft  have  been  writ- 
ten in  Latin.  And  St.  Paul  mentions  the  name  of  the 
writer  with  that  very  defign,  that  the  Romans  might  not 
be  furprifed  that  a  Jew  who  was  a  native  of  Tarfus  had 
written  in  Latin,  and  not,  as  might  have  been  expeded, 
in  Hebrew  or  Greek." 

No  conclufion  can  be  drawn  from  a  name,  efpecially 
in  thofe  ages,  when  foreigners  adopted  Roman  names  in 
honour  of  their  patrons,  and  no  one  will  fuppofe  that 
Jofephus  was  a  Roman  bec^ufe  lie  had  the  prasnomen 
Flavius.  Yet  I  readily  grant  that  Tertius  was  a  Roman, 
and  it  is  not  improbable  that  St.  Paul  chofe  him  for  his 
amanuenfis  on  the  very  account  that  his  perfon  and  his 
writing  were  known  to  the  Romans.  But  does  it  follow 
that  Tertius  was  unable  to  write  the  Greek  which  the 
Apoftle  dictated  .^  Still  more  extraordinary  is  Hardouin's 
own  confeflion  that  the  Romans  might  have  been  rea- 
fonably  furprifed  if  they  had  received  a  Latin  epiftle,  and 
that  it  was  natural  to  fuppofe  St.  Paul  would  write  Greek, 
He  feems  even  to  doubt  whether  the  Apoftle  could  have 
written  a  Latin  epiftle  at  that  time  without  affiftance :  in 
which  cafe,  it  was  more  reafonable  to  believe  that  he 
wrote  in  Greek. 

4.  "  The  epiftle  to  the  Romans  was  written  at  Co- 
rinth, a  Roman  colony,  on  whofe  very  coins  may  be 
fcen  the  Latin  infcripdon  Col.  Cor.  He  wrote  likcwife 
in  the  houfe  of  Caius^,  whofe  name  is  Latin,  and  confe- 
quendy  the  epiftle  to  the  Romans  muft  have  been 
written  in  that  language." 

Now  it  neither  follows,  that  Latin  was  fpoken  in  the 
houfe  of  Caius,  becaufe  he  had  a  Roman  name,  aor  that 
Ladr\  was  the  language  of  the  city,  becaufe  the  coins  had 
a  Latin  infcription,  as  this  circumftance  was  only  a  token 

that 
*  Rom,  xvl.  22,  8  Rom,  xvi.  43. 


»ECT.  II.       Language  of  the  New  Teflament.  109 

that  Corinth  enjoyed  the  privileges  of  a  Roman  colony. 
But  admitting  that  Latin  was  the  language  fpoken  by 
Caius,  we  cannot  fuppole  that  St.  Paul  preferred  that  lan- 
guage merely  out  of  compliment  to  his  hoft.  This  ar- 
gument is  a  contradiction  to  the  preceding,  fince  if  St. 
Paul  was  unable  to  write  Latin  without  afliftance,  he 
would  have  hardly  attempted  it  for  fo  trifling  a  reafon. 

5.  •*  The  ftyle  of  the  Latin  Teflament  is  fmooth  and 
elegant,  whereas  that  of  the  Greek  Teflament  is  rough 
and  impure:  confcquently  the  latter  is  the  tranflation, 
and  not  the  former." 

This  is  the  firft  inflance  of  a  critic's  pronouncing  the 
ftyle  of  the  Vulgate,  efpecially  before  it  was  correfted  by 
Jerom,  to  be  fmooth  and  elegant.  But  in  the  Greek  " 
Teftament  there  are  feveral  books,  efpecially  the  A6ls  of 
the  Apoftles,  that  are  written,  with  exception  to  certain 
Hebraifms,  in  a  very  tolerable  ftyle,  and  the  language  of 
St.  Paul's  epiftles  is  not  only  fluent,  but  if  I  may  continue 
the  metaphor,  even  rapid  and  violent.  This  weak  argu- 
ment of  Hardouin  has  given  rife  to  a  remark  of  the  late 
Baumgarten,  which  ought  not  to  be  omitted.  The 
ftyle  of  the  Vulgate  in* every  book  of  the  New  Tefta- 
ment is  precifely  the  fame,  whereas  in  the  Greek  the 
peculiar  manner  of  each  writer  is  diftinclly  vifible  ;  the 
uniformity  therefore  of  the  Vulgate  fliews  it  to  be  a 
tranflation,  and  the  charadleriftic  modes  of  writing  prove 
the  Greek  Teftament  an  original, 

6.  "  The  Greek  Teftament  contradids  in  feveral  in- 
ftances  the  catholic  church,  and  the  Heretics  have  con- 
ftantly  appealed  to  it  in  proof  of  their  dodrines,  whereas 
the  Vulgate  is  purely  catholic." 

7.  "It  was  more  eafy  to  colled  the  Latin,  books  of  the 
New  Teftament  in  the  fingle  city  of  Rome,  than  Greek 
books  difperfed  in  diftant  provinces." 

The  collection  of  thefe  writings  has  no  connexion 
with  the  prefent  queftion,  which  relates  fimply  to  the 
origin  of  the  feveral  parts.  But  we  may  obferve  in  reply 
to  Hardouin,  that  Greek  writings  could  as  eafilv  be  col- 
leded  at  Ephefus  by  St.  John,  who  outhved  the  reft  of 

the 


no  Language  of  the  New  Tefidment.     chap.  iVi 

the  Apollles,  as  Latin  writings  could  have  been  collefled 
at  Rome. 

8.  "  The  Greek  manufcripts  differ  very  materially 
from  each  other,  whereas  no  difference  can  be  found  in 
the  editions  of  the  Vulgate." 

It  is  really  inconceivable  how  Hardouin  could  make  fo 
extraordinary  an  affertion.  We  fhall  find  in  the  fequel 
that  St.  Jerom  defcribes  the  Latin  manufcripts  which 
exifled  in  that  period  as  differing  fo  materially  from  each 
other,  that  the  variations  could  hardly  be  explained  on 
tl^e  principle  of  different  readings,  but  were  rather  the 
refult  of  di{tin6l  tranflations,  the  number  of  which  St. 
Jerom  reckoned  to  be  upwards  of  feventy.  But,  after 
the  fovereign  Pontiff  had  ordered  the  manufcripts  to  be 
collated,  and  a  correct  edition  to  be  publifhed,  with  a 
flridl  command  that  no  other  fliould  be  ufed,  that  the 
fubfequent  copies  of  the  Vulgate  were  fimilar  to  each 
other,  may  be  explained  without  affuming  the  hypothefis 
of  the  Vulgate  being  the  original,  which  was  never  be- 
lieved by  Pope  Damafus  himfelf.  Yet  this  authorized 
Vulgate  Hands  by  no  means  in  perfeft  harmony  either 
with  the  different  manufcripts,  or  the  ftill  older  Latin 
verfions  which  have  been  publiflKd  by  Blanchini. 

The  arguments  of  Hardouin,  which  have  been  hitherto 
mentioned,  have  not  even  the  fiiadow  of  probability,  but 
the  following  has  at  leaft  the  appearance  of  a  foundation. 

9.  "  St.  Paul  in  the  epiftle  to  Philemon,  makes  allu- 
fions  to  the  names  of  Philemon  and  Onefimus,  which 
can  be  expreffed  only  in  Greek :  if  the  prefent  epiflle 
therefore  were  the  original,  the  words  moft  proper  for 
expreffing  the  allufions  would  have  been  retained.     For 

.  inftance,  v.  i.  $jAii/;tcH  tw  <piA>iTu,  and  v.  10,  11.  0^tl(rJaoy 

Tov  TtTOTi  (TQi  a.voi/n(Ti[xov ,  vvvi  Si  (Toi  y.cci  iy.oi  ounctfJi.oii.       But  in 

the  prefent  cafe  we  find  <luxri[j.ovi  tw  ayaTrnrw,  and  On^ri^-oj^ 
TOk  TjTOTi  croi  a.^pYifOi>^  where  the  paronomafia  is  totally  loll: : 
we  mufl  therefore  conclude  that  the  epiftle  contained  in 
our  canon  is  nothing  more  than  a  tranQation  from  the 
Latin,  in  which  thele  allufions  could  not  be  expreffed." 
This  objection  is  not  devoid  of  ingenuity;  but  the 

text. 


SECT.  III.      Language  of  the  New  Teftament.  iii 

text,  as  described  by  Hardouin,  would  convey  rather  the 
language  of  a  punfter,  than  that  of  a  refined  writer,  who 
always  avoids  a  fimilarity  of  founds  that  might  be 
offenfive  to  a  delicate  ear.  And  it  ftill  remains  a  matter 
of  very  great  doubt,  whether  St.  Paul  by  the  word 
ayaTrnrof  intended  to  make  allufion  to  the  name  of  Phi- 
lemon. 


SECT.      III. 


The  ftyle  of  the  New  Tejiament  is  Hebraic  Greek  like  that 
of  the  Septuagint, 

EVERY  man  acquainted  with  the  Greek  language, 
who  had  never  heard  of  the  New  Teftament,  muft 
immediately  perceive,  on  reading  only  a  few  lines,  that 
the  ftyle  is  widely  different  from  that  of  the  clafiic  authors. 
The  difputes,  which  have  been  conducted  with  fo  much 
warmth  in  modern  times  concerning  its  purity,  have  arifen 
either  from  a  want  of  fufficient  knowledge  of  the  Greek, 
the  prejudices  of  pedantry  and  fchool-orthodoxy,  or  the 
injudicious  cuftom  of  choofmg  the  Greek  Teftament  as 
the  firft  book  to  be  read  by  learners  of  that  language,  by 
which  means  they  are  fo  accuftomed  to  its  fingular  ftyle, 
that  in  a  more  advanced  age  they  are  incapable  of  per- 
ceiving its  deviation  from  the  language  of  the  clafiics. 

The  New  Teftament  was  written  in  a  language  at  that 
time  cuftomary  among  the  Jews,  which  may  be  named 
Hebraic  Greek,  the  firft  traces  of  which  wc  find  in  the 
tranflation  of  the  Seventy ',  which  might  be  more  pro- 
perly called  the  Alexandrine  *  verfion.  We  find  this 
charader  in  all  the  books  of  the  New  Teftament  in  a 
greater  or  Itfs  degree,  but  we  muft  not  therefore  con- 
clude that  they  poflefs  an  uniformity  of  ftyle.  The  harllieft 
Hebraifms,  which  extend  even  to  grammatical  errors  in 
the  government  of  cafes,  are  the  diftinguifhing  marks 
of  the  book  of  Revelation ;  but  they  are  accompanied 
with  tokens  of  genius  and  poetical  enthufiafm,  of  which 

every 


112  Language  of  the  Neisj  Tejlament.     chap,  i v. 

every  reader  miift  be  fenfible  who  has  tafte  and  feeling ; 
there  is  no  tranflarion  of  it,  which  is  not  read  with  plea- 
fure  even  in  the  days  of  childhood,  and  the  very  faults 
of  grammar  are  fo  happily  placed,  as  to  produce  an  agree- 
able effedl.  The  Gofpels  of  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark 
have  ftrong  marks  of  this  Hebraic  ftyle  j  the  former  has 
harfher  Hebraifms  than  the  latter,  the  fault  of  which  may 
be  afcribed  to  the  Greek  tranflator,  who  has  made  too 
literal  a  verfion'',  and  yet  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Mark  is  writ- 
ten in  worfe  language,  and  in  a  manner  that  is  lefs  agree- 
able. The  epilUesof  St.  James  and  St.  Jude  are  fome- 
what  better,  but  even  thefe  are  full  of  Hebraifms,  and 
betray  in  other  refpeds  a  certain  Hebrew  tone.  St.  Luke 
has  in  feveral  paflagcs  written  pure  and  claffic  Greek,  of 
which  the  four  firft  verfes  of  his  Gofpel  may  be  given  as 
an  inftance :  in  the  fequel,  where  he  defcribes  the  a6lions 
of  Chrift,  he  has  very  harlh  Hebraifms,  yet  the  ftyle  is 
more  agreeable  than  that  of  St.  Matthew  or  St.  Mark : 
in  the  Ads  of  the  Apoftles  he  is  not  free  from  Hebraifms, 
which  he  feems  to  have  never  ftudioufly  avoided,  but  his 
periods  are  more  claffically  turned,  and  fometimes  poflefs 
beauty  devoid  of  art.  St.  John  has  numerous,  though 
not  uncouth,  Hebraifms  both  in  his  Gofpel  and  Epiftles, 
but  he  has  written  in  a  fmooth  and  flowing  language, 
and  furpalTes  all  the  Jewifh  writers  in  the  excellence  of 
narrative.  St.  Paul  again  is  entirely  different  from  them 
all  i  his  ftyle  is  indeed  neglefted,  and  full  of  Hebraifms, 
but  he  has  avoided  the  concife  and  verfe-like  conftruc- 
tion  of  the  Hebrew  language,  and  has  upon  the  whole  a 
confiderable  ftiare  of  the  roundncfs  of  Grecian  compofi- 
tion.  It  is  evident  that  he  was  as  perfedlly  acquainted 
with  the  Greek  manner  of  exprefilon  as  with  the  Hebrew, 
and  he  has  introduced  them  alternately,  as  either  the  one 
or  the  other  luggeftcd  itfelf  the  firft,  or  was  the  beft 
approved. 

In  the  fame  manner,  and  for  the  fame  reafon,  the  ftyk 
of  the  Septuagint  is  different  in  different  books  of  the 
Old  Teftament  ^ :  in  fome  of  the  hiftorical  writings,  in 
the  prophets  and  the  Pfalms  the  language  is  the  worft: 

I; 

^Tot  Inftance,  ch.  xxvlii,  i. 


SECT.  III.     Language  of  the  New  Teftament,  113 

it  is  much  better  in  the  books  of  Mofes,  the  tranfiator 
of  which  abides  indeed  religioufly  by  the  Hebrew  letter, 
but  feems  to  have  been  mafter  of  the  Greek,  and  has  in- 
troduced in  various  inftances  the  mod  fuicable,  and  beft 
chofen  exprelTions  ;  but  of  all  the  books  of  the  Septua- 
gint  the  ftyle  of  the  Proverbs  is  the  beft,  where  the  tranf- 
lator  has  clothed  the  moft  ingenious  thoughts  in  as  neat 
and  elegant  language,  as  was  ever  ufed  by  a  Pythagorean 
fage,  to  exprefs  his  philofophic  maxims'.  But  even  this 
book  Is  very  far  from  being  dcftitute  of  Hebraifms, 
though  the  ftru6lure  of  the  Hebrew  verfes  approaches 
much  nearer  to  the  Grecian  manner,  than  any  other 
part  of  the  Bible,  for  the  Proverbs  of  Solomon  have  in  aJl 
refpefts  a  ftrong  analogy  to  the  Pythagorean  fentences. 

It  is  eafy  to  account  for  the  introduftion  and  ufe  of 
this  Hclleniftic  dialed,  as  it  is  fometimes  called,  among 
the  Jews,  and  it  was  very  natural  that  thofe,  who  by  liv- 
ing among  Greeks  acquired  their  language,  fliould  fpeak 
it  with  a  mixture  of  Hebraifms.  Every  man,  who  learns 
a  foreign  language  merely  by  praftice,  retains  of  courfe 
the  idioms  of  his  nadve  language,  and  even  thofe,  who 
have  learned  by  the  rules  of  grammar,  find  it  difficult  to 
fpeak  with  fuch  accuracy,  as  never  to  betray  their  origin. 
And  what  ftill  contributed  to  the  retaining  of  the  Hebrew 
idiom  among  the  Jews  was  their  living  not  fcattered 
fmgly,  but  in  large  communities,  among  the  Greek  na- 
tions. Syrian  and  Egyptian  kings,  as  we  are  informed  by 
Jofephus,  invited  confiderable  colonies  to  fettle  in  dif- 
ferent cities,  employing  them  fometimes  even  as  a  fort  of 
garrifon,  when  they  fufpefted  the  fidelity  of  the  natives, 
and  at  Alexandria  the  number  of  the  Jews  exceeded  all 
defcription.  Now,  when  a  large  body  of  men  live  toge- 
ther in  a  foreign  country,  they  necelTarily  introduce  more 
of  their  own  language  into  that,  which  they  have  learnt 
from  the  natives,  than  thofe,  who  living  fingly  in  the 
midft  of  foreigners  hear  their  language  alone,  and  are 
more  expofed  to  ridicule,  if  they  make  miftakes.  The 
Old  Teftam.ent  was  tranQated  into  Greek  by  the  Jews  o( 

Alex- 

*  See  my  Piograrama  on  the  Scptuagjnt^^  p.  -5.7  4, 


114  Language  of  the  New  Tejlament.     chap.  iv. 

Alexandria,  and  tranflations  give  in  numberlels  inftances 
occafion  of  transferring  the  idiom  of  the  trandated  lan- 
guage to  that  of  the  tranflator,  even  where  he  has  no 
defign  to  make  a  literal  verfion.  Many  of  the  expref- 
fions,  which  are  at  prefent  current  in  Germany,  were 
many  years  ago  unk'iown,  having  been  introduced  and 
incorporated  into  the  language  in  confequence  of  the  nu- 
merous tranflations  from  the  Englifli  and  the  French  : 
foreign  idioms  are  ft  ill  obferved  even  in  thofe  which  we 
continue  to  make,  and  in  the  very  political  papers  it  is 
eafy  to  difcover,  whether  an  article  was  taken  from  an 
Englifli,  a  French,  or  a  Swedifli  original.  If  this  hap- 
pens then  to  thofe,  who  tranflate  into  their  own  language, 
it  muft  have  happened  in  a  much  higher  degree  to  na- 
tive Jews,  who  tranflated  into  Greek,  efpecially  when  fo 
facred  and  fo  important  a  book  as  the  Bible  was  the  fub- 
jeft,  where  they  held  themfelves  bound  to  adhere  with 
more  than  necefl^ary  exactnefs  to  the  words  of  the  origi- 
nal. The  ftru6lure  therefore  of  the  Hebrew  verfes,  which 
deviates  fo  widely  from  the  roundnefs  of  the  Greek  pe- 
riods, remained  unaltered,  and  hence  arofe  a  fpecies  of 
Greek,  which  differed  both  from  the  ftyle  of  the  natives, 
and  from  that  which  perhaps  the  Jews  themfelves  would 
have  ufed,  had  they  been  original  writers.  The  continual 
reading  of  this  verfion  contributed  to  confirm  the  Jews 
in  the  ufe  of  the  Helleniftic  dialed,  which  had  been  al- 
ready introduced :  the  writers  of  the  New  Teftament,  if 
•we  except  St.  Luke,  were  all  of  them  Jews,  and  of  thefe 
St.  Paul  was  the  only  Apoftle  who  was  not  a  native  of 
Paleftine;  yet  he  was  educated  in  the  fchool  of  Gamaliel, 
and  lived  many  years  in  Jerufalem.  Is  it  wonderful  there- 
fore that  we  find  in  the  New  Teftament  die  fame  kind 
of  language  ?  Finally,  the  Gofpei  of  St.  Matthew  was 
tranflated  from  the  Hebrew,  and  the  fpeeches  of  Chrift, 
•which  are  recorded  by  the  Evangclifts,  were,  unlefs  we 
contradidl  the  certain  accounts  of  hiftory,  delivered  in 
the  Hebrew,  or  Aram^an  ^  dialed. 

Yet  with  all  their  fimilarity,  the  Greek  of  the  New 
Teftiamentj  and  that  of  the  Septuagint  are  not  perfedly 

tlic 


SECT.  in.      Language  of  the  New  Tefiament.  xi^ 

the  fame.  The  language  had  undergone,  between  the 
periods  in  which  thole  books  were  written,  feveral  alte- 
rations, which  chiefly  affefted  the  unclalTical  expreffions 
in  common  ufe  among  the  Jews ;  many  words,  which 
are  either  not  to  be  found  in  the  Septuagint,  or  are  there 
ufed  in  a  different  meaning,  became  afterwards  general; 
to  the  antient  Hebraifms  were  added  various  Syriafmsy 
as  Syriac  was  the  language  of  Galilee,  and  the  Greek 
language  itfelf  had  undergone  a  change  under  the  Ro- 
man government,  which  introduced  many  Latin  words, 
and  Latin  exprefTions  ^. 

The  Jews  of  Germany,  Poland,  and  fome  other  coun- 
tries, have  long  been  in  poflefTion  of  a  language  that  is 
called  the  Jewifh  German  7,  which  differs  from  the  ufual 
German  in  a  higher  degree,  than  the  Greek  of  the  New 
Teftament  from  that  of  the  clafTic  authors.  This  example 
may  ferve  to  account  for  the  origin  of  the  Helleniflic  dia- 
led, v/hich  may  with  equal  propriety  be  entitled  Jewifh 
Greek,  though  the  difference  between  Jewifh  and  ClalTic 
Greek  is  lefs  fenfible  than  betv/een  Jewifh  and  ClafHc 
German.  In  the  antient  Latin  verfions  of  the  New  Tef- 
tament we  find  examples  of  Jewilh  Latin,  or  rather  Sy- 
riac Latin,  which  exceed  in  harlhnefs  the  mofl  flriking 
inflances  of  Jewifh  Greek  in  the  New  Tefiament.  Laftly, 
if  we  refieft  on  the  Latin  compofitions,  which  are  often 
made  not  only  in  the  grammar  fchools,  but  even  by  the 
learned,  or  perufe  the  French  writings  of  thofe,  who  are 
ftrangers  to  France,  we  fhall  ceafe  to  wonder  that  the 
Jews  in  wridng  Greek  retained  the  peculiarity  of  the 
Hebrew. 

ic  See  the  examples  o-zatoaXk^ao-Sat  and  9vni,'^rt(Ti(;  in  my  Programma 
on  the  Septuagint,  p.  19— az.  This  fubje6l  will  be  examined  at  large  in  a 
following  leftion  6, 


Ha  SECT. 


Ii5  Language  of  the  New  Tejiament.     chap.  iv. 

S     E     C     T.      IV. 

fFhether  the  peculiar  Jlyle  of  the  New  Tejiament  isfuch  a 
faulty  as  militates  againjl  its  divine  infpiration.  Difpiites 
concerning  the  purity  of  the  Jlyle  of  the  New  Tejiament. 

THE  peculiar  ftyle  of  the  New  Teflament  has  given 
rife  to  many  and  ferious  difputes,  which  feem  by 
degrees  to  have  fubfided,  and  thefe  difputes  have  been 
extended  even  to  the  very  name  of  a  fa6l  which  cannot 
be  denied  ;  whether  that  which  I  have  entitled  Jewifh 
Greek  is  properly  a  feparate  dialect,  whether  this  dialeft 
fhould  be  called  Helleniftic,  becaufe  the  Grecian  Jews 
were  called  ixx-nvi^-xi  in  oppofition  to  thofe  who  ufed  the 
Hebrew,  or  to  fpeak  more  properly,  the  Aramaean  lan- 
guage, and  whether  there  is  not  a  fort  of  impropriety  in 
the  ufe  of  the  name  itfelf.  Difputes  relative  to  words, 
which  every  man  may  ufe  at  pleafure,  if  he  properly  de- 
fines them,  I  have  neither  inclination  to  relate  nor  to 
determine. 

The  contefl  has  been  conduced  with  refped  to  the 
faft  itfelf  with  all  pofTible  ferioufnefs,  and  many,  who 
have  contended  that  the  Greek  of  the  New  Teflament  is 
as  purely  clafTical  as  that  of  the  Attic  writers,  have  con- 
demned as  impious  heretics  thofe,  who  have  dared  to 
diiTent.  It  has  been  afferted  that  the  contrary  implied 
an  imperfeftion  inconfiftent  with  divine  infpiration,  and 
that  men  capable  of  fuch  a  do6trine  '  were  not  only  im- 
pious, but  even  guilty  of  the  fm  againft  the  Holy  Ghoft. 
But  the  advocates  for  this  divine  purity  *  have  not  only 
betrayed  their  ignorance  of  the  Greek  language,  but  a 
high  degree  of  pedantry  in  edimating  the  accuracy  of 
language  beyond  its  proper  value.  This  laft  miftake  has 
happened  not  only  to  the  warm  and  partial  friends,  but 
likewiie  to  the  enemies  of  Chriftianity,  who  from  the 
time  of  Ceifus  to  the  eighteenth  century  have  maintained 
that  a  book  v/ritten  in  fuch  language  is  neither  divinely 
infpired,  nor  deferving  attention  and  refped. 

Both  parties  have  carried  their  zeal  and  their  fentiments 

to 


SECT.  IV.        Language  of  the  New  Tejlament.  iij 

to  too  great  a  length,  and  they  would  hardly  confider 
an  abfoliite  purity  of  ftyle,  and  a  total  abfence  of  foreign 
words  of  fuch  importance,  as  to  make  the  contrary  a 
crime,  if  they  would  condi^-fcend  to  quit  the  language  of 
die  fchools  for  the  language  of  common  life,  or  turn 
their  attention  from  the  language' of  the  ciafiics  to  thofe, 
which  are  in  modern  ufe.  The  German  in  the  begin- 
ning of  this  century  abounded  in  fuch  a  manner  with  fo- 
reign words,  which  were  introduced  more  cfpecially  from 
the  French,  that  apprehenfions  were  juftly  entertained 
that  the  language  might  be  totally  disfigured.  The  ac- 
curacy of  the  learned  Gottfched  endeavoured  to  fet 
bounds  to  this  popular  current,  and  the  German  has  in  a 
great  meafure  been  reftored  to.  its  native  purity :  yet  no 
one  can  deny  that  numbers  of  foreign  words  are  iliil  re- 
tained, which  it  would  favour  of  affedation  to  banilli. 
The  Latin  which  is  written  by  the  modern  Literati,  even 
by  thofe  who  are  able  to  write  with  claflic  elegance,  does 
and  muft  contain  various  words  and  turns  of  expreffion, 
which  would  be  ftriking  to  Cicero  and  Crefar.  Nay  in 
certain  inftances  it  is  neceflary  to  fpeak  bad  Latin,  if  we 
would  be  underftood  by  our  hearers,  as  in  Poland  for  in- 
ftance,  where  the  language  of  the  clafllcs  is  unknown. 
Modern  languages  have  almoft  all  of  them  a  mixture  of 
foreign  expreflions,  and  the  learned  words,  which  have 
been  confecrated  to  terms  of  art,  it  would  occafion  the 
greateft  obfcurity  to  remove.  In  countries  where  the  Ro- 
man civil  law  has  been  received,  the  technical  terms, 
which  were  ufed  by  the  Roman  lawyers,  have  been  ne- 
ceflarily  admitted  into  the  courts  of  juftice,  and  hence 
arofe  a  dialed,  which  may  be  termed  the  language  of  the 
law.  Now  the  Jews  had  a  language  of  religion,  and  as  time 
and  cuftom  had  confecrated  the  expreffions,  which  are 
ufed  in  the  Septuagint,  it  is  no  wonder  that  a  fimilar 
mode  of  writing  was  retained  in  the  New  Teilament. 

Nor  muft  the  perfons  be  forgotten,  for  whom  the  New 

Teftamentwas  more  immediately  written.  The  body  of 

the  church  confifted  of  Jews,  and  the  heathens  were  only 

H  3  branches, 


11 8  Language  of  the  New  Tejlament.       chap,  i v. 

branches,  as  St.  Paul  exprefles  it',  which  were  engrafted 
on  the  tree.  St.  Paul  himfelf,  the  Apoftle  of  the  Gen- 
tiles, was  accuftomcd  to  preach  the  Gofpel  in  places  fre- 
quented by  the  Jews,  and  he  introduced  by  their  means 
the  ChriRian  religion  among  the  Gentiles.  Another  con- 
fiderable  part  of  the  Chriftian  communities  confifted  of 
fuch,  as  were  neither  native  nor  circumcifed  Jews,  but 
were  pious  perfons  and  profelytes  to  the  do61rine  of 
Mofes.  The  number  of  thefe  pious  perfons,  as  they  were 
termed,  of  the  female  fex  was  very  great,  and  we  find 
c-£?oafvat  y-jvoiiKig  mentioned  in  the  A6ls  of  the  Apoftles 
both  in  a  good  and  bad  fenfe.  The  Lydia  mentioned  in 
the  Ads  of  the  Apoftles""  was  not  a  Jewefs  but  a  profe- 
lyte,  and  when  the  Jews  at  Antioch  in  Pifidia  refolved 
to  raife  a  perfecution  againft  Paul  and  Barnabas,  the  firft 
meafure  they  took  was  to  bring  over  the  devout  and 
honourable  women  to  their  party,  ztm^ut^vi/ocv  ra?  o-ej3o/!A£- 

vocg  yvi/suKxg  xai  rocq  tva-^7\[ji.o:/(xg,  xoci  rag  is'purag  tji?  ■aroXioog", 

in  this  fentence  thofe  of  the  female  fex  are  mentioned 
the  firft;  in  order,  it  is  therefore  probable  that  they  were 
the  wives  of  the  chief  magiftrates  and  leading  men  in  the 
city.  "With  this  correspond  the  accounts  given  by 
Jofephus,  who  fpeaking  of  the  great  numbers  of  Jews 
that  refided  in  Damafcus  fays  that  almoft  all  the  women, 
even  thofe  who  had  Gentile  huft^ands,  were  Jewifli  pro- 
felytes °.  The  firft  Chriftian  communities  confifted  in  a 
very  great  meafure  of  fuch  profelytes,  who  by  continual 
intercourfe  with  native  Jews,  and  the  conftant  reading 
of  the  Septuagint,  were  accuftomed  to  Jewifti  Greek.  It 
would  be  difficult  to  determine  what  proportion  the 
number  of  heathen  converts  bore  to  the  community  at 
large ;  -but  it  is  certain  that  by  far  the  greater  part  con- 
fifted of  Jews  and  Jewifti  profelytes  at  the  time  the  New 
Teftament  was  written,  though  the  Gentiles  in  a  fome- 
what  later  period  flocked  in  greater  numbers  to  the  reli- 
gion 

'  Rom.  xi.  24.  m  Ch.  xvi.  14.  n  A£ls  xiii.  50. 

o  Jofephus  de  Bell.  Jud.  Lib.  II.  cap,  xx.  §  2.  See  alfo  Aiitiqult. 
Lib.  XX.  cap.  ii.  §  4,  5,  where  he  gives  an  account  of  t!-.e  converhcn  of 
Jiates  king  of  Adiubene,  at  t{ie  perfuafion  of  his  mother  Helena. 


SECT.  IV.       Language  of  the  New  Tejiament.  n^ 

gion  of  Chiift.  Even  in  Italy  the  chief  part  of  the  Chrif- 
tian  converts  in  the  firft  century  were  perfons  of  this  de- 
fcription,  as  appears  from  the  earlieft  Latin  verfions  of 
the  New  Teftament  which  are  fo  full  of  Hebraifms  and 
Syriafms,  that,  among  all  the  tranflators  of  the  New  Tef- 
tament in  that  period,  no  one  could  have  been  a  Roman 
by  birth,  or  by  education. 

If  vvritings  therefore  were  compofed  for  communities 
of  this  nature,  or  epiiiles  immediately  addrefled  to  them, 
could  it  be  confidered  as  a  fault  to  ufe  the  lano-uacre' 
whicli  they  beft  underftood,  and  was  it  necelTary  for  die 
writer  to  avoid  fuch  Hebraifms  as  naturally  occurred  ? 
Would  it  not  have  been  ridiculous  in  St.  Paul,  who  was 
probably  well  acquainted  with  the  claffic  Greek,  to  have 
ufed,  in  writing  to  fuch  perfons,  the  fame  language  as  he 
would  have  fpoken  before  an  Athenian  audience  ?  It  is 
affectation,  and  in  fome  meafure  an  affront  to  the  reader 
to  feem  alhamed  of  a  language,  which  he  fpeaks  in  com- 
mon with  the  writer :  and  it  is  highly  probable  that,  if 
the  New  Teflament  had  been  written  with  Attic  purity, 
it  would  have  been  unintelligible  to  many  of  its  earlieil 
readers,  who  had  never  read  the  doftrines  of  religion  in 
any  other  than  Jewifh  Greek. 

But  I  am  far  from  intending  to  affert  that  the  Hebra- 
ifms of  the  New  Teftament  are  in  no  cafe  to  be  con- 
fidered as  defeds.  Several  harlh  idioms  of  this  nature, 
efpecially  in  the  tranflated  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew,  have 
occafioned  obfcurity,  and  fometimes  miftakesP,  and  the 
Jewifh  readers  of  the  New  Teftament  would  have  been  no 
lofers  if  the  ftyle  had  been  every  where  the  fame  as  in  the 
Ads  of  the  Apoftles,  and  in  the  epiftle  to  the  Hebrews. 
Admitting  even  that  not  only  a  few  fingle  inftances,  but 
that  the  Hebraifms  in  general  were  blemifties  in  the  New 
Teftament,  and  that  what  I  have  advanced  above  is  of 
no  weight,  yet  no  inference  can  be  thence  deduced 
againft  divme  mfpiration.  A  feries  of  repeated  miracles 
would  have  been  neceffary,  if  Apoftles  born  and  edu. 
cated  in   Judsa   had  written  without  Hebraifms,   and 

thefe 

p  Matth.  xli.  36.  g„^a  ajyjv, 

«4 


110  Language  of  the  New  Tejiament.      chap.  iv. 

thefe  miracles  would  have  produced  an  ufelefs,  and  even 
prejudicial  efre6t.    Had  the  New  Teftament  been  written 
with  clafTic  purity,  it  muft  have  excited  fufpicion  of  a 
forgery,  and  I  candidly  confefs  that  I  fhould  be  put  to  a 
very  fevere  trial,  if  I  found  in  thefe  writings  the  language 
of  Xcnophon  or  Plutarch,  and  were  ftill  bound  to  be- 
lieve them  genuine.     The  fingularity  of  their  flyle  has 
been  ufed  in  a  preceding  chapter  as  a  proof  of  their  au- 
thenticity,  and  the  argument  was  (Irengthened  by  the 
circumftance,  that  the  Apoflks  and  Evangclifls  have  each 
retained  their  own  pecuhar  mode  of  writing.     The  fame 
remark  may  be  extended  to  the  authors  of  the  Old  Tef- 
tament, where  we  find  that  Divine  Infpiration  has  left 
each  writer  in  polTcflion  of  his  particular  ftyle  and  even 
faults  of  language.     Ezra  wrote  in  a  manner  different 
from  that  of  Ifaiah,  and  Ifaiah  from  that  of  Mofes,  or 
the  author  of  the  beautiful  and  inim.itable  book  of  Job. 
The  prophecies  of  Ifaiah,  fo  important  to  the  Chrilfian 
religion,  were  manifeftly  written  in  the  filver  age  of  the 
Hebrew  language,  and  his  very  flyle  affords  fijfHcient 
proof  that  they  belong  not  to  the  brazen  age,  in  which 
were  compofed  the  writings  of  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Hag- 
gai,  Zachariah,  and  Malachi.     That  the  book  of  Job  is 
not  to  be  referred  to  the  brazen  or  iron  age,  every  critic 
in  the  Elebrew  muft  perceive  at  once  from  the  language, 
which  naturally  leads  us  to  fuppofe  that  Mofes  was  the 
author.     The  fame  effecft  then,  which  infpiration  pro* 
duced  in   the  Old  Teftament,  might  of  courfe  be  ex- 
pefted  in  the  New,  and  it  is  reafonable  to  fuppofe  that 
each  writer  would  retain  thofe  peculiarities  of  language, 
to  which  he  was  the  mofl  accuftomed. 

In  lliort,  a  clafTical  or  unclafTical  ftyle  has  no  more  In- 
fluence on  the  Divinity  of  the  New  Teftament,  than  the 
elegance  or  inelegance  of  the  hand  in  which  it  is  written, 
and  the  accuracy  or  inaccuracy  of  the  pronunciation  with 
which  it  is  uttered.  Whoever  is  accuftomed  to  write  a 
bad  hand  would  certainly  not  improve  it  by  infpiration, 
but  admitting  the  fad,  it  would  have  this  unfortunate 
confequence,  that  no  one  accuftomed  to  the  hand  v/ould 


SECT.  IV.       Language  of  the  New  Tejlament,  1 2 1 

in  its  improved  (late  believe  it  to  be  genuine.     There  Is 
no  realon  to  believe  that  inlpiration  would  amend  a  faultv 
pronunciation,  and  the  writers  of  the  different  parts  of 
the  Bible  have  undoubtedly  fpoken  in  the  fame  manner, 
both  before  and  after  the  effufions  of  the  Holy  Ghoft 
If  thefe  fillings  then  are  confident  with  fupernatural  en- 
dowments, I  can  fee  no  reafon  for  drawing  an  argument 
againll  the  Divinity  of  the  New  Teftament  fromtts  He- 
brailms,  or  even  from  its  grammatical  errors. 
,,T/?^.  "^°^^  o^  reafoning,  which  is  ufed'in  Georeii 
VmdicL-^  N.  T.  ab  Hebraifmis,  is  fo  extremely  weak 
that  molt  readers  would  readily  difpenfe  with  a  refuta 
tion  i  I  will  refer  therefore  to  a  note  what  in  the  former 
editions  of  this  Introduftion  had  been  placed  in  the  text' 
Yet  the  arguments,  which  this  critic  has  produced,  are 
as  good  as  any  that  can  be  given,  with  exception  perhaps 
to  that    which  has  been  already  confuted,  that  what  is 
mipired  by  God  muft  have  every  fpecies  of  perfedion. 
and  conlequently  purity  of  language. 

A  circumftantial  account  of  the  controverfy  which  has 
been  carried  on  relative  to  this  fubjeft  belongs  rather  to 
the  province  of  Literary  Hiftory  \  and  it  may  be  fuffi- 

cient 

q  St.  Paul,  1  Cor.  xiv.  it.  condemns  unmeaning  and  barbarous  Ian- 
guage:  confequently  it  could  not  be  admitted  into  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

Anfwer.  Bccfcc^o<;  Cgnifies  in  that  paffage  a  man  who  ipeaks  in  a 
loreign  language, 

2  The  Apoftles  addrefTed  thofe  foreigners  who  came  to  Jerufalem  on 
the  feaft  of  Pentecoll  .^.«  ^^ccX.^.tuj. 

Anfwer.  Confequently  they  fpoke  to  the  Grecian  Jews  not  pure  but 
jewiih  Cjreek. 

«f  ^h  '^^'  ^^t'  °^  '^'  ^^^  '^'^'™'"'  ^''  P"''^  "^^'■^«''  therefore  thofe 
ot  the  New  Teftament  are  pure  Greek. 

Anfwer.  All  the  books  of  the  O.  T.  are  not  written  in  pure  Hebrew: 
the  later  wnt.ngs  abound  with  Chaldaifms,  and  the  books  of  Mofes  are  not 
tree  from  Egyptian  words. 

4.  God  is  the  author  of  the  diftinaion  of  languages,  and  being  a  God 
of  order  cannot  be  fuppofed  to  confound  them.  S  « 

Anfwer.  The  Deity  has  permitted  the  human  faculties  to  take  their 
m  ural  coure;  man  therefore  is  the  author  of  language,  unkfs  wc  fu,.. 
foie  a  needlefs  multiplication  of  miracles. 


121  Language  of  the  New  Tejtameni.       chap.  iv. 

cient  here  to  mention  a  work,  in  which  are  contained  the 
writings  of  the  chief  authors,  who  have  engaged  in  this 
difpute.  J.  Rhenferd  publifhed  at  Leuwarden  in  1702 
a  treatife  under  the  following  title  :  DiflTertatiomim  phi- 
lologico-theologicarum  de  ftilo  Novi  l^eftamenti  fyn- 
tagma,  quo  continentur  Jo.  Olearii,  Jo.  Henr.  Boecleri, 
Seb.  Pfochenii,  Jo.  Cocceii,  Batth.  Bebelii,  Mofis  Soiani, 
Mart.  Fetr.  Cheitom^ei,  Jo.  Henr.  Hottingeri,  Jo.  Leuf- 
deni,  Jo.  Vorftii,  Andr.  Kefteri,  et  Jo.  Jungii  de  hoc 
genere  libelli.  Of  this  colle6lion  there  have  been  fince 
publilhed  feparately,  Olearius  de  ftilo  N.  T.  Boeclerus 
de  lingua  N.  T.  originali  in  1721,  with  the  remarks  of 
the  late  Schwartz,  and  Leufdenus  de  dialeftis  N.  T. 
fmgulatim  de  ejus  Hebraifmis,  in  1754,  with  notes  by 
Fifcher.  To  thefe  may  be  added  C.  G.  Georgii  Libri 
tres  vindiciarum  N.  T.  ab  Hebraifmis,  1732,  and  his 
Hierocriticon  N.T.  five  libri  tres  de  ftilo  N.T.  quibus 
dialedus  N.  T.  Attica  vindicatur,  1733. 

But  of  all  the  writers,  who  have  attempted  to  vindicate 
the  purity  of  the  Greek  Teftament,  no  one  has  more  dif- 
tinguiftied  himfelf  for  Grecian  literature  than  Palairet,  a 
French  minifter  at  Dornyk,  who  publifhed  at  Leyden  in 
1752,  obfervationes  philologico-criticse  in  facros  novi 
foederis  libros.  His  objeft,  as  he  himfelf  exprefles  it  in 
the  preface,  was  to  refcue  the  clear  and  certain  precepts 
of  Chrift  from  the  thick  darknefs  of  Hebraifms,  Syriafms, 
Chaldaifms,  Solcecifms,  and  Barbarifms,  in  which,  ac- 
cording to  various  critics,  they  were  enveloped.  But  in- 
ftead  of  anfwering  his  end,  he  has  fallen  into  that  error, 
which  has  been  the  ufual  lot  of  thofe,  who  have  defended 
the  queftion.  And  many  of  the  examples  which  he  has 
taken  from  the  claflic  authors,  and  applied  to  palTages  in 
the  New  Teftament,  in  order  to  free  them  from  the 
charge  of  Hebraifms,  ftand  themfelves  in  need  of  de- 
monftration,  fince  the  common  acceptation  of  the  words 
in  difpute  may  often  ferve  to  explain  the  collated  inftances 
both  in  the  New  Teftament  and  the  clafTic  writers  *.  Yet 
he  has  made  many  excellent  remarks  from  the  Greek 
authors^  for  the  more  laudable  and  ufeful  purpofe  of  ex- 
plaining 


SECT.  V.       Language  of  the  New  Tejiament,  123 

plaining  the  New  Teftament  itfelf,  and  he  deferves  there- 
fore in  this  refpedl  an  honourable  rank  among  the  beft 
commentators. 


SECT.      V. 

HebratfmSy  Rahhinijms,  SyriaJmSy  Cbaldaifms,  Arahifms, 

EVERY  man  who  has  read  the  Greek  Teftament, 
knows  that  it  contains  a  variety  of  Hebrew  words, 
fuch  as  ocfxTw,  aXXn'AoviXy  but  fingle  words  *  are  trifles  in 
comparifon  with  fentences.  The  whole  arrangement  of 
the  periods  is  regulated  according  to  the  Hebrew  verfes, 
(not  thofe  in  Hebrew  poetry,  but  fuch  as  are  found  in 
the  hiftorical  books,  and  are  always  clofed  with  Silluk 
cum  Soph  Pafuk)  which  are  conftru6led  in  a  manner 
direftly  oppofite  to  the  roundnefs  of  Grecian  language, 
and,  for  want  of  variety,  have  an  endlefs  repetition  of 
the  fame  particles.  In  cafes  where  a  native  Greek,  would 
have  introduced,  as  the  connexion  required,  perhaps  fe- 
veral  particles,  the  writers  of  the  New  Teftament  are 
obliged  to  fupply  their  place  with  the  fingle  conjun6lion 
xai,  which  they  repeat  as  often  as  the  Hebrew  writers 
their  Vau  prasfixum,  that  gives  the  ftru6lure  of  their  pe- 
riods a  tedious  uniformity '.     For  the  fame  reafon  we 

find 

r  Huic  oratorum  et  eloquentije  defeclui  tribuendum  exiftimem,  quod 
periodorum  confoimatione  et  artlficio  univerfa  lingua  Hebiaica  caret, 
quod  ita  peculiare  Hebisis  eft,  ut  Hebraica  quantumvis  pure  et  elegan- 
ter  Graece  reddita,  barbariim  tamen  quid  Grascis  auribus  foncnt,  nifl 
totus  orationis  habitus  mutetnr.  Faciamus  periculum  in  verllone  LXX 
vlrorum ;  pro  Hebraifmis,  locutionibufque  Alexandrinis,  verba  optima 
et  exquifitiflima  fubftituamus  :  vereor  tamen  ut  vel  turn  fatis  Grsca 
futura  fit  oratio.  Unde  qui  Grsecis  probari  legique  cupiebat,  Jofepho 
alia  tenenda  ratio,  ac  licet  ex  folis  fe  hiftoriam  antiquam  haufiffe  facris 
Uteris  profiteretur,  alio  prorius  fcribendi  genere  utendum  luit :  nee  forte 
tarn  ignari  rerum  Judaicarum  fuiflcnt  exteri,  qui  Graece  ea  In  verfione 
Alexandrina  habebant,  ni fi  hxc  iplk  verfionis  barberies  aures  Graecas 
magis    eliam    quani    noltras    laedens   a   legendo    deterulflct.      Prolixiores 

eaixn 


124  Language  of  the  New  Tefiameni.     chap,  iv, 

find  that  i^»  occurs  fo  frequently,  though  many  with 
pious  fimplicity  have  diicovered  in  that  expreffion  an 
cmphafis  fuggefled  by  the  Holy  Ghoft.  But  if  this  were 
its  real  deftination,  it  is  ufed  in  numberlefs  examples, 
where  it  ought  to  have  been  omitted,  and  omitted  where 
it  ought  to  have  been  ufed.  The  origin  of  this  term, 
-^vhich  is  falfcly  confidered  as  emphatical,  is  obvious  to 
every  man  acquainted  with  the  Oriental  languages.  Every 
Janguage  has  fuperfiuous  particles,  which,  though  not 
devoid  of  force  at  their  firft  introduftion,  yet  by  abufe 
and  an  ufelefs  repetition  have  gradually  loft  all  meaning, 
but  are  ftill  retained,  as  they  fonledmes  give  a  kind  of 
harmony  to  the  period,  and  the  ear  once  accuftomed  to 
the  founds  would  fenfibly  perceive  their  abfence.  Of 
this  nature  is  the  Hebrew  word  T\}X\ ',  which  in  imita- 
tion of  the  Septuagint  is  generally  tranflated  <  Behold,* 
though  every  man  acquainted  with  the  Hebrew  gram- 
mar knows  that  it  cannot  be  the  imperative  of  n^H  * 

Vidit  It  correfponds  to  the  Arabic  particle  UX  Ibi, 
which  exprefTes  the  fame  meaning  as  if  we  exclaimed 
^  there  !'  and  at  the  fame  time  pointed  with  the  finger : 
but  ijLA  is  ufed  feldom  by  the  Arabs,  whereas  the  HiH  of 
the  Hebrews  is  continually  introduced,  and  is  in  reality 
a  pleonafm.  This  term  can  be  more  eafily  rendered  in 
the  German  language  than  in  the  Greek,  and  *)2-2n  n^fl 
may  be  given  with  literal  ^  accuracy  without  being  offen- 
five  to  modern  ears  s  yet  as  a  too  frequent  repetition 

would 

enim  perlodos,  cum  concinniate  et  perfpicultate  fonoras,  earumqiie  mi- 
ram  et  numeri  et  reliquas  diftilbiuionis  varittatem,  quje  fatietati  non 
tarn  legentium  quam  autlientluni  occiirrlt,  oiatoribus  debuiffe  Graecia, 
ejufque  imitatrix  Roma  vidctur  :  cujus  conciiinitatis  fi  multum  in  Eu- 
ropaeas  linguas  transfufum  eft,  nieminerimus  has  omnes  olim  Latina 
tanquam  dicendi  fcribendique  magiftra  uti.  At  Hebraica  lingua  breves 
amat  periodos,  non  magna  varietate,  utpote  qiine*  in  tanta  paiticuiaium 
egeftate  vix  teneri  pofilt  ;  numeri  axit  nullam  omnino  curam  fufcipit, 
aut  in  poefinoftro  quidem  carmine  folutiorem,  perbrevem  tamen  et  concifun) 
amat. 

Michaelis  Prasfat.  in  Lowth  Prselet'T:.  dc  poefi  Hebr.  p.  53. 
See  alfo  Michaelis  Arabic  Grammar*,  p.  235. 


SECT.  V.       Language  of  the  New  Tejlament.  12^ 

would  be  dlfagreeable,  and  favour  too  much  of  the  He- 
brew idiom,  it  is  as  pardonable  in  a  tranflator  to  omit  it, 
as  the  plconaftic  quidem  of  the  Latins,  and  I  have  adu- 
ally  availed  myfelf  of  this  indulgence  in  my  tranflation  of 
the  Bible.  But  the  Seventy  either  confidering  it  as  an 
expreffion  of  Emphafis,  or  unable  to  difengage  them- 
selves of  a  word,  to  which  they  were  accuftomed  in  the 
Hebrew,  have  preferved  the  ufe  of  it  with  too  religious 
fidelity,  and  having  no  word  in  Greek  which  properly 
correfponded  had  recourfe  to  the  imperative  Jx,  a  term, 
that  being  once  introduced  formed  by  degrees  a  necef- 
fary  part  of  Jewifh  Greek,  and  was  of  courfe  employed 
by  the  writers  of  the  New  Teftament,  efpecially  where 
fpeechts  are  related  that  were  originally  Hebrev/.  Such 
Is  the  inPiiience  of  cuftom,  that  even  in  modern  times 
thofe,  who  are  daily  converfant  with  the  Bible,  infenfibly 
adopt  its  expreffions,  and  fpeak  frequently  in  a  language 
that  is  never  heard  from  a  courtier. 

Admitting  therefore  that  the  fingle  words,  and  de- 
tached phrafes  which  have  been  ufually  taken  for  He- 
braifms,  could  by  the  application  of  examples  from  the 
Greek  authors  be  fhewn  to  be  truly  clalTic,  yet  no  man 
can  attempt  to  prove  that  the  ftruflure  of  the  periods, 
and  the  ufe  of  the  particles,  are  any  other  than  Hebrev/. 

But  the  New  Teftament  has  fev/er  Hebrew  gram- 
matical conftru(5lions  than  the  Septuagint,  except  in  the 
book  of  Revelation,  where  we  often  find  a  Nominative  '^ 
when  another  cafe  fhould  have  been  ufed,  in  imitation 
of  the  Hebrew,  which  is  without  cafes.  This  fubjeft  I 
(hall  treat  more  fully  in  the  fequel,  when  I  examine  the 
book  of  Revelation  in  particular.  The  Seventy  have 
tranflated  ItJ^K  with  the  Suffix  of  the  following  word  with 
too  literal  exaftnefs,  and  they  were  fo  attached  to  that 
term  of  expreffion,  that  they  have  fometimes  ufed  it  in 
examples  where  I^J^  is  omitted  in  the  Hebrew,  e.  g. 

Ou  «^a?  TO  rO|".«  aura  yiij.ii   nai   Tuympix^j    Pfal.  X.    J.      In- 

ftances  of  this  fort  are  Icfs  frequent  in  the  New  Tefta- 
ment, and  St.  Paul  in  quoting  this  palTage  of  the  Pfalm.s 
has  rejedted  the  fecond  fuperfiuous  pronoun,  wv  to  roy.x 


126  Language  of  the  New  Tejiament.       chap.  iv. 

apa?  xa»  srixpia?  yfjOtff,  Rom.  iii.  14.  The  following  are 
examples  of  the  iife  of  it  in  the  New  Teftament :  Matth. 
iii.  12.  Luke  iii.  17.  Ou  to  -nnxjov  iv  t^  ^upi  xvr-^  ("ltS^^? 
nOO  Matth.  viii.   i.  5    23.  28. 

In  tranflating  a  word,  that  admits  of  a  two-fold  fenfe  in 
our  native  language,  it  is  not  unufual  to  commit  the 
miftake  of  taking  the  foreign  word,  which  correfponds 
to  it,  in  the  fame  extent  of  meaning.  Hence  arife  a  great 
number  of  the  Anglicifms,  and  Germanifms  obfervable 
in  the  Latin  and  French  of  the  Englifh  and  Germans ; 
and  for  the  very  fame  reafon  the  Latin  tranflator  of  the 
Old  Teflament  has  ufed  the  Latin  word  teftamentum  in 
the  fame  latitude  ^  as  JjaS-nxn  is  ufed  by  the  Greeks '.  But 
a  dill  more  ftriking  example  I  once  heard  from  the 
mouth  of  an  EngHfhman  who  returned  with  me  many 
years  ago  from  England  to  Hamburg :  he  defired  the 
landlord  of  the  inn,  to  whom  he  fpoke  in  German,  to 
bring  him  a  looking-glafs,  with  which  requeft  the  land- 
lord literally  complied :  this  gave  rife  to  an  explanation, 
on  which  it  appeared  that  the  gentleman  meant  a  piece 
of  furniture  that  has  no  fimilarity  to  a  mirror,  the  mif- 
take having  been  occafioned  by  applying  to  the  German 
word  for  looking-glafs  a  fenfe,  which  is  applicable  only  in 
Englilh.  Examples  of  a  fimilar  nature  are  very  fre- 
quently to  be  found  in  the  Septuagint  and  the  New  Tef- 
tament. In  Hebrew  n^^J  has  the  following  different  fenfes, 

*  th.t:  which  is  pure  and  genuine,'  '  the  truth,'  ^  victory,* 

*  eternity. '  This  is  not  the  place  for  examining  the  reafon, 
or  the  connexion  of  the  different  fenfes,  but  thofe  who 
wifli  to  have  critical  information  may  refer  to  the  Arabic 
word  ^VAOJ  ptire,  genuine,  true  ;  or  confult  the  remark  of 
Schukcns  on  Prov.  xxi.  28.  The  Seventy  tranflate  it  by 
nKoc,  vi6lory;  and  hence  the  reafon  that  nxo?  in  the  New 
Teftament,  as  well  as  in  the  Septuagint,  fignifies  alfo 
Truth,  and  Eternity  ».  The  Greek  tranflator  of  St.  Mat- 
thew has  the  following  expreffion,  Ch.  xii.  20.  fw?  a,y  ix- 
CaAw  ng  viy.o<;  rr\v  x^ktiv,  '  till  he  paffed  fentence  agreeably 
to  truth.'  The  paffage  in  Ifaiah  '°,  Ch.  xHi.  3.  is  riDK? 
D5TO  J^^VVj  which  the  Seventy,  avoiding  the  harlh  He- 

braifm, 

s  See  Ch.  I.  of  this  Intiodui5lion. 


SECT.  V.        Language  of  the  New  Teftament.  127 

braifm,  had  tranflated  uq  ot'kin^na.v  i^oktbi  xpKriv  ".  But 
the  Greek  tranflator  of  St.  Matthew,  who  perhaps  read 
this  paflage  of  Ifaiah  as  it  {lands  in  Habbakuk  i.  4. 
'CiHWD  ^<'yv  D'^^b  '%  or  thought  in  Hebrew  at  the  time 
he  wrote  Greek  ''  has  ufed  viKog  in  the  fenfe  of  truth,  be- 
caufe  n^i  admits  that  fenfe  in  Hebrew  '*.  Even  St. 
Paul  has  ufed  as  harfli  a  Hebraifm,  i  Cor.  xv.  54.  ycxn- 
7ro%  S-avaro?  ek  vmog ;  which  cannot  be  tranflated  *  death 
is  fwallowed  up  in  victory,'  for  thofe  are  words  without 
meaning :  m  n>to?  fignifies  here  *  to  eternity  '^'  and  the 
paffage  muft  be  tranflated  '  death  is  fwallowed  up  for 
ever.'  2^^i  to  lie,  whence  is  derived  2^tJ^D,  a  bed,  fig- 
nifies properly  like  the  Arabic  c^^^  fundere,  efl^jndere, 
and  therefore  the  Hebrews  ufed  ynr  niD*^  to  fignify  ef- 
fufio  feminis,  or  femen  effiifum,  and  fometimes  fimply 
niDti^.  This  is  tranflated  by  the  Seventy  xojtjj,  becaufe 
the  Hebrew  word,  according  to  its  derivation,  might 
fignify  a  bed,  for  inftance  Levit.  xv.  16,  17,  18.  32.  (eav 

s^eX^vi  t^  UVTS  xoiTV  (T7rBpiA.aroq)  xviii.  20.  23.  xix.  20.  Xxii. 

4.  Numb.  V.  13.  in  all  which  paflages  no  other  meaning 
is  intended  to  be  conveyed  than  that  of  emifllon  of  feed. 
Hence  the  word  xo»t»  has  acquired  the  fignification  of 
*  feed,'  in  which  fenfe  it  is  ufed  by  St.  Paul,  Rom,  ix.  10. 
«^  tvog  y.onnv  i-xjicrac  *^.  The  verb  ocTToy.pivo^ony  which  occurs 
fo  frequently  in  the  Septuagint  and  in  the  New  Tefta- 
ment in  cafes,  where  no  anfwer  is  intended,  may  be  ex- 
plained on  the  fame  principles.  The  Hebrew  word  n^J? 
fignifies  to  addrefs,  as  well  as  to  anfwer,  for  no  rational 
being  fpeaking  in  his  own  language  would  fay  *  he  an- 
fwered '  if  no  one  had  before  fpoken,  and  is  a  kind  of 
introduftory  verb  to  the  following  word  *  fpake,'  which 
in  other  languages  than  the  Hebrew  is  fuperfluous.  The 
reafon  of  this  may  be  explained  from  the  firft  and  proper 
meaning  of  n^y,  which  fignifies  *to  look  at,'  and  \i);  the 
eye  feems  to  be  derived  from  it  in  the  fame  manner  as 
Mofes  *  derives  j^p  from  njp  ''.  It  being  natural  to  look 
at  the  perfon  with  whom  we  fpeak,  as  well  in  anfwering 
as  in  addrefllng,  the  words  IDNn  \V^\  which  properly 
fignify  *  he  looked  at  him  and  fpake,'  may  be  rendered 

«he 

*  Gen.  iv,  I. 


122  Lnngiuigc  of  the  New  Tcjlament.       chap.  iv. 

'  he  addrefied  him  and  fpakc,'  with  the  fame  propriety  as 

*  he  anfwered  him  and  fpakc.'  The  Greek  language 
having  no  fuch  general  exprefilon,  the  Seventy  fubftituted 
ftTToxpii/o/y.ai,  which  gradually  acquired  the  extenfive  mean- 
ing of  n:j^,  and  was  applied  to  perfons  who  did  not  an- 
fwer,  but  began  the  difcourfe.  Even  a  perfeflly  falfe 
tranflation  may  give  rife  to  a  new  exprelTion.    \2  fignifies 

*  thus'  and  alfo  *  rightly,'  therefore  mm  p  is  an  afBr- 
mation  ".  But  as  the  Hebrew  had  ceafed  to  be  a  living 
language  at  the  time  the  Greek  verfion  was  made,  the 
Seventy  have  neglected  the  more  remote  fenfe,  and  ad- 
mitted the  ufual  one  even  into  the  tranflation  ^^  render- 
ing thefe  words,  Exod.  x.  29,  by  sj/jjixaj '*.  In  Jewifh 
Greek  therefore  £tp»iKa?,  or  o-u  iiTrac,  or  o-u  Ajya?  acquired 
the  fenfe  of  an  affirmation",  which  is  ufed  Matth.  xxvi, 
25.  xxvii,  64.  Mark  xiv.  59.  John  xix.  37.  where  Chriil 
perhaps  anfwered  rTnil  p^  I  will  mention  another  ex- 
ample, which  I  give  not  as  decifive,  but  merely  as  an  at- 
tempt to  explain  the  difficult  paffages,  Matth.  v.  17. 
Kom.  XV.  19.  Luke  vii.  i.  in  which  the  meaning  of  t<rPv»)- 
foui  feems  to  be  *  to  teach.'  We  find,  i  Matt.  iv.  19. 
ETi  -OTArpavToj  ^  laJ^jj  raura,  "which  in  this  place  evidently 
fignifies,  '  while  Judah  was  fpeaking  thefe  things.'  Jofe- 
phus  has  taken  the  words  of  the  Hebrew  text  in  this 
fenfe  which  he  has  given  by  fn  ^i  a\j-:^  SiocAiyo[j.i]/^  ruvroi. 
Antiquit.  xii.  7,  4.  and  the  Syriac  tranflator,  who  as  well 
as  Jofephus  tranflated  from  the  original  Hebrew  has 
rendered  the  pafTage  ,_*:i.cn  W.':£ii:  j.'oau  j^o  *  while  Juda 

was 

u  Thou  haft  rightly  fpoken. 

w  That  is,  though  they  confidered  the  Hebre\v  exprefilon  as  an  affirnia. 
tjen,  they  took  "^2  •"  the  firft  and  ufual  fenfe. 

"  In  the  Catechifm  of  the  Drufes  the  fame  exprefilon  is  ufed  for  an 
affirmation  C1j*X^  .*Xamx3  ^^^  il^sXa  uX>)  t  thou  haft  faid  it,  and- 
teftified  againft  thyl"elf»°.'  See  Eichhorn's  Repertorium,  Vol.  XII.  p.  iS6, 
But  the  phrafc  is  perhaps  not  originally  Arabic,  being  borrowed  from  the 
Arabic  verfion  of  the  Gofpels,  which  are  acknowledged  as  divine  by  the 
Drufes  *',  though  they  have  perverted  their  meaning. 

y  The  reading  x«^tj>To?  is  a  correction  ^*  from  the  Vulgate.  See  thi» 
pafiage  in  my  Expofition  of  the  firft  Bock  of  the  Maccabees  ^i. 


SECT.  V.       Language  of  the  New  TeftamenU  129 

was  fpeaking  this.'  It  is  probable  that  bb^  flood  in  the 
original,  as  well  as  in  the  Syriac  verfion,  that  the  tranfli- 
tor  miftook  it  for  nV*D,  and  fuppofcd  it  to  fignify  em- 
phatically plena  voce  Jicere  :  for  this  reafon  he  rendered 
it  by  CTAjipow,  which  by  thefe  means  acquired  a  new  fig- 
nification  that  was  afterwards  not  iinufual  in  the  Jcwifh 
Greek**.  But  another  explanation  may  be  given,  for 
which  I  refer  my  readers  to  the  article  {^^7,^2  in  my  Sup- 
plementa  ad  Lexica  Hebraica. 

On  the  return  of  the  Jews  from  the  Babylonifh  capti- 
vity, the  antient  and  genuine  Hebrew  %  or  to  fpeak  more 
properly  the  South  Canaanitic  dialed  which  had  been 
fpoken  by  the  Ifraelites,  and  in  which  the  books  of  the 
Old  Teftament  are  written,  was  gradually  *^  fallen  into 
difufe ;  and  during  fome  ages  before  the  time,  in  which 
the  New  Teftament  was  written,  the  diakcl  of  the  Jews 
in  Paleftine,  as  well  as  in  the  Eaftern  art  of  Afia,  was 
the  Aram^an,  of  which  I  fliall  fpeak  more  fully  in  the 
fequel.  But  the  language  of  the  learned,  and  that  ufed 
in  the  fervice  of  the  fynagogue  was  H.brew,  which  was 
become  a  dead  language  appropriated  to  the  purpofes  of 
literature,  and  bore  nearly  the  fame  analo^^y  to  the  an- 
tient Hebrew  as  the  fchool  Latin  of  divines  and  philofo- 
phers  in  the  middle  and  modern  ages  to  the  Latin  of  the 
antient  Romans.  New  words,  new  fentence,,  and  new 
exprelTions  were  introduced,  efpecially  terms  of  fcience, 
which  Mofcs  or  Ifaiah  would  have  as  lictle  underflood, 
as  Cicero  or  C^far  a  Syftem  of  Philofophy  or  Theol  gy 
compofed  in  the  language  of  the  fchools  This  new  He- 
brew language  is  called  Talmudical  or  Rabbinical  from 
the  writings,  in  which  it  is  uicd.  It  is  true  thai  all  thefe 
writings  are  of  a  much  later  date  than  the  N^.'W  1  efta- 
ment,  but  it  appears  from  the  coincidence  ol  expreffions 
that,  even  in  the  time  of  Chrift,  this  was  the  learned  lan- 
guage 

z  The  name  Hebrew  is  given  by  Philo  and  the  wiiter'>  of  the  N  w  Tefta. 
ihcnt  to  what  we  cnll  Chaldee,  for  Htbiv>v  figrifes  properly  t  angunj^e 
fpoken  beyond  the  Euphrates,  "in^H  ^y(J.  Wh.t  we  .e/m- H-br;.-.-  > 
CiUedin  the  Old  Teilanisnt  itlel;  Jcwilh,  or  CanaauitiC, 


13^  Language  of  the  New  Tejl anient .       chap.  iv. 

giiage  of  the  Rabbins.  In  the  New  Teftament  we  find 
a  confiderable  mixture  of  this  Rabbinical  language, 
efpecially  in  paflages,  where  matters  of  learning  are  the 
fubjeds  of  difcourfe  :  and,  though  the  afTifVance  which 
it  affords  in  explaining  the  Hebrew  of  the  Old  Tefta- 
ment  is  very  uncertiiin,  as  we  cannot  argue  from  the  mo- 
dern ufe  of  a  dead  language  to  its  ancient  ufe  among  the 
clafTic  writers,  it  is  yet  absolutely  neceffaiy  for  explaining 
the  New  Teitament.  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  the 
converfationofChrift  with  Nicodcmus,  and  the  epiftle  to 
the  Romans  are  very  imperfc61:iy  underftood  by  thofe, 
who  are  unacquainted  with  the  Rabbinical  language,  and 
Rabbinical  doftrines.  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and 
the  epiftle  to  the  Romans,  contain  a  refutation  of  Rabbi- 
nical errors,  and  in  the  converfation  with  Nicodemus, 
where  Chrift  fpeaks  of  regeneration,  he  fays  exprefsly 
that  he  is  treating  a  fubject,  that  muft  be  well  known  to 
a  Rabbi.  In  the  third  chapter  of  St.  John  therefore  we 
may  reafonably  expe6t  expreffions,  which  may  not  impro- 
perly be  termed  Rabbinifms,  where  a  man  acquainted 
only  with  Greek  may  guefs  at  their  meaning,  whereas 
he  who  iinderftands  the  Talmud  and  the  works  of  the 
Rabbins,  v/ill  immediately  and  fully  comprehend  them. 
Much  has  been  difputed  on  the  rrieaning  of  xaxa  aAr,9£iav, 
Rom.  ii.  2.  in  which  pafiage  %  without  a  knowledge  of 
the  Rabbinical  language  and  maxims,  St.  Paul  may  in- 
deed be  underftood  to  have  meant  that  the  judgement  of 
God  is  agreeable  to  the  truth,  and  that  conformity  to  the 
truth  conveys  the  fame  fenfe  as  impartiality.  But  the 
Talmudical  expreffion  ni^f^  in  *  the  tribunal  of  truth,' 
is  a  kind  of  fchool-term  appropriated  to  the  impartiality 
of  the  judgements  of  God,  and  the  beginning  of  the 
above-mentioned  chapter  may  be  compared  with  the 
following  paftage  of  the  Talmud.  *  Rabbi  Abija  fays,  in 
the  name  of  Rabbi  Afa,  fon  of  Rabbi  Chanina,  "  when 
the  Holy  One  and  high-prized  enters  into  judgement 
wiLh  the  ten  tribes,  they  will  not  be  able  to  open  their 

mouths  ; 

a  See  Raplicl,  Palairef,  and  Carpzov  on  this  pafllige,  who  explain  It  in  a 
diftlrent  iriaim«,r. 


SECT.  V.      Language  of  the  New  Tejiament.  \^-i 

mouths  ^ ;  for  behold  I  have  made  it  knorn  among  the 
tribes  that  the  tribunal  of  God  is  a  tribunal  of  truth". 
Thou  wilt  find  that  the  ten  tribes  were  led  into  mifcry, 
and  that  Judah  and  Benjamin  were  not  led  with  them. 
Then  anfwered  the  ten  tribes,  he  permitted  not  Juda  and 
Benjamin  to  be  led  captive,  becaufe  they  were  thofe  who 
ferved  in  his  temple,  here  was  refpecT:  to  perfons  •*.  God 
forbid,  with  God  is  no  refpeft  to  perfons  j  their  meafure 
was  not  yet  full,  but  v/hcn  their  fins  were  as  great,  they 
alfo  were  led  into  captivity.  Then  wondered  the  ten 
tribes,  and  were  unable  to  anfwer^  Behold  God,  behold 
the  ftrong  one,  who  has  no  refpeft  to  perfons  even  to- 
wards the  children  of  his  houfhold,  and  lo  that  is  con- 
firmed, which  was  fpoken  by  the  prophet  Hofea*^,  I  have 
made  known  among  the  tribes  of  Ifrael  the  judgement  of 
truth '^" 

The  following  Rabbinifm  is  a  proverb,  which  they  per- 
haps borrowed  from  the  Arabs.  Rabbins  as  well  as 
Arabs  were  accullomed,  in  defcribing  an  impoffibility  or 
a  high  degree  of  improbability,  to  fay,  it  will  not  happen 
before  a  camel  or  an  elephant  has  crept  through  the  eye 
of  a  needle.  I  quote  no  inftances  in  fupport  of  this  pro- 
verb, as  they  may  be  fee n  in  Wetftein^,  and  Buxtorf's 
Lexicon,  p.  2002.  The  proverb  is  like v/ifeufed  by  theEaft 
Indians  ^  but  whether  it  is  originally  Indian,  or  only  bor- 
rov/ed  from  the  Arabs,  I  leave  to  others  to  determine. 

But 

*•  \)ia.  'rsa.v  rofj-o,  (p^ccyr,,  Rom.  lil.  1 9.  This  is  expreffed  in  the  Tal- 
mud, ns  iinn3  an9mn>  ^b 

d  Rom.  ii.  II. 

e  The  words  of  the  Talmud  aie  arCBIl  H^i^'j^  ^''J^l^S  thofe  ufed  by  St. 
Paul  avaTTsAoy/jTo;  h,  Rom.  ii.  i, 

f  Ch.  V.  9. 

S  Among  the  v.irious  readings  to  Matth.  xlx.  24.  The  pafTage  in  the 
Koran,  to  which  he  alludes,  is  in  Hinkelmann's  Edition,  Sura  vii.  38. 

^  *  An  elephant  goes  through  a  little  door,'  or  '  An  elephant  goes  through 
the  eye  of  a  needle.'  See  the  50th  Continuation  of  the  Accounts  of  th« 
Eaft  India  Miffionaries  *7,  p.  252. 

I  a. 


132  Language  of  the  New  Tejiament.      chap.  iv. 

But  where  tl-is  proverb  is  introduced  in  the  New  Tefla- 
ment,  feveral  Greek  tranfcribers,  through  ignorance  of 
the  Rabbinical  language,  have  imagined  that  viocfxiXoi;,  as 
it  ftands  in  the  original,  was  a  miftake,  and  have  altered 
it  to  xa;^iAo?,  a  cable.  More  may  be  found  on  this  paf- 
fage  in  Wetflein. 

But  there  are  inftances  where  the  underftanding  the 
Rabbinifms  is  of  ftill  greater  importance.  Regeneration 
■uTotKilyivKTiocy  admits  in  the  Greek  of  feveral  fignifications, 
viz.  I.  The  Pythagorean  tranfmigration  of  a  foul  into  a 
new  body,  which,  in  the  proper  fenfe  of  the  word,  is  a 
new  birth.  2.  The  refurreflion  of  the  dead.  3.  A  re- 
volution, fuch  as  took  place  at  the  deluge,  when  a  new 
race  of  men  arofe.  4.  The  reftoration  of  a  ruined  ftate. 
The  word  is  ufcd  in  one  of  thefe  fenfes,  Matth.  xix.  28. 
but  not  one  of  them  is  applicable  to  Tit.  iii.  5.  or  the 
converfation  of  Chrift  with  Nicodemus  in  the  third  chap- 
ter of  St.  John,  who  has  uied,  inftead  of  the  fubflantlve, 
the  verb  yiwn^won  ai/wS-fi/.  In  both  thefe  pafiTages  the 
regeneration  is  afcribed  to  water,  which  circumftance 
alone  might  have  led  a  commentator,  acquainted  with 
the  language  of  the  Rabbins,  to  the  right  explanation ; 
efpecially  as  Chrift  himfelf  implies,  by  his  anfwer  to  Ni- 
codemus, Ch.  iii.  10.  that  he  is  fpeaking  of  a  regeneration, 
that  might  be  expeded  to  be  underftood  by  a  Rabbi. 
Various  have  been  the  conjeflures  on  the  meaning  of 
this  exprcfllon,  and  opinions  have  been  formed  on  fo 
important  a  fubjeft  and  fo  unufual  an  exprefTion,  without 
knowledge  of  the  language  of  the  Rabbins,  or  a  due  re- 
gard to  the  connexion.  It  has  been  imagined  that 
Chrift  intended  to  exprefs  a  total  alteration  of  religious 
fentiments  and  moral  feeling,  that  was  to  be  effefted  by 
the  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  and  of  Baptifm.  But 
how  could  Nicodemus  fuppofe  that  this  was  the  mean- 
ing ?  by  what  motive  could  Chrift  have  been  induced  to 
have  uied  a  term  not  only  figurative,  but  even  taken  in 
a  new  feiife  to  exprefs  what  he  might  have  clearly  ex- 
plained in  a  literal  and  fimple  manner  ?  and  with  what 
juftice  could  he  cenfure  Nicodemus  for  his  ignorance  on 
7  a  fub' 


SECT.  V,        Language  cf  the  New  Tejlament.  133 

a  fubjeft,  of  which,  according  to  this  explanation,  he 
could  never  have  heard  *^  It  would  occafion  a  long  and 
tedious  inquiry  *'  to  enter  into  a  minute  detail  of  the 
various  explanations  of  this  paflTage,  and  it  will  be-  fuffi- 
cient  to  mention  that  which  naturally  follows  from  a 
knowledge  of  the  Rabbinical  doftrines.  In  the  langu;  gi 
of  the  Rabbins,  '  to  be  born  again,'  fignifies  *  to  be  ac- 
cepted by  God  as  a  fon  of  Abraham,  and  by  following 
the  example  of  his  faith  to  become  worthy  of  that  title.' 
In  this  fenfe  the  connexion  is  clear,  the  language  is  fuch 
as  might  be  expe6ted  towards  a  mafler  in  Ifrael,  and  the 
water,  to  which  Chrift  alludes,  is  that  ufed  in  the  bap- 
tifm  of  a  profelyte,  to  which  the  Rabbins  afcribed  a  fpi- 
ritual  regeneration.  For  a  more  particular  account  of 
this  pafl'age,  fee  my  Dogmatic  Theology '°,  {^Ci.  185. 
and  the  remark  on  i  Tit.  iii.  3.  To  the  above  inftance 
we  may  add  the  following.  To  afk  the  Father  in  the 
name  of  Chrift  {ly  oi/o^ar;  X^jo-a)  John  xvi.  23.  can  hardly 
fignify  to  petition  the  Deity  through  faith  in  the  merits 
of  Chrift,  and  in  fa6l  it  expreftes  only,  according  to  the 
Rabbinical  fenfe,  to  afk  in  the  caufe  of  Chrift,  or  to  pray 
for  the  extenfion  of  his  fpiritual  kingdom.  See  Buxtorf's 
Rabbinical  Lexicon,  p.  2431.  under  the  articles  DC''/ 
and  X^\i^  hv  ^'• 

Even  the  mode  of  quoting  the  books  of  the  Old  Tef- 
tament  is  fometimes  fo  Rabbinical,  that  a  critic  acquaint- 
ed only  with  Greek,  cannot  poflibly  underftand  it.  How 
many  ufelefs  difputes  have  been  wafted  on  Mark  ii.  26. 

order  to  explain  a  fa6l  which  happened  not,  as  this  paf- 
fage  was  fuppofed  to  imply,  during  the  priefthcod  of 
Abiathar,  but  during  that  of  hi^  father  Abimelech.  But 
the  whole  obfcurity  and  contradiction  vanift.es,  as  foon 
as  we  know  the  manner  in  which  the  Rabbins  quoted 
the  books  of  the  Old  Teftament.  They  fele^fl  fome 
principal  word  out  of  each  feclion,  and  apply  that  name 
to  the  feftion  itfclf,  in  the  fame  manner  as  Miihammc- 
dans  diftinguifli  the  Suras  of  their  Koran,  faying,  in  Eh', 
in  Solomon,  when  they  intend  to  fignify  the  fedioi-.s 
I  3  where 


134  Language  of  the  New  Tejiament.     chap,  i  v. 

where  thofe  names  are  mentioned.  For  inflance,  Rafhi 
in  his  remarks  on  Hofea  ix.  9.  lays,  "  fome  are  of  opinion 
that  this  is  Gibeon  of  Benjamin  in  the  Concubine,  HT 
ti^J^DH  'iO'3Il  ;yU,  that  is,  mentioned  in  the  chapter  of 
the  Concubine,  or  Judges  xix'*.  The  fame  Rabbi  obferves 

on  Piaim  ii.  7.  TH  Til  H^n*  n!DK  HD int^n  '\r2^:^ti}  ^12:^ 

b\ir\^^  V'ti^li^  *  as  is  faid  in  Abner,  the  Lord  fpake, 
through  David  I  will  deliver  Ifrael."  Abenefra  on  Ho- 
fea iv.  8.  fays  ^^7^;  -jl'^D  "lOlb^D  '  as  is  faid  near  Eh.'  In 
this  manner  quotations  are  fometimes  made  in  the  New 
Teftament.     Mark  xii.  16.  ^a  Miyvcon  iv  t/j  (3iCxw  Mwo-eo;? 

iTCi  rng  j3aT8  ;    Rom.    xi.    2.    n   UK   oiSxTi  i]>  HAi%  t(  Xiyn  rt 

y^a.(pn  ;  and  the  above-mentioned  paflfage  in  St.  Mark, 
v/hich  has  been  thought  to  contain  a  contradidion,  may 
be  explained  '  in  the  chapter  of  Abiathar,'  or  in  that  part 
of  the  books  of  Samuel,  where  the  hiftory  of  Abiathar  is 
related".  Yet  admitting  this  explanation  to  be  errone- 
ous, the  Rabbinifm  in  the  two  other  examples  is  not  to 
be  denied. 

Before  I  quit  the  fubjeft  of  Rabbinifms,  let  it  be  per- 
mitted to  make  the  following  remark.  T  he  Rabbins 
betray  frequently  in  their  proverbial  and  figurative  ex- 
prefilons,  a  low,  and  fometimes  indecent  tafte,  whereas 
the  fimiilar  and  correfpondent  cxpreffions  of  Chrift  main- 
tain every  where  an  air  of  dignity,  even  where  they  ap- 
proach fo  near  to  the  language  of  the  Rabbins,  that  they 
cannot  eafily  be  explained  without  it.  As  a  proof  of  this 
alTertion,  we  need  only  compare  the  tv/o  following  paf- 
fages,  the  firft  from  R.  Tarphon',  the  fecond  from  St. 
Matthew.  Qui  manum  ad  mem  brum  (virile  fcil.)  ad- 
hibet,  abfcindatur  manu's  ejus  ad  umbilicum  ejus.  Dixit 
quitiam,  Quid  fi  fpina  iniixa  fit  ventri  ejus,  annon  toilet 
earn  ?  Refpondetur,  Non.  Inftat  alter.  At  venter  ipfus 
finditur;  Refpondetur.  Satius  efl  ut  findatur  venter 
ejus  quam  ut  defcendat  in  puteum  corruptionis.     Nidda 

lol.  I^.  2.  E»  ^c  0  o<^^xK^oq  (T3  0  Si'f^io?  a-yiXi/oxXii^si  a  e^sXe 
C(.\)roVy  y.xi  paAs  awo  (ra,  mfxi^icii  yup  aoi  Ji/a  a7ro?.r,TX,i  iv  ruv 
l^.iXoov  oa,    axt  r^r,  oAou  to  (tco^.x  ca  jSXriS'v)  nq  ysmxi'^  Matth> 

V.  29. 

The 

i  See  BuxtGrPo  Lex.  Talm.  p,  111,  113- 


SECT.  XII.      Language  of  the  New  Tejiament,  135 

The  language  fpoken  in  common  life  by  the  Jews  of 
Palelline  was  that,  which  may  very  properly  be  called  the 
Aramaean,  thofe  of  Jenifalem  and  Judsa  fpeaking  the 
Eaft-Aram:ean  orChaldee,  and  thofe  of  Galilee  the  Weft- 
Aramaean  or  Syriac,  two  dialers  that  differed  rather  in 
pronunciation  than  in  words,  in  proof  of  which  affertion 
I  refer  my  readers  to  my  treatife  on  the  Synac  language'*. 
It  was  therefore  natural  that  numerous  Gialdaifms  and 
Syriafms  fhould  be  intermixed  with  the  Greek  of  the 
New  Teftament;  and  even  fuch,  as  are  not  to  be  found 
in  the  Septuagint.  Were  the  New  Teftament  free  from 
thefe  idioms,  we  might  naturally  conclude  that  it  was 
not  written  either  by  men  of  Galilee  or  Judasa,  and  there- 
fore fpurious  :  for,  as  certainly  as  the  fpeech  of  Peter  be- 
trayed him  to  be  a  Galilean,  when  Chrift  flood  before 
the  Jewifli  tribunal,  fo  certainly  muft  the  written  lan- 
guage of  a  man  born,  educated,  and  grown  old  in  Ga- 
lilee, difcover  marks  of  his  native  idiom,  unlefs  we  af- 
fume  the  abfurd  hypothecs,  that  God  hath  interpofed  a 
miracle,  which  would  have  deprived  the  New  Teftament 
of  one  of  its  ftrongeft  proofs  of  authenticity.  Single 
Chaldee  words,  fuch  as  ^a.v.01,^  Matth.  v.  22.  (j,oi.ixiJ,uya,^ 
Matth.  vi.  24.  fjLoc^ocv  a9ar,  I  Cor.  xvi.  22.  can  hardly  be 
called  Chaldaifms,  as  even  the  pureft  claflic  author  '^ 
rtiight  introduce  a  foreign  word  if  occafion  required  -,  we 
may  only  obferve  that  they  are  written  according  to  the 
dialed:  of  Jerufalem,  not  according  to  the  Weft-Ara- 
m^an.  Syriac  phrafes  and  turns  of  expreffion  are  of 
much  greater  confequence ;  three  remarkable  inftancesj 

ju,e  KoXapi^vij  and  SKai/J^aAf^s^S-aj,  which  I  beg  my  readers 
to  confult  ^^ :  and  not  to  quote  from  my  own  writings, 
I  will  add  other  examples,  though  they  are  of  lefs  im- 
portance than  the  three  above-mentioned. 

Verbs  of  confefTing  and  denying  are  conftrued  in  Sy- 
riac'' with  the  prefix  2,  e,  g.  Ads  xxiii.  3.     ^i^"^  [♦•i^j 

k  The  fame  conftrudion  is  ufed  in  ^\.rabic  j  but  as  the  writers  of  the 
New  Teftament  fpake  the  Aramcean,  and  not  the  Arabic  language,  I  refer 
it  rather  to  the  cials  of  Syriafms, 


13^  Lang'.fa^e  of  the  New  Tejiament.       chap.  iv. 

^oi'-oo.  I  Joh.  i,  9.  .-.^^^-o  ..X-?  ic  ^|.  In  the  fame 
maiiner  we  rind  la  t,  c  New  Teflament,  Matth.  x.  32. 
oz\%  ofji.n-> '.yna-ti  tv  ifjkotj  and  a  fimiLr  conftrui5tion  in  many 
otiicr  pafTagrs. 

m^'IlJ  '  p'  wer,'  fignifies  in  Cha'dee  likewife  a  <  mira- 
cle", in  which  twofold  fenfc  Jui/a/u.j  is  ufed  in  the  Greek 
Teflament. 

i^s^  *  to  cover  or  overfhadow,'  fignifies  likewife  in  Sy- 
riac  *  to  inhabit,'  e.  g.  Joh.  i.  14.  ^  r^°  *  and  dwelt 
am(^ng  us.'  The  Chalice  word  ^^0  has  the  fame  fenfe 
in  Pael,  an  J  is  applied  in  particular  to  the  Holy  Spirit '% 
wnence  we  may  explain  Luke  i.  ^6.  Ka»  Swxfj^iq  xj^^itts 
s-mtryitxaru  (ro».  if  this  explanation  appears  unfad.sfaflory, 
and  it  is  thought  neceflary  to  retain  the  idea  of  a  nuptial 
bed,  the  expreflion  is  ftill  far  from  being  genuine  Greek, 
and  it  is  an  adual  Syriafm,  for  a  nuptial  bed  fignifies  in 
Syriac  Jjox^Aao''',  Pfalm  xix.  6. 

The  Syrian,  as  well  as  Chaldean  Jew,  called  a  week, 
a  fabbach,  {^Dllit^  becaufc  it  cont  Jned  a  fabbath,  and 
reckoned  the  days  of  the  week  in  cae  fallowing  manner: 

1.  Sunday,  i^xio  ^^  the  one,  or  the  firfl:  of  the  fabbath 
or  week.  It  muft  be  remembered  th.at  in  the  Oriental 
languages  tlif  cardinal  numbers  are  likewife  ufed  as  or- 
dinals, which  is  often  imitated  by  the  Seventy.     Exod. 

Xl.   2.  «p  nu-z^a  |V.(a  ns  i^-nvoq  ra  ttouts. 

2.  Monday,  j-o^ao  ^;Z,,  two,  or  the  fecond  in  the 
week. 

3.  Tuefday,  i^ao  Ai^Z.,  the  third  in  the  we^k. 

4.  VVedaefday,  |::iA:=i  i^^M,  the  fourth  in  tne  week. 

5.  Thurfday,  ^:xao  iaiic^,  the  fifth  in  the  week. 

6.  F'  iday,  i^oo-,!^,  the  pr.  ceding  evening,  or  the  even- 
ing before  the  I'aboath. 

7.  Saturday,  U'cxa  the  Sabbath. 

^t  is  therefore  by  no  means  extraordinary  that  [j^ix  o-ag- 
t'«Tw^,  Matth.  xxviii.  i.  Mark  xvi  2.  Luke  xxiv.  i. 
John  XX.  19.  A-ts  XX.  7.  i  Cor.  xvi.  2.  'hould  be  ufed 
for  Sunday,  or  that  Fii  lay  fh  :i,ild  be  exprefled  in  Jewifli 
Greek  by  ■sxixox(TK£uny  a  word  wnich  appears  to  have  been 

adopted 


5ECT.  V.       Language  of  the  New  Tefiament,  13-7 

adopted  even  by  Auguftus  in  the  Roman  law  '.     The 
following  Syriafm  is  ftill  more  ftriking,  Matth.  xxviii.  i. 

oi|/e  (Toc^^ocTuv  TV)  fTTKpcoo-xao-w  £(?  fAla^  <ra£6aTwi/,  which  I  fhould 

have  confidered  as  a  miftake  of  the  Greek  tranflator,  if 
the  fame  expreffion  had  not  been  ufcd  by  St.  Luke,  ch. 

XXIII.  54.    )ta(  rifxi^x  151/    srafao-xEi/n,   xat   (ra^Qxrov  nrKpooa-Ki. 

Much  ufclefs  time  has  been  fpent  in  explaining  thefe 
paflages :  fome  have  fuppofed  that  allufion  was  made  to 
the  candles,  which  the  Jews  lighted  the  evening  preced- 
ing the  fabbath,  an  allufion  which  is  not  applicable  to 
St,  Matthew;  others  have  imagined  that  the  break  of 
day  was  intended  to  be  expreffed,  an  explanation  which 
on  the  other  hand  cannot  be  applied  to  St.  Luke.     The 
whole  paflage  is  a  very  uiual  Syrialm,  and  confidered  as 
fuch  is  attended  wi:h  no  difficulty.     In  Syriac  jou*'  is 
applied  to  the  night  preceding  any  particular  day,  e.  o-. 
|o;  jico^j  {;a^  ;ou!  iriAO  ^:Zi  i-l^Iio  *  in  the  night  of  the 
fecond  day  of  the  week,  that  lighted  in  the  morning  of 
the  great  faft*.'     Another  example  may  be  taken  from 
AlTeman's  Bibliotheca  Orientalis,  Tom.  I.  p.  212.     On 
Saturday  at  the  eleventh  hour,  (i.  e.  at  five  in  the  after- 
noon), icLao  i^  ;ou>  *',  i.  e.  literally,  *  when  the  firft  day  of 
the  week  (hone  in.'  And  Tom   III.  P.  II.  p.  1 1 1.  |A:^o 
?a^o  Z^Z.  cti^j:  <:  in  the  night  that  lighted  in  the  third 
day  of  the  week.'    The  Syriac  wor  ^s  are  here  tranflated 
in  as  bald  a  manner**  as  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  has  been 
tranflated  into  Greek,  and  it  may  be  naturally  alked, 
how  the  Syriac  language  could  admit  fo  extraordinary  an 
expreffion  .?    Now  ;ou  fignities  properly  <  to  open,'  as 
appears  from  the  Arabic  Chreilomathy  '^^  p.  97.  and 
this  fcnfe  may  be  applied  in  fcveral  inltances  to  explain 
the  Hebrew  Bible :  hence  the  Syrians  and  Chaldeans 
derived  the  figurative  fcnfe,  becaufc  the  rays  of  light 

break 

I  See  Joseph!  Ar  tlo.  XV     6.  2.  wher    '  e  has  recorded  an  edlfl  of  Au- 
^ftus  relating  to  t  e    ews,  i    w    c        te    0..0  •  ng  clauie :  iv  c-af^aj-*... 

See  alfo     y,.ii(t(  y  of  the  R.furreaion    ,  p,  8— 18, 
*  See  p.  94.  of  the  Syriac  th..ftomathy  t^. 


jjS  Lauguage  of  the  New  Tejlament'.      chap,  iv^ 

break  through  openings  +*.  The  two  Syriac  paflages  *^ 
fhould  be  therefore  tranflated  *  in  the  night  of  Tuefday 
which  opens  the  great  fafl  day,'  i.  e.  on  which  the  great 
fafl  begins,  the  day  being  reckoned  from  fun-fet  among 
the  Eallern  nations**  :  and  *  Saturday  afternoon  at  five 
o'clock*',  when  Sunday  was  opened,'  i.  e.  began.  In  the 
two  pafiages  from  the  New  Tellament  above-mentioned, 
the  tranflator  of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel,  and  St.  Luke, 
have  ufed  therefore  a  Syriafm  of  the  fame  nature,  as  I 
have  before  obferved  in  this  feftion,  applying  to  the 
Greek  word  the  fame  extent  of  meaning  as  ;c^  admits 
in  Syriac  ^°.  The  expreffion  has  been  received  into  the 
church  Latin  of  the  Paleftine  Chriflians,  and  Adler  ""  has 
quoted  an  infcription  made  at  Ceefarea  in  the  year  587, 
in  which  are  the  following  words :  *  medium  nocStis  die 
dominica  inlucefcente  ^'.  Z.^ana  (JJV-;")  Matth.  xiii.  25. 
is  a  word  peculiar  to  the  Syriac,  and  totally  unknown  to 
the  Greek  writers  :  it  is  ufed  by  both  the  Syriac  tranf- 
lators,  but  it  is  not  to  be  found  in  any  other  Oriental 
language,  for  the  Arabic  ^^j.  and  the  Rabbinic  \iy\\  are 
words  diftind  from  the  Syriac,  though  their  meaning  is 
the  fame  ".  There  remains  another  fpecies  of  Chalda- 
ifms  to  be  mentioned,  which  have  been  hitherto  un- 
noticed :  many  Greek  words  have  been  adopted  in  the 
Chaldee,  and  have  there  received  either  a  more  exten- 
five  or  different  fignification,  which  words  have  been  ufed 
by  the  writers  of  the  New  Tcflament  in  the  Chaldee 
fenfe.  A^i^ov  is  a  pure  Greek  word,  and  fignifies  Din- 
ner ^* ;  it  has  been  adopted  by  the  Chaldreans,  written 
p/2D")K  and  ufed  for  a  meal  in  general,  and  often  for  Sup- 
per in  particular  *,  In  this  fenfe  it  is  ufed  by  St.  Mat- 
thew, chap.  xxii.  4.  where  not  only  the  great  prepara- 
tions, as  well  as  manners  of  the  country  and  the  times, 
lead  naturally  to  the  fuppofition  of  an  evening  meal,  but 
likewife  the  circumftance  that  the  perfon  who  was  ex- 
pelled from  the  chamber  for  coming  without  a  marriage 

garment 

m  Enuntiatio  Matthsei  ex  lingua  Syilaca  illuftrata,  p.  16. 

n  From  Vj  •»  •  parvus  S^. 

*  See  Puxtorrs.  Lex,  Ch.  Talm.  Rabbin,  p.  227. 


SECT.  V.       Language  of  the  New  Teftament.  13^ 

garment  was  led  into  darknefs,  which  clearly  implies 
that  it  happened  in  the  evening,  and  that  the  eating 
room  was  lighted  Y^^xfnn^ov  fignifies  in  Claflic  Greek 
the  border  or  train  of  a  garment:  the  Chaida^ans  who 
have  adopted  this  word  write  it  ]niDDl"lD  ^\  and  apply 
it  to  exprefs  the  taflels  which  hung  ac  the  four  corners  of 
the  mantle,  which  the  Jews  wore  over  their  ufual  drefs  *% 
and  in  this  fcnle  it  is  ulcd  Matth.  xxiii.  5.  Ma^y«^jT»ij 
has  been  received  both  into  the  Chaldee  and  the  Syriac, 
Nn'b:i1,!:,  jA*i^io  ",  but  among  the  eaftern  nations  the 
word  Pearl  is  ufed  likewife  for  Precious  Stones  in  general, 
e.  g.  »ji>3^  '^  In  this  fenfe  we  muft  take  /^a^ya^tra*. 
Matt.  vii.  6.  xiii.  46.  And  Rev.  xxi.  i\.  it  feems  in- 
capable of  any  other  meaning,  fince  gates  of  pearl,  which 
every  acid  could  diilblve,  would  hardly  enter  into  the 
imagination. 

Several  exprcfTions  of  the  New  Teftament  receive  great 
light  from  the  Arabic.  I  will  not  immediately  call  fuch 
pafiages  Arabifms,  though  many  of  the  fermons  of  Chrift 
were  held  on  the  eaftern  or  Arabian  fide  of  the  Jordan, 
where  John  the  Baptift  chiefly  refided,  and  many  other 
opportunities  might  have  introduced  Arabic  expreflions 
into  the  language  of  Paleftine.  The  Oriental  languages 
have  a  llriking  affinity  with  each  other;  but  as  we  know 
infinitely  more  of  the  Arabic,  than  of  either  Hebrew, 
Chaldee,  or  Syriac,  it  is  not  furprifing  that  many  paflages 
of  the  New  Teftament  can  be  explained  from  that  lan- 
guage alone. 

It  is  a  common  proverb  among  the  Arabs,  ^  He  bears 
the  burden  of  another,'  when  guilt  is  imputed  to  an  in- 
nocent perfon  inftead  of  the  culprit.  See  Rev.  ii.  24. 
Gal.  vi.  2,  5.  with  my  remarks  on  thofe  paiLiges,  and 

Rom.  XV.  i".  ^  ^5^  «  to  pray  for,'  fignifies  likewife 

to  blefs^°;  in  which  fenfe  ^potr£u;>/o,aaj  is  ufed,  Matth. 
xix.  13.  Karatu^K,  Rom.  xi.  8.  fignifies  not  remorfe, 
but  flumber ;  in  the  text  quoted  from  Ifaiah  xxix  i  o. 
we  find  n01"in  which  the  Seventy  have  exprelie.I  by  a 
word  fignifying  compundio  ^\  in  allufion  to  the  Arabic 

phrafe 


140  Language  of  the  New  Tejlament.      chap;  iv. 

phrafe,  "  Sleep  fews  the  eyes  together.'  Supplementa  ad 
Lex. Hebr.  p.  449 '^^  Idle  words  ^.loijji  fignify  lie-i  *^^  and 
TDiH  in  Chaldee  has  the  fame  meaning;  hence  we  may  ex- 
plain the  meaning  of  Chrift,  Matth.  xii.  2^.  that  the  falfe- 
Iioods,  which  the  Jews  have  uttered  againft  him,  fhould 
be  laid  to  their  charge  at  the  day  of  judgement.  A  path 
lignifies  frequently  in  Arabic  '  Religion  i'  and  '  to  come 
to  a  man  with  fomcthing,'  fignifies  *  to  bring  fomething 
for  him.'  The  paflage  therefore,  Matth.  xxi.  32.  fhould 
be  tranflated,  *  John  brought  you  the  true  religion,  but 
ye  believed  him  not*^"^.'  The  common  tranflation  is 
harlh  and  difficult  j  ffor  though  we  may  eafily  conceive 
what  is  meant  by  walking  in  the  way  of  righteoufnefs, 
yet  to  come  to  any  one  in  the  path  of  righteoufnefs,  has 
fuch  a  want  of  accuracy  as  to  be  almoft  unintelligible  *^, 
The  principal  Jews  with  whom  Chrift  difcourfed 
(John  V.  25 . )  faying,  '  Yc  were  willing  for  a  feafon  to  re- 
joice in  his  light,'  had  probably  never  had  the  fmalleft 
fatisfaftion  from  the  preaching  of  John.  Now  in  Arabic 
'  to  rejoice  at  a  prophet'  fignifies  to  make  merry  at  the 
expence  of  the  prophet,  or  turn  him  into  ridicule  (Koran, 
chap.  xL  83.)  i  Chrift  therefore  meant  to  fay,  ye  were 
willing  for  a  feafon  to  turn  his  light  into  ridicule  ^^.  It 
muft  at  the  fame  time  be  obferved  that  the  Arabs  ufed 
this  expreffion  like  wife  in  a  goodfenfe.     Suraxxiii.  55. 

^^  iMxyliXy^^ui  ^7  is  applied  to  Ipeeches  and  exhortations 
in  general  j  in  this  fenfe  juayftA.fw  is  ufed  A6ls  xiv.  15,- 


SECT.      VI, 


Two -fold  error  into  which  critics  have  fallen  in  refpe5l  to  th& 
Hebraifms. 

WITH  regard  to  thefe  foreign  expreffions,  which  I 
will  include  under  the  general  name  of  Hebra- 
ifms, the  learned  have  carried  their  afiertions  too  far  on 
bodi  fides  of  the  qucftion.     Some  have  afcribed  this  title 

tQ 


SECT.  VI.       Language  of  the  New  Teftament.  141 

to  every  phrafe  that  was  admiffible  among  the  Hebrew- 
writers,  even  though  it  were  ufed  by  the  pureft  of  the 
clafTic  authors,  forgetting  that  the  fame  expreflions  may 
be  common  to  a  variety  of  languages,  fmce  man,  the  in- 
ventor of  language,  retains  the  fame  nature  in  all  cli- 
mates, and  all  ages.  A  fimilarity  has  been  obferved  be- 
tween a  number  of  Greek  and  Oriental  phrafes°,  nor  is  it 
improbable  that  a  portion  of  the  Oriental  genius  fhould 
have  been  tranfmitted  to  the  Greeks,  who  received  their 
cultivation  from  the  Phoenicians,  and  carried  on  a  ccnfi- 
derable  commerce  with  that  nation.  From  the  time  of 
Alexander  Greece  borrowed  from  the  Eafl  in  a  ftill 
higher  degree,  to  which  the  Jewilh  Greeks  in  a  great 
meafure  contributed,  and  by  thefe  means  numerous  ex- 
prefJions,  that  were  originally  Hebrew,  became  naturaliz- 
ed in  the  Greek  language.  A  want  of  fufficient  knowledge 
of  the  Greek  has  often  excited  a  fufpicion  of  Hebraifms, 
for  the  fame  reafon  that  our  modern  Latin  is  fometimes 
charged  with  Germanifms,  for  want  of  knowing  that 
thofe  very  terms  of  language  were  likewife  ufed  by  the 
antient  Romans. 

The  moft  eminent  among  the  learned  have  fallen  into 
miftakes  on  this  topic.  Grotius  has  produced  many  in- 
ftances  of  Hebraifms,  which  on  a  more  accurate  exami- 
nation have  been  found  to  be  purely  Greek  3  but  this  is 
an  error  to  which  the  deeped  critics  are  expofed.  In 
reading  Rom.  ix.  29.  E»  ^7,  Kvp.o?  2«e«a;9  lyy.a.TiXx-rtiv 
»)|atv  <T7rr,pf/.Xy  it  is  natural  to  fuppofe  that  a-Tnoixa  is  a  Hc- 
braifm  ;  and  yet  it  certainly  is  not.  No  inftance  can  be 
given  in  the  Hebrev/  language  where  feed  '  is  ufed  in  the 
fenfe  of  remnant :  even  in  the  quoted  pafiage  of  Ifaiah, 
ch.  i.  9.  we  find  no  word  cxpreflive  of  feed,  but  inJ2^ 
which  fignifies  '  a  refugee','  a  term  which  tlie  Seventy  in 
this  text,  as  well  as  Deut.  iii.  3.  have  tranflated  by  o-Trsp^a^ 
The  reafon  of  this  tranflation,  which  is  purely  Greek, 
may  be  feen  in  the  Suppiementa  ad  Lex.  Heb.  and  the 

appli- 

o  Ernefti  de  veftigiis  linsfuse  Hebraicas  in  Jingua  Grseca  :  Lipfi^  175^. 
Dr.  Ernefti  conjeftures  even  tliat  the  Greek  language  is  derived  from  the 
Hebrew, 


144  Language  of  the  New  Tejiament.      chap.  iv. 

application  is  extremely  eafy,  as  it  is  natura],  when  the 
inhabitants  of  a  town  or  country  have  been  nioftly  dc- 
ftroyed,  to  confider  the  remnant  as  the  feed  that  mufl 
propagate,  and  reftore  the  human  race.  Examples  have 
been  colleded  by  Wetftein^  from  Plato  and  Jofcphus*. 
It  is  extraordinary  that  thofe  very  perfons,  who  are  leall: 
acquainted  with  the  Hebrew,  arc  the  mod  inclined  to 
difcover  Hebraifms,  and  it  has  been  as  fafhionable  as  it 
is  convenient  to  afcribe  the  difBculty  of  every  obfcure 
paflage  inihe  New  Teftament  to  an  Oriental  idiom. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  advocates  for  the  perfedl  purity 
of  the  Greek  Teftament  are  equally  miftaken,  and  their 
iniftake  has  been  occafioned  by  various  caufes.  In  fup- 
portof  opinions  they  quote  paiTagesfrom  the  later  Greeks, 
vyho  by  the  conftant  ufe  of  the  Greek  Tcframent,  and 
the  works  of  the  Chriftian  writers,  had  infenfibly  adopted 
its  modes  of  expreffion.  And  in  cafes,  where  they  attempt 
to  fhew  the  purity  of  a  word  by  pointing  out  an  inftance 
where  it  is  ufed  by  a  claffic,  they  forget  to  examine  whe- 
ther the  fenfe  is  unaltered,  or  whether  its  application  does 
not  favour  of  a  foreign  idiom.  At  other  times  they  pro- 
duce a  fmgle  inftance  from  a  clafiic,  which  they  have 
difcovered  with  the  utmoft  difficulty,  in  order  to  qualify 
an  expreftion  that  is  in  conftant  ufe  among  the  writers 
of  the  New  Teftament.  But  this  is  no  argument  againft 
an  Hebraifm,  for  the  peculiarity  of  a  language  frequently 
confifts  in  the  repeated  ufe  of  particular  phrafes.  Laftly, 
they  forget  the  ftrufture  of  the  periods,  and  that  the  con- 
cifenefs  of  Oriental  compofttion  is  the  reverfe  of  the 
roundnefs  of  Grecian  eloquence.  Divines,  whofe  pafto- 
ral  engagements  prevent  them  from  applying  to  the  ftudy 
of  languages,  muft  of  courfe  be  as  Httle  able  to  decide  on 
this  fubjcft,  as  a  mionk  of  the  middle  ages  on  the  purity 
of  Latin.  And  thofe,  whofe  learning  might  have  enabled 
them  to  determine,  have  been  prevented  from  difcover- 
ing  the  truth,  either  by  the  injudicious  pra^ice  of  ftudy- 
ing  the  Greek  language  from  the  New  Teftament, 
whence  we  are  fo  accuftomcd  to  its  ftyk  as  to  be  infen- 

fible 

P  In  his  note  to  Rom,  ix,  29, 


SECT.  VII.     Language  of  the  New  Tejiament.  143 

fible  of  its  peculiarities,  or  by  a  miftaken  zeal  for  the 
honour  of  the  Greek  Teftament  itfelf,  and  a  dread  that 
every  deviation  from  clafTic  purity  might  be  a  charge 
againft  its  infpiration. 

Yet  the  difpute  has  not  been  entirely  without  advan- 
tage, for  many  pafTages  produced  from  the  Greek  authors^ 
though  they  anfwer  not  the  purpofe  for  which  they  were 
quoted,  have  contributed  to  the  folution  of  doubts  of  a 
ftili  more  important  nature. 


SECT.       VII. 

The  language  of  the  New  Tefiament  has  a  tintlure  of  the 
Alexandrine  idiom. 

OUR  nanve  language  affords  an  inftance  that  many 
great  cities,  and  almofl  every  province,  have  cer- 
tain peculiar  expreffions,  which  are  either  uncommon  or 
unknown  in  other  parts  of  the  empire,  and  are  generally 
termed  provincial.  The  cafe  was  exactly  the  fame  among 
the  Greeks,  not  only  with  regard  to  the  four  principal 
dialefts,  but  alfo  in  refpeft  to  the  numerous  colonies  efla- 
blifhed  in  Afia  and  Africa,  efpecially  after  the  conquefts 
of  Alexander.  The  word  x^artro?,  which  is  ufed  in  three 
different  places  in  the  writings  of  St.  Luke  merely  as  a 
title  of  honour,  was  in  this  fenfe  more  familiar  at  leaft  to 
tlie  Afiatic  than  the  European  Greeks,  and  was  adopted 
in  the  Palmyrene  Syriac,  as  appears  from  the  8th,  9th, 
and  loth  Palmyrene  Infcriptions'',  in  each  of  which  a  cer- 
tain Septimius,  who  had  difcharged  the  ofBce  of  Eutro- 
pius  and  Ducenarius,  is  llyled  ^J3nD^D^?  D*cDDJ3"lp. 

We  may  apply  this  remark  in  particular  to  the  inha- 
bitants of  Alexandria,  whofe  Greek  was  probably  not  free 
from  a  certain  mixture  of  Egyptian,  of  which  zr^oipvTn?', 

^  See  Swinton's  Explication  of  thfr  Infcriptions  in  the  Palmyrene  Lan- 
guage ',  and  the  Abbe  B/rthekmy's  Refleaions  fwr  I'Alphabet  de  Pal- 
niyre  ^.  More  will  be  faid  on  this  fubjeil;  in  the  introduction  to  St.  Luke's 
Gofpel. 

<•  Wetftein  on  Matth.  j,  32.  anS'Jablcnfki's  Prolegomena  to  his  Pan- 
theon iEgypti,  §  39  >, 


€44  Language  of  the  New  Tejiament.     chap.  iv. 

a'^U'ho^  as  ufcd  in  the  biblical  fenfe  *,  and  a.^x'^y^^^^^  ^^"^ 
examples. 

The  Seventy  have  made  ufe  of  words  which  are  un- 
known to  a  clafljc  author,  fuch  as  S-jC*?  ^,  «;(;»,  the  latter 
of  which  is  undoubtedly*  Egyptian.  Alexandria  was  in 
many  refpefts  the  metropolis  of  the  countries  inhabited 
by  Grecian  Jews,  and  the  verfion  of  the  Seventy,  as  it  is 
commonly  called,  was  made  at  Alexandria  j  it  is  there- 
fore no  wonder  if  Alexandrine  idioms  ^  are  found  in  the 
New  Teftament.  And  it  is  a  circumftance  which  de- 
ferves  attention,  that  many  of  the  advocates  for  the  pu- 
rity of  the  Greek  Ten:ament  have  in  many  inflances 
quoted  merely  or  chiefly  Alexandrine  authors.  E^aTni/a, 
which  is  ufed  in  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Mark,  and  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint*,  and  of  which  Thomas  Magifter  fays,  that  it  is 
abfolutely  no  Greek  word,  and  perfe6lly  fpurious,  has 
been  found  by  Kypke  ^  in  Jamblichusf.  To  this  may 
be  added  feveral  words  that  are  indeed  genuine  Greek, 
and  admifTible  by  the  beft  authors,  but  which  were  more 
frequently  and  particularly  ufed  in  Egypt,  fuch  as  to-te/iu- 
y\ov  T3  i£p»,  Matth.  iv.  5.  Luke  iv.  9.  for  even  Strabo 
thought  it  neceflary  to  explain  what  was  fignified  by 
•cTTEpa,  when  applied  to  the  Egyptian  temples.  Lib.  XVII. 
p.  1 159.  and  this  paffage  of  Strabo,  which  has  been  over- 
looked by  the  commentators,  is  of  more  value  than  all 
the  other  examples  which  have  been  collefted  together'. 

In  reply  to  thefe  obfervations  it  has  been  objefted,  that 
many  words  fuppofed  to  be  Alexandrine  are  not  to  be 
found  in  Philo  J.  But  this  affords  no  pofitive  evidence, 
fince  an  author  may  induftrioufly  avoid  what  he  knows 
to  be  peculiar  to  his  country  or  province.  No  part  of 
Germany,  not  excepting  Leipzig  or  Halle,  is  free  from 
provincialifms,  and  yet  a  good  German  writer  will  never 
difcover  by  his  language  the  place  of  his  birth  or  educa- 
tion, 

*  Mark  ix.  8.  Lev.  xxl.  4..  Num.  iv.  20.  vi.  9,  Jofhua  .Vi,  7.  Ifaiaiv 
xlviil.  3.  Pfalm  Ixiv.  4.  Ixxiii.  19.  2  Chron.  xxix.  36, 

•f  Protrept.  c.  xx.  p.  laj. 

t  See  Carpzov's  not?  to  Heb,  iii.  7  "', 


SECT.  vir.     Language  of  the  New  Teftament.  145 

tlon.  And,  as  we  know  that  Philo  took  particular  paina 
to  write  in  an  elegant  ftyle,  it  is  no  wonder  that  he  avoided 
every  exprelfion  that  appeared  to  be  provincial. 

Befide  the  language,  which  is  ufually  admitted  into  the 
works  of  men  of  learning  and  genius,  every  great  city  has 
its  peculiar  and  fafhionable  exprefTions  in  common  life, 
and  applies  to  certain  words  fignifications,  which  they 
have  not  received  in  other  parts.  This  appears  to  have 
been  the  cafe  at  Alexandria,  efpecially  among  the  Jews, 
whofe  numbers  in  that  city  were  almoft  incredible  -,  and 
different  fenfes  and  expreflions  being  once  admitted  into 
the  Septuagint,  they  were  eafily  transferred  to  the  writ- 
ings of  the  New  Teftament.  Several  words  have  been 
difcovered  in  both,  which  are  neither  ufual  among  the 
claffic  authors,  nor  on  the  other  hand  to  be  explained  as 
Hebraifms.  Ilopi/na  is  fo  feldom  found  in  the  Greek 
writers,  that  in  feveral  lexicons  it  has  been  entirely  omit- 
ted, yet  in  the  Septuagint  and  in  the  New  Teftament  its 
ufe  is  extremely  frequent  i  but  the  fenfe,  which  is  ufually 
applied  to  the  different  texts,  in  which  it  is  ufed,  is  to- 
tally inadmiffible  in  a  very  important  paffage,  viz.  Afts 
XV.  20.  29.     See  fedt.  14.  of  this  chapter. 

Ya^oc,  fignifies  among  the  Greeks  "  a  wedding,  matri- 
mony," &c.  but  in  the  common  language  of  Alexandria, 
or  at  leaft  among  the  Jews  of  that  city,  it  feems  to  have 
fignified  an  entertainment  or  feftival  in  general,  in  the 
fame  manner  as  the  German  v/ord  for  wedding,  accord- 
ing to  its  etymology,  may  fignify  any  time  of  general  re- 
joicing: and  in  this  fenfe  it  is  ufed  by  the  Seventy.  The 
example  taken  from  Genefis  xxix.  22.  where  the  Hebrew 
nn:!'/"::  a  feftival  is  tranflated  ya^o?,  affords  indeed  a  du- 
bious argument,  becaufe  the  notion  df  a  wedding"  is 
there  intended  "to  be  exprefled;  but  Efther  ix.  22.  Kat 

Toi/  ^»ika — xyav    aura?   nf/.i^oc<;   ya-^m  y.xi  svtp^oo-ui^v;,  where 

nntt'O  is  again  tranflated  by  ya/Ao?,  and  where  no  allu- 
fton  can  poflibly  be  made  to  a  wedding '%  puts  the  mat- 
ter out  of  doubt :  and  in  fome  of  the  manufcripts,  in- 
ftead  of  zTOTis,  Efther  i.  5.  we  find  yxy^n  '^  In  the  fame 
fenfe  we  find  7«^«f  ufed  in  the  New  Teftament,  Matth. 
K  xxii. 


146  Language  of  the  New  Tejl anient,     chap.  iv. 

xxii.  I.  where  a  king  made  yaag?  for  his  fon,  and  yet  in 
the  whole  parable  not  a  fingle  alliifion  is  made  to  a  bride, 
nay  it  is  even  difficult  to  conceive  how  that  notion  can 
be  admitted  in  any  part  of  the  relation.  ra,aot  can  fig- 
nify  therefore  in  this  paflage  nothing  more  than  a  public 
feftival  inftituted  by  the  king  in  honour  of  his  fon,  per- 
haps on  the  public  occafion  of  declaring  him  the  heir  of 
his  kingdom'*:  this  hypothefis  at  leafh  throws  a  light  on 
the  whole  parable,  and  may  ferve  to  explain  the.reafon 
why  many  of  thofe  who  were  invited  refufed  to  come, 
and  why  one  perfon  in  particular  offered  an  affront  to  the 
mafterof  the  feaft,  by  appearing  in  a  drefs  unfuitable  to 
the  folemn. occafion.     See  alfo  Luke  xiv.  8. 

It  is  manifeft  that  j;^'^  does  nor  fignify  '  ungodly,'  but 
*  that  perfon  in  a  proccfs  of  law  on  whofe  fide  the  injuftice 
lay,'  or  the  contrary  to  pn^%  of  which  more  may  be  {ztv\. 
in  the  Supplem.  ad  Lex.  Hebr.  But  the  Seventy  tran- 
flate  it  in  general  by  ao-Ebr?,  acrsgjia,  ac-fbeiv,  and  whoever 
wiflies  to  fee  the  difFerenf^aflages  may  confult  Trommii 
Concordantis.  Nor  do  they  appear  to  have  ufed  this  tran- 
flation  through  ignorance  of  the  Hebrew  word ',  which 
they  have  in  feveral  inftances  very  properly  tranflated 
by  aJ'txof,  a^ixiw^  aJ'otcof'*^.  Exod.  ii.  13.  xxiii.  i.  i  Kings 
viii.  47.  1  Chron.  vi.  37.  Ifaiah  Ivii.  20.  Iviii.  6.  Ezek. 
xxi.  3.  Pfalm  cvi.  6.  Proverbs  xvii.  15.  Job  xvi.  11.  Da- 
niel ix.  15.  or  iyoyji(i.  Numb.  xxxv.  31.  In  many  in- 
iVances  the  tranflation  ^  ungodly'  is  totally  inadmiHible, 
and  it  is  evident  that  a<Ti^nz  in  the  dialecl  of  the  Alexan- 
drine tranflators  had  a  fenfe  different  from  that,  which 
was  given  it  by  the  clafilc  authors.  We  need  only  refer 
to  the  following  pafTages,  Exod.  xxiii.  7.  AOwoi/  xa»  J~;y.«<oi/ 

2X  a7roKT5i/£K,  X'^'-t  a  ^iy^cc\ui(xnq  tqv  ix(ri^rt  tviy.iv  ^vpuvj  and 
IJeut.  XXV.   I,    Eav  yivrtTxi  avrjAoyja  a.vx,[xi(rot/  xu^pccTruv,  xxi 

y.ix,i  y.a.-rocyvua-HtTi  tov  cctrt^n.  What  has  been  hitherto  ad- 
vanced brings  the  matter  not  only  to  an  high  degree  of 
probability,  but  it  brings  it  to  a  certainty,  when  we  add 
that  oio-B^vi  and  aa-iQtioc,  are  ufed  by  the  Seventy  for  DDn> 

violence, 

«  See  Or.  Bibl.  '5,  Vol,  vi.  p.  158. 


siCT.  vii.     Language  of  the  New  Tefiament,  14-7 

Violence,  or  injuftice'^.  Jeremiah  vi.  7.  xxii.  3.  Ezek. 
xii.  19.  Obad.  10.  Micah  vi.  12.  Hab.  i.  3.  ii.  8.  17. 
Zeph.  i.  9.  Hi.  4.  Mai.  ii.  16.  Pralmlxxiii.6.  Prov.  viii.36, 
and  on  the  other  hand  Eyo-fgn?  forp^":^'^  Ifaiah  xxiv.  16. 
5£xvi.  7.  And  fuo-eSnf  in  this  fenie  was  fo  intelligible  to 
the  Arabic  tranflator,  that  he  rendered  it  in  the  laft  of 
thefe  paflages  by  ajuj^xa!!,  though  he  had  never  feen  the 
Hebrew  text  of  Ifaiah,  and  translated  fimply  from  the 
Alexandrine  verfion'^.  We  find  traces  of  this  deviation 
from  the  claffic  fenfe  in  the  hiftory  of  the  heretics  :  rjo-f- 
Cna  fignified  among  the  Manich^ans  *  alms",  and  this  is 
nothing  more  than  a  tranflation  of  HpIV  and  \p^\  which 
Ghaldseans  and  Syrians  ufed  in  that  fenfe  *°,  Syriac 
being  the  language  fpoken  by  the  earlieft  adherents  to 
*  that  fe6l.  In  the  fame  manner  we  find  it  ufed  in  the 
New  Teftament,  and  even  in  places  where  it  has  been 
falfely  underftood,  viz.  Rom.  vi.  5.  Abraham  believes  nci 
Tov  J^ikajai/ra  tov  oca-^Qn,  i.  e.  not  On  him  that  juftlfies  the 
ungodly,  but  on  him  that  difcharged  the  accufed,  it  being 
an  expreffion  of  the  very  fame  kind  as  that  quoted  from 
Exod.  xxiii.  7.  Deut.  xxv.  i.  and  Rom.  v.  6.  where  ao-s- 
tng  is  evidently  put  in  oppofition  to  ^monco  in  the  follow- 
ing verfe  **. 

EAto?  is  fometimes  ufed  by  St.  Luke  in  paflages  where 
the  connexion  feems  to  require  a  diff'erent  fenfe,  than  that 
of^  pity,' or 'mercy.'  We  may  very  properly  fay,  the  Lord 
has  fliewn  a  great  favour  or  kindnefs  to  Elizabeth  j  but 
the  exprelTions  '  he  hath  fhev/n  mercy  upon  her,'  or  '  he 
hath  remembered  the  mercy  promifed  to  Abraham  and 
his  feed  for  ever,'  feem  unfuitable  in  the  prefent  inftance, 
becaufe  pity  implies  misfortune  ".  But  as  foon  as  iXsog, 
Luke  i.  50.  54.  58.  72.  is  taken  in  the  fenfe  of  "TDn,  pa- 
ternal affe6lion,  kindnefs,  or  what  the  Greeks  exprefs  by 
s-opyn ",  and  we  compare  thofe  verfes  with  Exod.  xx.  6. 

Deur. 

t  Beaufobre  Hift.  des  Manlcheens,  Tom.  IT.  p.  777.  Epiphanius,  in 
the  z^t^  feftion  of  his  Herefy  againft  the  Manichaeans,  ufes  tvasQeta.  in  the 
/enfe  of  alms. 

o  See  my  Treatife  on  the  Laws  of  Mofes,  which  forbid  the  marriage  r^ 
!iear  relations,  Seft.  XIX.  p.  62,  63- 

K    2 


143  Language  of  the  New  Tejlament,     chap.  iv. 

Deut.  vil.  9.  the  whole  becomes  eafy.  KaOw?  »)X£»)9»)jia£v  is 
cxpreflive  of  St.  Paul's  being  intrufted  with  the  office  of 
an  Apoflle,  it  refers  therefore  to  the  kindnefs,  not  the 
'mercy  of  God.  This  ufe  of  iXioz  in  the  New  Teftament 
is  taken  from  the  Alexandrine  verfion,  and  in  Trommii 
Concordantise  are  enumerated  above  an  hundred  and  fifty 
examples  where  the  Seventy  have  tranflated  ^DH  by  tXm, 
and  that  in  cafes  where  the  notion  of  pity  would  be  ridi- 
culous. For  inftanee  the  fervant  of  Abraham  *,  who 
with  ten  camels  loaded  with  prefents  goes  in  queft  of  a 
wife  for  Ifaac,  the  fon  of  a  rich  and  warlike  Emir,  and 
enters  into  a  family  which  appears  to  have  had  a  very 
moderate  fhare  of  wealth  ^,  would  hardly  mean  to  requeft 
that  Rebecca  would  marry  his  mailer,  through  pity  *^ 
Even  nni^n  delicias  Dei  is  tranflated  by  £X££n/o?*+,  Dan. 
ix.  23.  The  word  iXioq  then  muft  have  been  ufed  by  the 
Alexandrine  Jews  in  a  fenfe  different  from  that  received 
among  the  claffic  authors :  and  as  this  fignification  can- 
not be  explained  on  the  principle  of  a  Hebraifm,  becaufc 
*7Dn  never  fignifies  pity  *^,  we  may  naturally  confider  it 
as  an  idiom  of  Alexandria. 

Aa^tvHv  is  ufed  by  the  Seventy  in  a  fenfe  unknown  in 
pure  Greek,  fignifying  *  to  fall,'  and  this  fignification  is 
Ibmetimes  applied  with  a  degree  of  emphafis.  It  is  put 
nearly  forty  times  for  ^712^3^,  or  its  derivatives.  Proverbs 

Xxiv.  16.  ETTTaKK  •nrfo-EiTost  o  J'j>cajof  xa»  av«r>i(r£Ta»,  oi  Si 
titri^m  a.<r^£]>n<TH<n  ("17I2^D0  ^^  '<*'<o»f-  Hof.  iv.  5.  A(T^tvn(nt 
tlju-E^a?,  non  oc(T3-i]tri<yii  0  Tiy^o(pr)Tri?  (Ji-iTOi  a-3.  Jerem.  xlvi.  12, 
Klap^»]T«?  Tff^o?  [Ax^nTriv  na-^ivvia-xv,  Mai.  ii.  8.  TfAtu;  £^£xA»- 
vaT£  IK  Trig  0(?»,   xxi  yj<y^ii/Yi(rxrs  tjoXXs;  tv  tw  vo;/.w.      It  fecms 

likewife  to  have  been  ufed  in  this  fenfe  in  certain  in- 
ilances  by  the  writers  of  the  New  Teftament.  Rom.  v.  6, 
aa^evuv  ovrm  hjuwv  I  would  rather  tranflate  '  while  we  were 
in  a  fallen  ftatc  *^,'  than  while  we  were  without  ftrength, 
as  the  latter  might  afford  an  excufe  fubverfive  of  St. 
Paul's  defign  *^  This  appears  to  be  the  meaning  of 
«fc(7^tv£n/  in  the  whole  of  the  fourteenth  chapter  of  the 
cpiftle  to  the  Romans,  efpecially  in  the  twenty-firft  verfe, 

where 

*  Gen.  xjciv.  49.  w  See  GeH»  xxx,  30. 


SECT.  VIII.     Language  of  the  New  Tejiament*  149 

where  the  arrangement  \%  tv  u  0  a.xiX(poq  o-a  Tsr^otDioTrru,  n 
cuav^oiXt^traiy  n  atr^tuu  *'.  And  to  this  acceptation  the 
words  ufed  in  the  fourth  verfe  s-nKu  n  ssitttu,  fOih<rtroit, 
fn<yon  are  much  better  adapted  ^*. 


SECT.      VIII. 


Ofrbe  Cilicifms  difcoveredin  the  writings  of  St.  Paul,  ani 
of  the  jlyle  of  St.  Paul  in  general. 

IT'  is  evident  that  St.  Paul,  who  feems  to  have  been 
acquainted  with  the  beft  Greek  writers,  and  to  have 
had  it  in  his  power  to  write  better  Greek,  if  purity  and 
elegance  of  language  had  been  objedts  of  his  attention, 
has  made  very  frequent  ufe  of  certain  words  in  a  parti- 
cular fenfe,  which  is  either  feldom  or  never  to  be  found 
in  the  Septuagint  or  in  the  claflic  authors.  Karapymt  is 
a  very  unufual  word,  and  in  thofe  few  inftances  where  it 
is  ufed,  it  retains  the  primitive  fenfe  of  ceffare  facio  ab 
opere,  which  it  derives  from  apyog.  In  this  fenfe  alone  it 
is  given  by  Julius  Pollux  *,  Lib.  III.  §  123.  Suidas  has 
entirely  omitted  it,  and  in  the  very  compleat  indexes  to 
Herodotus,  Thucydides,  Diodorus  Siculus,  as  well  as  in 
the  index  to  Lucian,  publifhed  by  Reitz,  that  contains 
every  word  *  of  the  author,  no  inftance  can  be  difcovered 
of  xuTocpynv  *.  In  the  Septuagint  it  is  ufed  four  times, 
but  fimply  in  its  proper  fenfe  of  ^J03,  Ezra  iv.  21.  23, 
V.  5.  vi.  8.  Except  in  the  epillles  of  St.  Paul,  it  is  ufed 
only  once  in  all  the  remaining  books  of  the  New  Tefta- 
ment,  viz.  Luke  xiii.  7.  where  it  is  likewife  ufed  in  its 
primitive  fenfe,  fince  the  Greeks  applied  the  epithet  apyog 
to  a  barren  country.  But  in  the  epiftles  of  St.  Paul  alone 
this  unufual  word  is  introduced  not  lefs  than  twenty- fix 
times  *s  and  taken  in  the  different  fenfes  of  *  remove,  de- 

Itroy, 

X  It  Is  ufed  by  Juftin  Martyr  in  his  firft  Apology,  p.  25.  where  fpeaking 
of  Exorcifts,  he  fays  xara^yavTi;  y.ctt  iK^iuy.ovrti  T«s  ^ai/xomj  i.  But  Juftin 
probably  borrowed  it  from  St.  Paul. 

K   3 


150  Language  of  the  New  Tejtament.      chap,  iv^ 

ftroy,  kill,  make  free;'  and  it  frequently  occafions  obfcu- 
rity,  as  it  is  often  difficult  to  determine  which  of  thefe 
meanings  the  Apoftle  intended  to  attribute  to  an  expref- 
ficn,  which  is  almoft  peculiar  to  himfelf.  EvJoxja  in  the 
fenfe  of  '  wiffi'  or  *  defire,'  Rom.  x.  i.  is  no  where  to 
be  found,  not  even  in  the  Septuagint  ^,  and  its  ufual 
meaning  of  approbation  is  inapphcable  to  that  paffage. 
Tlfo<T(xyuyr\  '  free  accefs/  is  ufed  by  St.  Paul,  Rom.  v.  2. 
Ephef.  ii.  18.  iii.  la.  but  it  is  ufed  in  this  fenfe  by  no 
other  writer*.  It  is  found  in  Diodorus  Siculus,  but  in 
only  one  fingle  inftance,  Lib.  XVIII.  48.  and  it  is 
there  taken  in  a  totally  different  fenfe  ^.  rifoo-ayw  is  ufed 
three  times  by  St.  Luke,  and  once  by  St.  Peter,  we  like- 
wife  find  Tjpoa-a.yuyiv^,  but  Tspoa-ocyooyn  is  ufed  by  St.  Paul 
alone ",  and  it  is  not  improbable  that  St.  Luke  had  bor- 
rowed the  other  exprefiion  from  his  friend  and  compa- 
nion. Ekxocxhu  is  ufed  five  times  by  St.  Paul,  2  Cor.  iv, 
I.  16.  Galat.  vi.  9.  Ephef.  iii.  13.  2Thefr.  iii.  13.;  it 
is  ufed  once  by  St.  Luke,  but  in  no  other  inftance,  not 
even  in  the  Septuagint;  and  the  fingle  exam,ple  which 
is  quoted  from  Polybius  ^  is  a  totally  diftind  verb.  Thefe 
examples  I  have  purpofely  fclecfted,  becaufe  they  have 
never  been  mentioned  in  the  controverfy  relating  to  the 
purity  of  St.  Paul's  language,  though  they  naturally  lead 
to  the  fuppofitiorij  that  either  the  words  themfelves,  or 
the  fenfes  applied  to  them,  were  more  ufual  in  the  coun- 
try of  St.  Paul  than  in  Greece. 

St.  Paul  was  born  at  Tarfus  in  CiHcia,  whei-e  Greek, 
^^nd  even  good  Greek,  was  the  language  of  the  natives ; 
but  it  muft  not  therefore  be  concluded  that  it  was  abfo- 
lutely  free  from  Provincialifms.  Jerom  exprefsly  afi^erts 
that  the  Cihcians  had  their  provincial  terRis,  of  which 
he  fays  that  fcveral  are  to  be  found  in  the  epiftles  of  St. 
Paul,  and  that  thefe  idioms  were  ufed  in  CiHcia  even 
in  the  age  in  which  he  lived.  Multa  fi.int  verba,  quibus 
juxta  morerri  urbis  et  provincijE  fUa^,  familiarius  apofto- 
ius  utitur,  e  quibus  exempli  gratia  pauca  ponenda  funt, 
•  Mihi  autem  parurri  eft  judicari  ab  humano  die,'  ««•' 
eiv^puTrivn?  «/x£paf  "*,  Et^  *  a  ngiTivoc^nroi  v^ax?  '*^  hoc  eft, 
'  •  rion 


SECT.  VII  r.      Language  of  the  New  Tefiament.  ip 

non  gravavl  vos.     Et  quod  nunc  ^  dicitur  '  /xiiJ^fi?  u^aa? 
xaTaS^aSeufTw,'  id  eft,  Hullus  bravium  '^  accipiat  udverfus 
vos :  quibus,  et  aliis  mukis  verbis  ufque  hodie  utuntur 
Cilices.     Nee  hoc  miremur  in  apoftolo,  fi  utatur  ejus 
iingucE  confuetudine,  in  qua  natus  eft  et  nutritus,  cum 
Virgilius,  alter  Homerus  apud  nos,  patri^  fuae  fequens 
conTiietudinem,  Sceleratum  frigus  appellet.     Ad  Alga- 
fiam    queft.     lo.    Tom.  IV.    p.  204.    Ed.  Martiaaay. 
The  firft  example  rwE^a,  in  the  fcnfe  of  '  court  day,  or 
court  of  juftice,'  has  more  the  appearance  of  an  Hebraifm 
or  a  Latinifm'S  though  it  is  polMble  that  the  expreffion 
is  Cilician.     With  refpeft  to  the  otJier  examples,  three 
pafTages  have  been  produced  from  Demofhhenes,  Poly- 
bius,  and  Plutarch,  in  which  Kar^t^^affuw  is  ufed  ''*-,    and 
though  no  inftance  whatfoever  can  be  found  of  Karava^- 
x£w  *^,  it  has  been  contended  that  its  derivadon  is  ftriftly 
analogical  from  va^y-ri^  which  is  genuine   Greek.     But 
this  argument  is  of  no  weight,  fince  the  queftion,  whe- 
ther a  word  be  provincial  or  not,  mud  be  determined 
•not  by  analogy,  but  by  ufage  :  for  many  of  our  provin- 
,cial  words  in  Germany  are  derived  from  primitives  in 
general  ufe,  and  that  according  to  the  trueft  analogy. 
KaTa^a:fl)t=il',  which  is   to  be   found   in  no  other  writer 
than  St.  Paid,  is  ufed  2  Cor.  xi.  8.  xii,  13,  14.  and  if 
it  was   common  in  Cilicia    at  the   time  of  Jerom,    it 
muft  naturally  be  termed  a  Cilicifm.  The  three  pafTages 
in  which  Kocru'SpccQivco  is  found  are  likewife  indecifive ;  for 
the  provinciality  of  a  word  may  confift  in  its  frequent 
and  repeated  ufe  '*  by  an  author  born  in  a  particular 
province,  whereas  a  pure  writer  would  introduce  it  but 
feldom.    No  reafon  therefore  can  be  afllgned  for  rejedl- 
ing  the  authority  of  Jerom,  efpecially  as  we  have  no 
means  of  immediately  determining  for  ourfelves.     It  is 
certain  that  St.  Paul  has  many  words  peculiar  to  himfelf ; 
equally  certain  that  the   Cil'icians  had  their  particular 
idiom  J  is  it  reafonable  then  to  fucpofe  that  St.  Paul, 
who  paid  no  regard  to  the  ornaments  of  language,  who 
ftyles  himfelf  laiwr?]?  tw  xoyx^  fliould  retain  no  traces  of 

the 

y  Jercm  is  here  fpeaking.  of  Col.  ii.  i&, 
K   4 


152  Langunge  of  the  New  Tejlament.       chap.  iv. 

tlie  idiom  of  his  country  ?  It  is  extremely  difficult  for 
thofe,  who  induftrioufly  avoid  the  peculi;irities  of  their 
country,  to  iielp  betraying  in  particular  examples  fome 
tokens  of  their  origin:  and  if  this  is  the  cafe  with  St. 
Paul,  inilead  of  being  ufed  as  an  argument  againil  the 
New  Teflament,  it  is  an  argument  in  its  favour  ^,  at 
lead  of  the  authenticity  of  St.  Paul's  epiftles. 

Balthafar  Stolberg,  who  in  oppofition  to  the  account 
of  Jerom  has  written  a  particular  treatife  de  Cilicifmis  a 
Paulo  ufurpatis,  printed  with  his  Exercitationes  lingua 
grascas,  has  drawn  an  argument  *  from  this  circumftance, 
that  the  Tarfenfes,  according  to  Strabo  ^  applied  fo  di- 
ligently to  philofophy  and  general  literature,  that  they 
■were  not  inferior  to  the  Athenians  and  Alexandrines,  and 
that  Tarfus  was  the  birth-place  offeveral  excellent  writers, 
particularly  Hermogenes  the  rhetorician.  Now  a  city 
may  be  the  feat  of  learning,  and  yet  have  its  provincial 
expreffions  ;  and  it  is  poffible  that  works  of  learning  and 
genius  might  be  the  produce  of  a  city,  where  even  a  vi- 
tious  dialed  was  ufed ;  fince  men  of  education  endeavour 
at  all  times  to  obtain  a  purity  of  expreflion.  Stolberg 
was  of  opinion,  that  what  Jerom  wrote  on  the  Cilicifms 
of  St.  Paul,  he  had  taken  from  Origen :  but  in  that  cafe 
the  authority  is  ftill  better,  as  Origen  had  a  more  pro- 
found knowledge  of  Greek  than  Jerom. 

It  may  not  be  improper  at  prefent  to  make  a  few  ob- 
fervations  on  the  ftyle  of  St.  Paul  in  general.  As  he  was 
born  at  Tarfus  %  it  is  certain  that  Greek  was  his  native 
language  j  but  he  being  a  Jew,  and  accuftomed  from 
his  childhood  to  read  the  vcrfion  of  the  Seventy,  it  was 
natural  to  fuppofe,  what  we  find  to  be  a  fad,  that  his 
language  would  be  tindured  with  Hebraifms.  Yet  he 
appears  to  have  read  many  of  the  beft  Greek  authors, 
though  Grecian  literature,  in  the  proper  fenfe  of  the  word, 
is  hardly  to  be  afcribed  to  him  i  nor  is  it  any  where  to 

be 

»  See  c.  ii.  f,  10.  of  this  Introduftlon. 
»Cap.  XX.  ^8.  fe  Lib.  XIV,  p.  29  J ; 

t  Afts  xxi.  37— 39* 


SECT.  VIII.      Language  of  the  New  Tejtament.  153 

be  difcovered  in  his  cpiflles  ^.  All  that  we  can  pofitively 
affirm  is,  that  he  was  not  ignorant  of  the  Greek  produc- 
tions of  genius,  but  we  have  no  grounds  for  aflerting 
that  he  had  been  initiated  in  the  philofophy  of  the  cele- 
brated fchools  at  Tarfus.  In  the  few  writings  which  re- 
main of  this  Apoftle  are  quotations  from  the  Greek, 
poets  '^  in  three  different  places  %  in  each  of  which  paf- 
lages  he  has  introduced  them  with  propriety  and  judge- 
ment, a  circumftance  that  implies  intimacy  with  the 
Greek  poets,  for  fuperficial  readers,  who  quote  merely 
to  fhew  their  learning,  are  feldom  happy  in  their  appli- 
cation :  and  St.  Paul  has  perfectly  freed  himfelf  from 
the  charge  of  fludied  afFeclation,  in  deviating  too  much 
into  the  oppofite  extreme  of  negled.  One  of  thefc  quo- 
tations, T3  xat  yiyoi;  i(r[/.iVf  he  introduced  in  an  extempo- 
rary fpeech,  and  it  appears  from  his  own  obfervation  that 
he  had  read  it  in  feveral  poets.  In  the  midft  of  Hebra- 
ifms,  and  words  peculiar  to  himfelf,  which  we  may  call 
Cilicifms  till  a  more  fuitable  exprefllon  can  be  found,  he 
introduces  the  beft  and  pureft  phrafes,  which  are  ufed 
only  by  the  clafTic  authors  of  the  firft  rank.  Several  of 
thefe  well  chofen  exprefTions  were  ufed  by  the  Greek 
tranflator  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  the  Proverbs  of  Solo- 
mon J  which,  though  lefs  frequently  introduced  than  ia 
the  wridngs  of  St.  Paul,  afford  fufficient  prefumption 
that  the  tranflator  of  thefe  parts  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  was 
a  better  mafter  of  Greek,  than  thofe  who  tranflated  the  re- 
mainder. St.  Paul  has  all  the  appearance  of  a  Jew,  whofc 
natural  flyle  was  unclafTic  Greek,  but  who  from  reading 
the  beft  authors  had  infenfibly  adopted  many  of  the  beft 

exprefTions.- 

«*  Many  have  fuppofed  that  St.  Paul  was  endowed  with  a  great  (hare  of 
profane  learning,  and  have  afcribed  to  him  a  knowledge  of  all  thofe  fciences, 
which  might  have  been  learnt  in  the  fchools  of  Taifus.  But  this  opinion 
feems  totally  ungrounded  ;  and  I  fubfcribe,  on  the  whole,  to  the  ftntiments 
of  Dr.  Thalemann,  in  his  treatife  De  eruditione  Paul!  Apoftoli  Judaica  non 
Graeca,  Lipfiae  1769. 

e  Aasxvii.  28.  I  Cor,  xv.  33,  Tit.  i.  12.  The  firft  and  laft  of  thefe 
examples  are  admirably  fuited  tt  the  occafions  on  which  they  were  in- 
troduced. 


154  Language  of  the  New  Tejt anient.       chap.  iv. 

exprelTions.  If  it  be  argiied  that  thefe  words  he  might 
have  learned  from  the  intercourfe  of  common  life,  there 
jlill  remain  philofophic,  and  even  Platonic  exprefiions, 
which  are  x\\t  property  of  the  learned  alone  :  and  the 
author  of  the  fixth.  and  the  two  following  chapters  of  the 
epiftle  to  the  Romans,  can  hardly  be  fuppofed  to  have 
been  ignorant  of  Plato,  or  the  writings  of  the  Platonifts. 
It  is  true,  that  many  divines  have  taken  the  words  >«?, 
fff-w  a>S-^w7rof,  iytj},  Scc.  in  a  fenfe  unknown  to  a  Grecian 
philolbpher,  and  have  afcribed  to  them  a  myftical  theo- 
logical meanng  :  but  it  would  be  extremely  difficult  to 
Ihew  that  thefe  explanations  were  grounded,  and  ftill 
more  difficult  to  conceive  how  the  Romans,  on  this  hy- 
pothefis,  could  have  underftood  the  epiftle.  But  as  fooii 
as  thefe  expreflions  are  taken  in  the  ufual  philofophical 
fcnfe,  and  we  except  thofe  Platonic  errors  which  St.  Paul 
cxprefsly  contradi(5ts,  the  chapter  above-mentioned  be- 
comes perfectly  clear.  The  fame  obfervation  may  be  ap- 
plied to  c-xrvn,  2  Cor.  v,  I.  which,  though  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  pulpit  it  conveys  a  kind  of  myfterious  no- 
tion, is  nothing  more  than  the  Pythagorean  term  for  the 
hum.an  body,  confidered  as  a  cafe  or  covering  for  the 
foul.  It  would  be  foreign  to  the  prefent  defign  to  intro- 
duce a  dilTertation  on  the  philofophical  words  in  St.  Paul's 
epiftles,  but  whoever  is  inclined  to  the  undertaking  will 
be  at  no  lofs  for  materials. 

Though  the  ftyle  of  St.  Paul  pofTefles  not  the  turns 
or  graces  of  Athenian  eloquence,  yet  he  had  the  language 
at  his  command,  even  for  the  purpofes  of  delicate  irony, 
and  refined  fatire :  but  he  feems  to  have  confidered  an 
accurate  ftrufture  of  periods  as  undeferving  his  attention, 
and  to  have  taken  the  expreffion  that  firft  occurred.  It 
was  his  ufual  cuftom  to  di6tate  his  epiftles,  perhaps  with 
a  mind  full  of  his  apoftolic  engagements,  and  from  this 
circumftance  alone  more  freedom  of  language  might  be 
admitted,  than  in  ftudied  compofitions.  His  mode  of 
arguing  correfponds  to  the  Jewifli  concifenefs,  where  in 
the  chain  of  reafoning  many  links  muft  be  fupplied  by  the 

reader^ 


I>MCT.  viir.     Language  of  the  Nezv  Tejlament.  15^ 

reader  ^  a  manner  obfervable  In  the  Talmud,  and  which 
St.  Paul  had  probably  learnc  in  the  fchool  of  Gamaliel. 
He  has  never  ftudied  to  avoid  the  air  of  a  Jew  or  a  Ci- 
lician,  and  indeed  the  half  of  his  readers  would  have 
thought  it  a  token  of  contempt  if  he  had  reje6ted  a  lan- 
guage, which  he  fpake  in  common  with  themfelves.  We 
need  only  recoUeft  the  example  of  Jofephus,  whofe  love 
for  Grecian  eloquence  was  no  recommendation  to  his 
Jewifli  countrymen.  Yet  the  Hebraifms  of  St.  Paul  are 
not  fo  numerous  as  thofe  in  the  Septuagint  and  other 
books  of  the  New  Teftament;  his  periods,  though  de- 
void of  art,  are  drawn  out  to  a  greater  length  ;  the  pa- 
renthefes,  fo  frequent  in  the  writings  of  this  Apoltle,  have 
no  tin6lure  of  the  Oriental  idiom,  and  Grecian  purity 
appears  in  numberlefs  examples. 

If  the  fpeeches  ^,  which  Si.  Paul  made  at  Athens,  and 
before  the  Roman  governors  of  Judea,  have  been  tranf- 
rnitted  to  us  with  fidelity,  and  are  not  the  compofition 
of  the  hiftorian,  he  muft  have  been  able  to  fpeak  better 
Greek,  than  we  find  in  his  epiilles  and  harangues  before 
a  Jewifli  aflembly.  It  is  true,  that  the  language  which 
he  ufed  in  addrefling  an  heathen  audience  was  not  en- 
tirely devoid  of  Hebraifms  ^',  but  it  differed  in  a  ftriking 
manner  from  his  common  ftyle.  This  fubjecl  will  be 
more  fully  treated  in  the  Introdudbion  to  the  A(5ls  of  the 
Apoftles,  where  it  will  be  fliewn  that  St.  Luke  has  re- 
corded the  fpeeches  of  St.  Paul  v/ith  accuracy  and  truth. 
Now,  if  St.  Paul  had  a  purer  language  at  his  command, 
than  he  generally  adopted,  independent  of  the  warmth 
of  his  charafter,  and  the  flow  of  thoughts  with  which  his 
mind  was  conftandy  filled,  he  muft  have  had  other  mo- 
tives for  negledling  elegance  of  ftyle.  The  fear  of  giving 
offence  to  the  Jews,  to  whom  he  wifely  accommodated, 

whenever 

f  For  inftance,  in  the  ninth  chap,  of  the  epift.  of  the  Romans, 
g  A6ls  xvii.  23 — 31.  xxiv.  lo — ai.  xxvi.  2 — 29. 

^  For  inftance,  -cj-^oo-wTroK  tj)?  yij?  «8,  Afts  xvii.  26.  roe  Kf^ioc  19*  v.  27. 
Xgium  £V  S'lxaioo-wnjjio,  v.  31.  tX£>)f,coo-f vam,  A6I5  Xxiv.  JJ.  (^ui  y.ctzciy 
•yiM.n»  Tw  A«w  KXi  Toij  sGvJtrt  **,  Ails  xxvi.  23, 


156  Language  of  the  New  Tejiament.      chap,  i v. 

whenever  it  was  allowable,  both  his  doftrine  and  his 
manner,  in  order  to  win  them  to  his  party,  and  the 
feeming  impropriety  of  deviating  from  a  language  that 
was  already  confecrated  to  the  purpofes  of  religion,  might 
have  determined  him  to  negled  a  ftyle,  that  would  have 
been  more  elegant,  and  more  fafhionable,  but  on  the 
fubjects  which  St.  Paul  difcufled,  endued  perhaps  with 
Icfs  energy  and  precifion.  The  venerable  cxpreffions  of 
the  Bible,  and  the  terms  of  religion,  which  had  acquired 
a  prcfcriptive  right  from  the  pradice  of  the  fynagogue, 
were  highly  proper,  and  even  neceflary,  in  delivering  the 
dodrines  of  Chriftianity:  thofe  once  admitted  into  the 
dogmatical  parts  of  his  difcourfe,  an  Attic  elegance  in 
the  remainder  of  his  epiftles  would  have  made  an  ufelefs 
contrail,  efpecially  as  the  language  of  St.  Paul,  when 
he  wrote  without  art  or  attention  to  ilyle,  is  at  all  times 
preferable  to  that  of  the  Septuagint. 

He  candidly  confefTes  to  his  adverfarics  at  Corinth, 
that  he  makes  no  pretenfions  to  the  art  of  oratory '",  his 
defign  in  preaching  the  Gofpel  being  to  convince  the 
judgment,  not  to  influence  the  pafllons  ^.  But  a  mofl 
extraordinary  inference  has  been  deduced  from  an  epi- 
thet, which  he  has  himfelf  alllimed  o(  iSiuimzKoya^y  that 
the  language  of  St.  Paul  has  atindture  of  vulgarity.  Now 
the  fon  of  a  Roman  cidzen,  who  had  converfed  with  go- 
vernors and  princes,  feems  little  expofed  to  a  charge  of 
this  nature ;  and  Feftus ""  would  have  hardly  afcribcd  to 
him  a  fuperfluity  of  learning,  if  the  language  of  St.  Paul 
had  been  the  language  of  the  vulgar.  There  is  an  in- 
finite difference  between  Jewilh  Greek  and  plebeian 
Greek;  the  former  might  be  expeded  from  a  nadve 
Jew  of  the  higheft  rank  or  beft  educadon,  but  the  epif- 
tles of  St.  Paul  muft  for  ever  refcue  him  from  a  fufpicion 
of  the  latter.  His  fpeeches  and  wridngs  difplay  at  all 
times  urbanity  and  refinement;  and  it  is  a  remark,  which 
naturally  fuggefls  itfelf  in  reading  his  works,  that  the 
author  united  a  knowledge  of  the  world  with  a  cultivated 

genius, 

»  I  Cor.  i.  17.  ii.  X.  13,  k  1  Cor.  ii.  4,  5. 

'  z  Cor.  xi.  6,  »  A<5ls  xxvi,  2-^. 


SECT.  vni.     Language  of  the  Netv  Tejiameni,  157 

genius.  No  courtier  could  have  given  a  more  finely 
turned  reply*'  than  St.  Paul  in  his  anfwer  to  Agrippa"  ; 
nor  was  it  pofllble  to  exprefs  in  a  more  delicate  and  mo- 
deft  manner  his  defign  of  imparting  fpiritual  gifts,  than 
in  the  firft  chapter  of  his  epiftle  to  the  Romans ".  The 
warmth  of  his  charadcr  has  at  times  induced  him  to  ufe 
cxprefiions  of  feverity,  but  he  never  mentions  the  names 
of  thofe  who  are  objefls  of  his  cenfure;  and  the  fatirc 
which  he  has  at  times  employed,  though  it  wounded  to 
the  quick,  yet  never  infulted  the  failings  which  he  la- 
boured only  to  correfb.  The  peculiarity  of  his  fituation 
obliged  him  Ibmetimes  to  fpeak  in  his  own  commenda- 
tion; yet,  though  an  aft  of  neceflity,  he  fcems  to  feeJ 
the  impropriety  of  pronouncing  his  own  panegyric. 

But  to  return  to  the  expreflion  from  which  we  have 
departed.  iJ'twT*]?  is  properly  a  perfon  in  a  private  fta- 
tion;  but  it  is  ufed  not  only  in  oppofition  to  a  public 
magiftrate,  but  likewife  as  the  oppofite  of  a  public 
fpcaker;  and  St.  Paul  himfelf  has  ufed  it,  i  Cor.  xiv.  16. 
in  the  fenfe  of  ^  hearer.'  I(?»cTyi?  Koyut  expreftes  therefore 
nothing  more  than  *  a  man  who  is  no  orator,  who  pays 
no  attention  to  the  elegance  of  language,  but  fpeaks  in 
the  dialed  of  common  converfation.'  In  oppofition  to 
i^iWTJ5?  Aoyu),  St.  Paul  adds  axx'  8  T57  yvua-Hj  in  which  he 
was  not  JjwT»!f  P,  but  a  Teacher,  and  Apoftle.  Now  the 
word  may  poffibly  be  applied  to  the  deviation  from  claffic 
purity  obfervable  in  the  ftyle  of  St.  Paul,  which  an  au- 
thor who  attempted  only  to  pleafe  might  have  cultivated 
with  more  attention :  but  fetting  all  idioms  afide,  the 
whole  expreflion  is  applicable  to  every  man,  who  de- 
livers plain  truths  in  ardefs  language.  A  profeflbr  in  a 
univerfity,  who  is  attentive  to  the  accuracy  of  criticifm, 
but  regardlefs  of  the  graces  of  compofition,  is  in  the 
ftri6teft  fenfe  icTiwr*)?  Xoyw  uXa'  a  rrj  y]^u(rii.  We  may  even 
doubt,  whether  that  which  is  confidered  as  a  fault  in  the 

Apoftle, 

a  A£ls  XXVI.  29,  9  V.  II,  12.     S«e  alfo  c.  xv.  14,  15. 

p  Suidas  fays,  I^»«t»};  «  jty^a/iA^aTe?.      Aa^«j-xio?  we^j  Ict^u^H  (ptffi* 


158  Language  of  the  New  Tejiameni.      chap.  rv*. 

Apoftle,  is  not  rather  to  be  called  a  virtue,  fince  it  is  at 
lead  a  queflion,  whether  a  native  Jew  would  not  have 
expoled  himfelf  to  the  charge  of  pedantry,  in  attempting 
to  imitate  the  Grecian  tafte  already  on  the  decline.  It 
was  the  great  weaknefs  of  the  Greeks  to  affeft  at  all 
times  the  orator ;  and  hence  arofe  that  inexcufable  folly 
of  their  beft  hiftorians,  of  putting  long  fpeeches  into  the 
mouths  of  heroes,  who  never  had,  nor  ever  could  have 
ipoken  them,  and  which,  if  really  fpoken,  no  one  pre- 
fent  at  the  time  had  ever  recorded.  This  paflion  for 
rhetoric  increafed  with  the  lofs  of  polidcal  freedom;  and 
when  true  eloquence,  the  daughter  of  liberty  and  civi- 
lization, was  exringuilhedj  its  place  was  fupplied  by  the 
empty  declamations  of  the  fchools.  The  adverfaries  of 
St.  Paul  might  affume  the  chara6ler  of  Sophifts,  and  by 
a  vain  parade  of  words  aftonifii  the  illiterate  ;  but  ar^ 
Apoftle  of  Chrift,  whofe  defign  was  to  inftrud,  might 
fafcly  reject  the  aid  of  foreign  ornaments. 

An  objedion  to  the  ftyle  of  St.  Paul  ftill  remains  to 
be  anfwered.  It  has  been  faid,  that,  if  the  Apoftle  had 
ever  read  the  writings  of  the  Greeks,  he  muft  have  in- 
fenfibly  moulded  his  language  according  to  the  beft  pat- 
terns, and  from  habit  alone  have  contrafted  their  man- 
ner of  arranging  and  concluding  an  argument.  The  late 
Ernefti,  in  his  Interpres  Novi  Teftamenti  **,  even  doubt- 
ed whether  St.  Paul,  who,  as  fome  affirm,  had  read  the 
works  of  Philo,  was  capable  of  underftanding  an  author, 
whofe  ftyle  he  compares  with  that  of  Plato  or  Demoft- 
henes.  Now  the  fpeeches  of  St.  Paul  at  Athens,  apd 
before  the  Roman  governors,  are  the  beft  anfwers  which 
can  be  given  to  this  objection  :  thefe  ftifficiendy  evince, 
that  in  cafes,  where  he  thought  it  requifite,  he  had  the 
language  at  his  commiand  ;  and  if  claffic  purity  was  neg- 
ledled  in  his  epiftles,  we  know  there  was  fufficient  reafon. 
But,  admitdng  that  St.  Paul  was  unable  to  write  like 
Demofthenes  or  Plato,  muft  we  conclude  therefore  that 
he  was  unable  to  underftand  what  they  had  written  ? 
We  know  from  our  own  experience,  that  a  facility  in 
reading,  and  even  judging  of  foreign  authors^  in  the 
^  earliefl: 


SECT.  IX.       Language  of  the  New  Tejiament.  159 

earlieft  modern  languages,  by  no  means  implies  an  abi- 
lity of  writing  them  with  propriety.  It  is  of  no  import- 
ance whether  St.  Paul  had  read  the  works  of  Philo  or 
not ;  he  certainly  had  it  in  his  power :  but  as  Philo  is 
not  the  mofl  agreeable  author,  I  would  rather  fuppofe 
him  to  have  read  the  writin2;s  of  Plato. 


SECT.       IX. 

Perfian  Words. 

IT  is  certain  that  the  New  Teflament  contains  feveral 
words  of  Perfian  origin,  fuch  as  ayyoc^ivsiu,  Matth.  v. 
40.  from  hangar^  a  dagger,  ya^x,  fxccyoi^  to  which /xsy,- 
ra^£f  may  be  added  on  account  of  its  termination,  of 
which  laft  word  a  fuller  account  is  given  by  Wetftein  in 
his  note  on  Mark  vi.  21.  But  fingle  words  have  no  in- 
fluence on  the  general  ftyle,  and  thefe  with  feveral  other 
Perfian  words  and  phrafes  had  been  long  adopted  in  the 
Greek  language  ^  It  might  have  been  expeded  from 
the  long  dominion  of  the  Perfians  over  the  Jews,  that 
Perfian  expreffions  would  have  been  introduced  into  the 
Jewilli  language,  and  thence  into  that  of  the  New  Tefla- 
ment ;  but  it  does  not  appear  that  this  mixture  has  ever 
taken  place.  Though  the  kings  of  Perfia  exerted  over 
the  province  of  Judjea  a  royal  authority,  yet  the  Jews 
were  immediately  governed  by  chief  magiftrates  of  their 
own  nation,  the  Chaldsean  language  was  fpoken  in  the 
weftern  parts  of  the  empire,  Jerufalem  lay  at  a  vaft  dif- 
tance  from  the  metropolis,  and,  as  appears  from  the  book 
of  Ezra,  the  Perfian  edids  relating  to  the  Jews  were  pub- 
lifhed  in  Chaldee.  It  is  therefore  to  be  afcribed  to  acci- 
dent, 

q  In  the  Perfian  language ^^.j^vJLs;  fignlfies  a  dagger ',  worn  as  a  mark 
of  authority  by  the  couriers  in  Perfia,  who  have  the  power  of  forcing 
the  proprietors  of  horfes  at  every  poll  ftation  to  fupply  them  as  often  as 
they  have  need,  and  to  accompany  them  on  the  road.  Chardin  in  the 
fccond  volume  of  his  Travels,  p.  241.  of  the  iimo.  ed.  fays,  Ces  Courier* 
font  fort  reconnoi/Tables  a  leur  Equippage,  ils  portent  le  poignard,  &c. 


l6o  Language  of  the  New  Tejiament.      chap.  iv. 

dent,  or  the  influence  which  the  Arabic  has  had  on  the 
Perfian  fince  the  time  of  Muhammed,  that  a  proverbial 
cxprefTion  in  the  fermon  on  the  mount  correfponds  to  a 
particular  phrafe  in  a  Perfian  poem '. 

More  important  is  the  influence  which  the  Perfian  (not 
indeed  that  Ipoken  at  prefent,  but  the  original  language 
in  which  the  religious  books  of  the  antient  Perfians,  the 
pretended  works  of  Zoroafter,  are  compofed)  feems  to 
have  had  on  feveral  paflages  of  the  New  Teftament,  that 
have  more  the  appearance  of  a  foreign,  than  of  a  Jewifli 
original.  In  the  firft  epiftle  of  St.  John,  the  words  Light 
and  Darknefs,  are  ufed  much  more  frequently,  than  in 
other  parts  of  the  Bible,  and  in  a  fenfe  not  diffimilar  to 
the  Perfian  notions.  This  remark,  which  was  firfl:  made 
in  the  fecond  edition  of  this  work,  I  Ihall  confider  more 
fully  in  the  fecond  part,  in  treating  of  the  firfl  epiftle 
of  St.  John  in  particular,  and  explain  the  diff'erence  be- 
tween the  common  biblical  meaning  of  thefe  words,  and 
that  which  is  given  them  in  this  epiftle.  ExprefTions 
of  this  nature,  and  the  words  Light  and  Darknefs  in 
particular,  are  much  in  ufe  among  the  Sabians,  or  St. 
John's  Chriftians  ^  j  but  whether  thefe  have  borrowed 
from  the  Perfians,  this  is  not  the  proper  place  to  examine. 
Nor  will  I  undertake  to  determine  the  channel  through 
which  they  have  flowed  into  the  language  of  the  Jews 
and  of  the  New  Teftament,  though  I  cannot  perfuadc 
myfelf  that  they  v/ere  introduced  by  means  of  the  Chal- 
deans. 

We  find  likewife  in  the  New  Teftament  feveral  Gno- 
ftic  terms  of  fcience,  efpecially  in  the  firft  fourteen  verfes 
of  the  Gofpel  of  St.  John,  where,  in  refuting  the  errors  of 
the  Gnoftics  %  it  was  necefl!ary  to  retain  their  own  ex- 
prefTions.  It  is  a  problem  that  remains  unfolved,  whence 
the  Gnoftic  philofophy  has  derived  its  origin,  but  we  are 
certain  that  it  exifted  before  the  time  of  Chriftianity,  and 
that  Europe  was  not  the  country  which  gave  it  birth. 
It  is  poflible  that  it  came  from  Egypt,  and  not  impofllble 
from  the  remoter  parts  of  the  Eaft,  for  it  is  recorded,  that 
the  philofophers  of  India,  a  word  ufed  by  the  antients  in 

a  very 
«  See  the  Or,  Bib.  Vol.  VII.  p.  121,  izz  j. 


sscT.  IX.      Language  of  the  New  Tejlament.  i6i 

a  very  extenfive  fcnfe,  believed  in  the  Ao-yo?,  which  they 
held  to  be  the  fame  as  the  Incarnate.  It  had  probably  a 
mixture  of  Perfian  philofophy,  or  at  lead  of  Pcrfian 
phrafcology ;  for  the  Manicha^an  fyflem,  which  mani- 
feftly  arofe  in  Perfia,  though  in  later  ages,  has  a  certaia 
affinity  with  the  Gnoftic,  and  the  twofefts  agree  in  many 
inftances,  both  in  their  doflrines  and  expreflions. 

With  refpecl  to  the  fimilarity  between  certain  parts  of 
the  New  Teftament  and  the  Oriental  philofophy,  that 
which  has  hitherto  been  fuppofition,  is  confirmed  as  a 
fafl  by  Anquetil's  Epitome  of  the  Zoroaftrian  Religionj 
and  franflation  of  the  Zend-Avefta  ^  ;  which,  though  not 
the  fame  with  the  antient  book  of  oracles  in  ufe  among 
the  earlieft  Perfians,  at  leaft  agrees  with  it  in  its  tenets^ 
and  the  terms  of  religion.  This  tranflation  and  epitome 
might  be  of  great  ufe  in  explaining  many  paflages  in  the 
facred  writings,  in  which  we  find  the  fame  expreffions^  as 
in  the  Zend-Avefta.  The  term  *  Word/  for  inftance>  is 
there  ufed  in  the  fame  meaning,  as  by  St.  John  and  the 
Gnoftics,  for  the  name  of  a  perfon,  and  determines  the 
proper  tranfiation  of  Xoyoq,  which  we  were  doubtful, 
whether  to  tranflate  verbum  or  rado,  the  Greek  word  ad- 
mitting a  double  explanation,  whereas  the  Perfian  ad- 
mits only  the  former.  This  fubjeft  will  be  difcuiTed 
more  fully  in  the  introduction  to  St.  John's  Gofpel  '', 
where  paflages  will  be  quoted  from  the  Zend-Avefta : 
and  I  will  only  mention  here  the  rules  of  caution  which  I 
have  prefcribed  to  myfelfin  this  inquiry,  without  prcfum- 
ing  to  bias  the  judgement  of  others,  who  may  be  of  a 
different  opinion. 

I.  We  muft  not  confider  every  tenet  in  the  Zend-^ 
Avefta  as  Gnoftical.  It  is  true  the  Gnoftics  borrowed 
from  the  Zoroaftrian  philofophy  many  of  their  terms, 
fuch  as  '  Word,'  for  inftance,  but  they  have  likevv'ife 
many  of  their  own.  They  were  neither  Manichceans, 
nor  the  difciples  of  Zoroafter,  but  they  were  related  to 
both.  They  even  differed  among  themfeives,  and  were 
not  unanimous  with  refped  to  the  degree  of  fublimity 
which  Ihould  be  afcribed  to  the  Word. 

L  2.  We 


i62  Language  of  the  New  Tejlament.     chap,  i  v. 

1.  We  muft  not  attribute  to  St.  John  the  dodrinesof 
Zoroafter,  though  he  ufes  the  fame  terms,  in  order  to 
confute  the  Gnollics,  and  argues  againft  the  tenets  which 
they  had  in  common  with  the  Perfian  fage,  whofe  phi- 
lofophy,  the  parent  of  the  Manichaean,  had  its  errors  as 
well  as  the  Gnoftic.  We  muft  therefore  carefully  ex- 
amine St.  John's  own  tenets,  to  know  whether  he  con« 
futes  the  miftakes  of  others,  or  delivers  original  doc- 
trines. 

3.  We  are  acquainted  only  with  the  Perfian  philofophy 
through  the  tranflation  of  a  book,  that  is  not  only  later 
than  the  time  of  Zoroafter,  but  written  fmce  the  days  of 
Muhammed '.  If  we  were  able  to  read  the  Zend- Avefta 
in  the  original,  I  could  apply  it  with  greater  certainty 
than  I  can  at  prefent. 

Yet  after  all,  if  the  Perfian  terms  of  philofophy  may  be 
called  Perfifms,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  there  are  Per- 
fifms  in  the  New  Teftament,  efpecially  in  the  Gofpel  and 
firftEpiftleofSt.  John. 


SECT.      X. 

Latinijms. 


IT  has  been  difputed,  whether  Latinifms  ^  are  to  be 
found  in  the  New  Teftament,  a  queftion  which  we 
may  fafely  anfwer  in  the  affirmadve ;  but  they  are  fuch 
as  were  admitted  by  the  beft  writers  of  the  age,  it  being 
impolTible  that  the  dominion  of  the  Romans  fhould  not 
have  fome  influence  on  the  Greek  language.  The  Greek 
Teftament  has  in  this  refped  therefore  nothing  peculiar 
to  itfelf,  nor  could  it  be  expected,  as  the  authors  were 

nei- 

s  The  word  Shaitan  occurs  in  the  Zend-Avefta  ;  this  is  peculiar  to  the 
Arabic,  for  in  other  oriental  languages  it  is  written  Satan,  or  Soton. 
The  arguments  advanced  by  profeffor  Meiners  againft  the  high  antiquity 
of  the  book  tranflated  by  Anquetii,  under  the  name  of  Zend-Aveita,  are 
too  well  known  to  need  a  repetition  8. 

t  See  the  Thcfis  written  by  Drefig,  De  tatinifmis  Novi  Teftaraenti  * , 


SECT.  X.      Language  of  the  New  Tejiament.  163 

neither  from  Italy,  nor  that  part  of  Africa  where  Latin 
was  the  dialeft  of  the  country  :  it  has  nothing  which 
the  ftridlefl  grammarian  can  ccnfure,  unlefs  it  be  a  fault 
in  a  Hving  language  to  be  liable  to  change. 

No  one  can  be  furprifed  that  Roman  names  and  titles 
Ihould  be  retained  in  the  New  Teftament,  as  they  were 
originally  in  the  Latin,  fuch  as  xivTupifc^,  Mark  xv.  20' 
44,  45.  xtiXwHa,  Adls  xvi.  12.  AfyEwt/ ",  Mark  v.  9.  15, 
Luke  viii.  30.  Matth.  xxvi.  c^2'  '^^ocnwfiov^  Matth.  xxvii. 
27.  Mark  XV.  16.  John  xviii.  28.  33.  xix.  9.  Adsxxiii, 
2S-  Philipp.  i.  13.  KtvrvfiUiv  might  indeed  have  been 
expreflcd  by  a  Greek  word  i-xocrovTo.p'xoq^  on  which  occafion 
we  may  obferve,  that  St.  Mark  has  more  Latin  v^ords 
than  the  other  Apoftles  and  Evangelifts :  but  in  other 
cafes  the  life  of  the  Latin  word  was  unavoidable,  as  in 
the  inilance  of  legio,  which  expreffed  what  was  not  in 
ufe  among  the  Greeks,  and  for  which  therefore  they  had 
no  name  j  it  would  be  as  faulty  then  to  fubftitute  a  term 
of  Grecian  origin  *,  as  to  render  the  word  in  a  modern 
language  by  regiment  inftead  of  legion,  fince  the  formiCr 
exprefies  a  notion  entirely  diftind  from  the  latter"^'.  Ma- 
xeAAov,  I  Cor.  X.  25.  the  Roman  name  for  a  meat-market, 
is  found  in  no  Greek  author';  but  if  we  recoiled  that  Co- 
rinth was  at  that  time  a  Roman  colony,  we  fhall  ceafe  to 
wonder,  that  a  public  place  in  the  city  was  named  in 
imitation  of  the  Latin  macellum,  and  that  St.  Paul,  in 
writing  to  the  Corinthians,  fhould  retain  the  ufe  of  a 
word,  which  in  that  city  had  acquired  the  nature  of  a 
proper  name. 

It  is  ftill  lefs  furprifing,  that  the  Latin  phrafeology  was 
retained  in  matters  of  law,  as  in  all  the  provinces  it  was 
Roman,  and  Latin  was  the  ufual  language  in  the  courts 
ofjuftice.  We  find  xarwc^ia,  Matth.  xxvii.  6  5, 66.  xxviii.  1 1. 
a  word  which  was  probably  ufed  in  the  original  Hebrew, 
for  it  is  retained  by  the  Syriac  tranflator,  though,  in  con- 

fequence 

u  This  word  was  probably  ufed  by  the  demcniac  himfelf,  for  it  was 
adopted  in  the  Rabbinic  language.  See  Lightfoot's  Note  to  Mark  v.  9. 

w  A  regiment  confifts  of  cavalry  alone,  or  infantry  alone,  whereas  a 
legion  included  both. 

L    2 


164  Language  of  the  New  Tejiament.      chap,  iv- 

fequence  of  fome  erratum,  as  written  in  Syriac,  it  has 
been  miltaken  for  quaeftionarius*:  titAo?,  John  xix.  19. 
^/layfAXwa-a?,  Matth.  xxvii.  16.  Mark  xv.  15.  which  St. 
Matthew  might  hkewife  have  ufed  in  the  original  He- 
brew, flagellum  being  written  in  Chaldce  ^IJl'^Q,  derived 
from  the  Latin.  The  common  exprefiion  in  the  Roman 
law,  remittere  ad  alium  judicem,  is  literally  retained, 
Lukexxiii.  15.  The  following  phrafes  are  likewife  taken 
from  the  Roman  law,  AaSovTE?  to  »Ka^oi/,  A6bs  xvii.  9. 
xa^TTOf,  fruftus  in  the  juridical  fenfe  of  intereft,  oi*  ufury, 
Rom.  XV.  28.  and  perhaps  ETraivo?,  i  Cor.  iv.  5.  in  the 
juridical  fenfe  of  elogium.  Aoxj//,a(r«i,  Luke  xiv.  19.  is 
ufed  precifely  in  the  fame  fenfe  as  probare,  in  the  law 
acceptation  of  the  word,  to  examine  an  article  of  mer- 
chandife,  and  pronounce  it  to  be  good  or  genuine.  Ci- 
cero (Lib.  III.  c.  31.  in  C.Verrem,  *'  ut  probetur  frumen- 
tum")  has  ufed  it  in  this  fenfe,  on  which  pafTage  the  re- 
mark of  Grseviusmaybeconfulted.  Cap.  37.  74,  75,  76. 
it  is  introduced  more  frequently,  and  whoever  wifhes  to 
fee  a  fuller  account  of  the  juridical  meaning  of  this  word, 
may  have  recourfe  to  BrifTonius  de  verborum  qus  ad  jus 
civile  pertinent  fignificatione,  p.  1123.  under  the  ardcle 
probare  etiam  eft  adprobare.  T7r£&yix«v  tov  rpac^riXou,  Rom, 
xvi.  4.  literally  '  they  pledged  their  neck  or  life,'  is  perhaps 
to  be  conftrued  in  the  fame  manner  as  jugulum,  and 
other  fimilar  expreflions,  in  the  oration  of  Cicero  pro 
Quintio,  in  which  cafe  it  would  fignify  *  they  bound 
themfelves  in  a  bond  equivalent  to  their  fortune  ^'  In 
the  following  ages,  the  law  Latin  was  introduced  more 
frequently  into  the  Greek,  of  which  the  Novella  and 
TheophiH  paraphrafis  Gr^eca  inftitutionum,  afford  num- 
berlefs  examples:  and  we  all  know  to  what  degree  the 
language  of  the  modern  courts  of  juftice  is  latinized  in 
countries  where  the  Roman  law  has  been  received. 

And  if  other  words  ^  have  been  tranfmitted  from  the 
Latin  to  the  Greek,  it  is  no  wonder  that  the  language  of 
the  ruling  nation  fhould  have  influence  on  that  of  the 
provinces.     I  have  remarked  in  another  place  "  that  the 

Greek 

*  In  my  Programma  on  the  SeptuagJnt,  p.  21. 


S£CT.  X.      Language  of  the  New  Tejiament,  165 

Greek  word  (tuveiJjic-i?,  feems  to  have  been  formed  In  imi- 
tation of  the  Latin.  It  is  entirely  omitted  by  Julius  Pol- 
lux, and  in  thofe  Lexicons  where  it  is  found,  the  paflages 
which  are  quoted  are  in  general  from  the  New  Tefta- 
ment.  The  Greeks  exprefled  commonly  the  notioii  of 
confcience  by  to  o-uveJo?  y,  i'^iyx^'^y  ^x  o-upek^oto?  i>^iyx°^^i 
or  vas*,  and  the  Seventy  have  uled  <TvvHh<Ti<:  only  in  one 
fingle  example,  Ecclef.  x.  20.  but  in  a  different  fignifica- 
tion.  The  firfl  inftance,  where  it  is  ufed  in  the  fenfe  of 
confcience,  is  in  an  apocryphal  book  of  later  date,  Wif- 
dom  XV ii.  1 1.  but  in  the  New  Teftament  it  is  repeatedly 
introduced.  It  is  not  unreafonable  to  fuppofe,  that  it 
was  modelled  after  the  Latin  confcienna^,  and  the  fup- 
pofition  receives  a  high  degree  of  probability  from  the 
circumftancc  of  its  being  ufed  by  feveral  pure  Greek 
writers,  who  lived  among  the  Romans ;  which  is  an  ar- 
gument at  the  fame  time  for  the  goodnefs  of  the  Lati- 
nifm.  I  will  quote  the  pafTages  at  full  length,  as  they 
are  noticed  neither  by  the  lexicographers,  nor  the  com- 
mentators; who  have  attempted  to  explain  the  New  Tef- 
tament from  the  Greek  authors.  Diodorus  Siculus,  Lib. 

IV.  cap.  6^.  OuTo?  y.iv  au  u^£po^  kxtx  rocq  ra  zrxrpog  £^ToAa? 
OiHiXi  rnv  fji-ypiioxy  xxi  $nz  tyiu  (rvvn^vd'iv  ra  y.v(riig  ng  {xxviocu  zs'b^ 
^isfti '.  Jofephus  Antiquit.  xvi.  4.  2.  Kara  a-vvit^nTiv  a]o- 
TTUTipoiv.  Philo,  Tom.  II.  p.  659.  in  a  fragment,  J>ca^of 

zrpog  Tiy.upKx,v  rj  ra  ^xvXa  (rvi/£i^ri(rig, 

laavov  zs-oiviarxi  tu  o^'^w,  Mark  XV.  15.  Is  a  Latlnlfm,  fa- 
tisfacere  populo.  It  is  no  argument  againft  its  Latin 
origin,  that  it  is  ufed  by  Polybius  '",  who  lived  in  Rome, 
or  by  the  later  Greeks,  v/ho  wrote  during  the  time  of  the 
Roman  empire;  and  the  pafTage  of  Appian^  which  is 
quoted  "  in  fupport  of  the  contrary  opinion  is  a  mani- 
fefl  Lannifm.  The  Latin  anfwer,  which  the  Roman  fe- 
nate  had  given  to  the  Carthaginian  ambaffadorSi  is  literally 

tranl- 

y  Jofeph.  Antlq.  T.  12,  j.  II.  3.  i,  Philo,  Tom,  I.  p.  30.  196.  191. 
Tom.  II.  p.  49.  468,  469. 

»  Philo,  Tom.  I.  p.  196.  23^.  Tom.  II.  p.  195. 

»  Philo,  Tom.  II.  p,  2367.  k  De  Beilo  Punko,  p.  68. 

L  3 


l66  Language  cf  the  New  Tejlament.      chap.  iv. 

trandated  on  account  of  its  fevcrity  and  doubtful  mean- 
ing, £i  TO  ^xa^o^  -aroiria-fTf  Pw/>t,«»o»?,   on  which  thc  ambafia- 

dors  demanded  rt  fin  to  i>tai.oi/  j  what  conditions  do  the 
Romans  underftand  by  fatis  ? 

Ao?  £/>7/«(r»av,  Luke  xii.  58.  may  be  literally  explained 
da  operam,  though  an  explanation  might  be  given  differ- 
ent from  that  of  the  commentators,  without  refer- 
ring to  a  Latinifm.  On  the  other  hand,  <7u  &4'f',  Matth. 
xxvii.  4.  though  it  is  unufual  Greek,  is  no  Latinifm,  but 
a  literal  tranflation  of  the  High  Prieft's  anfwer  to  Judas 
Ifcariot  '*. 


SECT.       XL 

IdiotifmSy  had  Greek  exprejfions^  Attic  and  common  Greeks 
poetical  words. 

WHEN  living  languages  have  attained  a  certain 
degree  of  cukivation,  there  arifes  a  difference  be- 
tween the  language  of  ordinary  converfation,  and  that 
ufed  in  the  works  of  authors,  which  we  may  exprefs  by 
the  terms  common  language,  and  literary  language. 
There  is  a  third  kind^  which  holds  the  middle  rank  be- 
tween both,  that  which  is  ufed  in  letter-writing,  or  epif- 
tolary  language,  which  is  the  more  rational,  the  more  it 
approaches  to  the  former,  provided  all  exprefTions  be 
avoided  that  are  obfcure  or  vulgar. 

Idiotifms  are  fuch  words  and  phrr.fes  as  are  ufual  in 
common  life,  but  not  admitted  into  writings  or  public 
fpeeches,  being  derived  from  Jtwrr,?,  taken  in  a  fcnfe  that 
implies  the  oppofite  to  a  public  fpeaker. 

They  may  be  reduced  to  feveral  dirtin(ft  clafTes,  Some 
of  them  are  not  only  allowable,  but  indifpenfable,  as  it 
would  be  a  fault  to  reject  them  in  converfation  for  the 
more  ftudied  exprefTions,  that  are  ufed  in  writing.  They 
are  frequently  more  concife  and  emphatical  than  thofe 
admitted  into  literary  language,  which  being  modelled 
under  the  rules  of  reftraint  has  lels  compafs,  and  lefs  ex- 

prefTion, 


SECT.  XI.      Language  of  the  New  Tefiament.  167 

prefiion.  To  avoid  idiotifms  of  this  nature  in  epiftolary 
correfpondence  would  be  real  affedation,  and  many  au- 
thors, by  a  proper  ufe  of  them  in  their  writings,  have 
merited  the  applaufe  of  the  pubhc.  A  fecond  clafs  con- 
fifts  of  fuch  as  are  perhaps  admiflible,  but  which  an 
author  cannot  introduce,  without  expofing  himfelf  to  the 
remarks  of  the  critics,  or  the  cenfurc  of  the  Academy. 
To  the  third  clafs  may  be  referred  fuch  as  appear  harlh 
to  a  delicate  ear,  and  are  ufed  only  by  perfons  without 
education :  thefe  may  be  termed  idiotifms  from  jfTiwr*)?, 
taken  in  the  fenfe  of  unlearned,  and  are  fubjed  to  a  higher, 
or  lower  degree  of  difapprobation,  in  proportion  to  the 
nicety  of  the  ear,  or  the  refinement  of  the  tafte.  The 
lowefl  order  of  idiotifms  confifts  of  fuch,  as  are  ufed  only 
by  the  vulgar. 

Now  it  is  undeniable  that  the  New  Teftament  contains 
•words  and  phrafes,  which  are  neither  foreign,  nor  Cili- 
cifms,  nor  to  be  found  in  the  writings  of  the  Greeks ; 
thefe  perhaps  may  be  referred  to  the  language  of  com- 
mon life.  The  writers  of  the  New  Teftament  in  general 
have  never  pretended  to  the  beauties  of  literary  language; 
and  St.  Paul,  who  was  the  moft  able,  has  ufed  in  the 
epiftles  the  fame  expreffions,  as  he  would  have  ufed  in 
common  converfation.  E^ao-ia,  i  Cor,  xi.  10.  appears  to 
be  the  name  of  a  woman's  head-drefs,  or  veil,  in  fafhion 
at  that  time  in  Corinth  ',  and  that  no  claffic  writer  has 
ufed  it  in  this  fenfe,  is  no  more  a  matter  of  furprife,  than 
that  many  of  the  modern  ornaments  of  female  drefs  are 
found  neither  in  any  author,  nor  even  in  a  di6lionary  of 
the  language.  And  St.  Paul  having  occafion  to  fpeak  on 
that  fubjed,  would  have  been  blameable  in  avoiding  the 
ufe  of  a  term  which  cuftom  had  eftaWifhed;  for  he  wrote 
not  with  the  accuracy  of  an  author  who  defigns  to  pub- 
lifh,  but  merely  with  a  view  of  being  intelligible  to  thofe, 
with  whom  he  immediately  correfponded. 

The  Greek  grammarians  have  laid  it  down  as  a  rule 

that  oioi;  a,  without  te,  fignifies  '  thou  wilt,'  and  ojo?  te 

{(   '■  thou  canft,'  though  this  diftinftion  has  not  been  al- 

L  4  ways 


1 58        '     Language  of  the  New  Tejiament.      chap.  iv. 

ways  obferved  by  the  Greek  authors';  but  ou^' ojoi/,  in 
the  fenfe  ofnequaquam,  fays  Phrynicus**,  is  totally  inad- 
miffible,  becaufe  it  is  bad  Greek,  and  has  be  fides  a  dif- 
agreeable  found.    Yet  I  would  ftill  tranflate  the  pafTage 

Rom.  ix.  6.    0\)-x^  oiov  hy  on  iy.TnTrrtjoy.iv  o  Xoyoc  0£>i,  in  the 

following  manner,  *  but  by  no  means  (do  I  fpeak  thus), 
becaufe  the  word  of  God  hath  taken  none  effedl ' :'  for 
though,  according  to  the  opinion  of  Phrynicus,  the  ex- 
preflion  wasunclafTical,  it  was  ftill  in  ufe,  and  that  chiefly, 
as  he  himfclf  confefTes,  in  his  own  country,  that  is,  either 
in  Afia  Minor  in  general,  of  which  St,  Paul  was  a  native, 
or  in  Bithynia  in  particular,  a  province  which  had  been 
likewife  vifited  by  the  Apoflle. 

An  inaccurate  ufe  of  particles  is  a  fault  to  which  we 
are  mod  fubjeft  in  writing  a  foreign  language,  which  we 
have  not  learnt  by  the  rules  of  grammar.  Of  all  the 
writers  of  the  New  Teftament  St.  Mark  has  written  the 
worft  Greek,  and  it  is  therefore  not  incredible  that  he 
aftually  wrote  ts-w?  for  y.oi.^u(;y  Ch.  ix,  12.  and  that  xaOwf, 
which  is  in  many  of  the  manufcripts,  is  the  correftion  * 
of  a  transcriber  who  underftood  the  difference  of  the  two 
particles '. 

The  cenfure  of  the  grammarians  has  been  frequently 
unjuft,  who  have  not  feldom  condemned,  on  etymolo- 
gical principles  (the  moft  common,  yet  the  moft  uncer- 
tain criterion  in  determining  the  legitimacy  of  a  word) 
expreffions,  which  have  been  fince  difcovered  in  the  bell 
authors.  Critics,  who  have  fbudied  to  explain  the  New 
Teftament  by  paflages  from  the  clafTics,  have  made  thefe 

remarks 

<:  See  the  examples  which  Wetftein  in  his  note  to  Rom.  ix.  6.  has 
quoted  from  Ariftoile,  and  Jofephi  Antiquit,  I.  12.  i.  where  ^OugEii/  oic; 
ti  rill  figjiifies  *  he  wi.lied  to  fcducc  htr.' 

«•  P.  J 6 a.  of  Pauw's  edition,  Ovp^  ©lov  o^fi^o/xat,  y.iQ^rMv  laxatut^, 
MaAira    «fi«fT«i'£T«t    c«  «»    T*}  yj/AsS'a'TJj)    «p^  oiov  v.a.\  f>oj  ok/v  >£yovT4)v, 

e  See  Palairet's  note  to  this  pafTage  *» 
I  See  Kypke's  note  to  this  palfage  \ 


SECT.  XT.      Language  cf  the  New  Tejlametit.  i6^ 

remarks  of  the  antit- nt  grammarians  a  particular  fub-edt 
of  attention}  and  Wetilcin,  who  is  by  far  the  moPc  va- 
luable writer  on  this  fubje^t,  has  the  fingular  merit  of 
having  qu  )ted  Hteraliy  their  cenfures,  and  of  fubjoining, 
as  o^ten  as  he  was  able,  authorities  from  the  beft  authors 
in  fupport  of  the  words  in  queftion.  The  beautiful  edi- 
tion of  Thomas  Magilier,  cum  Notis  viriirum,  publiPned 
by  Bernard,  at  Leyden,  1757,  may  be  likevvife  confulted 
with  advantage,  as  many  of  the  worJs  of  the  New  fefta- 
ment,  which  Thomas  Magillcr  had  condemned  with  im* 
moderate  fevcrity,  are  there  defended  by  quotations  from 
the  clafTic  writers. 

The  above-mentioned  obfervatlons  on  the  idiotifiis 
mud  not  be  confounded  with  the  remarks  of  gramma- 
rians on  the  difference  between  Atticifms,  and  fimple 
Grecifms,  as  Mceris  for  inftance  fays,  Konvo?,  AtJjxw?, 
ocyoiiXxio;^  Ea>.>jhv{w?.  In  thefe  cafes  likewifc  Wetftein  has 
iiied  in  Iiis  notes  the  fame  accuracy,  as  in  the  former. 
Now  it  is  felf-evident  that  the  authors  of  the  Greek  Tef- 
tament  never  pretended  to  write  Attic  Greek,  but  were 
fatisfied  with  the  language  of  Greece  in  general.  Yet 
examples  may  be  produced,  where  the  commentators 
have  met  with  diSculty  in  explaining  a  pafTa-'^e  that  is  a 
real  Atticifm.  St.  Paul  has  ufed  ai  J'tj/i/ocai,  Rom.  ix,  4. 
in  the  plural,  for  which  various  reafons  have  been  af- 
figned  by  the  critics  ;  but,  in  fafl,  the  Apoftle  in  this 
|nftance  has  ufed   the  beft  pofTiblc,  or  Attic  exprelTion. 

Anx^r.y.xi  ypoc(pn]/  Tif  XiyiTXi  ou  ^iX^ny.nv,   fays  ThomaS  Ma- 

gificr',  who  v/as  perhaps  on  the  other  hand  too  fcvere  in 
exckiding  totally  the  fingular. 

With  regard  to  the  idiotifms,  or  words  and  expref- 
fions  of  common  life,  we  are  not  reduced,  as  might  be 
fuppofed,  to  the  necefiity  of  mere  con',efture,  but  have 
various  fources  of  critical  afilftance  in  determining  their 
meaning.  The  obfcurity  therefore,  which  they  occafion, 
is  not  fo  great  as  many  have  pretended,  though  it  cannot 
be  denied  that  writings,  into  which  thry  are  admitted, 
are  more  difficult  to  be  underftood  than  claffic  authors. 
We  may  difcover  their  fignification  in  certain  cafes  from 

the 


ijo  Language  of  the  New  Tejiameni.      chap.  iv. 

the  ufage  even  of  good  writers,  who  have  fometimes  been 
guilty  of  an  ovcrfight,  and  ufed  them  inftead  of  clafTical 
expreffions.  But  the  greateft  help  is  to  be  derived  from 
the  remains  of  Greek  authors  of  inferior  rank,  the  merits 
of  whofe  language  admit  of  various  degrees  of  eftimation 
from  the  moderate  down  to  the  very  worft  llyle  in  writ- 
ing, to  which  latter  clafs  may  be  referred  feveral  frag- 
ments written  in  Jewifh  Greek,  which  are  either  apocry- 
phal, or  falfely  afcribed  to  the  apoftolic  Fathers.  Many 
exprefTions,  which  an  accurate  profe  writer  would  avoid,  ' 
are  allowable  in  poetry  j  and  the  writer  of  comedies  in 
particular  is  frequendy  obliged  to  introduce  words  that 
are  never  heard  but  in  common  life,  as  it  would  be  ab- 
furd  to  put  refined  language  into  the  mouths  of  the  illi- 
terate. The  infcriptions  likewife,  which  have  been  dif- 
covered  to  a  very  confiderable  amount  in  almoft  all  the 
countries  where  Greek  was  fpoken,  have  ferved  to  ex- 
plain many  idiotifms  and  provincialifms,  which  would 
otherwife  have  been  unknown,  being  frequently  written 
by  perfons  who  were  not  mailers  of  the  Greek,  in  the 
fame  manner  as  the  epitaphs  in  our  country  church- 
yards are  generally  compofed  by  the  illiterate  in  the  ufual 
diale6t  of  the  neighbourhood.  The  remark  made  by 
Kypke  ^  on  ^pt[ji,uxTx,  John  iv.  12.  and  fmce  confirmed 
by  Gefner  ^  affords  a  flriking  example.  But  a  ftill  more 
important  example  is  that  of  ^cko-iXiho;,  John  iv.  46.  a  word 
that  has  occafioned  no  inconfiderable  difputes,  and  is  like- 
wife  explained  by  Gefner  from  a  Greek  infcription,  in 
which  is  recorded  of  a  Lefbian  Prytanis,  rav  i7rm\)u.ov  airo 
Pac-iXEwi/  ■mpvTU]/y]iav  iv.  yivaq  ^'KJc^i'^xy.£vo?y  and  immediately 
after,  that  the  fenate  and  people  ranked  him  under  the 

balifici 

g  In  a  dilTertation  read  before  the  Academy  of  Sciences  at  Gottingen, 
Nov.  lOi  I759>  and  printed  in  the  fifth  vohime  of  the  Commentatlones 
Scientiarum  Goettingenfis  antiquiores.  He  produces,  p.  29 — 33.  a  Greek 
infcription  preferved  by  Pococke,  of  a  fepulchre  that  had  belonged  to  Ulpius 
Julius  Trophimus,  of  Siryrna,  who  is  entitled  crt/jtATroajaeX''''?'  ^wXafTJ)?, 
and  'cr^vravi;,  and  who  had  purchafed  it,  ATTO  KAI  TH  TYNAIKI 
MOY  TYKH  KAI  TEKN012  KAI  EFrONOIL  KAI  GPEMMAII  MOT 
KAI  AFIEAEYQEPOlS.  Mihi,  et  uxori  mex  Tyclt^,  et  Uberis,  et  pofteris, 
et  aluninis  meis,  et  Ubertis  7, 


SECT.  XI.      Language  of  the  New  Tejiament.  171 

balifici  of  Afia,  jSao-jAixo;?  Ao-ja?  oviXoymi]/  ^  Laflly,  the 
ancient  Greek  grammarioins  themfelves,  have  not  only 
ini'ormcd  us  that  many  words,  to  which  they  apphed  the 

epithets  of  aJ'oHj^oi/,  aTrcf/nTSf,  xjSJ'nXoi',  y.^^§Y^Xo]l  fo-p^arcof, 

were  ftill  in  life,  but  have  likewifc  explained  their  mean- 
ing ;  which  explanations  have  thrown  the  greateft  light 
on  many  obfcure  padages  of  the  New  Tcftament. 

Idiotifms,  taken  in  the  fenfe  of  Vulgarifms,  cannot  with 
any  colour  of  juftice  be  afcribed  to  the  New  Teflament. 
With  refpe6l  to  St.  Luke  and  St.  Paul,  no  one  could 
fufpecl  the  former  j  and  the  frequent  intercourfe  of  the 
latter  with  perfons  of  the  higheft  rank  gives  little  ground 
to  fuppofe  that  he  fpake  the  language  of  the  populace. 
With  regard  to  St.  John,  his  ftyle  is  of  a  nature  that 
precludes  all  vulgarity.  Yet  Heumann,  in  his  notes  * 
on  the  New  Teftamcnt,  which  were  formerly  confidered 
as  profoundly  learned,  has  laid  down  the  following  prin- 
ciple as  the  bafis  of  his  criticifms :  '  that  the  New  Tefla- 
ment is  written  in  the  very  word  Greek,  and  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  vulgar;  that  many  words  and  phrafes  have 
been  ufed  in  fenfes  unknown  to  the  clalFics,  and  given 
them  only  by  the  populace  ;  and,  laftly,  that  their  mean- 
ing is  not  to  be  difcovered  by  the  help  of  the  Greek 
writers,  but  merely  from  conjedure,  or  the  general  con- 
nexion.' But  as  the  charge  of  vulgarity  has  never  been 
proved,  and  the  idionfms,  which  are  not  fo  numerous  ^ 
as  he  pretended,  may  be  explained  by  other  means  than 
mere  conjefture,  the  whole  ed.fice  which  he  has  eredted 
on  this  bafis  falls  of  itfelf  to  the  ground. 

Count  Zinzendorf  has  pretended  to  difcover,  in  the 
fermons  of  Chrifl,  certain  idiotifms,  in  ufe  only  among 
the  common  workmen  of  Nazareth,  that  is,  vulgar  Sy- 
riac  cxprelTions,  tranflated  literally  into  Greek  j  and  this 

he 

•>  See  the  fame  volume »  of  the  Corrmentationes  antiquiores,  p.  51.  57. 
58,  This  infcription  may  ierve  to  explain  /3«£7»X»y.o?,  John  iv.  46.  on 
the  fuppofition  that  it  is  an  appellative,  but  it  feenis  to  me  to  be  a  proper 
pame  9- 

i  See  particularly  his  Notes  on  Mark  iv.  36.  vi.  15.  xii.  4.  39.  xiv.  3, 
k  This  has  been  dearly  ihewn  by  Kypke,  in  his  Obfervationes  facrap. 


172  Language  of  the  New  Tejiament.      chap,  i v. 

he  has  attempted  to  fhew  in  paflages,  where  fevcral  com- 
mentators have  difcovered  myfteries '.  Now  I  will  not 
condemn  the  Count  as  an  heretic,  whatever  was  the 
caufc  that  gave  birth  to  this  opinion ;  whether  he  in- 
tended to  exchange  the  old  fyftem  of  biblical  criticifm 
for  a  new  one  of  his  own,  or  whether  he  was  led  into  the 
error  by  the  fancy  of  his  genius,  and  the  want  of  inftruc- 
tion  in  theology,  to  which  he  was  direfted  by  natural  in- 
clination. He  confounded  the  cuftoms  of  the  Jews  with 
tl^e  cuftoms  of  the  moderns ;  and  concluded,  that  the 
fon  of  a  carpenter  could  fpeak  no  other  language  than 
that  of  the  illiterate  :  but  among  the  Jews,  a  man  might 
belong  to  the  clafs  of  the  learned,  though  he  exercifed 
the  trade  of  a  mechanic.  Even  the  enemies  of  Chrift 
refufed  him  not  a  title,  that  was  due  only  to  men  of 
learning ;  which  is  the  lefs  furprifing,  as  we  find  in  the 
fermon  on  the  mount,  and  many  other  of  his  fpeeches, 
the  charafteriftic  llyle  of  the  Jewifli  doftors,  difcoverable 
in  the  Talmud,  which  confifts  in  /hort  and  detached  {tTi~ 
tences,  and  in  leaving  in  a  chain  of  argument  the  inter- 
mediate links  to  be  fupplied  by  the  hearers.  Rabbinifms 
therefore,  not  vulgarifms,  muft  be  fought  in  the  fermons 
of  Chrift ;  for  the  Jews  themfelves,  aftoniftied  at  a  lan- 
guage, which  they  expedted  not  from  an  education  in 
Nazareth,  applied  to  it  an  epithet"",  which  is  due  only  to 
the  graces  of  a  polifhed  ftyle.  It  is  true,  that  an  inftance 
may  be  alledged  of  a  Galilean  term  of  reproach,  viz. 
Nazarene,  not  fpoken  by  Chrift,  but  by  his  enemies". 
Expreflions  of  contempt,  taken  from  the  general  cha- 
rafter  •  of  a  city,  are  frequent  among  men  of  the  loweft 
order,  and  the  word  Nazarene  is  ufed  in  that  country  to 
this  very  day  in  the  fenfe  of  ^  deceiver**.' 

An  objedtion  has  been  made  to  feveral  words  in  the 
New  Teftament,  that  they  are  fuch  as  are  ufed  chiefly 

by 

J  See  Benner's  Lerna  Zinzendorfiana,  c.  Hi.  §  10. 

•»  Aoyot  ;^ap»TO?,   Luke  iv.   23. 

B  Mark  xiv.  67.  according  10  the  reading  of  the  Syrlac  verfion,  x«i  <ru 

•  Ste  John  i.  47.  P  See  the  Orient.  Bibl  ".  Vol.  X.  p.  47» 


SECT.  XII.     Language  of  the  New  Tejiament.  173 

by  poets'';  a  circumftance  not  to  be  expe(5led,  as  is  faid, 
from  perfons  who  were  without  education,  and  not  per- 
fed  mailers  of  the  Greek.  But  the  objedion  is  really  of 
no  weight,  as  every  man,  who  has  learned  a  foreign  lan- 
guage, is  liable  to  ufe  in  profe,  exprefiions  which  are  the 
province  of  poetry;  and  this  might  eafily  have  happened 
to  St.  John,  who  feems  to  have  ftudied  variety.  Though 
poetical,  they  might  have  been  ufed  in  common  life,  if 
not  in  the  language  of  literary  profe  ;  but  this  is  a  dif- 
tindlion,  which  is  made  only  by  thofe  who  have  learned 
a  language  from  their  childhood. 


SECT.      XII. 

SolecifmSy  or  grammatical  errors, 

SOLECISMS,  or  grammatical  errors,  have  been 
imputed  to  the  New  Teftament,  even  in  cafes 
where  the  conftruftion  is  Attic ;  a  charge,  which  can  be 
afcribed  to  no  other  caufe  than  ignorance  of  the  Greek 
language.  Inftead  of  the  genitive  abfolute,  the  Attic 
dialed  admitted  frequently  the  nominative  ',  and  yet  this 
very  conftru6lion  has  been  cenfured  in  the  New  Tefta- 
ment, as  a  fault  againft  the  rules  of  grammar;  a  circum- 
ftance the  more  furprifing,  as  it  is  very  frequently  ufed 
in  the  Septuagint%  viz.  Gen.  xv.  i.  xvi.  5.  xxii.  20. 
xxxviii.  13.  24.  xlv.  16.  xlviii.  2.  20.  Exod.  v.  14, 
xviii.  3,  4.  Levit.  viii.  31.  Jof.  x.  17.  i  Sam.  xv.  12. 
xix.  19.  2  Sam.  vi.  12.  A  paffage  in  the  epiftle  to  the 
Romans,  which  has  occafioned  much  difficulty  and  dif- 

pute,   ViQiy-KX   i^  tvog  xoityiv   s')(H(Ta,   Icrxocy.  t»  zrarpog    vy-uv, 

Rom.  ix.  10.  may  be  explained  as  an  Atticifm  %  Pf^jxxa 
sxisc-«'  being  ufed  for  Pi^ixnag  £;!^Kc-t)?.  Another  paflagc, 
Mark  xv.  ^6.  which  has  hitherto  appeared  contradiftory 
to  the  parallel  text  in  St.  Matthew,  may  be  explained 

on 

q  For  inftance,  John  ?Ii.  34.  e»^j,  eo  '*, 


174  Language  of  the  New  Teflament.      chap.  iV'^ 

on  this  principle,  fo  as  to  remove  all  contradiction '.  Ac- 
cording to  St.  Matthew,  at  the  time  that  Chrift  was  ex- 
piring on  the  crofs,  one  of  the  fpe6lators  brought  him 
vinegar  to  drink,  apparently  with  the  beft  intention,  but 
was  defired  by  the  others,  in  a  tone  of  malice  and  ridi- 
cule, to  wait  and  fee  whether  Eiias  would  come  :  but 
according  to  St.  Mark,  the  fame  peribn  who  brought 
the  vinegar,  made  likewife  the  cruel  requeft,  that  it 
might  not  be  adminiftered.  Now  if  XEyo-i/  be  admitted 
as  a  nominative  abfolute,  it  has  the  fame  meaning  as 
T^iyoyroq  T«^o?,  by  which  all  contradi6lion  is  removed  *. 

The  charge  of  folecifms  gave  rife  to  an  excellent  trca- 
tife  by  Schwartz,  entitled  Soloecifmi  difcipulorum  Jefa 
antiquati,  in  which  he  firft  treats  of  the  nature  of  fole- 
cifms in  general,  and  then  examines  the  feveral  paflages 
of  the  New  Teftamert,  which  had  been  condemned  as 
fuch  by  the  critics.  The  frequent  ufe  of  this  book  itfclf, 
and  flill  more  the  many  extracts,  which  have  been  made 
from  it  by  Wolf,  have  contributed  to  explode  a  notion 
that  was  formerly  fafhionable.  Yet  certain  inftances  re- 
main, where  a  perfect  vindication  would  be  difficult, 
clpecially  in  the  book  of  Revelation,  in  which  the  nomi- 
native is  fometimes  ufed  in  a  manner  that  is  contrary  to 
the  pradice  of  the  Greek  writers  K  The  examples  have 
been  coUefted  by  Bengcl,  in  his  Apparatus  Criticus, 
p.  488.  2d  edit,  and  as  they  cannot  be  explained  as  nomi- 
natives abfolute,  we  confider  them  in  the  light  of  Jewifli 
folecifms,  which  I  fhall  examine  more  at  large  in  treat- 
ing of  this  book  in  particular.  Schwartz  has  altered  the 
flops,  in  the  fifth  verfe  of  the  firfl  chapter,  in  order  to 
vindicate  this  pafTage,  but  he  was  able  to  apply  no  re- 
medy to  the  remaining ;  and  whatever  latitude  we  allow 
to  the  ufe  of  the  various  lecStions,  it  is  inconceivable  that 

a  con- 

r  Several  tranfciibers  have  attempted  to  remove  the  contradiflion,  by 
an  alteration  of  the  text.  The  Codex  Colbertinus  470^,  inftead  of  Kiyuvj 
has  o»  Je  ^okTToi  i\iyo)i,  which  is  a  manifeft  corredion  ;  and  Wetftein's 
Cod.  13  and  69.  have  xai  ^^af*ovTs;  i-/tuAaix)i  airoyyov  o|a?>  v.ai  "crE^iSfvTtf 
xaXociACj  iTToTKrav  avTay  TieysjiTE? }  but  ihis  again  is  an  evident,  though  aij 
ingenious  correflion. 


SECT.  xiii.      Language  of  the  New  Teftament.  175 

a  conftruclion,  which  is  not  ufed  in  the  other  books  of 
the  New  Teftament,  (hould  occur  fo  frequently  in  the 
Revelation,  unlefs  it  were  written  by  the  author  himfelf. 

Nor  will  I  deny,  that  in  other  parts  of  the  New  Tefta- 
ment examples  may  be  found,  that  are  contrary  to  the 
rules  of  grammar,  though  their  number  is  very  incon- 
fiderable.  hx  fj.r,  if-.a-tnT^i,  1  Cor.  iv.  6.  is^  hardly  to  be 
defended  on  grammarical  principles.  Erafmus,  Beza, 
and  Grotius,  with  Pearce,  who  has  followed  their  ex- 
ample, have  propofed  to  read  c-<rio«c-3rr ;  but  this  cor- 
rection is  fupported  by  the  authority  of  not  one  finglc 
manufcripr.  In  all  probabilir;/,  therefore,  it  v,as  written 
originally  as  it  ftands  at  prefect ;  it  muft  be  regarded  as 
a  deviation  from  grammatical  precifion,  the  propofed 
amendment  having  lefs  the  appearance  of  critical  con- 
jecture, than  of  the  corx'ection  of  a  m.after.  Wetftein  has 
indeed  quoted  iva  tfxi,  Rev.  xxii.  14.  in  fupport  of  this 
pafTage,  but  this  is  only  to  defend  one  fault  by  the  au- 
thority of  another. 


SECT.       XUI. 

hference  to  he  deduced  from  theje  premijes,  re/peeling  the 

knoivledge  neceJjTary  for  the  under fianding  If  the  Nev) 
Tefiarnent. 

FROM  the  foregoing  defcription  of  the  language  of 
the  New  Teftament,  we  may  form  an  eftimate  of 
the  requifites  which  are  neceftary  for  every  man,  who 
■would  underftand  it  fundamentally  and  critically,  and, 
inftead  of  relying  on  the  opinion  of  others,  would  exa- 
mine and  decide  for  himfelf. 

In  the  firft  place,  it  is  neceflary  to  have  an  intimate 
acquaintance  with  the  Greek  claftiCS,  as  numberiefs 
words  and  phrafcs  occur  in  the  New  Teftament,  v/hich 
can  be  explained  by  their  means  alone.  The  common 
meaning  of  -srirj,-  in  the  New  Teftament  is  Faith  j  and 
whoever  has  learnt  Greek  from  the  New  Teftam.ent,  ap- 
plies 


lyS  Language  of  the  New  Tejlament.      chap.  iy. 

plies  that  fenfe  on  all  occafions,  even  to  pafTages  where 
it  is  inadmiffible.  In  the  two  following  paflages,  Afts 
xvii.  31.  -STt^iv  -mxfxfryjxiv  -moccn^/y  and  Ron),  xii  6.  -srpo- 
f»)T£»«i/    xxrot,   rvv   avaXoyiocv   ■uifiug,    '  Faith'   would    bc    a 

very  improper  tranflation  ;  and  every  man,  acquainted 
with  the  different  fenfes  of  zriftg  among  the  Greek 
writers,  would  explain  it  in  the  firft  inllance  by  '  proof,' 
or  *  ground  of  belief,'  and  in  the  fecond  by  '  res  con- 
credita,'  as  St.  Paul  meant  probably,  that  every  man 
fhould  ufe  the  gift  of  prophecy,  not  according  to  the 
meafure  of  his  faith,  but  in  proportion  to  the  talent  with 
which  he  was  intrufted,  or  the  abilities  with  which  he  was 
endowed  *. 

The  excellent  indexes  annexed  to  many  editions  of 
the  Greek  authors,  fuch  as  are  found  in  WcfTeling's  He- 
rodotus, and  Diodorus  Siculus,  and  Ducker's  Thucy- 
dides,  may  ajfford  a  clafTical  fcholar  effential  fervice,  even 
in  cafes  where  the  learned  compilers  themfclves  derived 
no  critical  affiftance.  The  beft  memory,  united  with 
the  mod  frequent  reading,  is  not  always  fufficient  to  re- 
call the  paflages  which  are  ufcful  to  be  known ;  but  by 
means  of  an  index,  we  are  enabled  to  refer  at  once  to  a 
claflic  writer,  in  order  to  collate  and  explain  a  text  of 
the  New  Teilament.  The  Lexicographers  likewife,  who 
were  native  Greeks,  and  efpecially  Suidas,  have  been  by 
no  means »exhau(led  by  the  commentators;  a  diligent 
life  of  them  might  be  attended  with  great  advantage  ; 
and  even  in  thofe  inftances,  where  a  word  is  not  con- 
tained in  them,  we  may  derive  this  ufeful  inference,  that 
it  is  either  a  provincialifm,  or  peculiar  to  the  Greek 
Teflament. 

The  ineftim.able  treafure,  which  lies  hidden  in  the  an- 
tient  infcriptions,  might  be  of  fingular  fervice,  particu- 
larly in  explaining  the  provincialifms  and  idiotifms.  They 
have  hitherto  been  feldom  or  never  applied  to  this  pur- 
pofe ;  and,  as  the  books  in  which  they  are  contained  are 
frequently  too  expenfive  to  be  purchafed  by  the  learned, 
it  is  to  be  wiOied  that  fome  one,  who  has  leifure  and 
abilities,  would  compofe  a  Lexicon  containing  the  words 

ufed 


SE  c  T .  XI II.     Language  of  the  New  Teftament.  1 77 

ufed  in  the  Greek  infcriptions,  not  only  in  fuch  as  have 
been  colledled  in  feparace  volumes,  but  in  thofe  which 
are  found  fingly  in  the  defcriptions  of  travellers.  A  work 
of  diis  nature  would  be  an  invaluable  guide  to  a  com- 
mentator in  his  cridcal  refearches. 

But  the  book  moll  necelTary  to  be  read  and  under- 
ftood  by  every  man,  who  ftudies  the  New  Teftament,  is 
without  doubt  the  Septuagint,  which  alone  has  been  of 
more  fervice,  than  all  the  palTages  from  the  profane  au- 
thors colle6led  together.  It  lliould  be  read  in  the  public 
fchools  by  thofe,  who  are  deftined  for  the  church,  fhould 
form  the  fubjeft  of  a  courfe  of  lectures  at  the  univerfity, 
and  be  the  conftant  companion  of  an  expofitor  of  the 
New  Teftament.  Not  to  repeat  what  I  have  written  on 
a  former  occafion,  I  refer  my  readers  to  my  Programma 
on  this  fubjedt,  pubHfhed  in  1767,  where  examples  are 
given"  of  the  manner  of  explaining  the  Nev/  Teftament 
from  the  Septuagint*.     ^wn^w,  *  to  teach,'  and  (puTKrfj(.o?, 

*  inftruclion,'  are  inftances  of  importance  in  dogmadcal 
theology ;  and  if  the  writers  on  this  branch  of  divinity 
had  confulted  the  verfion  of  the  Seventy  *,  they  would 
have  avoided  the  miftake  of  feeking  a  myftical,  where 
only  a  plain  meaning  was  intended  i  nor  would  they  have 
difputed  about  the  ftipernatural  influence  of  divine  grace 
on  thofe,  who  have  not  attained  the  ftate  of  regeneration. 
Another  inftance,  Heb.  xi.  5.  fUTi^frrixEvat  S'ev,  which 
fignifies  not  '  to  pleafe  God,'  but  *  to  ferve  God,'  I  have 
treated  more  fully  in  my  notes  on  this  epift'le,  where  the 
meaning  of  this  phrafe  is  particularly  explained*.  The 
attempts  of  the  moft  learned  critics  to  difcover  the  fenfe 
of  a^fTat,  I  Pet.  ii.  9.  by  means  of  palTages  from  profane 
writers,  have  been  unfuccefsful ;  but  if  they  had  referrred 
to  the  text  in  the  Septuagint,  Ifaiah  xliii.  21.  whence 
St.  Peter  has  borrowed  the  expreftion,  they  would  have 
found  that  «^£Ta»  was  nothing  more  than  mbnn  the 

*  glory,'  not  the  *  virtues  of  God  ^' 

The  concordance  of  Trommius,  a  book  which  is  in- 
difpenfable  to  an  expounder  of  the  New  Teftament,  ren- 
ders 

•  P-  'S""*?'        *  See  my  ElTayon  Dogmatical  Theology  J,  p.  579. 

M 


178  Language  of  the  New  Tejlament,      c  h  a  p .  i  v, 

ders  this  application  of  the  Septuagint  extremely  eafy ; 
and  I  wi(h  as  earncftly  that  it  were  in  the  hands  of  every 
theologian,  as  that  Pafor,  and  other  works  of  that  na- 
ture, were  baniflied  from  the  fchools.  By  the  help  of  this 
concordance,  we  may  difcover  at  one  view  not  only  the 
fenfe  and  conftru6tion  of  a  word  in  difpute,  but  likewife 
the  Hebrew  expreffion  of  which  it  is  a  tranflation,  and 
thus  cafily  determine  whether  a  phrafe  be  a  Hcbraifm  or 
not.  It  is  true,  that  in  fome  refpefts  the  work  is  incom- 
plete :  the  Septuagint  vcrfion  of  Daniel  is  totally  want- 
ing, it  being  at  that  time  unknown  **;  and  feveral  words 
of  the  remaining  books  are  omitted,  but  thefe  omiffions 
are  not  fo  numerous  as  might  be  expeded  in  a  colledlion 
of  fo  many  thoufand  words ''.  This  I  can  declare  with 
the  more  certainty,  as  I  am  in  polTeffion  of  a  copy  that 
formerly  was  ufcd  by  my  father,  who  has  fupplied  what 
he  found  in  the  courfe  of  his  reading  to  be  deficient, 
which  I  have  continued  fmce  the  time  of  his  death. 
Biel's  Lexicon  ^  on  the  Septuagint  is  likewife  a  valuable 
book,  and  if  properly  improved  might  be  of  great  uti- 
lity; but  from  the  nature  of  the  work  itfelf,  it  cannot  be 
fo  convenient  for  making  an  immediate  reference  as  the 
concordance  of  Trommius. 

The  remarks,  which  have  been  made  on  the  ufe  of  the 
Septuagint,  are  equally  applicable  to  the  books  of  the 
Apocrypha",  from  which  a  greater  benefit  may  be  ex- 
pe6ted,  in  proportion  as  they  have  been  lefs  applied  to 
this  purpofe.  In  a  com.mentary  on  tiie  firft  book  of  the 
Maccabees,  which  I  intend  fhortly  to  publilh,  many  ex- 
amples will  be  given  of  this  nature  "".  I  will  therefore 
confine  myfelf  at  prefcnt  to  a  fingle  inftance.  It  is  of 
fome  confequence  to  determine  precifely  the  meaning  of 

£^  wi/  Snx.Tr,^Hyri<;  ixurag  iv  sr^a^ETS,  A6ls  XV,   29.  becaufe  it 

has  been  a  matter  of  difpute,  whether  the  command  to 
abftain  from  eating  blood  v/as  to  be  extended  to  all 
Chriftians;  the  doflrine  has  been  maintained  in  the 
affirmanve  by  whole  churches,  fupportcd  by  many  of 
the  learned,  and  not  feldom  occafioned  a  fecret  doubt 

and 

|»  See  my  Programma  on  the  Septuagint' ,  p.  ^O^S-' 


SECT.  XIII.      Language  of  the  New  Teft  anient.  i^^ 

and  anxiety.  Now,  the  proper  meaning  of  su  n^a^gre 
may  be  difcovered  from  the  ufe  of  craAw?  ^o.n^,  and  o^^c? 
zTOiuv,  in  the  firft  book  of  Maccabees,  where  they  imply 
nothing  more  than  a  polite  manner  of  making  a  requeft, 

en.  xn.  I  8.  xa»  j/ji/  xaXcog  zJoin<r£Ti  xifTi(pcouv<Toe,VTig  ji/ajv,    i.  e, 

'  we  beg  the  favour  of  an  anfwer.'    In  the  fame  manner, 

V.  22.  noii  uvu  ap  «  lyuuy.ui^iu  tx-otx,  naXuq  zroina-iTi  yoa- 
<pouTig  vty-iu  73-f^j  TV?  si^vwg  vy,uvy    op^ug  zjofnTSig  a-no^nKotg  (xot 

oi.vSpa.q.  To  apply  then  the  ufe  of  an  epiftolary  exprefTion 
in  the  book  of  Maccabees  to  a  fimilar  one  in  the  Ads 
of  the  Apoftles,  the  epifiie  which  was  written  by  the 
Apoftles  and  Elders  of  Jerufalem  contained  no  com- 
mand, but  fimply  a  requeft"  to  abftain  from  certain 
matters  which  might  be  offcnfive  to  the  Jews\ 

But  the  ufe  of  thefe  critical  refources  muft  not  be  car- 
ried to  the  extreme,  nor  mud  the  fenfe,  which  a  word 
has  received  in  the  Septuagint  and  Apocrypha,  be  pre- 
ferred in  all  cafes  to  that,  which  is  given  it  by  the  Greek 
authors.^  An  error  of  this  nature  has  been  committed, 
Rom.  iii.  25.  where  jXarnpiov  has  been  taken  in  the  fame 
fenfe  of*  mercy  feat,'  or  covering  of  the  ark  of  the  co- 
venant. ^  Kypke  '*  has  properly  preferred  the  tranflation 
'  propitiatory  facrifice.' 

A  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  and  the  Syriac,  (under 
which  latter  language  I  include  the  Chaldee)  on  account 
of  the  Hebraifms,  and  ftill  more  on  account  of  the  Sy- 
riafms,  whichare  not  to  be  learned  from  the  Septuagint, 
is  absolutely  indifpenfable.  An  acquaintance  with  the 
Arabic,  though  ufeful  in  many  pafTages,  I  will  not  enu- 
merate in  the  lift  of  requifitcs  -,  but  the  Talmudical  and 
Rabbinical  dialed  is  much  more  neceffary  for  the  under- 
ftanding  of  the  New  Teftament,  than  of  the  Old.  Whole 
books  of  the  Old  Teftament  may  be  explained  without 
once  referring  to  a  Talmudical  expreffion ;  and  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Rabbins  is  too  modern  to  be  applied  to 
what  was  written  before  the  Babyionifli  captivity,  or 
even  fo  late  as  the  age  of  Malachi:  but  they  muft  both 
be  very  frequently  applied  in  expounding  the  New  Tef- 
tament, 

*'  Ylo^iux  In  this  paflTage  fignifies  not  <  fornication.* 
M  1 


i8o  Language  of  the  New  Tejlament.      chap.  iv. 

tament,  efpecially  in  the  fermon  on  the  Mount,  and 
the  epiftle  to  the  Romans.  Divines  therefore,  who 
confine  their  ftudies  to  the  Greek  Teftament  alone, 
and  without  learning  the  Oriental  languages,  afpire  to 
the  title  of  Theologians,  lead  not  only  themfelves  into 
error,  but  thofe  to  whom  they  undertake  to  communi- 
cate inftruftion:  and  I  may  venture  to  affirm,  that  no 
man  is  capable  of  underftanding  the  New  Teftament, 
unlefs  to  an  acquaintance  with  the  Greek,  he  joins  a 
knowledge  of  at  leaft  Hebrew,  Syriac,  and  Rabbinic. 

It  may  be  replied,  that  if  requifites  like  thefe  are  in- 
difpenfable,  it  is  no  eafy  matter  to  attain  a  knowledge  of 
the  facred  writings.  The  fa-fl  is  not  to  be  denied,  and 
few  profane  authors  are  fo  difficult  as  tlie  Greek  Tefta- 
ment; but  I  ffiall  be  lefs  expofed  to  the  charge  of  derogat- 
ing from  the  perfpicuity  of  the  Divine  Oracles,  as  a  very 
learned  Theologian  by  profeffion,  the  celebrated  Ernefti, 
has  maintained  the  fame  opinion  in  his  Diflertado  de 
difficultate  interpretationis grammatics"  Novi  Teftamenti. 
It  may  likewife  be  objeded,  that,  in  deliixadng  the  cha- 
rafter  of  a  Theologian,  I  have  laid  down  qualifications 
as  neceftary,  which  lie  beyond  the  reach  of  common  abi- 
lities. Now  every  ardft,  in  forming  an  image,  which  is 
to  ferve  as  a  pattern  of  beauty,  endeavours  to  render  it 
as  perfeft  as  poffible,  even  though  its  various  excellen- 
cies were  never  united  in  a  fingle  objeft.  But  the  de- 
fcripdon,  which  I  have  made  of  a  confummate  Theolo- 
gian, is  by  no  means  ideal ;  the  qualities  which  I  have 
required  have  been  attained  by  many,  and  ought  to  be 
attained  by  all  who  undertake  to  expound  the  Word  of 
God.  If  proper  alterations  were  made  in  the  public 
fchools,  the  ftudent  in  divinity  might,  on  leaving  the 
iiniverfity,  be  provided  with  a  fufficient  fund  of  biblical 
literature.  It  is  true,  the  knowledge  which  is  acquired 
in  thofe  feats  of  learning  muft  be  confidercd  only  as  a 
beginning,  which  future  ftudy  muft  bring  to  perfeftion  j 
but  when  a  good  foundation  has  beeen  laid,  the  fcholar 
will  hardly  fuppofe  that  future  idlenefs  is  to  be  the  re- 
ward of  former  induftry.     Even  the  clergy  who  refide  in 

the 


SECT.  XIV.      Language  of  the  New  Tejiament.  18 1 

the  country  might  profecLite  their  ftudies  to  advantage, 
and  make  great  advances  in  the  knowledge  of  the  Bible, 
if  a  faulty  education  threw  not  obftacles  in  the  way,  which 
they  have  no  inclination  to  furmount. 

Thofe,  who  have  neither  opportunity  nor  abilities  to 
acquire  llifficient  knowledge  to  inveftigate  for  them- 
felves,  muft  at  leaft  be  in  pofleffion  of  fo  much  as  is  re- 
quifite  to  profit  from  the  learned  induftry  of  others,  and 
to  apply  to  the  New  Teftament  thofe  trcafures  of  Gre- 
cian and  Oriental  literature,  which  their  predeceiTors  have 
prefented  to  their  hands.  But  a  man  unacquainted  with 
the  Septuagint,  and  the  claffic  authors,  can  form  no  judge- 
ment of  the  critical  remarks,  which  have  been  madeon  the 
language  of  the  New  Teftament ;  nor  determine  whether 
the  meaning  afcribed  to  a  word  be  literal  or  figurative, 
the  fenfe  in  which  it  is  ufually  taken,  or  only  fuch  as 
cxtenfive  reading  can  ratify  by  the  authority  of  but  two 
or  three  examples.  He  can  have  no  idea  of  what  is 
called  interpretative  probability,  and  is  unavoidably  ex- 
pofcd  to  the  danger  of  giving  the  fame  credit  to  a  falfe 
interpretation,  as  to  the  true.  In  fhort,  he  can  fee  only 
with  foreign  eyes,  and  believe  on  the  authority  of  others, 
but  he  can  have  no  convidion  himfelf,  a  convi6lion, 
without  which  no  man  Ihould  prefume  to  preach  the 
Gofpel,  even  to  a  country  congregation. 


SECT.       XIV. 

The  remarks  of  the  foregoing JeElion  confirmed  hy  the  experi- 
ence of  what  has  hitherto  been  performed  or  neglected  in 
expounding  the  New  Teflament. 

IF  it  be  inquired,  in  what  manner  thefe  fources  of 
biblical  criticifm  have  hitherto  been  ufed,  whether 
they  have  contributed  to  explain  obfcure  and  imporcant 
paflTages,  and  whether  they  have  been  fo  far  exhauftcd, 
as  to  preclude  the  labours  of  future  critics,  the  anfwer 
will  confirm  the  truth  of  the  preceding  obfervations. 

^  3  Witli 


1 82  Language  of  the  New  Tejlament:      chap.  rv. 

With  refpeft  to  the  Hebrew,  and,  where  this  lan- 
guage is  deficient,  the  Arabic,  I  have  nothing  to  add  to 
the  remarks  on  the  former  fe6lion.  The  former  has  been 
apphed  with  very  great  fuccefs  ',  though  in  fome  ex- 
amples it  has  been  mifapplied  by  men  of  real  learning; 
a  circumftance  which  renders  it  the  more  neceflary  to  be 
able  to  judge  for  ourfelves.  Erneiti"  has  contended  that 
miDlD  fignifies  *  quibus  aliquid  conftat,'  '  rei  fumma,* 
and  from  thence  explains  ^oiyji^y  i  Pet.  iii.  lo.  12.  but 
no  critic  in  the  Oriental  languages  can  allow  that  miDltD 
admits  this  fcnfe,  nor  is  it  rendered  by  i-oix^ia.  in  a  fingle 
inftance  of  the  Septuagint. 

The  Rabbinical  and  Talmudical  languages  have  been 
ufed 'frequently,  and  to  great  advantage,  in  explaining 
as  well  Jewifh  cufioms  and  dodiines,  which  occur  in 
the  New  Teftament,  as  Rabbinical  words  and  phrafes. 
Lightfoot  and  Schoetgen  ^  have  cultivated  this  branch  of 
learning  with  the  moft  fuccefs,  from  v/hofe  works  Wet- 
ftein  has  felefted  and  abridged  the  moft  effential  parts, 
and  given  tliem  in  his  notes  to  the  New  Teftamcn>-.  He 
has  colle6led  into  a  moderate  compafs  very  important 
materials;  and  where  the  concifenefs  of  his  obfervations 
has  rendered  them  obfcure,  it  is  eafy  to  refer  to  the  ori- 
ginals, from  which  he  has  extrafted.  Much,  however, 
remains  to  be  performed,  as  appears  from  the  fifth  fcc- 
tion  of  this  chapter:  but  as  it  can  fcldom  be  expell- 
ed from  an  expounder  of  the  New  Teftament,  that 
he  fliould  make  the  Talmud,  and  the  wridngs  of  the 
Rabbins  his  daily  iefcurc,  it  is  much  to  be  wiftied  that 
fome  one  among  the  learned,  wiio  has  made  them  his 
particular  ftudy "",  would  contribute  remarks  of  this  na- 
ture to  the  New  Teftament,  avoiding  at  the  fame  time 
that  fuperfiuity,  which  not  feldom  defeats  the  end  for 
which  fimilar  collections  have  been  made. 

The 

5!  De  difEcultate  interpretationis  grammaticae  Novi  TcftamentI,  §  20. 

The  pafiage  on  which  he  grounds  his  explanation,  viz.  2  Sam,  xxii.  !3. 
admits  another  explanation,  which  is  very  poetical,  though  JHITDID 
ftill  retains  its  ufiul  fenfe.  See  the  44th  reniarlc  on  Lovvth  de  facra 
poefii  Hebracorum  ^. 


SECT.  xrv.       Language  of  the  Ne'X  Tejiitment.  igj 

The  Syriac  has  hitherto  been  littk  ufed  in  commen- 
taries on  the  New  Tcflament  ^,  of  which  the  reafon  is 
the  narrow  principle  on  which  that  language  has  been 
learnt,  its  ftudy  having  been  wholly  confined  to  the  Sy- 
riac verfion  of  the  Bible.  Here  then  a  new  and  extenfivc 
field  lies  open  to  the  learned,  who  have  leifure  and  abi- 
lities to  expound  the  New  Teftament  by  pafTages  from 
the  Syriac  authors ;  but  great  caution  mufl  be  Vi{z^  in 
order  to  make  a  choice  colleftion,  and  not  to  afcribe  the 
character  of  a  Syriafm  to  a  phrafe  that  is  likewife  Greek. 
Whatever  remarks  of  this  nature  have  occurred  in  the 
courfe  of  my  reading,  I  have  noted  in  the  margin  of 
Wetftein's  New  Teftament,  and  my  father  had  colleded 
materials  for  a  diflertation,  to  be  entitled,  Lumina  Sy- 
riaca  illuftrando  N.  T.  Should  I  ever  pubiifli  the  differ- 
tations,  which  he  left  confiderably  augmented  with  ma- 
nufcript  notes,  I  might  be  difpofed  to  fubjoin  thefe  ma- 
terials in  the  ftate  in  which  1  have  received  them. 

The  Septuagint,  by  far  the  richeft  fource,  has  been 
ufed  with  great  fuccefs  ;  but  as  not  the  half  of  its  trea- 
fures  has  been  employed  in  explaining  the  New  Tefta- 
ment, an  intimate  knowledge  of  this  verfion  is  the  more 
neceflary  for  every  Theologian.  Of  thofe  who  have 
written  notes  to  the  New  Teftament  in  the  manner  of 
Raphel,  Kypke  has  made  the  moft  frequent  ufe  of  the 
Septuagint.  Wetftein  likewife  has  made  a  very  judicious 
and  happy  apphcation  of  it  in  his  learned  notes,  but  it 
is  neceflary  hkewife  for  the  reader  to  refer  to  the  refpec- 
tive  paftages,  as  he  lias  not  always  quoted  the  words 
themfelves,  or  mentioned  the  defign  of  the  quotation. 

Latin  is  of  courfe  underftood  by  every  one  who  reads 
the  Greek  Teftament ;  and  with  refpeft  to  the  Perfifms, 
all  that  is  neceflary  to  be  remarked  has  been  mentioned 
above,  with  the  obfervation  that  the  fubjed  has  hitherto 
not  engaged  the  attention  of  the  learned. 

Raphel  affords  an  excellent  example  to  thofe  who 
would  make  collections  from  the  pure  Greek- v.'riters 
with  a  view  of  illuftrating  the  New  Teft-ament,  and  xh^ 
remarks  which  he  has  drawn  from  Xenophonj  Polybius, 

M  4  Arrian, 


184  Language  of  the  New  fejiament,      chap,  i  v. 

Arrian,  and  Herodotus,  are  claffical  in  their  kind  ^  Elf- 
ner  and  Albert!  ^  have  a.dopted  nearly  the  fame  method, 
but  the  obfervations  of  Raphel  are  more  important.  The 
mofl  material  parts  of  the  writings  of  thefe  critics  may  be 
found  in  the  notes  of  Wetftein,  who  has  added  an  in- 
finity of  original  remarks,  having  confulted  authors  neg- 
lefted  by  moft  philologers,  efpecially  the  Greek  phyfi- 
cians.  It  is  true  that  Wetftein  has  collefted  examples 
that  relate  not  immediately  to  the  New  Teftament ;  he 
regarded  his  work  too  much  in  the  light  of  a  common- 
place book,  and  introduced  materials  which  belong  ra- 
ther to  a  Lexicon,  a  circumftance  which  has  caufed 
many  of  the  notes  to  be  overlooked  that  are  truly  valu- 
able. Another  imperfedion  is  the  too  frequent  omiflion 
of  the  objeft  he  had  in  view  in  making  a  quotation,  and 
the  want  of  a  Latin  tranflation  of  the  Greek  pafTages 
renders  it  fometimes  difficult  to  determine  what  fcnfe  he 
intended  to  afcribe  to  the  word  in  queftion,  efpecially 
where  the  quotation  is  too  fhort  to  judge  from  the  con- 
nexion. It  is  proper  therefore  to  confult  the  originals 
from  which  he  has  taken  themj  and  this  is  the  more 
neceflary,  as  I  have  obferved  in  many  places  that  words 
are  omitted,  on  which  the  fenfe  of  the  whole  paflage  in 
a  great  meafure  depends.  Whoever  wifhes  to  derive  all 
poffible  advantage  from  Wetftein's  edition  of  the  New 
Teftament,  fhould  be  in  pofteffion  of  a  good  library, 
though  a  claflical  fcholar  may  in  moft  cafes  form  a  to- 
lerable judgement  even  without  this  aOiftance. 

Kypke's  Obfervationes  facrae  in  Novum  Teftamen- 
tum  ^  which  are  executed  on  a  fimilar  but  more  exten- 
five  plan  than  that  of  Raphel,  were  publifhed  foon  after 
Wetftein's  New  Teftament,  but  he  had  never  feen  this 
edition  before  the  publication  of  his  own  remarks.  In 
t)ie  preface  he  expreffed  his  apprehenfions  of  having 
quoted  the  fame  paflages  which  Wetftein  had  already 
produced,  and  experience  has  ftiewn  them  to  be  ground- 
ed, to  the  honour  of  both  crincs,  and  of  the  fubjedl  it- 
felf.  When  two  men  of  profound  learning,  who  condudt 
their  ftudies  on  a  fimilar  plan,  but  profecute  their  in- 
quiries 


SECT.  XIV.     Language  of  the  New  Tejlament.  185 

qiiiries  independently  of  each  other,  in  explaining  a  text 
of  the  New  Teftament  quote  the  very  fame  pafTage  from 
a  clafTic  author,  and  that  in  repeated  inftances,  it  is  a 
proof  not  only  that  the  text  in  qucftion  was  in  need  of 
explanation,  but  that  the  pafTages  in  the  quoted  authors 
had  a  linking  fimilarity  to  thofe  in  the  New  Teftament. 
Of  all  the  expofitions  of  the  New  Teftament,  condufted 
on  principles  like  thefe,  I  know  of  none  that  are  fuperior, 
or  indeed  equal  to  thofe  of  Kypke.  They  are  written 
without  pedantry,  or  an  afteftation  of  learning  j  and  con- 
tain all  that  is  important,  without  being  encumbered 
with  extraneous  matter. 

Carpzov  and  Krebs ',  whofe  writings  Wetftein  had 
not  confulted,  either  becaufe  they  were  publiftied  tpo 
late,  or  becaufe  he  had  no  knowledge  of  them,  harmo- 
nize with  this  critic  in  the  refult  of  their  inquiries,  in  a 
manner  which  reflefts  honour  on  each ;  the  former  has 
feledted  paftages  from  Philo,  and  applied  them  to  the 
expofition  of  the  epiftles  to  the  Romans,  and  the  He- 
brews J  the  latter  has  extraded  from  Jofephus,  with  re- 
ference to  the  New  Teftament  in  general.  They  have 
both  contributed  largely  to  biblical  criticiftn,  but  the 
advantages,  which  remain  to  be  derived  from  Philo  and 
Jofephus,  are  more  than  can  be  eafily  imagined.  If  a 
man  of  learning,  who  has  ftudied  thefe  Greek  writers 
only  in  his  leifure  hours,  has  yet  made  a  very  confider- 
able  colle6lion  in  addition  to  that  of  Carpzov  and  Krebs, 
not  through  oftentation,  but  merely  in  regard  to  pafTages 
in  the  New  Teftament  which  are  really  obfcure,  it  can 
no  longer  remain  a  doubt  that  Philo  and  Jofephus  ftill 
contain  ineftimable  treafures. 

Palairet  and  Muenthe  deferve  likev/ife  to  be  men- 
tioned, though  the  rank,  which  they  occupy,  is  much 
mferior.  The  former  publiHied,  in  1752,  Obfervationes 
philologico-critic^  m  lacros  novi  foederis  iibros,  quorum 
plurima  loca  ex  auftoribus  potiffimum  Gnecis  expo- 
nuntur,  illuftrantur,  vindicantur.  This  writer  had  an 
immenfe  fund  of  Grecian  hterature  i  but  a  paflion  for 
difplaying  his  learning,  on  every  even  ufelefs  occafion, 

united 


1 86'  Language  of  the  New  Teftament.       chap,  iv. 

united  with  a  total  want  of  judgement,  has  produced  a 
rude  and  indigelled  mafs,  which  at  times  only  difcovers 
an  ufeful  obfervation.  Muenthe  pubiifhed  in  1755  Ob- 
lervationes  in  N.  T.  ex  Didoro  Siculo ;  in  which  his 
principal  objeft  was  to  defend  the  purity  of  the  ftyle  of 
the  New  Teftament;  yet,  though  it  contains  many  ufe- 
ful remarks,  a  great  part  of  the  work  is  fuperfluous  '°. 

If  it  be  allied,  whether  thefe  colledlions,  and  efpeci- 
ally  thofe  of  Raphel  and  Kypke,  have  effentially  contri- 
buted to  explain  the  New  Teftament,  I  hefitate  not  a 
moment  to  pronounce  in  the  affirmative.  Ernefti,  un- 
queftionably  a  mafter  of  the  Greek  language,  and  cele- 
brated in  the  republic  of  letters,  entertains  a  different 
opinion,  but  on  what  grounds  he  fupports  that  opinion 
I  have  never  been  able  to  difcover.  He  fays  that  Elfner, 
the  beft  of  thefe  critics,  has  hardly  ten  remarks  of  any 
confequence.  Now  ten  remarks  that  render  intelligible 
ten  pafTages  of  the  New  Teftament,  which  before  were 
obfcure,  are  not  to  be  rejefted  with  contempt ;  and  if 
every  critic  contributed  in  the  fame  proportion,  we  fhould 
make  no  inconfiderable  progrefs  in  exegetical  knowledge. 
But  it  feems  extraordinary  that  Ernefti  fhould  have  men- 
tioned Elfner  in  particular,  and  not  Raphel,  who  had 
taken  the  lead  in  this  kind  of  criticifm,  and  given  a  phi- 
lological explanation  of  miiny  more  than  ten  pafTages 
which  before  his  time  appeared  inexplicable. 

Before  a6lual  experience  had  confirmed  the  fa6l,  it 
was  irfdeed  not  reafonable  to  fuppofe  that  the  clalTic  au- 
thors could  have  been  applied  with  fo  much  fuccefs  in 
the  expofition  of  the  New  Teftament,  as  the  Apoftles 
have  neither  formed  their  ftyle,  nor  immediately  bor- 
rowed their  exprefllons  from  thefe  writers.  But  the  fa6l 
is  undeniable,  nor  is  it  impofftble  to  aftign  a  realbn. 
Whoever  undertakes  to  write  a  language,  to  which  he  is 
not  accuftomed  from  his  youth,  felefts  not  at  all  times 
the  words  which  are  moft  uilial  among  the  beft  writers, 
and  are  univerfally  underftood ;  he  recolledts  indeed 
clafTical  exprefTions,  but  applies  them  in  a  fenfe,  which 
deviates  in  fome  meafure  from  the  common  one  \  an  au- 
thor 


SECT.  XIV.      Language  of  the  New  Tejiament.  187 

thor  thus  circumftanced  may  write  Greek,  but  his  Greek 
will  fland  in  need  of  a  commentary  ".  The  cafe  is  the 
fame  in  writing  modern  languages,  of  which  we  are  not 
perfed  mafters ;  we  adopt  on  many  occafions  a  proper 
exprelTion,  though  not  that  which  'is  commonly  applied 
to  that  purpofe  by  the  natives  themfelves. 

A  pallage,  which  has  been  mentioned  above,  Rom.  iii. 
25.  may  ferve  here  as  an  example.  Ernefti  ^  has  called 
upon  thofe  who  tranflate  .Aar»)/)«oi/  '  expiatory  facrifice,'  to 
produce  an  inftance,  where  it  is  actually  ufed  in 'this 
fcnfe,  and  fecondly  where  it  is  thus  ufed  in  Jewifh  Greek, 
and  where  T^^-oTiS-ctr^a.  is  applied  to  facrifices  '*.  The  laft 
of  thefe  demands  has  been  fulfilled  by  Kypke  '^ ;  he  alfo 
contributed  to  the  fulfilling  of  the  firft,  to  which  Krebs  has 
more  completely  anfwered  by  producing  a  palTage  from 
Jofephus,  in  which  lAar'/iftov  is  ufed  precifely  in  this  mean- 
ing. It  is  taken  from  the  feventh  feftion  of  his  book  on  the 
Maccabees.  Jofephus,  having  previoufiy  obferved  that 
the  blood  of  the  martyrs  had  made  atonement  for  their 
countrymen,  and  that  they  were  wo-tte^  mt^vxov  (vidima 
fubftjtuta)  tt;?  Ta  eS-j/s?  a^.a^jja?.  Continues  as  follows,  y,xi 

avTuv  n  ^iioi  zy^ouoix  rov  lo-^anA  ^ii<ru<ri.  The  fecond  de- 
mand '"^  is  too  unreafonable  to  deferve  any  anfwer,  fince 
it  implies  that  the  writers  of  the  New  Teftament  have 
never  preferred  the  claffical  meaning  of  a  word  to  that 
which  is  given  it  by  the  Seventy.  It  occafioned  however 
Krebs  to  waver  in  his  opinion,  as  he  could  find  no  paf- 
fage  in  the  Septuagint,  where  iA«rr^»ov  was  ufed  precifely 
m  this  meaning,  though  it  is  not  impoffible  that  the  Se- 
venty, in  ufing  this  exprcffion  for  niDJ,  intended  to 
convey  the  additional  idea  of  expiation.  But  an  anfwer 
may  be  given  by  quoting  a  paffage  from  Symmach-us, 
who,  though  he  wrote  better  Greek  than  either  the 
Seventy,  Aquila,  or  Theodotion,  is  not  to  be  wholly 
excluded  from  the  clafs  of  Hebraic  writers.  Even 
Montfaucon  allows  that  his  writings  are  not  free  from 

He- 

y  In  his  Eflay  de  Tnterpretatlone  Grammatica  Librarura  imprimis  Sacro- 
rum,  p.  224.  of  his  Opiilcula  Philologico  Critica. 


1 88  Language  of  the  New  Teftameut.     chap,  iv, 

Hebraifms,  though  they  occur  but  feldom,  "  Hebraifmos 
raro  fedlatur^".  This  Symmachus  has  tranfluted  fT^DDI 
*1£)3^,  iA«(r£K  »A«r>ip4o^ '^,  Gen.  vi.  14. 

But  after  the  learned  labours  of  many  eminent  critics, 
it  might  be  fuppofed  that  the  fubjed  was  exhaufted,  and 
that  all  the  paiFages  of  the  claffic  authors,  which  tend  to 
illuftrate  the  obfcurities  of  the  New  Teftament,  were  al- 
ready collefted.  Yet  I  can  declare  from  my  own  ex- 
perience, that  what  remains  to  be  executed,  is  fufficient 
to  engage  the  attention  of  future  critics :  fince  during  the 
ieifure  hours  which  I  have  been  able  to  beftow  on  the 
reading  of  the  claflics,  I  have  fcledled  for  this  purpofe 
from  the  Greek  writers  as  many  examples  hitherto  un- 
quoted, as  would  fill  a  volume  in  the  manner  of  Raphel. 
Nor  is  an  exception  to  be  made  to  the  authors  whofe 
works  have  been  before  extradled  ;  it  is  true,  that  Philo 
and  Jofephus  have  been  ufed  to  great  advantage,  but  the 
gleanings  which  remain  to  be  collefted,  are  perhaps  of 
more  value  than  the  harveft  already  gathered. 

The  word  T^apanAiiToj*  affords  a  proof  of  the  foregoing 
obfervation.  Ernefti  has  very  properly  remarked,  that 
it  fignifies  neither  Advocate  nor  Comforter,  and  adds, 
ego  certiflimum  arbitror  73-ap«xA>]Tov,  ubi  de  Spiritu  San6lo 
dicitur,  nihil  aliud  fignificare  quam  dodtorem,  magiftrum, 
divinaeque  veritatis  interpretem.  I  agree  with  him  in 
his  opinion  of  the  impropriety  of  the  common  tranflation, 
though,  inftead  of  dodior  or  magifter,  I  would  rather 
ufe  monitor.  The  meaning  which  he  has  given  it,  has 
been  adopted  by  many,  yet  his  mode  of  demonftration 
is  fomewhat  extraordinary,  for,  inftead  of  attempting  to 
difcover  73-«paxA»)T0f  in  a  claffic  author,  and  explain  its 
meaning  from  adual  ufe,  he  has  recourfe  to  the  verb 
from  which  it  is  derived,  and  the  affiftance  of  a  pretended 
Hebraifm  "^.  He  fays,  the  Jews  borrowed  the  word 
t0^bp"l£3  from  the  Greeks,  and  that  this  word  was  proba- 
bly ufed  by  Chrift  himfelf.  But  a''7p")iD  is  taken  in  the 
Chaldee  language  in  no  other  fenfe  than  that  of  Advo- 
cate, 

■^  Pijellminarla  in  Hexapla  Oiiginis,  p.  54.  Cap.  vi.  §  5. 
a  John  xiv.  16. 


SECT.  XIV.     Language  of  the  New  Tejiament.  189 

cate  ^  and  if  Chrift,  in  fpeaking  Chaldee,  made  ufe  of 
Praklitaj  Ernefti's  own  argument  is  a  proof  againft  him  *7. 
If  TTOipayiXnTog,  according  to  the  rule  which  he  has  pre- 
fcribed  in  explaining  jA«r»ip»op,  can  have  no  other  mean- 
ing than  that  which  is  given  it  by  the  Seventy,  or  Jewifh 
Greek  writers,  the  inference  is  equally  unfavourable,  for 
the  Seventy  have  ufed  arapaxA^iTopEf,  Aquila  and  Theodo- 
tion  z^xpcoiXvTQi  for  the  Hebrew  D\!Dni*3,  which  fignifies 
*  Comforter,'  Job  xvi.  2.  But  the  fenfe  of  -ziyxpxKXnTog  in 
the  New  Teftament,  may  be  determined  at  once  from 
the  authority  of  a  Greek  writer,  whom  Ernciti  compared 
with  Plato  and  Demofthenes,  and  who  thought  his  lan- 
guage too  pure  to  have  been  underftood  by  St.  Paul. 
Philo  de  Mundi  Opificio,  p.  5.  of  the  edition  by  Mangey, 
has  the  following  palTage :  Ov^ivi  -uya^axXimw,    (tj?  ya.^  w 

tTiPog  ;)  [xoiw  sT'  E«UTw  ^^n<ra[ji.!]/og  o  0fo?  lyvco  ^iiu  ivioyiTtiv 
UTa.[ji.iiVToig  Kui  ■zs-Aacnat?  ^x^kti  rrjt  ai/£U  ^cj^ix;  ■S'iiaf  (pvc-fu 
tTTtAavEH/  t^  £auT>if  H^ivog  ayx^x  ^vuxy.ii/rw,   where  s^Bui  "sa,- 

f  axArjTw  evidently  fignifies  fine  monitore,  or  nemine  mo- 
nente  ".  This  paflage  Ernefti  had  undoubtedly  read, 
but  it  is  often  difficult  to  recolleft  examples  at  the  time 
their  application  might  be  ufeful,  and  hence  the  neceflity 
of  collediors,  who  fubmit  to  the  literary  labours  of  bririg- 
ing  the  fcattered  materials  as  it  were  into  a  public  trea- 
fury. 

The  moft  important  example  of  the  happy  application 
of  Greek  literature  is  offered  by  iso^vux,  Afts  xv.  20.  29. 
xxi.  25.  which  has  divided  in  religious  fentiments  whole 
churches  and  nations,  and  produced  no  trifling  uneafi- 
nefs  and  difputes  in  modern  ages.  It  is  inconceivable 
how  i7o^i/£j«,  if  it  fignifies  *  fornication,'  could  have  been 
enumerated  among  certain  matters  from  which  the  Gen- 
tile converts  to  Chriftianity  were  requefted  to  abilain, 
merely  to  avoid  offending  the  weakncfs  of  their  Jewifh 
brethren  ;  and  the  unavoidable  confequence  of  this  tranf- 
lation  is,  that  it  is  as  great  a  crime  to  eat  blood,  things 
ftrangled,  or  meats  offered  to  idols,  as  to  commit  forni- 
cation, an  opinion  which  many  divines  have  maintained 

on 

••  See  Buxtorfs  Lexicon  Talmud.  Rabbinicum,  p,  1143. 


190  Language  of  the  l^ezv  Tejiament.     chap.  iv. 

on  the  authority  of  this  text  of  fcripture,  I  have  re^ 
marked  above,  that  -n-opvEia,  in  the  fenie  of  fornication,  is 
unknown  to  the  clafiic  writers,  though  common  in  the 
Septuagint  and  the  New  Teftament ;  yet  examples  may 
be  produced  of  this  unufual  v/ord,  but  in  a  totally  dif- 
ferent meaning.  Julius  Pollux,  Lib.  IX.  §  34.  fays 
that  in  fea-port  towns,  the  E//.7rop(cu,  or  fquare  adjoining 
to  the  harbour,  where  the  merchants  aflembled  to  tranf- 
act  bufinefs,  was  divided  into  Kxirn'hHXj  x«i  Tro^^ia,  a.  xxi 
oixTifxaTOi  ay  t»?  £t7ro»,  which  has  been  tranflated,  even  in 
the  edition  of  1706,  by  ^  taverns  and  brothels,'  an  error 
arifing  from  the  too  early  ufe  of  the  New  Teftament. 
But  it  feems  incredible,  that  Julius  Pollux  Ihould  intend 
to  enumerate  houfes  of  open  debauchery  among  the 
buildings  effential  to  a  public  exchange.  Every  learner 
of  the  Greek  language  knows  that  ruopy\j  in  whatever 
fenfe  it  is  to  be  taken,  is  derived  from  vripaoo,  to  purchafe, 
and  the  Etymologicum  magnum  may  be  confulted  un- 
der the  article  s/lspyuy  to  fell.  KaTrrAtia  and  ra-opi/ao.  evi- 
dently denote  *  wine-houfes'  and  *  cooks-fhops,'  which, 
as  Pollux  fays,  were  likewife  called  oiv.n[j.ix,r<x.  Uopvuoc. 
therefore,  in  conjun6lion  with  zthjctoi/  and  aijuta,  fignifies 
meat  fold  in  the  public  fiiops,  or  in  the  open  market  (in 
the  fame  manner  as  x°'P"«^  fignifies  '  pork,'  for  the  word 
is  properly  an  adjeftive,  and  is  ufed  as  fuch  by  a  Greek 
poet "  of  the  middle  ages)  which  the  Jews  fcrupled  to  eat, 
through  the  fear  of  its  being  part  of  an  animal  which  had 
been  Sacrificed  in  a  heathen  temple  '^ 

James  v.  12.  Above  all  things,  my  brethren,  fwear 
not,  neither  by  heaven,  neither  by  the -earth,  neither  by 
any  other  oath ;  but  let  your  yea  be  yea,  and  your  nay, 
nay,  iva  fxr,  n?  vn-onpio-tv  TSi<rnTiy  where  uTroxpjo-tf  has  been 
rendered  by  '  diffimulation,'  and  no  one  has  had  recourf^ 
to  the  clalTic  writers,  who  ufe  it  in  the  fenle  of  *  anfwer.' 
TTTcupiuofAon  is  ufed  by  Herodotus  in  the  fame  fenfe  as 

a'7roxpiuo[ji.O'A.    See  Book  I.  Cll.  II.  mg  ^i  uTTOxpiyccaB-xi.    It  is 

ufed  in  the  fame  fenfe  by  Homer,  and  in  the  Lexicon  of 

Apol- 

«  See  Du  Frefne  GloITanum  mediae  et  infimae  Graecltatls,  p.  1204. 


SECT.  XIV.     Language  of  the  New  Tejiamenf,  191 

Apollonius'*  on  Homer,  p.  812.  is  the  following  paffage, 

vopa  TO  WiZAaiiOi'  8to»  u(nrsp  airoKoiTOii  n<TOC¥y 

So  likewiie  Suidas,  Tom.  III.  p.  556.  Alberti  alfo  has 
tranflated  vnoK^ivoy-cn,  refpondeo,  Matth.  vi.  1.  This 
paflage  therefore  of  St.  James  fignifies,  ^  fwear  not,  but 
fpeak  the  fimple  truth,  that  ye  may  not  be  guilty  of  a 
crime  in  anfwering.*     TTroxpji/o^wai  is  ufed  in  the  fame 

fenfe,  Ifaiah  iii.   6.    kxi  VTroKpi^iig  iv  tyi  ^f^ipa  ixmvi   tpu   ax 

i<roiJi.<xi  0-8  ap-xyiyo?,  where  fome  of  the  manufcripts  have 
«7rox/)tS-H?*°.  From  uTroxpiKo-S-at,  in  the  fenfe  of  refpondeo, 
is  borrowed  the  meaning  of  vrroKpirr,';  in  the  phrafe  vn-n- 
>cp*T-/5?«v£ipw^*,  an  interpreter  of  dreams,  properly  one  who 
anfwers  when  confulted  on  a  dream.  This  may  be 
applied  to  explain  yn-oxpiTat,  Matth.  xvi.  3.  Luke  xii.  56. 
where,  inftead  of  having  reference  to  dreams,  it  refers  to 
the  weather,  or  the  feafons".  But  this  application  of 
the  pafTage  in  Lucian  is  already  known  ^. 

In  explaining  Rom.  x.  18.  which  is  taken  from  Pfalm 
xix.  5.  the  commentators  have  not  been  able  to  aflign  a 
reafon  why  D^i2  is  tranflated  by  the  Seventy  0  ipSo-yyo? 
auTw>**.     Some  have  contended  that  1p  may  fignify  *  a 

found,'  from  the  Arabic  xy>"  ^  to  cry  aloud :'  but  this  is  a 
grammatical  error,  for  the  Hebrew  quiefcents  in  the  third 
radical  He,  correspond  not  to  the  Arabic  verbs  in  He, 
but  to  thofe  in  Vau  or  Je  *'.     Others  are  of  opinion, 

that 

i  Apollonli  Sophlftae  Lexicon  Grsecum  Iliadis  et  Odyffeae,  e  Codlce  MS. 
Sangermanenfi  in  lucem  vindicavit  Johannes  Baptifta  Caiparus  d'  Anfle  de 
Villoifon.  Lutetiae  Parifiorum,  1773. 

<=  Luciani  Scmnium,  §  17.  Tom.  I.  p.  zz.  ed.  Reitz, 

f  Raphel  in  his  Annotationes  ck  Herodoto  has  thus  applied  it  in  a  note  to 
Luke  xii.  56. 


191  Language  of  the  New  Tejlament.     chap.  rv. 

that  the  Seventy  read  not  Dip  but  D^lp,  but  this  opi- 
nion is  improbable,  as  *71p,  which  occurs  fo  frequently, 
is  no  where  tran dated  (p^oyyoq.  Now  if  we  refer  to  the 
Greek  writers  for  the  ufe  of  (p^oyyo^y  the  whole  becomes 
clear.  Ic  ffgnifies,  i.  the  tone  of  a  mufical  inftrument; 
1.  the  firing  itfelf  which  produces  the  found  *^     Jofe- 

phus  Andquit.  VII.  12.  3.  vi  ju.f^  xii^upa  J'sKap^opfJaj?  i^vfJ-fJ^ivn 
.  .  .  .  v  ^i  naQXK  ^uxinx   (p^oyys<;  i^acra,,  where  ^B^oyyo;  and 

Xop^^  have  manifeflly  the  fame  meaning  *^  Another  in- 
ftance  may  be  taken  from  Theodoret^,  who,  though  an 
ecclefiaftical  writer,  had  the  Greek  language  at  his  com- 
mand, and  in  this  paflage  has  certainly  not  borrowed 

from  the  §eptuagint  *'^,  Ava  St^x  fS-oy-ya?  y.xi  xurri  (i/auAa) 
xoLKuvn  (mvvpx)  i-x}^.  Lucian  de  Fofiione  Mhmi,  §  6. 
Vol.  III.  p.  640.  of  the  edition  of  Reitz,  fpeaking  of  the 
accompaniment  of  mufical  inftruments,  ufes  <phoyyo(;  in 
the  fame  fenfe  *^.  The  Seventy  therefore  might  very 
properly  ufe  it  for  1p,  which  fignifies  originally  '  thread,* 
and  is  applied  to  the  firings  of  an  harp,  which  were  firfl 
made  of  twifled  hemp  *^  The  idea  of  the  mufic  of  the 
heavens  was  Pythagorean,  and  therefore  not  unknown  in 
Egypt :  it  is  likewife  ufed  by  Philo  in  his  treatife  Quod 
a  Deo  mittantur  fomnia,  Tom.  1.  p.  625. 

The  word  J.xaiw/!>i«  prefents  us  with  an  example  of  a 
different  kind,  which  I  give  rather  as  a  conjedure  than  as 
an  inftance  on  which  I  could  venture  to  fpeak  with  cer- 
tainty. There  are  two  palTages  in  the  epiftle  to  the  Ro- 
mans, where  the  meaning  ufually  afcribed  to  this  word 
in  the  Septuagint  and  the  New  Tcflament  feems  to  be 
unfuitable  to  the  context.  Rom.  v.  18.  Judgement  came 
upon  all  to  condemnation,  <?»  tvo?  zra^aTrrw^aTOf,  but  the 
free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  juflification  of  life,  §\ 
£vo?  omxiufjiXTog,  which  is  tranflated  per  unum  reftefac- 
tum,  or  per  unius  reftefadum.  The  queflion  here  na- 
turally arifes,  in  what  did  this  fingl :  -meritorious  adlion 
confift  ?  AixxiufAx  in  the  fenfe  of  jecle  faftum  feems 
not  perfectly  applicable  to  the  pafTive  obedience  of  Chrifl 
(as  it  is  called  by  the  Dogmatifts),  in  fuffering  death  on 

the 
t  Qaseftio  34.  in  Lib,  jtrom  jRegum, 


sr.cr.  XIV.     Language  of  the  New  Tejiament.  193 

the  crofs,  and  his  aftive  obedience  confifted  not  in  a 
fingle  good  a6lion  only,  but  in  a  continued  feries  of  vir- 
tuous deeds,  and  an  inviolable  obfervation  of  the  will  of 
God,  under  all  temptations  to  the  contrary ''.  Wolf,  the 
philologer,  and  Senior  of  Hamburg,  makes  an  unfuccefs- 
ful  attempt  to  explain  it  by  the  fHcisra6lio  of  Ariflotle, 
who  meant  that  J'ocatw^aa  ought  not  to  fignify  a  virtuous 
aftion,  but  atonement  for  a  vitious  aftion :  but  as  ety- 
mology is  Icfs  prevalent  than  cuftom,  in  determining  the 
life  of  words,  ^mxtufj^a.  preferved  the  fame  meaning  after 
che  time  of  Ariftotle  as  before.  There  is  equal  difficulty 
in  explaining  the  other  paflage,  Rom.  viii.  4,  where  God 
is  faid  to  have  punifhed  fin  in  Chrift,  iva,  to  ^ixaiuy-a  ta 

vofAH  zrXv^oo^v  Ef  ijM.(v  T0(?  [xn   xara,  ■irot^y^x   ■aripnra.THO-i  aXXce, 

Hxrx  oTuviJix.  Now  the  queftion  is,  how  ^ik(xiuiji.cc  m  vo^At 
•cm  be  fulfilled  in  us,  fince  St.  Paul  contends  that  0  voiJi.og, 
the  law  itfelf  is  abolifhcd'.  Some  of  the  commentators 
fay  that  J^ixaico/xaTa  fignifies  thofe  precepts  of  the  law 
which  are  at  the  fame  time  agreeable  to  the  law  of  na- 
ture ;  but  this  interpretation  is  very  arbitrary.  Grotius 
contended  that  ^mcciuy-ccrx  relates  to  the  Levitical  and 
Civil  law  of  the  Jews,  which  was  as  pofitively  denied  by 
Hammond ;  this  is  certain  that  the  Seventy  ufe  it  indif- 
ferendy  for  pn  and  LiQt^^,  and  Hebr.  ix.  i.  it  relates  un- 
doubtedly to  the  Levitical  dodrines.  But  both  of  the 
above-mentioned  palTages  become  perfedly  clear,  as  foon 
as  we  afcribe  to  ^ikcau[/.oc  a  fenfe  in  which  it  was  frequently 
ijfed  by  the  clalTic  writers,  namely^  that  of '  punifhment,' 
or  *  condemnation  to  punifhment/  The  firfl  inftance 
then,  Rom.  v.  18.  will  fignify  '  as  by  the  offence  of  one, 
judgement  came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation,  even 
fo  by  the  punifhment  to  which  one  perfon  fubmitted, 
the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  juilificaticn  of  life.' 
The  other  nflance,  Rom.  viii.  3,  4.  '  God  fending  his 
own  Son  in  the  likeriefs  of  fmful  flefh,  condemned  fin  in 
the  flefh  :  that  the  condemnation  of  the  law  might  be 
fulfilled  in  us,  who  walk  not  after  the  fiefh,  but  after  the 

Spirit.' 

h  See  my  Treatlfe  on  Dogmatic  Theology,  §  133. 
'  Ch,  vi,  vii»  viii, 

N 


194  Language  of  the  New  Teflament.     chap.  iv. 

Spirit.'  The  condemnation  of  the  law  is,  that  fin,  or,  as  St. 
Paul  exprefies  it,  the  deeds  of  the  body,  fhall  die.  The 
paflages  from  profane  authors,  in  which  S^t^xk^^x  is  ufed 
in  this  fenfe,  may  be  feen  in  the  122  fedion  of  my 
Theologia  Dogmatica'':  Suidas  likewife  may  be  confult- 
cd,  Tom.  I.  p.  586.  under  (^tKa»av,  587.  ^jnatao-av  and  Si- 
xa»w/A«T»,  at  the  end  of  the  article  ^^nancixot.  P.  679.  tJ^t- 
itatuh<rxv  and  f^ixatwcrav.  Alfo  Julius  Pollux,  Lib.  VIII. 
§  25.  Thucydides,  Lib.  VIII.  c.  Ixvi.  with  Weffcling's 
note,  Herodotus,  Lib.  I.  c.  xhi.  Lib.  V.  c.  xcii.  §  2.-  1 
will  quote  the  words  of  this  lafl  paflage,  becaufe  the  Latin 
tranflation  even  in  Wcfleling's  edition  is  falfe.  The  oracle 
foretelling  that  Kypfelus,  a  cruel  tyrant,  would  rule  over 
the  Corinthians,  fays  '  Labda  will  conceive  and  bring  forth 
aftone,  that  will  fall  hard  on  the  party  of  the  nobles,'  ^j- 
iixiwtrn  Si  Ko^.vSov.  Now  it  is  evident  from  the  fcquel  that 
puniet  Corinthum,  not  emendabit  Corinthum,  is  the 
proper  tranflation :  for  it  is  fald,  §  5.  that  Kypfelus,  hav- 
ing made  himfelf  mafter  of  the  fovereign  authority,  ba- 
nilhed  many  of  the  Corinthians,  deprived  many  of  tjieir 
property,  and  ftill  more  of  their  lives ;  fuch  a  tyrant  can 
hardly  be  faid  urbem  emendare  *'. 

Such  inftances  occur  continually  in  reading  the  claffic 
authors ;  and  whenever  the  avocations  of  my  profeffion 
prevent  me  from  taking  proper  notice  of  them,  I  cannot 
help  lamenting  that  we  have  not  more  critics,  who  follow 
the  examples  of  Raphel,  Carpzov,  and  Kypke.  Horne- 
mann  of  Copenhagen  has  made  Philo  his  particular  fludy, 
and,  had  he  met  with  more  encouragement,  would 
perhaps  have  rendered  great  fervice  to  biblical  criticifm. 
But  of  all  the  claffic  authors,  which  deferve  to  be  fludied, 
with  a  view  of  illuflrating  the  New  Teftament,  Plato 
ftands  in  the  fore  mod  rank,  from  whofe  works  many  ob- 
fcure  paiTages  of  the  New  Teftament  might  receive  the 
greateft  light.  Nor  do  I  confine  my  wifhes  for  the  pro- 
motion of  exegetical  learning  to  Univerfity  Profeflbrs, 
who  are  too  often  prevented  by  multiplicity  of  bufinefs 
from  quitting  the  beaten  path  in  fearch  of  critical  difco- 

veries. 

fc  Or  S  16  J.  of  the  German  edition. 


S5CT.  XIV.     Language  of  the  New  Tejlament,  195 

veries.  The  paftoral  office  of  the  country  clergy  fills  only 
a  fmall  portion  of  their  time,  and  as  happinefs  confifts 
in  the  continual  exercife  of  our  talents,  it  might  be  hoped 
that  many  would  employ  their  learning  and  their  leifure 
in  the  purfuit  of  inquiries,  where  they  would  be  natu- 
rally rewarded  by  the  fatisfaftion  of  making  new  difco- 
veries,  and  by  an  honourable  rank  in  the  republic  of  let- 
ters. The  ftudy  of  a  Greek  author  is  in  itfelf  agreeable 
and  ufeful,  and  it  muft  be  doubly  interefting  to  a  clergy- 
man, if,  befide  the  pleafure  arifing  from  the  author  itfelf, 
he  reads  with  the  particular  view  of  contributing  to  ex- 
plain a  work  of  fuch  importance  as  the  New  Teftament. 
But  in  refearches  of  this  nature,  care  muft  be  taken  to 
colled  only  what  is  new,  and  elucidate  what  is  really 
obfcure. 

Little  ufe  has  hitherto  been  made  of  the  Greek  in- 
fcriptions,  and  here  the  wideft  field  is  open  for  a  theolo- 
gical critic,  as  moft  of  them  afford  afllftance  in  expound- 
ing words  which  are  not  purely  claiTic.  Gefner,  in  fome 
of  his  fpeeches  before  the  Academy  of  Sciences  at  Got- 
tingen,  has  made  a  very  happy  applicadon  of  feveral 
infcriptions  taken  from  Pococke  to  difficult  paffages  of 
the  New  Teftament,  and  it  is  to  be  fincerely  wiihed  that 
others  might  be  induced  to  follow  his  example. 

After  all  the  learned  labours  of  the  commentators  on 
the  New  Teftament,  there  ftill  remain  numerous  words 
and  phrafes  where  it  is  necefTary  either  to  confirm  the  old 
or  difcover  a  new  meaning  by  examples  from  the  Greek 
authors,  in  which  they  are  ufed  in  a  fimilar  connexion.  A 
man  verfed  in  the  writings  of  the  Greeks  will  often  find 
in  the  New  Teftament  expreffions  which,  though  they 
found  not  foreign  to  his  ear,  he  is  unable  to  confirm  by 
authoriues.     Of  fuch  the  following  are  examples  ^°. 

A(p£(J^u!i',  inteftinum  re6lum^',  Match,  xv,  17.  Mark 
vii.  1 9.  which  moft  of  the  commentators  have  very  falfcly 
explained,  not  excepting  Wetftein,  who,  from  an  omii- 
fion  in  his  quotation  from  Suidas,  has  proved  the  con- 
trary of  what  he  intended  to  demonftrate  '^,  might  re- 
ceive great  light  from  the  works  of  the  Greek  phyficians  ", 
N  2  from 


19^  Language  of  the  New  Tejiament.     chap.  iv. 

from  which  we  might  clifcover,  whether  c-ipirJpuu  were  not 
lomctimcs  ufcd  in  a  more  extcnfivc  fenfe  for  the  intef- 
tines  in  general,  it  being  an  old  objeftion  to  this  fpeech 
of  Chriit,  that  animal  food  is  not  concofted  in  the  in- 
teftiniim  reftum  '^.  It  niurt  however  be  confefled  that 
the  Greek  word  is  not  fo  decifive  in  the  prefent  inftance,  ' 
as  the  Syriac  word  IL^mljiL'^,  which  was  ufed  by  Chrift 
on  this  occafion. 

Mark  iv.  29.  otixv  ■sra^xS'.o.  I  have  found  two  examples' 
which  are  applicable  to  this  phrafe,  but  a  clear  and  deci- 
five inftanre  is  flili  wanting. 

Luke  xi.  33.  x^vTnn.  This  word  fails  even  in  the 
Lexicons  which  have  been  compofed  for  the  New  Tefla- 
ment,  fuch  as  Pafor's,  and  others  of  like  nature,  the  reafon 
of  which  probably  is,  that  feveral  copies  •  have  x/jutttov. 
But  jtpuTTTrjv  is  the  moft  ufual,  and  I  believe,  the  true 
reading ;  it  is  therefore  extraordinary  that  no  notice 
fhould  be  taken  of  it,  not  only  by  the  Lexicographers, 
but  alfo  by  many  of  the  commentators  on  the  New  Tef- 
tament.  Its  meaning  is  undoubtedly  the  fame  as  that  of 
the  Latin  v/ord  crypta,  as  Stephanus  has  properly  ob- 
ferved  in  his  Thefaurus.  And  this  meaning  is  admirably 
adapted  to  the  context :  an  honeft  man  lights  not  his 
candle  in  a  vault,  but  in  an  open  houfe.  But  no  example 
has  hitherto  been  produced  where  jcoutttti  is  ufed  by  a 
Greek  author.  Now  I  found  an  inftance  in  Strabo, 
Lib.  V.  p.  377.  (or  246.)  Siupv^  xpvnTriy  and  another  in 

Jofephus,  Antiquit.  XV.   I  I.  7.  XiXTfo-XEuao-S-/;  ^s  kxi  y.pv7nn 

iiupv^.  But  thefe  are  not  quite  fatis factory '7,  apvirrri  be- 
ing ufed  as  an  adjeftive,  whereas  in  the  above  paiTage  of 
.St.  Luke  it  is  ufed  as  a  fubftantive  ;  but  I  acknowledge 

this 

1  An  anonymous  Gitek  trauflator  in  Montfaacon's  Hexapla  Origenis 
has,  ¥)  avx-n  «  y.-zi  '^x^a.a^  rov  y.ag'Trov,  Habbak.uk  iii,  17.  He  fecms  to 
have  read  n"13/1>  ^"'^  '^^*  "'^'''  '^sx^cx.hoo-.cn  nearly  in  the  fame  fcnfe  as 
St.  Mark,  with  this  diticicnce  that  the  verb  is  followed  by  an  acciifative, 
which  the  latter  lias  omitted  3^.  The  other  example  is  in  Philo  de  Mundi 
Opififio,  Tom.  I.  p.  9.  where,  after  defcribing  the  caufes  of  the  growth 
of  fruit,  he  adds  ■creo?  oyy.oy  iTrth^Hc;  tsX£iot«tov.  It  is  true  that  the  com- 
pound word  ufed  by  Philo  is  not  the  fame  as  that  in  St.  Mark,  nor  are  the 
two  coultiuiilions  wholly  fimilar. 


SECT.  XIV.       Language  of  the  New  Tejiament.  197 

this  to  be  rather  a  cafe  of  curiofity,  than  a  matter  of 
doubt.  If  no  example  can  be  produced  from  a  claffic 
author,  it  is  probable  that  the  ufe  of  k^utth  as  a  fubftan- 
tive,  was  peculiar  to  the  Greeks  of  Italy  and  Sicily,  from 
whofe  dialeil  it  was  transferred  to  the  Latin  language, 
and  jcfUTTTn  may  in  that  refped  be  referred  to  the  Latin- 
ifms  of  St.  Luke. 

Luke  xvii.  20.  tB-aparnpn-ri?  is  hitherto  without  exam« 
pie  '%  nor  is  it  to  be  found  in  the  Lexicons  of  Suidas  and 
Julius  Pollux,  though  the  former  has  ■sTy-^a.Tv.^nfA.onx^^. 
Its  meaning  therefore  can  be  had  only  from  conje6lure, 
and  the  opinions  of  the  learned  have  been  very  different. 

John  i.  13.  Required  an  example  where  ai/Aa  is  ufed  in 
the  plural  number,  and  in  a  fimilar  fenfe  "^^ 

John  i.  14.  (r«p^  £<y£!/£To.  In  the  fentences  of  Secundus, 
p.  88.  of  Schier's  edition,  is  ;/«?  (Tsaoipxcoy-n^ogy  and  p.  92. 
ffio-apKccixivr]  iVTvx^cc*\  But  I  wifli  to  have  an  inftance 
where  the  thought  is  exprefled  in  the  fame  words. 

John  i.  16.  x°^P^^  *''''''  X^P^'''^^^'"' 

John  ii.  19.  Required  an  example  where  vao?  is  ufed  for 
a  body  containing  a  divine  foul.  Examples  mufb  be 
fought  among  the  Pythagorean  writers'^'.  See  alfo  Som- 
nium  Scipionis,  c.  viii'". 

John  iii.  13.  Required  an  example  where  siuon  is  ufed 
in  the  fenfe  of  *  to  dwell,'  and  apphed  to  a  perfon  re- 
moved from  his  place  of  abode  "^K 

John  iv.  37.  Required  an  example  where  tivoci  tv  is  ufed 
to  exprefs  the  fulfilling  of  a  proverbial  faying'^**. 

Adts  VU.  53.  vofj.ov  Ax^Qa-uiiv  £i?  ^ixraycii  ayfskuin   I  havC 

coUeded  many  examples  not  generally  known,  which 
tend  to  illuftrate  fingle  words  in  this  paiTage ;  but  I  wiih 
to  fee  an  example  of  the  whole  paffage,  any  other  geni- 
tive being  ufed  inftead  of  ocyhxm  '^^ 

KocTocpynu  as  ufed  by  St.  Paul*^  See  the  beginning  of 
tlK  8'\  §  of  this  chap,  and  Le  Clerc'snote  to  Rom.  vi.  16. 

Rom. 

a>  There  is  a  fimilar  though  rot  the  fame  expreflion  in  Philo,  Tom.  I. 
p.  197.     Likewile  in  the  Syriac  Chreftomathy,  p.   5.   Chrift  is  called  the 
temple  of  the  eternal  fon :  but  this  perhaps  was  borrowed  from  the  paflage 
in  qiicllion,  and  therefore  not  pure  Syriac  44, 
N    3 


198  Language  of  the  New  Tejiament.       chap.  iV. 

Rom.  V.  1.  Ephef.  ii.  18,  iii.  12.  ■mpoc-ayooyv.  This 
word  feeins  to  me  to  exprefs  the  privilege  of  approach  to 
the  perfon  of  an  Oriental  fovereign,  in  the  fame  manner 
as  entree  is  fometimes  ufed  in  French.  Examples  may- 
be found  of  ■sypoo-ocyooyivg,  but  none  of  ■arpoo-ocyuyYi  ufed  in 

this  fenfc".     A  pafiage  in  Diodorus  Siculus  5°,  Lib.  11. 

C.  58.  ■uTxvt^yvpug  nai  TZOf/.'Trcx.g  koh  -arpuG-otyuiyccq  is  noc  wholly 

applicable  to  the  ufe  of  z^i-occcyuyvt  by  St.  Paul.  Another 
paifage  in  Thucydidcs,  Lib.  I.  82.  is  here  of  no  ufe. 

Rom.  V.  1.  tv  V  is-7\KaiJ,iv,  Required  an  example  where 
this  phrafe  is  ufed  in  a  fimilar  connexion  '*. 

Rom.  v.4.'^o>ci((/,r],  Required  an  example,  from  which  we 
might  determine  which  of  the  three  ufual  explanations  is 
moll  analogous  to  the  ufage  of  the  Greek  language.  But 
there  is  little  hope  of  an  anfwer  to  this  query,  as  J^oxj^aTi 
feems  to  be  a  word  peculiar  to  St.  Paul  ^*. 

Rom.  V.  5.    »)  ocyxiry)   tjj   0£8    £)iX£p^UTai   tv   rociq  xxphxiq 

r/Awv  Sid  zsvi\)y.(x.Toq  ayia.  We  are  generally  informed  by 
the  commentators  whence  this  expreffion  might  have 
taken  its  origin,  but  an  inftance  oi  its  aftual  ufe  would 
be  much  more  fatisfactory  ^'. 

Rom.  vi.  17.  TSTup(x,hvo(,i  EI2  TUTTov,  on  the  fuppofition 
that  the  common  conftruftion  is  the  true  one,  and  to  be 
preferred  to  the  amendment  propofed  by  Kypke  ^^. 

Rom.  viii.  4,  5.  Can  v.ap7ro(popvi<yai  be  here  ufed  in  the 
fenfe  of  pario,  and  did  St.  Paul  intend  to  exprefs  the  no- 
tion of  marrying  Sin  to  bear  children  to  Death  ?  I  really 
believe  he  did".  See  the  43^  Sentence  of  Demophilus, 
and  Philo  de  Dei  immutabilitate,  Tom.  I.  p.  273.  but 
I  wifh  to  have  an  inftance  in  which  y.a,p-n:o<popn(Ton  itfelf  is 
ufed. 

Rom.  xiii.  12.  orXa  (ptaroq^^. 

Rom.  XV.  28.   (T(ppa.yi(Tocfji.ivog  aVTOig  rov  nocpTTOV  ^^, 
Rom.  xvi.  25.  fvjpj^a*  xaTa^^ 

I  Cor.  iii.  i.  ffocpmvoi  (according  to  the  beft  authorities 
for  o-apjujtot).  Required  an  example  of  this  word  in  a  fenfe 
fuitabie  to  the  paffage  in  St.  Paul^'. 

I  Cor.  vii.  18.  £v  TO  J?  roinToigj  thefb  words  are  generally 

jr^flated  '  in  fuch  cafes.'    But  the  expreffion  is  attended 

—       ■  ^jj.|^ 


SECT.  XIV.      Language  of  the  New  Tejiament.  199 

with  obfcurity,  which  I  wifii  to  fee  removed  by  an  ex- 
ample ^°. 

1  Cor.  iv.  I.  In  fix  manufcripts,  among  which  arc 
the  Alexandrine  and  the  Clermont,  is  read  fyitaxa/xEp  ^^. 
This  word  is  found  only  in  Symmachus  and  Theodotion, 
Gen.  xxvii.  46.  Numb.  xxi.  5.  Prov.  iii.  11.  where  it 
has  the  fame  meaning  with  iK^ocxuv  "^S  but  this  fenfe  is 
not  very  fuitable  to  the  context  of  the  prefent  paflage, 

for  the  two  exprefllons  sk  ly^xKHfxiVy  and  aTnnray-z^a,  TX 
xpvTTToe,  TYiq  ona-x^vniy  being  connected  by  axxeny  nece0arily 
imply  an  antithefis,  which  can  hardly  be  difcovered  be- 
tween *  perfeverance'  and  the  '  avoiding  of  infamy '^^* 
Perhaps  iyxxKnv  is  capable  of  another  meaning,  that  of 
falling  into  evil,  which  is  analogous  to  its  derivation,  and 
well  adapted  to  the  connexion  ^'^. 

Ephef.  i.  10.  oivuKitpoiXxiuiTcci  is  ufed  in  a  fenfe  which 
is  hitherto  lupported  by  mere  conjefture  ^^,  that  which 
is  advanced  by  Raphel,  Koppe,  and  others,  being  inap- 
plicable to  this  paflage. 

Queries  of  this  nature  will  very  frequently  occur,  in 
reading  the  New  Teflament,  to  every  man  who  is  able 
to  judge  for  himfelf,  and  therefore  capable  of  doubt. 
The  foregoing  have  been  propofed,  not  with  a  view  of 
exciting  conje6lures  in  what  manner  the  fcveral  paflages 
may  be  explained,  where  we  have  no  reafon  to  complain 
of  a  deficiency,  but  in  the  hope  of  feeing  them  con- 
firmed by  the  difcovery  of  adlual  examples,  not  merely 
fingle  words  but  entire  phrafes.  As  feveral  of  the  doubts, 
which  I  have  propofed  in  a  former  edition  of  this  work, 
I  have  been  fmce  able  to  folve,  and  omit  therefore  in 
the  prefent,  there  is  reafon  to  believe  that  future  critics 
will  produce  a  folution  of  thofe  which  have  been  here 
enumerated,  provided  they  avoid  the  common  error  of 
expounding  what  is  clear  in  itfelf,  or  giving  a  tenth  ex- 
planation of  a  paflage  which  has  been  nine  times  ex- 
plained before,  and  diredt  their  attention,  in  fludying 
the  claflic  authors,  to  fuch  words  and  phraf(?s  of  the  New 
Teftament,  as  have  been  hitherto  confirmed  by  no  au- 
thorities ^^ 

N  4  CHAP. 


2O0  Rotations  from  the  Old  Tcfiament^     chap,  v, 

CHAP.      V. 

OF    THE    QUOTATIONS    FROM     THE     OLD    TESTAMENT    IN 
THE    NEW. 


SECT.      I. 

Of  faffages  horrowedy  or  quoted  from  the  Old  Tefiament 
in  general. 

WITH  relpca  to  the  paffages  of  the  Old  Tefia- 
ment, v/hich  hav^e  been  introduced  by  the  Apof- 
tles  and  Evangelifts  into  the  writings  of  the  New,  an 
accurate  diftindlion  mufl;  be  made  between  fuch,  as  be- 
ing merely  borrowed,  are  ufed  as  the  words  of  the  writer 
himfelf,  and  fuch,  as  are  quoted  in  proof  of  a  doctrine, 
or  the  completion  of  a  prophecy. 

Whenever  a  book  is  the  fubje6t  of  our  daily  ledlure,, 
it  is  natural  that  its  phrafes  iliould  occur  to  us  in  writ- 
ing, fometimes  with  a  perfed:  recolle6lion  of  the  places, 
from  which  they  are  taken,  at  other  times,  when  the 
places  themfelves  have  totally  efcaped  our  memory. 
Thus  the  lawyer  quotes  the  maxims  of  his  Corpus  Juris, 
the  fchoolman  the  verfes  of  his  claffics,  and  the  preacher 
the  precepts  of  his  Gofpel.  It  is  no  v/onder  therefore, 
if  the  fame  has  happened  to  the  writers  of  the  New  Tef- 
tament,  who  being  daily  occupied  in  the  ftudy  of  the 
Old  Teftameni:,  uniivoidably  adopted  its  modes  of  ex- 
preffion,  or  to  fpeak  more  properly,  that  of  the  Greek 
tranOation,  which  they  have  done  in  numberlefs  exam- 
ples, where  it  is  not  perceived  by  the  generality  of 
readers,  becaufe  they  are  too  iitde  acquainted  with  the 
Septuagint.  The  moft  eminent  among  the  commenta- 
tors, efpecially  Wetftein,  have  taken  pardcular  pains  to 
mark  thefe  palfages;  many  ftill  remain  to  be  noticed, 
but,  having  neglected  in  the  courfe  of  my  reading  to 
note  thefe  omiflions,  I  am  unable  at  prefent  to  produce 
an  example.  An  attention  to  this  fubjecl  would  be  no 
unfruitful  labour,  as  many  palTages  of  the  New  Tefia- 
ment, that  were  before  obfcure  and  uncertain,  have  de- 
6      '  rived 


SECT.  I.       flotations  from  the  Old  Tefiament.  201 

rived  clearnefs  and  precifion  from  the  difcovery  of  the 
places,  from  which  they  were  taken  :  for,  though  a 
writer,  in  borrowing  and  appropriating  to  his  own  life 
the  words  of  another,  is  not  abfokitely  bound  to  apply 
them  in  the  fame  manner,  as  the  original  author,  yet 
the  application  will  in  molt  cafes  be  the  fame.  It  has 
been  a  matter  of  difpute  among  the  learned,  what  mean- 
ing fhould  be  afcribed  to  xa^a^oi,  in  the  expreffion 
y.x^xoQi  TYi  xcc^^icc,  Matth.  V.  8.  who,  it  is  laid,  iliall  fee 
God  i  and  it  has  been  commonly  interpreted  of  Chaftity, 
as  if  pure  could  have  no  other  meaning  than  chafte. 
Now  the  two  following  verfes  in  the  Pfalms,  from  which 
this  cxprelTion  is  taken,  render  the  whole  palTage  clear, 

Tif  a,K)t,Qn(riTa,i  fij  to  0^0?  ra  Ku^ta  ;  x«i  Tij  riKTSTaj  £;/  tottm 
aytu  avr-^;    AS^uog  p^£fO"i,  xai  y.xd'oc^og  nryj  Ka^tTta,  Plal,  xxiil. 

(in  the  Hebrew  xxiv.)  3,  4.  Here  we  muft  obferve, 
that  ^  to  fee  God,'  and  '  to  ftand  in  the  temple  of  God,' 
were  in  Hebrew  fynonymous,  and  a  privilege  to  be 
granted  only  to  thofe,  whole  hearts  were  as  free  from 
evil  inclinations,  as  their  hands  from  evil  aftions,  vvhich 
notion  Chrift  undoubtedly  had  in  view,  though  he  meant 
not  to  confine  the  promife  to  the  earthly,  but  to  extend  it 
to  the  heavenly  temple.  In  the  fame  manner  many  doubts 
may  be  removed  in  explaining  Matth.  v.  5.  by  referringto 
Pfalmxxxvi.  (Heb.  xxxvii.)  11.  Recourfe  has  been  had 
to  metaphyfical  fubtlety,  in  order  to  difcover  the  meaning 
of /3/1/xaj  in  the  fentence  hk  a^wxTna-ii  uu^x.  tu  ©ew  ■sra.v  ^ti/x«, 
Luke  i.  27.  and  it  has  been  contended  that  ^nfj.x  there 
fignifies  '  whatever  can  be  expreffed  by  words,'  confe- 
quently  whatever  can  be  a  fabje6t  of  thought,  or  ens  in 
oppofition  to  non  ens,  which  involves  a  contradidion, 
and  which  therefore  the  Deity  cannot  perform  ;  but  we 
fhall  ad  more  fenfibly,  if  fetting  afide  this  refinement, 
we  refer  immediately  to  Genefis  xviii.  14.  from  which 
the  whole  expreffion  is  taken,  and  where  ?»/*«  conveys 
manifeftly  the  fenfe  of  *  promife  '.' 

I  have  before  obferved,  that  every  writer  is  at  liberty 
to  apply  to  his  own  purpofe  the  words,  which  he  has  bor_ 
rowed  from  the  writings  of  another  j  a  liberty  which  w^ 

frequentl  y 


202  Rotations  from  the  Old  Teftament.     chap.  v. 

frequently  take  in  applying  pafiages  from  the  claffic  au- 
thors. The  eleventh  verfc  of  the  thirty-feventh  Pfalm 
above-mentioned  is  a  defcription  of  the  general,  though 
not  neceflary  lot  of  the  virtuous,  which  paflage  is  ap- 
plied by  Chrift  probably  in  a  determinate,  and  prophe- 
tical fenfe,  with  refpe6t  to  his  future  church ;  and  the 
paflage  in  the  twenty-fourth  Pfalm,  which  defcribes  the 
rcquifites  for  a  worthy  approach  to  an  earthly  temple,  is 
applied  by  Chrift  to  a  future  approach  to  the  Deity  in 
heaven..  Ivv.^ri  r,Ts  -ara.^  iccvToig  (p^oui[Ji.oi,  Rom.  xi.  25.  is 
probably  taken  from  Prov.  iii.  7.  but  St.  Paul  means 
felf-fufficiency  in  general,  whereas  the  text  in  the  Pro- 
verbs implies  an  oppofition  to  the  will  of  God,  /un  lo-S-t 

^flovtjM-o?  wccpa,  ciocvT'jOy  (poSa  ^i  70V  0£oi/,   y^Bci  iKy.Kivi  etTTO  ■zxav- 

TOg   XXKH. 

Without  due  attention  to  thefe  remarks,  we  are  in 
danger  of  rendering  difficult  a  matter,  which  in  itfelf  is 
eafy.  It  is  certain,  that  Rom.  x.  18.  is  borrowed  from 
Pfalm  xix.  4.  yet  whoever  impartially  reads  the  two  paf- 
fages  muft  obferve,  that  David  fpeaks  of  the  religion  of 
nature,  or  as  he  exprefles  it,  the  voice  of  the  heavens, 
whereas  St.  Paul  defcribes  the  propagation  of  the  Gofpel. 
Many  ufelefs  attempts  have  been  made  in  order  to  re- 
concile thefe  two  examples,  and  to  prove  that  they  re- 
late to  the  fame  fubjed:,  either  by  making  St.  Paul,  con- 
trary to  the  tenor  of  the  context,  fpeak  of  natural  reli- 
gion, or  David  of  revealed  religion,  for  which  purpofe 
the  heavens,  fun,  and  ftars,  have  been  taken  in  a  myfti- 
cal  fenfe,  to  denote  the  Church,  Chrift,  and  his  Apoftles. 
Daniel  Heinfius  very  juftly  obferves,  quod  tarn  ufitatum 
eft  Toif  £^w,  ut  vix  ullus  fit  Homeri  verfus,  cujus  verba 
mutato  fenfu  non  ufurpentur ;  a  remark  which  is  per- 
feftly  applicable  to  the  New  Teftament,  fince  the  verfes 
of  Homer  are  not  only  applied,  as  mentioned  by  Hein- 
fius, but  are  actually  quoted  by  the  Greeks  in  confirma- 
tion of  fafts,  efpecially  by  Strabo,  as  vouchers  for  the 
truth  of  his  geographical  defcriptionsj  yet  no  one  finds 
it  difficult  to  diftinguifh  the  fimply  borrowed  palTages, 
from  fuch  as  are  quoted  as  proofs.     In  borrowing  the 

words 


SECT.  I.      Rotations  from  the  Old  Tefldment.  203 

words  of  a  celebrated  author,  fuch  as  Cicero  forinftance, 
and  appropriating  them  to  our  own  ufe,  we  frequently 
introduce  them  with  a  phrafe  fimilar  to  the  following, 
*  to  fpeak  in  the  words  of  Cicero,'  or  '  as  Cicero  ex- 
prefles  it :'  the  Greeks  did  the  fame  with  refpeifl  to  Ho- 
mer :  and  in  the  very  fame  manner,  the  writers  of  the 
New  Teftament,  in  borrowing  the  words  of  a  facred  au- 
thor, as  Ifaiah  for  example,  might  apply  the  formula, 
^  as  is  fpoken  by  the  prophet  Ifaiah,'  without  any  defign 
of  a  quotation  in  its  more  confined  meaning. 

The  prefent  fubjedl  gives  rife  to  an  obfervatlon  re- 
Ipefting  the  difference,  which  was  made  by  the  Apoftles 
and  Evangelifts  between  the  canonical,  and  apocryphal 
books  of  the  Old  Teftament.  The  latter  feem  to  have 
formed  no  part  of  their  particular  ftudy,  as  it  would  be 
difficult,  and  perhaps  impoffible,  to  produce  a  fingle  in- 
ftance  in  the  New  Teftament,  of  a  quotation  from  the 
Apocrypha,  though  numberlefs  words,  and  phrafes  are 
common  to  both,  derived  from  the  fame  fource,  the 
Jewilh  Greek.  An  inference  deduced  from  this  remark 
will  in  the  fequel  be  applied  to  the  morality  of  the  New 
Teftament. 

In  oppofition  to  fimply  borrowed  paffages  are  under- 
ftood  quotations  in  the  proper  fenfe  of  the  word,  either 
in  proof  of  a  particular  point  of  doftrine,  or  the  comple- 
tion of  a  prophecy.  In  this  cafe  I  cannot  conceive  that 
the  fimple,  and  literal  conftru6lion  of  the  quoted  paf- 
fages  fhould  have  conveyed,  either  in  the  Greek  verfion 
or  in  the  Hebrew  original,  any  other  meaning,  than  that 
which  is  afcribed  to  them  by  the  writers  of  the  New 
Teftament.  By  the  Hebrew  original  I  underftand  not 
the  Maforetic  printed  text,  but  the  antient  genuine  text, 
and  I  readily  admit,  that  the  Seventy  and  the  writers  of 
the  New  Teftament  had  a  more  accurate  copy,  than 
that,  which  we  pofiefs  at  prefent ;  according  to  which 
accurate  copy,  the  quoted  paflages  muft  have  expreffed 
precifely  that  fenfe,  in  which  the  Apoftles  and  Evange- 
lifts have  ufed  them.  It  is  true  that  many,  who  allow 
the  divinity  of  the  New  Teftament,  have  been  of  a  dif- 

fcrenc 


204  (flotations  from  the  Old  Teft anient.       chap.  v.. 

ferent  opinion  in  antitnt  as  well  as  modern  times :  and 
difputes  have  arifen,  in  what  light  thefe  quotations  are 
to  be  regarded,  in  what  manner  they  are  to  be  defended^ 
and  even  whether  they  afford  not  an  argument  againft. 
divine  infpiration. 

The  quotation  of  paflages  from  the  Old  Teftament  in 
proof  of  a  doftrine,  to  which  in  faft  they  have  no  rela- 
tion, was  termed  by  the  antient  fathers  oeconomia,  or 
difpenfatio,  that  is,  to  fpeak  in  plain  terms,  a  logica! 
fineffe.  The  term  is  ufed  by  them  in  numberlefs  in- 
ftances,  and  whoever  is  acquainted  with  their  writings 
muft  have  obferved,  that  this  very  artifice,  which  they 
fo  much  recom-mend,  they  have  frequently  admitted  into 
their  own  writings,  by  no  means  to  the  honour  of  the 
caufe  which  they  undertook  to  fupport"^.  I  will  mention 
a  fingle  example  from  the  commentary  of  Jerom  on  Joel 
ii\  Many  were  unwilling  to  admit,  that  this  chapter 
contained  a  prophecy  of  the  communication  of  the  Holy 
Ghoft  to  the  Apoftles  on  the  day  of  Pentccofl,  which  is 
exprefsly  afierted  by  St.  Peter  in  the  fecond  chapter  of 
the  Afts,  on  which  fubjed  Jerom  writes  as  follows,  alius 
vero  apoftolic33  afferit  effc  confucrtudinis,  juxta  illud» 
quod  de  fando  viro  diclum  eft,  *  difpenfabit  fermones 
fuos  in  judicio'','  ut,  quidquid  utile  eile  auditoribus  cer- 
nebant,  et  non  repugnare  pn-efcntibus,  de  akerius  tern- 
poris  teftimoniis  roborarent :  non  quod  abuterentur  au- 
dientium  fnnphcitate  et  imperitia,  ut  impius  calumniaba  - 
tur  Porphyrius,  fed  juxta  apoftolum  Paulum  prredicarent 
opportune  importune.  Now  if  the  Apoftles  had  really 
recourfe  to  fuch  praftices,  this  *  impius  Porphyrins'  ha& 
fpoken  like  an  honeft  man,  a  chara6ler,  which  in  otlier 
refpefts  we  have  no  reafon  to  refufe  him,  though  he  be-, 
lieved  aot  the  truth  of  the  Chriftian  religion.  The  ufe 
of  the  word  oeconomy,  and  the  application  of  the  prin- 
ciple itfelf,  has  been  revived  in  modern  times,  efpecially 
by  Dr.  Semler  ^ 

In 

a  Tom.  III.  p.  i359>  ed.  Benedifl. 

b  Oixoiro////i<7«  TB?  ^07a?  aura  £►  T»)  xgKTEi,    Pfalm  cxii.  or,   accordir  / 
to  the  Sentuagint,  Pf.  cxi.  5. 


SECT.  I.       flotations  from  the  Old  Tefiament.  205 

In  the  beginning  of  the  prefcnt  century  another  term 
of  apology  for  fimilar  quotations  was  introduced,  name- 
ly Medrafli,  (t:^"i"I3)  a  word  ufed  in  the  Jewifh  art  of 
criticifm,  and  applied  to  cafes,  in  which  an  hidden, 
though  too  often  a  very  unnatural  meaning  was  fuppofed 
to  lie  concealed  *.  The  Jews  may  be  indulged  in  their 
idle  {peculations,  and  the  vain  glory  of  difcovering  fe- 
venty  fenfes  in  a  fmgle  period  ;  but  that  an  upright,  and 
impartial  lover  of  the  truth,  and  even  perfons  commif- 
fioned  by  the  Deity  to  preach  it  to  mankind,  fliould 
have  recourfe  to  fuch  miferable  artifices,  is  a  matter  in- 
conceivable to  found  reafon,  which  muft  ever  retain  the 
privilege  of  deciding  on  revelation  itfelf.  Truth  admits 
of  no  reprifals,  and  the  falfe  reafoning  of  an  adverfary 
affords  no  excufe  for  admitting  it  ourfelves :  for,  though 
it  is  lawful  in  difputation  to  turn  an  opponent's  own  ar- 
guments againft  him,  with  a  view  of  convincing  him  of 
error,  they  are  inadmiffible  as  a  bafis  of  the  dodlrine, 
which  we  intend  to  fupport. 

Whatever  term  be  adopted  to  apologize  for  this  mode 
of  reafoning,  whether  we  ftile  it  CEconomy  with  the 
Fathers,  or  Medrafh  with  the  Jews,  I  am  unable  to 
comprehend,  how  a  fet  of  writings,  in  which  arguments 
of  this  nature  are  admitted,  can  be  thought  to  proceed, 
from  the  Deity,  and  how  thofe,  who  allow  the  principle, 
can  reconcile  fahehood  with  divine  infpiration.  All  er- 
rors are  proofs  againft  the  divinity  of  the  book,  v/hich 
contains  them ;  but  none  are  fo  inexcufable  as  an  au- 
thor's not  underftanding  his  own  writings  ;  yet  it  follows 
from  the  admilTion  of  the  above  premifes,  that  the  Deity 
fpeaking  in  the  New  Teftament  mifunderftood  the  mean- 
ing of  the  Old.  The  hiftorical  mifcakes  of  the  Koran, 
which  are  ufed  as  arguments  againft  its  divine  authority, 
would  be  trifles  in  comparifon  with  thefe,  or  ratlier  no 
arguments  at  all,  if  the  author  pretends  not  to  infpira- 
tion in  matters  of  hiftory. 
_  But  I  am  perfuaded,  that  the  admiffion  of  this  prin- 
ciple is  without  foundation,  and  that  the  examples, 
which  arc  commonly  produced,  where  the  Old  Tefta- 
ment 


2o6  Rotations  from  the  Old  Tejiament.      chap,  v* 

ment  is  faid  to  be  falfely  quoted  in  proof  in  the  New, 
are  not  only  capable  of  refutation,  but  often  manifcftly 
erroneous.  If  the  contrary  were  true,  it  would  be  necef- 
fary,  with  all  due  refped  for  the  Chriftian  religion,  to 
make  a  diftinftion  between  the  three  following  cafes. 

1.  If  falfe  quotations  of  the  nature  above  defcribed 
could  be  difcovered  in  a  book,  whofe  canonical  autho- 
rity is  called  in  queftion,  they  muft  be  regarded  as  hu- 
man errors,  and  the  divinity  of  the  book  itfelfbe  aban- 
doned, without  derogating  from  the  dignity  of  the  re- 
maining parts  of  the  New  Teftament.  For  inftance, 
Profeflbr  Eberhard,  in  his  Apology  of  Socrates,  contends 
that  pTaO'?*!^,  Pfal.  ex.  4.  fignifies  not  Mclchifedeck, 
but  rex  juflus  j  now  if  this  were  true,  we  muft  unavoid- 
ably give  up  the  epiftle  to  the  Hebrews,  in  which  the 
moft  important  'conclufions  are  drawn,  from  a  falfe  ex- 
planation, which  might  be  done  without  injuring  the 
reft  of  the  New  Teftament,  as  this  epiftle  belongs  not 
to  the  clafs  of  the  oiJi.oXoy6^iva..  But  at  prefent  I  can  fee 
no  reafon  for  having  recourfe  to  fuch  meafures,  as  the 
aflertion  of  Eberhard,  who  is  more  celebrated  for  his 
philofophical  penetration,  than  his  knowledge  of  Hebrew, 
not  only  remains  to  be  proved,  but  militates  againft  the 
accuracy  of  grammar,  for  p^V  "jbo  fignifies  rex  juftus, 
whereas  the  interpofition  of  the  Jod  colliquefcentias  con- 
verts the  expreflion  into  a  proper  name  ^  Similar  to  this 
cafe  is  A6ls  i.  20.  in  which  is  quoted  Pfalm  cix.  8.  not 
by  the  writer  of  the  A6ls  of  the  Apoftles,  but  by  St. 
Peter,  at  a  time  when  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  were 
not  yet  communicated,  and  therefore  infpiration  could 
not  poffibly  have  taken  place.  See  the  Remarks  on  the 
hundred  and  ninth  Pfalm,  p.  243  ^  Againft  the  two 
firft  chapters  of  St.  Matthew,  which  may  be  feparated 
from  the  reft  of  the  Gofpel,  weighty  objeftions  of  this 
kind  have  likewife  been  made,  and  have  hitherto  re- 
mained unanfwered.  See  the  Introdu6tion  to  the  Gofpel 
of  St.  Matthew  in  the  fecond  part  of  this  work. 

2.  If  fuch  quotations  could  be  difcovered  even  in 

thofe 


SECT.  r.      ^dtatlons  from  the  Old  Teflament.  207 

thofe  books  of  the  New  Tcftament,  which  belong  tathe 
ojM.oAo'y8|W,£v«,  the  confequence  would  ftill  follow,  that  they 
were  not  infpired  by  the  Deity,  though  no  inference 
could  be  drawn  that  the  Apoftles  were  not  preachers  of 
a  divine  religion,  and  commiflioned  for  that  purpofe  by 
Chrift  himfelf.  See  above,  ch.  iii.  fed.  i.  Compare 
like  wife  John  xix.  35 — 37.  with  my  remarks  on  the  Re- 
furredion '. 

3.  Were  it  pofTible  to  fhew,  that  the  very  author  of 
our  religion,  who  ordered  the  precepts,  which  he  taught 
to  be  regarded  as  commands  of  the  Deity,  had  made  a 
wrong  application  of  a  text  of  the  Old  Teftament,  it 
would  follow  that  he  was  not  infallible,  and  that  Chrifti- 
anity  itfelf  was  falfe.  But  I  will  borrow  an  example 
from  Eberhard's  Apology  %  and  examine  whether  the 
charge  be  really  founded.  He  compares  Matthew  xvii. 
10,  II,  12.  with  Malachi  iv.  5.  and  is  of  opinion,  that 
the  latter  paflage  has  no  reference  to  Jolm  the  Baptifl,  but 
only  to  fome  patriotic  Ifraelite,  who  lived  before  the  Ba- 
bylonifh  captivity,  and  attempted  to  reform  the  morals 
of  his  countrymen  ;  and  that  the  word  tDIH  can  be  ap- 
plied only  to  the  deftruftion  of  Jerufalem  by  Nebuchad- 
nezzar. If  the  matter  were  really  fuch,  as  the  Profeflbr 
has  reprefented  it,  no  other  refource  would  remain,  than 
to  conclude  with  Porphyry,  that  the  Chriflian  religion 
were  an  impofture.  But  the  whole  argument  of  Eber- 
hard  is  without  foundation,  as  Malachi  lived  long  after 
the  time  of  the  Babylonilh  caytivity,  and  his  prophecies 
are  therefore  inapplicable  to  events  preceding  that  pe- 
riod«. 

Between  fimply  borrowed  paflage?,  and  fuch  as  arc 
quoted  in  proof,  there  is  a  third  kind  v/hich  hold  a 
middle  rank,  and  confift  of  moral  fentcnces  chiefly  bor- 
rowed from  the  Proverbs  of  Solomon.  This  book  is 
frequently  quoted  by  the  Apofl:les,  who  confidered  it  as 
a  treafure  of  revealed  morality,  from  which  the  Chrifl:i- 
^is  were  to  derive  their  rules  of  condu6l,  and  the  cano- 
nical authority  of  no  part  of  the  Old  Tefl:ament  is  fo  ra- 
tified by  the  evidence  of  quotations,  as  th^t  of  the  Pro- 
verbs, 
e  Vol.  II.  p.  315— 318. 


SoS  Rotations  from  the  Old  Tejiament.      chap.  V<. 

verbs.  But  it  is  remarkable,  that  the  Wifdom  of  Jefus 
the  Son  of  Sirach,  which  has  fo  ftriking  an  affinity  with 
the  book  of  Proverbs,  is  not  quoted  in  a  fingle  inftance 
by  the  Apoftles  and  Evangelifts,  and  the  difference  be- 
tween canonical  and  apocryphal  is  no  where  fo  ftrongly 
marked,  as  in  this  example.  We  may  hence  infer,  that 
every  commentator  on  the  Greek  Teftament  ought  to 
be  intimately  acquainted  with  the  Septuagint  verfion  of 
the  book  of  Proverbs,  and  that  every  Chriftian  divine 
Ihould  confider  it  as  the  chief  fource  of  fcriptural  mo- 
rality. 

It  is  true,  that  the  pafTages,  which  the  Apollles  have 
quoted  from  the  Proverbs,  feem  generally  applied  as 
commands  of  the  Deity,  or  as  proofs  of  fome  moral  doc- 
trine ;  and  even  when  a  moral  philofopher  applies  the 
words  of  another,  whom  he  believes  not  to  be  infpired, 
he  is  fuppofed  to  afcribe  to  them  an  authority  bordering 
on  demonflration.  But,  unlefs  it  be  exprefsly  mention- 
ed, that  the  quoted  paflage  is  aftually  intended  as  a 
proof,  the  writer,  who  makes  the  quotation,  is  at  liberty 
to  ufe  the  words  of  his  favourite  author,  in  exprefling  a 
moral  truth,  though  the  words  in  the  original  had  a  dif- 
ferent application.  This  will  be  rendered  more  intelli- 
gible by  the  following  example. 

n^0K>a  v-QiXot,  ivooTTioy  Ku^ja  xat  avS'^WTrwi/,   Prov.  iii.  4.   is 

a  maxim  worthy  of  a  place  in  a  colleftion  of  divine  pre- 
cepts, and  is  twice  applied  by  Sl  Paul  with  great  judge- 
ment. The  firft  example  is  1  Cor.  viii.  21.  where  he 
expreffes  his  own  unwillingnefs,  and  that  of  his  immediate 
friends,  to  carry  to  Jerufalem  the  contributions  of  the 
Macedonians  for  their  brethren  in  Judea,  without  being 
attended  by  perfons  deputed  from  the  different  commu- 
nities, who  might  bear  witnefs  to  the  uprightnefs  of  his 

conduct,  'srpopoisy.istoi  kocAoc  »  ^ovov  buwttioi/  Kuct»,  aKKa.  xai  evu- 

TTiou  avS-f  W7^w^,  nobis  bene  profpicere  volentes  coram  Deo, 
ec  coram  hominibus ;  it  being  the  duty  of  every  man, 
and  of  St.  Paul  in  particular,  not  only  to  have  a  confcience 
void  of  offence,  but  to  guard  his  reputation  againft  the 
fulpicion  of  the  world.  The  other  inftance  of  the  appli- 
cation 


SECT.  ir.      Rotations  from  the  Old  Tejiament.  209 

cation  of  thefe  words,  is  Rom.  xii,  17.  where  St.  Paul 
obferves,  that  '  we  ought  to  recompenfe  evil  with  good/ 
•sT0Qvo}i(Aii/oi  y.oi,Xx  iuuTnov  zj-xhtui/  ai/3"^w7rwi/,  iis  rebiis  opcram 
dantes,  quje  omnibus  hominibus  pulchra  videntur.  This 
is  a  morahty  worthy  of  a  divine  Apoftle,  and  the  nobleft 
revenge,  which  can  be  taken  of  an  enemy.  But  the 
queftion  is,  whether  the  words  in  the  original  Hebrew 
convey  the  fame  meaning,  as  is  given  them  by  St.  Paul: 
a  queftion,  which  I  ftiould  anfwer  in  the  negative.  It  is 
true,  that  St.  Paul  has  the  authority  of  the  Seventy,  who 
have  taken  the  Hebrew  words  in  this  fenfe,  and  have 
tranflated  b^ti^),  as  if  it  were  an  imperative,  but  in  my 
tranflation  of  the  Bible,  I  have  adhered  rather  to  the  He- 
brew original '.  The  decifion  of  this  point  I  leave  to  the 
learned,  but  in  whatever  manner  it  be  determined,  it  no 
way  affefts  the  authority  of  St.  Paul,  who,  in  delivering 
a  moral  doftrine,  was  at  liberty  to  clothe  it  in  the  words 
beft  adapted  to  his  purpofe,  were  they  even  the  refult  of 
an  error  in  the  Alexandrine  tranilators. 

As  numerous  pafTages,  which  are  borrowed  from  the  Old 
Teftament,  have  been  overlooked  by  the  critics,  fo  they 
on  the  other  hand  have  pretended  to  difcover  quotations^ 
where  there  is  no  ground  for  the  fuppofition,  and  have 
attempted  to  reconcile  examples,  where  no  reconciliation 
is  required.  Thus  St.  Paul  is  faid  to  have  taken  i  Cor. 
i.  20.  from  Ifaiah  xxxiii.  18.  where  the  whole  fimilarity 
confifts  in  the  three-fold  repetition  of  '  where  is  ?* 


SECT.      II. 


Of  quotations  in  proof  of  do^frineSy  or  the  completion  of  pro- 
phecies: of  the  difficulties  attending  them,  and  in  what 
jnanner  thefe  difficulties  may  poffihly  he  removed. 

I  HAVE  obferved  in  the  preceding  fedion,  that  quo-^ 
tations,  in  the  more  immediate  and  proper  fenfe  of  the 
word,   muft,  according  to  their  literal  and  grammatical 
conftruction  ',  convey  precifely  the  lame  meaning  in  the 
O     '  Old 


mo  flotations  from  the  Old  Tejlament.      chap.  v. 

Old  Teflament,  as  is  given  them  in  the  Newj  otherwifc 
the  New  Teftament  is  not  divinely  infpired.  No  me- 
dium is  admiflible,  iinlefs  we  at  once  allow  that  the 
Chriftian  revelation  is  incapable  of  being  tried  by  rules 
as  fevere  as  thofe  which  are  univerfally  applied  to  other 
writings. 

But  great  diffidence  is  requifite  on  our  part  in  our 
critical  explanations  of  the  Old  Teftament,  nor  muft  we 
immediately  conclude,  that  an  Apoftle  has  made  a  falfe 
quotation,  becaufe  he  has  applied  a  pafTage  in  the  Old 
Teftament  in  a  fenfe  which,  according  to  our  judgement, 
it  does  not  admit.  Our  own  ignorance  may  be  the 
caufe  of  the  feeming  impropriety,  and  having  found  by 
actual  experience,  and  a  more  minute  inveftigation  of 
the  fubjed,  that  many  palTages,  which  other  cridcs  as 
well  as  myfelf  had  taken  for  falfe  quotations,  were  yet 
properly  cited  by  the  Apoftles,  I  truft  that  future  cridcs 
will  be  able  to  folve  the  doubts  in  the  few  examples  which 
remain.  The  reader  will  find  a  remarkable  inftance  in 
Rom.  X.  7.  compared  with  Deuteronomy  xxx.  11 — 14. 
in  my  appendix  to  Lowth's  ninth  lefture  De  facra  Poeft 
Hebrseorum^:  many  other  folutions  have  occurred  to 
me,  but  I  will  mention  only  one,  which  relates  to  the  fe- 
cond  chapter  of  St.  Matthew,  in  which  I  ftiall  be  lefs 
accufed  of  pardality,  as  it  is  known  that  I  entertain  great 
doubts  on  the  authendcity  of  the  two  firft  chapters  of 
this  Gofpel. 

Jeremiah  xxxi.  15.  is  quoted  Matth.  ii.  17,  18.  as  a 
prophecy  of  the  malfacrc  of  the  children  of  Bethlehem. 
But  the  learned  have  been  of  opinion,  that  the  words  of 
Jeremiah  have  no  reference  to  the  dme  of  Herod,  but 
merely  to  the  Babylonifti  captivity.  After  having  long 
fubfcribed  to  this  opinion,  I  was  induced  to  waver  in  it  by 
the  difcovery  of  the  circumftance,  that  the  Jews  them- 
felves  refer  the  prophecy  to  a  much  later  period  than  the 
Babylonifti  captivity,  and  apply  it  to  the  ages  of  Vefpa- 
fian  and  Hadrian  ^  Jerom,  in  his  remarks  on  Jer.  xxxi. 
writes  as  follows,  quidam  JudjEorum  hunc  locum  fie  in- 
terpretantur,  quod  capta  Hierolblyma  fub  Vefpafiano  per 

banc 


SE  c  T.  1 1 .      Rotations  from  the  Old  TeJiapienL  2 1 1 

hanc  viam  Gazam  et  Alcxandriam  infinita  mlUia  capti- 
vorum  Romam  direfta  funt.  Alii  vero  quod  ultima  cap- 
tivitate  Tub  Hadriano,  quando  et  urbs  Jerufalem  fubverfa 
eft,  innumerabilispopulus  diverfe  ajtatis  et  utriufque  fexus 
in  mercato  Terebinth!  nundinatus  fit  ^  Et  idcirco  exfe- 
crabile  efle  Judasis  mercatum  celeberrimum  vifere.  Now 
the  tomb  of  Rachel  lay  clofe  to  the  road,  which  Jerom 
meant  by  the  words  hanc  viam,  which  was  the  common 
road  leading  from  Jerufalem  to  Gaza  and  Alexandria. 
By  mercatus  Terebinthi  is  generally  underftood  the  Te- 
rebinthus  near  Hebron,  but  in  that  cafe  the  Jews  could 
never  have  admitted  this  explanation,  as  Hebron  lay  at 
a  diftance  from  the  tomb  of  Rachel.  Here  is  undoubt- 
edly meant  the  Terebinthus  Tabor  mentioned  i  Sam.  x. 
2,  3.  adjoining  to  which  was  the  tomb  of  Rachel,  and 
which  is  called  at  prefent  the  Terebinth  of  the  Virgin 
Mary  •*,  an  epithet  borrowed  from  a  chriftian  legend. 
The  firft  explanation  of  the  prophecy  which  is  mentioned 
by  Jerom,  is  that  which  was  generally  admitted  in  the 
time  of  Jofephus,  who  on  this  occafion  has  the  follow- 
ing remark,  xat  rrtv  wv  i<p  -n^/.m  ysvofAivvy  aAwo-tj-,  tuv  re  Bx- 

Qvhuuiocv  aipea-ivy  Antiquit.X.  5.  i.  fignifying  that  it  related 
not  only  to  the  Babylonifh  captivity,  but  likewife  to  the 
deftruftion  of  Jerufalem  by  Titus.  The  coincidence  of 
the  explanation  given  by  Jofephus,  and  by  the  Jews  of 
the  fifth  century,  with  the  application  of  the  prophecy  in 
the  fecond  chapter  of  St.  Matthew,  firft  induced  mc  to 
fufped  that  the  opinion,  to  which  I  had  fubfcribed,  was 
falfe.  The  feries  of  misfortunes,  which  happened  to  the 
Jewifti  nation  from  the  time  of  Pompey  to  that  of  Ha- 
drian, might  he  very  properly  figured  by  the  tears  of 
Rachel,  who  is  reprefented  as  raifing  her  head  from  the 
grave,  and  weeping  over  the  future  fate  of  her  unfortu- 
nate progeny.  The  image  is  highly  fuitable  to  the  oc- 
cafion, for  many  fcenes  of  mifery  were  difplayed  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  the  place  where  Rachel  was  buried,  as 
the  cruel  government  of  Herod,  the  maffacre  of  children 
in  Bethlehem,  and  the  ftill  greater  barbarities  committed 

at 

•^  See  Trgllo's  Travels  *,  p.  jia. 


211  Rotations  from  the  Old  Teji  anient,     chap.  v. 

at  the  fame  time  in  Jeriifalem.  Nor  is  the  context  in 
Jeremiah  of  fuch  a  nature,  as  to  preclude  all  application 
of  the  prophecy  to  the  time  of  Herod.  The  two  lalt 
verfes  of  the  thirtieth  chapter  may  denote  the  dcftruc- 
tion  of  Jerufalem  by  Titus  j  the  fourteen  firft  verfes  of 
the  following  chapter  relate  to  the  return  of  the  Jews 
from  the  Babyloniili  captivity,  and  they  were  written  by  the 
prophet  as  a  Iburce  of  comfort  to  Rachel,  faying,  Refrain 
thy  voice  from  weeping,  and  thine  eyes  from  tears,  for 
thy  children  fliall  come  again  to  their  own  border. 

The  paflage  in  which  I  have  found  the  mofl  difficulty, 
is  Matth.  i.  22,  23.  for  though  XvilV  fignifies  a  virgin,  I 
cannot  be  perfuaded  that  Ifaiah  vii.  14.  has  the  leaft  re- 
ference to  the  Mefliah,  but  to  a  child  that  was  to  be  bom 
at  the  expiration  of  nine  months,  from  a  perfon  at  that 
time  a  virgin  ^  Perhaps  future  difcoveries  may  in- 
duce me  to  alter  my  opinion,  as  they  have  done  in  other 
cafes,  or  a  various  reading  may  poffibly  be  found,  in 
which  the  intervention  of  one  or  two  words,  that  at  pre- 
fent  fail,  between  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  verfes,  may 
alter  the  meaning  of  the  whole  palTage.  But  though  the 
difficulty  were  not  to  be  removed,  it  would  afFeft  only  the 
two  firft  chapters,  and  not  the  Gofpel  in  general. 

In  many  cafes  the  commentators  have  created  difficul- 
ties, where  in  reality  there  are  none,  by  attempting  to 
difcover  in  pafTages,  to  which  the  Apoftles  have  alluded, 
a  meaning  perhaps  not  afcribed  to  them  by  the  Apoftles 
themfelvcs.  St.  Peter  exhorts  his  hearers  to  a  belief  in 
Chrift  in  the  following  manner.  *  Mofes  has  promifed 
your  fathers  to  fend  prophets,  like  unto  me,  and  every 
foul  which  Ihall  not  hear  them,  fhall  be  deftroyed  from 
among  the  people.  Yea,  and  all  the  prophets  have  fore- 
told of  Chrift;  judge  therefore  what  will  be  the  venge- 
ance, if  ye  rejed  their  teftimony.'  Acls  iii.  22.  Here 
reference  is  made  to  Deut.  xviii.  15.  but  there  is  no  ne- 
ceffity  for  confidering  this  palTage  as  a  prophecy  of  Chrift, 
to  whom,  from  the  whole  connexion,  it  cannot  poffibly 
relate  ^  St.  Paul,  in  his  epiftle  to  the  Romans,  ch.  xv.  0. 
exhorting  the  Jews  to  join  with  the  Gentiles  in  celebrat- 
ing 


SE  CT.  I  r.      flotations  from  the  Old  Tejiament.  1 1 3 

ing  their  Maker,  iifes  the  words  of  David,  "  I  will  con- 
fefs  to  thee  among  the  Gentiles,  and  fing  unto  thy  name." 
But  we  are  not  therefore  to  conclude  that  the  eighteenth 
Pfalm  is  to  be  explained  of  the  Meffiah,  which  cannot  be 
done  without  the  greateft  violence,  and  it  is  diredlly  con- 
trary to  the  Hebrew  fuperfcription.  Another  ftill  more 
important  example,  and  one  relating  to  an  ardcle  of 
faith,  may  be  feen  in  the  115'''  feftion  of  my  Dogmatic 
Theology  ^,  to  which  a  fimilar  inftance  may  be  added, 
that  of  Rom.  x.  6.  for  the  faith  of  which  Mofes  fpeaks, 
or,  as  he  exprefles  it,  circumcifion  of  the  heart,  is  not 
faith  in  Chrifl,  but  belief  in  the  only  true  God^ 

Another  unnecelTary  difficulty  is  made  in  explaining 
Matth.  ii.  5,  6.  For  the  Evangeliil  himfelf  has  not  quoted 
Micah  V.  2.  but  the  chief  priefls  and  fcribes,  who  were 
afTembled  by  order  of  Herod,  and  they  have  given  not 
a  literal  tranflation  of  the  paflage,  but  an  explanation, 
which  St.  Matthew  has  drawn  up  in  a  kind  of  paraphrafe. 
And  he  is  by  no  means  anfwerable  for  the  accuracy  of 
the  explanation,  whethern^V^S  parvus,  is  to  be  rendered  by 
an  antiphrafis'°,  or  whether  ^£)7,^  is  to  be  pronounced  Al- 
lufe  ",  and  tranflated  ny£|Ocov£?,  for  he  relates,  as  an  hifto- 
rian,  the  expofition  of  others.  It  is  furprifing,  that  n3 
one  among  the  learned  commentators  has  made  this  re- 
mark ",  and  the  more  fo,  as  the  words  quoted  in  St. 
Matthew  correfpond  neither  to  the  Hebrew  original,  nor 
the  Greek  tranflation  ". 

Another  fource  of  unnecefl^iry  difficulty  is  the  con- 
founding fimply  borrowed  palTages  with  fuch,  as  arc 
quoted  in  proof,  and  it  fometimes  happens  that  the  texts 
of  the  Old  Teftament,  which  feem  at  firfl  fight  to  belong 
to  the  latter  clafs,  may  really  be  referred  to  the  former. 
For  inftance,  Ifaiah  xxix.  13.  according  to  the  tenor  of 
the  context,  cannot  poffibly  relate  to  the  Jews,  who  lived 
at  the  time  of  Chrift,  but  merely  to  the  contemporaries  of 
the  prophet  j  yet  this  paftlige  is  applied  to  them  by  Chrift, 
faying,  Well  did  Efaias  prophefy  of  you,  &c.  Matth.  xy. 
7 — p.  Now  it  is  evident  that  the  intention  of  Chrift,  in 
making  this  quotation,  was  not  to  denote  the  completion 
03  of 


fii4  flotations  from  the  Old  Tefiament.      chap.  v. 

of  a  prophecy,  but  to  accommodate  the  words  of  the 
prophet  to  the  prcfcnt  chara6ler  of  the  Jews,  of  which 
they  were  perfcftly  defcriptive  '*.  In  the  chronicle  of 
Dionyfiiis  is  a  paflage,  in  which  we  may  obferve  the  man- 
ner of  exprefTion  ufed  by  the  Syrians  on  fimilar  occafions. 
Afclepius,  BiOiop  of  Edefla,  having  been  obliged  to  quit 
the  city,  in  confequence  of  a  dangerous  flood,  which  the 
populace  confidered  as  a  punilhment  inflifted  by  the 
Deity  for  the  heterodoxy  of  their  bifliop,  fled  to  Antioch, 
where  he  was  received  with  open  arms  by  the  Patriarch, 
who  conduced  him  to  the  epifcopal  throne,  and  addreflTed 
the  inhabitants  of  the  city%  (woicAx  |L\i*j2c2^  ^^ns^;^^)  *^  be- 
hold the  fecond  Noah,  who  like  him  has  been  delivered  in 
an  ark  from  a  fecond  deluge.'  This  is  nothing  more  than 
the  borrowing  an  image,  in  order  to  reprefent  a  fad  in 
ftronger  colours,  or  what  is  called  accommodation. 

But  the  queftion  fl:ill  remains  to  be  anfwered,  whether 
this  convenient  principle  of  accommodation  is  appli- 
cable to  thofe  examples  in  which  are  ufed  the  fl:rong  ex- 
preflions,  '  then  was  fulfilled  that  which  was  fpokcn  by 
the  prophet,'  or  *  this  was  done  that  it  might  be  fulfilled, 
which  was  fpoken  by  the  prophet'  Wetftein  in  his  note 
to  Matth.  i.  11.  in  fupport  of  this  principle  has  pro- 
duced an  example  from  Ephrem  Syrus,  but  no  one  has 
treated  the  fubjeft  with  fo  much  ability  as  Sykes  in  the 
third  fedion  of  the  Introduftion  prefixed  to  his  Para- 
phrafe  and  Notes  upon  the  Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews.  He 
appeals  to  fimilar  exprefllons  in  other  writers,  but  the 
authority  of  Jerom,  whom  he  quotes  among  the  reft,  is 
here  of  little  weight,  for  though  the  learned  father  was 
critically  accurate  in  matters  of  philology,  he  allows  him- 
felf  all  pofllble  latitude  in  allegorical  explanations.  The 
examples  which  he  has  taken  from  Epiphanius  ^  and 
Olympiodorus^  are  indeed  more  important,  but  very  far 

from 

e  See  the  Syriac  Clireftomathy 'J,  p.  80. 

f  AXA'  iv  ccvTu)  'mXriQUTCii  ro  yiyrufjiyiivov'  iccio  Omjov  sysvauvj  tt 
<nr«cTi  :iuy.u>,  ev  [xiaco  ty.y.y^r.mxz  y.ui  cvva,yuyr,:.  Hafrefis  Eiaionitarum, 
Cap.  i. 

f  Iv«  ccKfl^K;  'Ki(\  KVTH  yevYiTci, 

Ttf  ;:«i  wjro  yT^ujavi  /^sajto;  y?>.-jxncv  ^eE>  atr/j. 

Olyaipicdoii  Vita  Platonis, 


SECT.  III.      Rotations  from  the  OUTejl  anient,  ni^ 

from  being  equal  in  ftrength  to  the  expreffion,  *  that  it 
might  be  fulfilled  which  was  fpoken  by  the  prophet.'  If 
I  caution  any  one,  and  fay,  '  Let  not  that  be  fulfilled  in 
thee,'  the  caution  itfelf  implies  that  the  words  to  which 
I  allude  are  no  prophecy :  the  Proverbs  of  Solomon, 
which  are  quoted  by  Epiphanius,  contain  only  fentences 
of  morality,  and  can  have  no  reference  to  prophecy  :  and 
with  refped;  to  tiie  exprefllon  of  Olympiodorus,  it  is  of  a 
totally  different  nature.  However  willing,  I  am  yet  un- 
able to  perfuade  myfelf  that  Matth.  i.  22.  ii.  15.  17. 
were  intended  by  the  writer  as  mere  accommodations  "\ 
Yet,  in  certain  cafes,  W  feems  almoft  neceffary  to  have 
recourfe  to  this  convenient  mode  of  explanation,  for  in- 
ftance  John  xiii.  1  8.  *  that  the  fcripture  may  be  fulfilled, 
he  that  eateth  bread  with  me  hath  lifted  up  his  heel 
againft  me  j'  for  this  quotation  is  taken  from  the  forty- 
firft  pfalm,  which  can  have  no  reference  either  to  Chrift 
or  to  Judas,  The  fame  principle  might  be  applied  to  a 
fimilar  palfage,  John  xvii.  12.  if  the  phrafe  n  ypa^Ji  tsm- 
pu^-^  muft  necelfarily  be  referred  to  the  words  immedi- 
ately preceding,  namely.  Son  of  perdition,  and  if  the  quo- 
tation itfelf  be  borrowed  from  the  41ft.  or  109th.  Pfalm: 
but  in  thefe  Pfalms  no  fuch  exprefllon  is  found,  as  '  none 
of  them  is  loft,'  and  '  fon  of  perdition.'  I  would  there- 
fore refer  it  to  the  words  ^  thofe  which  thou  gaveft  me  I 
have  kept,'  and  fuppofe  that  Chrift  made  allufion  to 
Zachariah  xiii.  7,  and  Ifaiah  viii.  18.  where  this  very 
exprefllon  is  ufed  '7. 


SECT.       III. 


The  Old  Tejiament  is  quoted  very  frequent  ly^  hut  not  always^ 
from  the  Septuagint, 

IT   is  univerfally  known,  that  the  quotations  in  the 
New  Teftament  are  commonly  taken  from  the  Sep- 
tuagint ',  a  verfion  in  general  ufe  among  the  Chriftians 
who  underftood  Greek.  The  only  exception  to  be  made, 
04  as 


CI  6  Rotations  from  the.  Old  Tejl  anient .     ch  a  p.  v. 

as  Jerom  has  in  feveral  places  obferved,  is  to  the  Gofpel 
of  St.  Matthew,  becaule  he  wrote  in  Hebrew  ;  and  the 
Greek  tranflator  of  his  Gofpel,  inftead  of  confulting  the 
Septuagint,  tranflated  frequently  the  Hebrew  words  as 
he  found  them  in  the  original  of  St.  Matthew ;  yet  the 
quotations  in  this  Gofpel  correfpond  in  feveral  inftances 
with  the  Greek  verfion.  If  we  except  two  doubtful  paf- 
fages,  ch.  xxvi.  31.  xxvii.  9.  they  are  nearly  in  the  fol- 
lowing proportion. 

The  Septuagint  is  quoted  Matth.  iv.  4.  6.  xiii.  15.  a 
remarkable  palfage,  which  will  be  examined  in  the  fe- 
quel,  as  St.  John  has  given  his 'own  tranflation,  xv.  7, 
8,  9.  where  the  Seventy  differ  from  the  Maforetic  read- 
ing, xxi.  f3,  16.  42.  xxii.  44'.  xxvii.  35.  In  feveral 
other  examples  there  is  a  fmall  deviation  from  the  Sep- 
tuagint, which  relates  only  to  fmgle  words,  and  which 
perhaps  would  vanifh,  if  the  various  readings  of  the  Sep- 
tuagint and  the  New  Teftament  were  carefully  collated 
with  each  other,  namely,  Matth.  iii.  3.  iv.  4.  6,  7.  lo. 
where  juovw  is  alfo  wanting  in  the  Hebrew,  ix.  13.  where 
the  difference  confifts  in  a  fmgle  letter  ',  xxiv.  15. 

Many  paffages,  on  the  contraiy,  are  undoubtedly  not 
taken  from  the  Septuagint,  or  at  leaft,  if  the  Greek  tranf- 
lator recollefted  the  words  of  the  Alexandrine  verfion,  he 
has  given  them  with  confiderable  alterations.  We  may 
divide  them  into  two  different  claffes,  i.  Where  the  ob- 
je(5t  of  the  quotation  rendered  a  deviation  from  the  Sep- 
tuagint nectffary.  1.  Where  the  words  of  the  Septuagint 
would  have  anfwered  the  purpofe  as  well  as  a  new  tranf- 
lation. To  the  firfl  clafs  belong  the  following  examples, 
Matth.  ii.  15''.   viii.  17'.   xii.  17 — ai"".  in  which  cafes 

every 

i  See  my  Critical  Lectures  on  the  iioth  Pfalm,  p.  480". 

k  The  LXX  have  to.  tikvco  uvth,  Hofea  xi.  i.  which  is  inapplicable 
to  the  purpofe  of  the  Evangelilt. 

I  The  LXX  have  not  aa-Bsviio,;,  Ifaiah  llli.  4,  but  uy^xpTteci;- 

m  This  whole  pafTage  is  fo  corrupted  in  the  Septuagint,  by  the  infer* 
tion  of  the  names  Jacob  and  Ifrael,  \a.v.!s3^  0  'sraK  /*«  a-vTihri-i^oiAUit  afla. 
]crf.in)X  0  ivt^iKToi;  ^a  'vj^oai^ii^cci'j  ix:%v  »  -i/v^n  fj.ti,  Ifaiah  xlii.  i.  that  it 
could  not,  without  alteration,  have  been  applied  to  Chrift. 


SECT.  in.     Rotations  from  the  Old  Tejlament.  217 

every  writer  of  the  New  Teftament  would  have  been  ob- 
liged to  depart  from  the  verfion  of  the  Seventy,  unlefs 
he  had  chofen  to  defeat  the  purpofe  for  which  he  made 
the  quotation.  But  the  laft  of  thefe  examples,  which, 
with  the  omiffion  only  of  two  words  inferted  by  the 
Seventy,  might  have  perfeftly  anfwered  the  end  of  the 
Evangelift,  is  fo  altered  as  to  have  hardly  any  fimilarity 
with  the  Greek  verfion°.  To  the  fecond  clafs  belong  the 
following  paffages,  in  which  the  words  of  the  Septua- 
gint,  tholjgh  fully  adequate  to  the  purpofe,  are  negleded, 
namely,  ch.  i.  23.  iv.  14— i6.xi.  10.  xiii.  37.  xxi.  4. 

It  appears  therefore,  that  St.  Matthew,  or  his  Greek 
tranflator,  was  acquainted  with  the  verfion  of  the  Seven- 
ty, that  he  has  quoted  it  fometimes  accurately,  fome- 
times  merely  from  memory,  and  at  other  times  given  a 


new. 


n  That  the  reader  may  be  able  to  fee  at  a  fingle  view  In  what  refpefts 
the  text  of  the  LXX  agrees  with  that  of  St.  Matthew,  and  In  what  it  dif- 
fers from  It,  I  will  fubjoln  both,  and  print  In  capitals  the  words  in 
tvhich  they  agree.  The  text  of  St.  Matthew,  according  to  Wetftein's 
edition  Is,  via  O  HAir  MOY  ov  r^-sTKra.  O  ay«7r»jTo;  MOY,  £.?  c»  £V- 
ioKta^y  H  YYKH  MOY.  S«^«  TO  DNEYMA  MOY  EH'  AYTON  x«t 
KPI2IN  TOiX  EQNEDIN  aTrafyEXft.  Ovy.  t^^au  OYAE  y.^xvyaau.  OY- 
AE  «y»aa  T.s  ly  T«.s  'my.ccruu^z  tr,v  (pmnv  AYTOY-  KAAAMON  cv^n- 
T?.;xa»ov  OY  x.«Ti«|a..  KAI  AINON  Tu(po;.3voi,  OY  SBEXEI,  zoi,  cc, 
.Lx.  ...  n^o,  T«.  KPISIN.      KAI  ev  TO  ONOMATI  AYTOY   E0NH 

lAniOYSI.  .  ,        ^.  .        .  _        .    ^       - 

The  text  of  the  Septuaglnt,  according  to  the  edition  of  Bos,  is  laxojS 
O  riAIS  MOY  avIiXyjij/o/xa*  aura.  Icr^ccnK  O  £K^£>c^o?  MOY.  'd^ocr^ii.ccio 
«vTov  H  4'YXH  MOY.  £^a;x«  TO  HNEYMA  MOY  EH  AYTON,  KPIIIN 
TOI2  EGNESIN  i^oicrn.  Ov  x£x§a|eTa*  OYAE  uvwu.  OYAE  axserSn- 
cirx^  £|«  %  (pcovn  AYTOY.  KAAAMON  T£S^«c^f*»o»  OY  crv.Tg^s.; 
KAI  AINON  xaTrn^owEM*  OY  SBESEI.  «M«  £(;  aX-^9»av  £|ot«.  KPI- 
2IN.     KAI  ETTt  rn  ONOMATI  AYTOY  E0NH  EAniOYSI. 

Here  It  is  evident,  that  the  words  in  which  they  agree,  were  either 
unavoidable,  er  fuch  as  muft  naturally  occur  to  every  tranaator,  and  that 
the  two  tranflatlons  are  wholly  Independent  of  each  other.  But  what  is  an 
extraordinary  circumttance,  where  D>^^i  IJimjlVl  Aands  In  our  prefent 
Hebrew  text,  both  tranflatlons  have  tw  ovo/tAoli  a-Jla  eOvi.  as  if  the  copy  of 
the  Hebrew  Bible  uCed  by  the  Seventy,  as  well  as  that,  from  which  St. 
Matthew  look  his  quotation,  had  D''"!^  IDli^^V 


21 8  isolations  from  the  Old  Tejiament.     chap,  v* 

new,  and  even  more  harfti  tranflation  of  the  Hebrew 
than  that  which  the  Seventy  have  given.  Though  the  fame 
remark  may  be  appUed  to  the  other  writers  of  the  New 
Teftament,'  1  confine  it  at  prefent  to  the  Gofpelof  St.  Mat- 
thew, which  muft  be  feparately  confidered,  becaufe  it 
contains,  without  any  obvious  reafon,  feveral  very  re- 
markable deviations  from  the  Septuagint,  and  becaufe 
the  antient  Chriftian  writers  diftinguifhed  this  Gofpel 
from  the  reft  as  it  was  written  originally  in  Hebrew,  and 
it  could  not  be  reafonably  expeded  that  the  Greek  tranf- 
lator  fhould  confult  the  Alexandrine  verfion  on  every 
quotation. 

With  refpeft  to  the  other  writers  of  the  New  Tefta- 
ment, it  is  certain  that  they  have  quoted  in  moft  in- 
ftances  from  the  Septuagint,  even  where  the  tranflation 
from  the  Hebrew  is  inaccurate,  but  where  the  errors  are  of 
fuch  a  nature  as  not  to  weaken  the  proofs,  for  which  they 
are  alledged.  This  has  been  ufed  as  an  argument  againft 
divine  infpiration,  but  the  argument  is  without  founda- 
tion, for  the  proof  depends  not  on  all  the  words  of  the 
quotation,  but  fimply  on  thofe  few  which  are  immedi- 
ately applicable  to  the  fubje6l :  the  reft  are  introduced 
merely  on  account  of  the  connexion,  and  that  the  reader 
may  more  eafily  refer  to  the  paftages  in  the  Old  Tefta- 
ment, from  which  they  are  taken.  We  muft  recolledl  that 
the  Apoftles  wrote  for  the  ufe  of  communities,  who  were 
ignorant  of  Hebrew,  and  for  whom  therefore  it  was  necef- 
fary  to  refer  to  the  Greek  verfion,  which  was  generally 
read*.  Had  they  given  a  new  and  more  accurate  tranflation 
according  to  the  Hebrew,  the  reader  would  not  have  known 
what  pallage  they  intended  to  quote  ;  and  had  they,  on 
the  other  hand,  in  retaining  the  words  of  the  Septuagint, 
taken  notice  of  each  inaccuracy,  it  would  have  been  an 
ufelefs  oftentation  of  learning,  and  they  would  have  di- 
verted the  attention  of  the  reader  from  the  main  objecft 
to  the  confideration  of  trifles.  We  cenfure  the  clergy  in 
the  prefent  age,  when  they  endeavour  in  the  pulpit  to 
make  unneceflary  correiflions  of  our  common  tranflation 
of  the  Bible,  but  it  is  more  excufi^ble  in  th^m,  than  it 

would 


SECT.  III.     Rotations  from  the  Old  Tefiament.  219 

would  have  been  in  the  Apoftles,  as  it  is  the  office  of  the 
former  to  explain  the  facred  writings,  whereas  the  obje6t 
of  the  Apoftles  and  Evangelifts  was  not  to  expound  the 
Old  Teftament,  but  to  apply  it  in  confirmation  of  the 
New.  Another  reafon  is  the  mode  of  quotation  itfelf, 
which  neither  was  nor  could  be  made  according  to  chapter 
and  verfej  and  the  words  themfelves  being  the  only  direc- 
tion for  finding  the  paffage,  from  which  they  were  taken,  a 
deviation  from  the  common  reading  would  have  left  the 
reader  in  total  ignorance.  In  the  moral  fentences  of  the 
New  Teftament  I  have  obferved  examples,  where  the 
Proverbs  of  Solomon,  though  not  verbally  quoted,  are 
at  leaft  applied  according  to  the  meaning  in  the  Septua- 
gint,  even  where  that  meaning  is  diff'erent  from  the  fenfe 
conveyed  by  the  Hebrew  original,  as,  for  inftance,  i  Pet. 
iv.  18.  compared  with  Prov.  xi.  31.  The  moral  doc- 
trine, which  is  here  exprefled  in  the  Septuagint,  is  not 
the  fame  as  that,  which  is  exprefled  in  the  Hebrew,  but 
though  different  they  are  equally  true,  and  the  objedl  of 
Peter  was  not  to  prove  a  dogmatical  pofition^  but  to  de- 
liver a  moral  doftrine. 

When  the  Seventy  have  followed  a  different  reading 
from  that,  which  we  find  in  our  printed  copies  of  the  He- 
brew Bible,  they  have  been  frequently  imitated  by  the 
writers  of  the  New  Teftament",  but  we  cannot  therefore 
immediately  conclude  that  fuch  a  reading  is  the  true 
one,  or  that  the  Apoftles,  in  ufing  the  words  of  the 
Septuagint,  intended  to  confirm  their  authenticity.  The 
cafe  however  is  different,  when  the  proof  intended  to  be 
given  by  the  quotation  confifts  in  the  deviation  from  the 
Maforetic  text,  for  then  the  perfon  who  made  the  quo- 
tation muft  have  either  believed  the  reading  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint to  have  been  more  accurate  than  that  in  the  ufual 
copies  of  the  Hebrew,  or  he  has  ufed  not  a  folid  but  a 
fpecious  argument. 

A6ls  XV.  17.  is  defigned  as  a  proof  that  God  would 
chufe  a  nation  from  among  the  heathens,  that  fliould  be 

called 

o  For  Inftance,  Matth.  xv.  8,  9.  Rom.  xi,  35.  (compared  with  Ifaiah 
xl.  14.?)  and  Rom.  xv.  10. 


220  Rotations  from  the  Old  Teflament.     chap.  v. 

called  after  his  name,  but  the  proof  is  of  no  validity,  if 
we  read  Amos  ix.  12.  whence  the  quotation  is  taken, 
according  to  the  Maforetic  text,  namely,  *  that  they  (the 
Jews)  may  force'  (iti^T^  ^^he  remnant  of  Edom,  (DHK) 
and  all  nations  which  are  called  by  my  name,*  whence 
it  might  be  rather  concluded,  that  the  heathens  would 
be  obliged  to  turn  Jews,  and  fubmit  to  the  ceremony  of 
circumcifion,  which  was  really  the  cafe  with  the  Edom- 
ites,  after  their  land  was  conquered  by  John  Hyrcanus. 
But  the  whole  matter  is  clear,  if  we  follow  the  reading 
ufed  by  St.  Luke  and  the  Septuagint,  '  that  the  refidue 
of  men  (D"TX)  might  feek  (IS^^T)  the  Lord%  and  all 
-the  nations  which  are  called  after  my  name,'  or  if  we 
confider  the  Maforetic  and  Greek  readings  as  two  frag- 
ments ^  from  which  the  antient  genuine  text  may  pof- 
fibly  be  reftored  in  the  following  manner  n^^  Iti^'Tl* 
D"?^^  nnKSJ>  that  they,  (the  Jews)  with  the  refidue  of 
men,  may  feek  the  Lord,  *  and  with  all  the  nations  that 
call  on  my  name.*  St.  James,  who  made  the  quotation 
in  the  Hebrew  diale6t,  muft  have  made  it  in  this  man- 
ner, for  the  words  as  they  ftand  in  our  printed  Bibles 
have  no  connexion  with  the  defign  of  the  Apoftle.  St. 
Paul,  in  his  epiftle  to  the  Romans,  ch.  xi.  26.  quotes 
Ifaiah  lix.  20.  as  a  prophecy  of  the  general  converlion 
of  the  Jews.  Now  the  words  of  the  prophet,  as  they 
ftand  in  our  editions  of  the  Bible,  are  as  follows,  '  and 
the  Redeemer  Ihall  come  to  Zion,  UpVl  V^Q  OJ^^^I, 
and  unto  them  which  turn  from  tranfgrelTion  in  Jacob.* 
Here  every  reader  muft  obferve,  that  the  prophecy  itfelf 
implies  the  contrary  of  a  general  converfion,  for  it  is  ex- 
prefsly  faid,  that  a  Redeemer  ftiall  come  for  thofe  only 
which  turn  from  tranfgreflion  in  Jacob,  and  it  refers  to 
a  period  fimilar  to  that,  in  which  we  live  at  prefent,  as 
many  thoufands  have  been  converted  to  Chriftianity,  but 
the  greateft  part  ftill  remain  in  error.  Yet  it  was  mani- 
feftly  the  intention  of  St.  Paul  to  apply  the  paffage  not 
to  a  partial,  but  to  a  general  converfion  of  the  Jews,  the 
former  being  at  that  time  no  longer  a  fubjeft  of  pro- 
phecy, but  a  matter  aftually  fulfilled.  The  whole  diffi- 
culty 


SECT.  III.     Rotations  from  the  Old  Tefiament.  221 

cuky  may  be  removed  by  the  addition  ^  of  a  fingle  letter 
to  the  word  i'2Wh\  for  which  if  we  read  J^'^'i^^^,  the 
reading  which  was  probably  in  the  copy  of  the'Hebrew 
Bible  that  was  ufed  by  the  Seventy  and  by  St.  Paul,  the 
paflage  in  Ifaiah  will  have  the  following  fenfe,  '  for  Zion 
ihall  come  a  Redeemer,  and  one  that  fliall  put  an  end 
to  the  tranfgreflion  in  Jacob',*  and  this  explanauon  cor- 
refponds  exaftly  with  the  next  verfe,  '  this  is  my  cove- 
nant with  them,  faith  the  Lord ;  my  Spirit  that  is  upcn 
thee,  and  my  words  which  I  have  put  in  thy  mouth, 
fhall  not  depart  out  of  thy  mouth,  nor  out  of  the  mouth 
of  thy  feed,  nor  out  of  the  mouth  of  thy  feed's  feed, 
faith  the  Lord,  from  henceforth  and  for  ever:'  i.  e.  thou 
and  thy  lateft  poflerity  fhall  never  ceafe  to  confefs  the 
true  religion,  which  I  have  revealed  to  thee.  Another 
example,  where  the  reading  followed  by  the  New  Tefta- 
ment  is  a  proof  that  the  palTage  in  our  prefcnt  Hebrew 
text  is  corrupted,  may  be  found  in  my  Critical  Leftures 
on  the  1 6th.  Pfalm,  among  the  obfervations  on  the  loth. 
verfe  j  and  fmce  the  publication  of  thefe  Ledures,  the 
obfcrvation  has  been  confirmed  by  the  difcovery  of  fo 
great  a  number  of  authorities  at  that  time  unknown,  that 
no  doubt  can  be  made  that  the  common  printed  reading 
in^DH  is  abfolutely  falfe  *^  To  this  may  be  added, 
Deut.  xxxii.  43.  provided  it  be  the  text  to  which  St. 
Paul  refers  in  his  epiftle  to  the  Hebrews,  ch.  i.  6.  See 
the  14th.  Remark  on  the  Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews. 

The  New  Teftament  therefore  affords  fufficient  evi- 
dence that  our  Maforetic  text  is  in  many  places  corrupt- 
ed, and  fupplies  in  many  cafes  the  means  of  correcting 
it.  But  we  muft  not  therefore  conclude  that  corredions 
of  this  kind  are  at  all  times  allowable.  Though  Stephen, 
in  the  fpeech  recorded  in  the  feventh  chapter  of  the  Acts, 
has  twice  departed  from  the  Hebrew  text,  preferring  v, 
14.  the  Greek  reading'*,  and  v.  4.  the  Samaritan *%  a 

verfe 

?  Or  the  omKTion  of  a  letter,  If  we  read  ^ti^V")  tranfitive,  in  which  cafe 
the  Hebrew  text  would  be  iranllated,  «  and  to  turn  awav  the  tranlgreflion  of 
Jacob.'  This  alteration  feenis  preferable  to  the  other,  becaufe  JIV^  is 
generally  rendered  iu  the  Septuagint  by  «7ror££^4.'. 


222  Rotations  from  the  Old  Tejl  anient .     chap,  v, 

verfe  which  in  other  refpefts  is  exceptionable  "^j  no  infe- 
rence can  be  made  to  the  difparagement  of  the  Hebrew, 
for  though  Stephen  was  a  martyr,  he  was  not  infpired, 
and  St.  Luke,  who  has  recorded  the  fpeech,  has  delivered 
it  not  as  a  commentator,  but  as  a  faithful  hiftorian. 

Where  the  writers  of  the  New  Teftament  have  bor- 
rowed from  the  Septuagint,  they  have  not  bound  them- 
felves  with  literal  accuracy  to  the  words  of  the  original, 
but  have  ufed  a  liberty,  which  mufl  be  excufed  in  thofe, 
who  inftead  of  immediately  tranfcribing,  have  frequently 
quoted  from  memory.  Compare  Rom.  xi.  9,  10.  with 
Pfalm  Ixix.  22,  23.  Jerom  has  the  following  remark  on 
Ephef.  V.  31  '^  quod  frequenter  annotavimus,  apoflolos 
ct  evangeliflas  non  eifdem  verbis  ufos  efle  teftamenti  ve- 
teris  exemplis,  quibus  in  propriis  voluminibus  conti- 
nentur,  hoc  et  hie  probamus :  nquidem  teftimonium 
iilud  ita  in  Genefi  fcriptum  eft  :  "  propter  hoc  relinquet 
homo  pattern  fuum  et  matrem  fuam,  et  adh^erebit  uxori 
fuse,  et  erunt  duo  in  carne  una."  Nunc  autem  apoftolus 
pro  eo  quod  ibi  habetur  e^exsv  ^^^^  pofuit  ai/T»  rara,  deinde 
pro '  patre  fuo'  et '  matre  fua'  pronomina  abftulit  et  'patrem* 
tantum  pofuit  et  '  matrem,*  etquod  in  medio  dicitur,  '  et 
adh^rebit  uxori  fuas'  hie  penitus  prstermifit;  et  tantum 
quod  fequebatur  hoc  diftum  fuperioribus  copulavit,  et 
pofuit,  et  erunt  duo  in  carne  una.  The  pafTage  to  which 
Jerom  here  alludes.  Gen.  ii.  24.  is  quoted  three  times 
in  the  New  Teftament,  Matth.  xix.  5.  Mark  x.  6, 
Ephef.  V.  3 1 .  In  all  three  examples  the  words  01  Svo  are 
ufed,  which  are  found  in  the  Septuagint,  and  not  in  the 
Hebrew,  but  as  the  text  ftood  in  the  time  of  the  Apof- 
tles,  they  were  probably  there  likewife '.  Yet  thefe  quo- 
tations correfpond  not  accurately  with  each  other,  as  will 
appear  from  the  following  comparifon. 

The  Septuagint,  according  to  the  edition  by  Bos '% 
has  inx.iv  rara  xaraAs-ij/fi  ai'S-^wTro?,  which  are  the  words 

ufed 

1  See  the  Sententia  de  Chronologia  Mofis  poft  diluvium,  §  15.  p.  190, 
191.  of  my  Commentationes  focietati  Scientiarum  Goettingenfi  per  annos 
I765 — 1768  prseleftarum. 

r  See  the  Orient.  Bibl.  Vol.  IX.  p.  175—177  "4. 


%ECT.  III.      Rotations  from  the  Old  Tejiament.  223 

uled  by  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark,  but  St.  Paul  has 
ai^Tt  T8TX,  who  took  the  liberty  of  making  ufe  of  the  words 
which  firft  occurred  to  him. 

The  Septuagint  has  toj^  -r^xn^x  xvya  xxi  mv  [Mnn^x, 
which  are  the  words  of  St.  Mark,  and,  according  to  the 
common  reading,  thofe  of  St.  Paul,  but  St.  Matthew 
has  Tov  zTXTi^x  KXi  TUP  fjt.y)Ti^x  without  the  pronoun,  a 
reading  found  likewife  in  that  copy  of  St.  Paul's  epiftles 
which  was  in  the  polTeflion  of  Jerom  "*.  But  this  is  not 
freedom  of  quotation,  or  quotation  from  memory,  but 
adlually  a  various  reading  in  the  Septuagint,  as  appears 
from  Philo's  having  quoted  this  paflage  without  uvm. 
Lib.  II.  p.  73.  of  the  edition  by  Mangey  '7. 

The  Septuagint  has  xxi  •n-poo-xoAAriS-na-STat  -zj-oog  ry\v  yu- 

vxixx  ccvrnj  which  are  the  words  of  St.  Mark,  but  St. 
Matthew  has  t»i  ^uvajKi  aura,  which  again  is  a  various 
reading  of  the  Septuagint,  as  appears  not  only  from  the 
Codex  Alexandrinus,  and  the  edition  by  Aldus,  but 
likewife  from  a  quotation  of  Philo,  Vol.  I.  p.  75  •^  Ac- 
cording to  Jerom  •»  thefe  words  were  entirely  omitted 
by  St.  Paul,  but  in  our  common  editions  of  the  New 
Teftament,  they  are  ufed  in  the  fame  manner,  as  in  the 
Septuagint  and  in  St.  Matthew  *°. 

K.XI  icToyrxi  o»  Svo  uq  c-x^nx  fxixv.  In  thele  words  they 
all  agree. 

^  From  the  foregoing  comparifon,  which  may  appear 
trivial  in  itfelf,  we  may  deduce  this  inference,  that  the 
deviations  of  the  New  Teftament  from  the  Septuagint  in 
the  quoted  pafiages  have  arifen  from  different  caufes,  not 
only  from  the  Apoftles  having  quoted  from  memory, 
but  even  from  various  readings  in  the  copies  of  the  Greek 
Bible,  which  they  refpe6lively  ufed. 

I  have  obferved,  in  the  Ads  of  the  Apoftles,  that  St. 
Luke  has  departed  from  the  words  of  the  Septuagint,  in 
the  relation  of  public  fpeeches,  more  frequently  than 
upon  other  occafions,  of  which  A(5ls  ii.  17.  19.  iii.  23, 
24,  25.  vii.  6,  7,  34.  37.  are  examples.  Whether  this 
was  done  by  defign,  and  is  to  be  confidered  as  a  mark 
of  judgement  in  the  hiftorian,  in  not  literally  tranfcrib- 


124  Rotations  from  the  Old  Tejiament.     chap.  v. 

ing  pafTages  which  the  fpeaker  could  have  quoted  only 
from  memory,  is  a  fubjed  that  will  be  examined  more 
fully  in  the  fecond  volume. 

In  other  places  the  deviation  from  the  Septuagint  is 
Hill  greater,  and  has  fometimes  the  appearance  of  an  in- 
tentional amendment,  which  is  probably  the  cafe  with 
thofe  palTages  of  St.  Matthew's  Golpel  which  have  been 
mentioned  above. 

The  Seventy  have  totally  mifreprefented  Ifaiah  viii.  14, 
15.  which  they  have  probably  done  with  defign,  in  order 
to  avoid,  what  the  Hebrew  words  feem  to  convey,  the 
opinion  that  the  Deity  is  the  author  of  evil ';  this  paflage 
is  never  quoted  in  the  New  Tellament  according  to  the 
Septuagint,  but  conftantly  according  to  the  Hebrew,  viz, 
Luke  ii.  34.  i  Pet.  ii.  7,  &c.  St.  Luke  in  his  Gofpel, 
ch.  iv.  18.  feems  to  have  quoted  the  Septuagint  with  in- 
ferted  amendments";  whether  thefe  proceeded  from  the 
Evangelift,  were  introduced  by  Chrift  himfelf,  or  were 
taken  from  a  marginal  note  in  a  Greek  Bible,  is  a  quef- 
tion  which  I  will  not  pretend  to  determine.  John  xix.  37. 
o^oDToci  iig  ov  iliy.ivrrt(ra.vj  are  not  Only  different  words,  but 
convey  a  different  fenfe  from  the  paffage  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint. Zechar.  xii.  10.  o-vot^Ki^ovrKi  zr^o?  [xs  ai/9'  uv  x«- 
roop^va-xvro  *^  Deut.  xxx.  13.  is  tranflated  by  St.  Paul, 
Rom.  x.  7.  in  a  manner  totally  different  from  the  tranf- 
lation  of  the  Seventy,  a  paraphraftical  exprelTion  being 
better  fuited  to  the  nature  of  his  fubjedl.  In  the  writ- 
ings of  Mofes  '  to  crofs  the  fea'  fignifies  to  go  to  the 
iflands  of  the  happy,  or  the  region  of  departed  fpirits ; 
but,  as  this  phrafe  was  not  intelligible  without  a  com- 
mentary, St.  Paul  fubftituted  the  more  ufual  figure  for 
expreffing  the  place  of  the  dead,  n?  xxTx^na-iTui  ej?  tv» 
a^va-a-ov'-'^.  The  Septuagint  tranflation  of  Exod.  ix.  i6. 
iviKiu  THTx  ^j£Tr;pr,6r)?  is  changed  perhaps  defignedly  into  £<? 
auTo  T8T0  i^r,yii^x  <r£,  Rom.  ix.  1 7.  The  Seventy  have 
taken  "I^niitD^n  in  the  fame  fenfe  which  I  have  given  it 
in  my  German  tranflation,  viz.  *  I  have  permitted  thee 
to  remain:'  St.  Paul  has  given  another  explanation,  of 

which 

«  See  the  Orient.  Blbl.  Vol.  XIV.  p.  129—134  ". 


SECT.  III.      Rotations  from  the  Old  Teflament.  225 

which  the  Hebrew  word  is  equally  capable,  *  I  have  per- 
mitted thee  to  be  born,'  for  which  he  iifes  the  ftrong 
expreiTion  i^rtyH^x  o-e.  Some  of  the  commentators  ex- 
plain this  exprellion  by  *  I  have  preferved  thee  ;'  but  if 
St.  Paul  had  intended  to  convey  this  meaning,  he  would 
have  abided  by  the  words  of  the  Seventy,  and,  if  I  rightly 
comprehend  the  defign  of  the  Apoftle,  he  puts  thele 
words  into  the  mouth  of  his  adverfary^^,  who  gives  them 
the  flrongeft  and  moft  invidious  interpretation  of  which 
they  would  be  capable,  if  they  were  feparated  from  the  ge- 
neral connexion.  Ifa.  xxix.  10.  is  quoted  Rom.xi.  8.  with 
an  alteration,  of  which  the  reafon  is  obvious:  the  Seventy, 
inftead  of  "jDi  effudit,  read  probably  "^Dl^  with  Jerom, 
who  has  here  mifcuit,  and  fuppofing  that  the  original 
conveyed  the  notion  of  a  compofmg  draught,  tranflated 
Tsnroriv.i\i  ufxa?  Ku/sto?  ■srunjy.ocTi  y.a,TOivv^ioog,  But  as  the 
phrafe  '  to  give  to  drink  the  fpirit  of  deep  deep'  is  fome- 
what  harfh,  St.  Paul  has  expreffed  it  in  more  general 
terms,  e^wxev  aurot;  0  ^coq  Tsvivfxa  iiOiTuvv^iug,  retaining  only 
xara^u^i?,  a  word  peculiar  to  the  Seventy.  Deut.  xxxii. 
2S-  is  quoted  Rom.  xii.  19.  but  with  an  entirely  new 
tranflation  :  the  Seventy  have  tv  -Kixipoc  sM^mnc-euq  uvrocTro- 
^u(y(Oy  St.  Paul  fjiAOt  EXfJiX'/xrif,  tyw  avTocTro^ua-Uy  in  which  he 
agrees  neither  with  the  reading  of  the  Septuagint,  nor  of 
the  Maforetic  text.  In  this  text  we  find  D^JJ^l  Dpi  ^b, 
the  Seventy  read  Dbt!^^?^  Dp3  DvV,  St.  Paul  rejefts 
tDVby  which  is  peculiar  to  the  Seventy,  but  retains  the 
future  tDbti^t•s^,  which  is  exprefled  likewife  by  the  Chaldee 
and  Syriac  tranflators,  as  well  as  in  the  Vulgate.  His 
text  therefore  v/as  D^'tJ^KI  Dpi  ^b-  St.  Paul,  i  Cor.  ii.  9. 
has  Tojf  ayaTTwo-n/  avTov,  the  Seventy,  Ifaiah  Ixiv.  4.  to»? 
vTTOfAsvua-iv  sAsov,  perhaps  the  Apoftle  read  ^b  OPID^  from 
ian  amavit  *^    The  Seventy,  Ifaiah  xxviii.  11.  have  ^nx. 

<px\jXKr[AOv  ^uXtwv,  Siac,  yXuira-n?  £T£p«f,  on  XoiXrttTStn  tu  Xaw 
TaTw,  St.  Paul.  I  Cor.  xiv.  21.  iv  ETtpo-yAwo-o-OK,  X«l  £V 
^nXitriv  iTipoiq  XxX7]cru  tw  Aaw  rarw,  where  sTEpoyXuiro-oi  feems 

more  accurately  to  exprefs  the  Hebrew  piDJi^  ^^l^b  ^^ 
The  Seventy  have  falfely  tranflated  Lev.  xxvi.  -i  i.  ♦i^iTD 

'nnil  lDD3ir)2j  by  K«i  J-jjo-w  rni'  ^laUaw  '*  //.a  si/  u/ai^,  but 

P  St. 


226  Rotations  from  the  Old  Tejiamcnl.      chap.  v. 

St.  Paul  has  rendered  it  accurately  Ei/oiKno-w  i\>  vyAv,  i  Con 
vi.  1 6.  The  martyr  Stephen,  who  read  the  Septuagint 
as  a  Hellenift,  and  as  a  man  of  learning,  has  in  fcveral 
parts  of  his  fpeech,  recorded  in  the  feventh  chapter  of 
the  A61:s,  diredly  contradidted  the  Seventy,  and  parti- 
cularly in  an  inftance,  which  has  fo  little  influence  on  his 
principal  objecl,  that  he  feems  to  have  had  no  other  end 
in  view,  than  merely  to  correft  their  miftake.  The  hun- 
dred Kefita  with  which  Jacob  purchafed  a  field,  are  ex- 
plained by  the  Seventy  of  an  hundred  flieep,  but  Stephen 
has  ufed  the  words  Ti^xr!?  a^yupj^,  which  he  has  done  with 
propriety,  as  Kefita  is  the  name  of  a  weight  ^^  Indeed 
throughout  the  whole  of  his  fpeech  he  has  afted  like  a 
man  who  makes  a  profcflion  of  literature,  and  is  critically 
accurate  in  the  choice  of  expreflions,  even  where  they  are 
indifferent  as  to  the  purport  for  which  he  fpake. 

Still  more  extraordinary  is  the  manner  in  which  Ifaiah 
X.  6.  is  quoted  in  the  New  Teftament.  In  the  Hebrew 
the  verbs  ufed  in  the  beginning  of  this  verfe  are  all  in  the 
imperative  mood,  unlefs  we  do  violence  to  the  Hebrew, 
in  order  to  make  it  correfpond  with  the  Greek  ^° :  God 
commands  the  prophet  to  make  the  hearts  of  the  people 
ftubborn,  their  ears  heavy,  and  to  fhut  their  eyes,  that  is, 
he  declares  to  him  beforehand  that  his  preaching  will 
produce  no  other  eff'ed  than  to  render  the  nation  more 
obftinate  than  before,  and  that  all  his  exhortations  will 
be  of  no  avail.  But  the  Seventy,  whofe  particular  care 
was  to  file  away  every  tittle,  from  which  it  might  be  con- 
cluded that  God  was  the  author  of  evil,  becaufe  the  God 
of  the  Jews  was  confidered  in  Egypt  as  a  Demiurgus, 
not  as  a  Being  of  infinite  benevolence,  on  account  of  the 
evil  which  is  vifible  in  the  world  %  have  weakened  the 
force  of  the  original,  and  fubflituted  for  the  imperative 

the  indicative  mood,  i7Tot.'xjJv^y\  ya^  n  kx^^ix  rs  Aaa  Tara, 
xa»  roig  ua-tv  avruv  jSapfWf  nx^a-ixv,  kcci  rag  o(p^xX[ji.3(  otVTUV  £X- 
■x.a.y.^v(TxVj  jat^TroTf  kJwo-jv  toj?  0(p9«Ajw.oij,  KOJi  tojj  coctji/  oc.xH(ru<rt 


t  See  the  DifTeitatio  de  Indiclis  GnolHcse  Philofophlse  tempore  LXX.  in- 
'terpretiiin  et  Phiionis  Judaei,  printed  in  the  iecond  volume  of  the  Syntagma 
'Cummentatiomim. 


ttcT.  III.      Rotations  from  the  Old  Tefiament.  227 

xat  TW    xotpSnx,  (runw(r<,  xa»    fTrtrpfvl''^'''*)   *'**    i«(rw,aa»    aura?. 

This'paflage  of  Ifalah  is  quoted  five  times  in  the  New 
Tefiament,  namely  Matt.  xiii.  15.  Markiv.  12.  Lukeviii. 
10-  Adsxxviii.  27.  Johnxii.  40.  Of  thefe  five  quota- 
tions, we  may  omit  at  prefent  that  in  St.  Luke's  Gofpel, 
becaufe  the  paffage  is  there  abridged.  St.  Matthew,  who 
is  generally  fuppofed  not  to  have  followed  the  Septua- 
gint,  and  St.  Luke  in  the  A6ls  of  the  Apofiles,  agree  fo 
exadly  with  the  Seventy,  that  no  doubt  can  be  made  of 
their  having  tranfcribed  from  the  Greek  Bible.  St.  John 
has  given  a  new  tranflation  of  the  words  of  Ifaiah,  which 
he  h'as  fo  paraphrafed  as  to  exprefs  a  different  meaning, 
agreeable  to  an  Oriental  figure  of  fpeech,  by  which  all 
adions  performed  by  permiffion  of  Providence  are  af- 
cribed  to  the  immediate  operation  of  the  Deity,  r:rvpAUKiv 
avTuv  Ts;  o<p^ccX[ji.iig,  axt  zjiTru^umv  ocvroov  rrw  x«^(?^a^,  ^^«^-rJ 

yoci  iao-W|uai  aura?.  St.  Mark  has  omitted  the  words  which 
exprefs  by  whom  the  hearts  were  hardened,  and  it  ap- 
pears that  he  has  given  his  own  tranflation,  as  he  has  pa- 
raphrafed the  words  '  that  they  be  healed'  by  the  expref- 
fion  *  that  their  fins  be  forgiven,'  tva  Paettovtsj  (^Knnacn  xa» 

T«  ocy-ocprnixciTx.  The  latter  part  of  this  fentence,  whether 
it  be  called  paraphrafe  or  tranflation  (for  ^?D")  may  be 
tranflated  to  forgive,  if  we  fuppofe  it  to  exprefs  the  fame 
meaning  as  r\Q'l  cum  tertia  radicali  He),  is  taken  from 
the  Chaldee  Targum,  where  we  find  \^^h  p:nnb'n  '  and 
it  will  be  forgiven  them.'  St.  Mark  therefore  quoted 
according  to  the  verfion,  with  which,  from  his  refidence 
in  Jerufalem,  he  was  bed  acquainted. 

The  following  are  examples  of  free  quotations,  where 
the  fame  fubjed  is  exprefl^ed  but  in  different  words, 
2  Cor.  vi.  17,  18.  compared  with  Ifaiah  lii.  11,  12.  and 
Jeremiah  xxxi.  9.  (in  the  Greek  xxxviii.  9.)  j  and  i  Cor. 
ii.  9.  compared  with  Ifaiah  Ixiv.  3.  on  which  paffage  Je- 
rom's  Commentary  on  Ifaiah  may  be  confulted.  Vol.  III. 
p.  473  ^'.  who  obferves  non  verbum  ex  verbo  reddens, 
quod  facere  omnino  contemnir,  fed  fenfuum  exprimens 
veritatem. 

pa  SECT. 


228  flotations  from  the  Old  Tejiameni.     chap.  v< 


S    E    C    T.     IV. 

T'Wo  hypothefis  by  Schrdz  and  Ernefii^  with  a  third  hy  the 
author  J  relative  to  the  quotations  from  the  Septuagint. 

•^r^UIS  fiibje(5t  Is  of  fufficient  importance  to  defervc 
X  a  more  accurate  inveiligation  than  has  hitherto 
been  made,  as  the  generality  of  critics,  inftead  of  ex- 
amining the  matter  in  its  full  extent,  have  taken  for 
granted,  that  the  writers  of  the  New  Teftament  have 
borrowed  their  quotations  from  the  Septuagint,  without 
ever  examining  the  Septuagint  itfelf 

Profeflbr  Schulz,  in  a  letter  which  he  communicated 
to  me  fome  months  ago,  and  which  he  has  permitted  mc 
to  lay  before  the  public,  has  ftated  the  queftion  in  the 
following  manner  :  *  It  is  evident  that  the  writcis  of  the 
New  Teftament  have  fometimes  quoted  the  Old  Tefta- 
mentaccording  to  the  Septuagint  verfion,  at  other  times 
given  their  own  tranflation.  In  fome  cafes,  where  they 
have  given  their  own  tranflation,  a  reafon  is  obfervable, 
why  they  have  deviated  from  the  Septuagint,  namely, 
becaufe  the  point  which  they  intended  to  demonftrate  is 
more  clearly  evinced  in  their  own  words  than  in  thofe  of 
the  Seventy  ".  But  in  other  cafes  the  force  of  the  argu- 
ment is  as  well  expreffed  by  the  words  of  the  Seventy 
as  by  thofe  of  the  Apoftles.  Now  in  fuch  examples  I 
can  affign  no  other  reafon,  that  could  induce  the  Apoftles 
to  give  their  own  tranflation,  than  that  the  Greek  verfion 
was  at  that  time  not  complete,  and  that  thofe  books  of 
the  Old  Teftament,  from  which  fuch  quotations  are 
taken,  were  tranflated  into  Greek  after  the  time  of  the 
Apoftles.  Hence  we  may  deduce  the  following  rule.  If 
the  writers  of  the  New  Teftament  have  ufed  in  a  quota- 
tion the  words  of  the  Seventy,  the  book  from  which  they 
quoted  was  already  in  the  Septuagint  verfion.  If  they 
quote  a  paffage  according  to  their  own  tranflation,  we 

mufl: 

«  It  appears  from  the  foregoing  feflion   that  other  motives  may  be  ai- 
figiicd,  why  the  Apoftles  have  deviated  from  ths  text  o^  the  Septuagiat. 


SECT.  IV.      flotations  from  the  Old  Tejlament.  229 

mufl-  firft  inquire,  whether  they  have  quoted  from  the 
fame  book  in  other  inftances  according  to  the  Septua- 
gint.  If  fuch  inftances  are  to  be  found,  we  muft  conclude 
that  the  Apoftles  had  fufficient  reafon  for  departing  from 
the  words  of  the  Septuagint,  namely,  to  place  their  proof 
in  a  ftronger  light ;  but  if  fuch  inftances  are  not  to  be 
found,  it  is  manifeft  that  the  want  of  a  Greek  verfion  was 
the  caufe,  which  obliged  them  to  tranflate  for  themfelves. 
One  or  two  examples  would  not  be  fufficient  to  make 
the  matter  clearer  than  I  have  already  ftated  it,  and  it 
would  be  neceflary,  in  order  to  give  a  perfect  demon- 
ftration,  to  arrange  the  feveral  quotations  in  the  two  fol- 
lowing columns. 

CitataV.T.  in  N.  T. 
Ex  verfione  twv  0  Ex  propria  fcriptorum  N.T.  verfione.' 
To  this  opinion  I  would  readily  fubfcribe,  if  the  fol- 
lowing claufe  were  added,  which  the  Profeflbr,  though 
he  has  not  exprefTed  it,  probably  meant  to  imply,  namely, 
that  not  a  fmgle  pafTage  alone  is  fufficient,  but  that  fe- 
veral paflages  quoted  differendy  from  the  Septuagint  are 
requifite  to  warrant  a  conclufion  againft  the  exiftence  of 
the  Greek  verllon  of  a  book  of  the  Old  Teftament  in  the 
time  of  the  Apoftles  j  fmce  it  might  eafily  happen  in  one 
or  two  inftances  that,  remembering  imperfectly  the  words 
of  the  Septuagint,  they  wrote  them  down  from  memory, 
without  referring  to  the  Septuagint  itfelf.  But  this  fub- 
fcription  would  be  only  conditional,  as  I  recoiled  no  book 
of  the  Old  Teftament,  to  which  the  claufe  is  applicable. 
The  only  doubts  which  I  have  entertained,  though  dur^ 
ing  only  a  very  fhort  time,  related  to  the  prophet  Zecha- 
riah,  who  is  faid  to  be  quoted  fix  times  in  the  New  Tef- 
tament, in  all  which  examples  the  words  of  the  Evangc- 
lifts  differ  from  thofe  of  the  Greek  verfion,  viz.  Matth. 
xxi.  4,  5.  xxvi.  31.  xxvii.  9,  lo.  Mark  xiv.  27.  John 
xii.  15.  xix.  37.  Now  the  three  firft  examples  belong 
not  properly  to  the  prefent  confideration,  becaufe  c^t, 
Matthew  wrote  originally  in  Hebrew  j  and  be  fides,  the 
third  example,  which  will  be  examined  in  the  following 
p  3  fedtion. 


230  flotations  from  the  Old  Tejiament.     chap,  v, 

fe6i:ion,  is  faid  by  the  Evangelift  hirnfelf  to  have  been 
taken  from  Jeremiah.  John  xix.  37.  is  one  of  the  ex- 
ceptions which  ProfciTor  Schulz  hirnfelf  has  admitted,  as 
the  words  of  the  Seventy,  which  are  inaccurate,  would 
not  have  fuited  the  purpofe  for  which  the  Apoftle  quoted. 
There  remain  therefore  only  two  of  thefe  fix  examples, 
of  which  again  Mark  xiv.  27.  compared  with  Zechar. 
xiii.  7.  is,  on  account  of  the  very  great  number  of  its  va- 
rious readings,  too  uncertain  to  warrant  any  pofitive  con- 
clufion.     St   Mark,  according  to  the  common  editions, 

has  srara^w  tou  sroiixn/oc,    )ca<  $iiX(rxop7rKr^ri(TiT(x.i  to,  •nrpofara, 

the  Seventy,  according  to  the  Codex  Alexandrinus,  zrx- 

roc'^ov  roii  tD-oi/xji/a,  xat  Sio.a-x.o^ina-B'na-iTOii  rex,  tt^o^xtx  t»)?  ttoijm,- 

V-/J?,  but  thefe  two  laft  words  of  the  Seventy  th?  ttoj/xv/i?, 
which  are  not  in  the  common  editions,  were  found  by 
Wetftein  in  twelve  manufcripts  of  St.  Mark's  Gofpel ' ; 
the  only  difference  therefore  is  between  Trarx^ca  and 
7^aT«^o^,  two  readings  which  are  fo  alike,  that  tran- 
fcribers  might  have  eafily  miftaken  them,  and  it  is  not 
impoCible  that  the  copy  which  was  ufed  by  St.  Mark 
had  TTXTx^o  infiead  of  Trara^ov,  which  we  are  not  juflified 
in  denying,  though  no  manufcripts  of  the  Septuagint 
hitherto  collated*  has  this  reading'";  for  the  number  of 
manufcripts,  which  have  been  ufed  in  publifhing  the 
editions  of  this  Greek  verfion  is  very  inconfiderable  ^ 
It  is  true  that  the  Roman  edition  has  Trxra^xTs  m?  ttoj- 
fxii/xg  XXI  i>i(T7rx^xTB  tx  Trpo^a.Tx^  but  admitting  this  to  be 
the  true  reading,  which  is  yet  a  matter  of  doubt,  where 
the  readings  are  fo  various,  this  turn  of  cxprefTion  would 
not  have  fuited  the  purpofe  of  St.  Mark,  who  intended 
to  apply  the  paffage  to  a  fingle  fhepherd,  namely  Chrift, 
whereas  the  words  of  the  Roman  edition  relate  to  feveral. 
There  remains  then  only  one  example  to  be  confidered, 
which  is  taken  from  Zechariah  ix.  9.  and  which  I  will 
tranfcribe  as  it  ftands  in  the  Septuagint,  in  the  Gofpel  of 
St.  Matthew,  and  that  of  St.  John,  omitting  thole  words 

of 

w  The  Arabic  verfion  of  Zechariah,  which  was  made  from  the  Greek, 
lias  1  .j.Lot  which  may  fignify  either  <^aja,^u  or  «raTa|o>'>  according 
to  the  mode  of  pointing  it. 


SECT.  IV.     Rotations  from  the  Old  Tejiament,  231 

of  the  Sepriiagint,  which  the  Evangeliils  have  negleded, 
as  unneccffary  to  their  piirpole,  and  writing  in  capitals 
the  wo^rds  in  which  rht^y  agree.    The  Seventy  have  ^a^^f 

o-iXsu?  o-a  £^X"'^'  "''" -ra-fau?    xa*    JTriEsSTjxw?  £7r»  utto 

tu-yiow  y.a.\  tjwAoi/  koi/.  St.  Matthew  has  imtolti  tji  ^uyar^i 
ZinN.  lAOT  O  BASIAETZ  SOT  EPXETAI  SOI,  CPATS 
KAI  F.niBF.BHKnS  EHI  ovoi/  KAI  nXlAON  mov  TnOZmOu. 
St.  John  pr  <poU  ©TFATEP  SinN.  lAOT  O  BASIAET2 
SOT  EPXETAI  xaSnps^'o?  EHI  HliAON  o^a.  Both  Evange- 
lifts,  efpecially  the  latter,  who  has  abbreviated  the  paf- 
fage,  differ  from  the  Septuagint,  yet  in  fuch  a  manner, 
that  the  words  of  the  Septuagint  feem  to  form  the  bafis 
of  both  quotations.  With  refped  to  Mark  xiv.  27. 
Mutth.  xxi.  5.  John  xii.  27.  they  feem  to  afford  a  proof 
that  the  Septuagint  verfion  of  Zechariah  exifled  in  the 
time  of  the  Apoftles,  rather  than  the  contrary  ;  and  the 
rule  which  is  given  by  Profeffor  Schulz  is  hardly  appli- 
cable to  this  book  of  the  Greek  verfion,  though  it  cannot 
be  denied  that  the  quotations  in  the  New  Teftament, 
from  the  prophet  Zechariah,  differ  more  from-  the  words 
of  the  Seventy  than  thofe  made  from  other  parts  of  the 
Old  Teftament.  If  the  above-mentioned  tables'^  were 
carefully  executed,  we  might  be  able  to  decide  with 
greater  certainty. 

Ernefti,  in  his  Exercitationes  FlavianJE,  §  9.  has  ad- 
vanced a  very  different  opinion,  and  contended  that  the 
Apoftles  have  never  quoted  from  the  Septuagint :  but  as 
the  examples  in  which  their  words  agree  with  thofe  of 
the  Seventy  are  too  manifeft  to  be  denied,  he  fuppofes 
that  fuch  paffages  in  the  Septuagint  have  been  purpofely 
corre6ted,  according  to  the  New  Teftament,  by  the 
Chriftian  tranfcribers  \    That  different  tranftations  made 

from 

t  His  words  are,  Sunt  loca  In  N.  T.  e  Vetere  commemorata,  qu» 
iifdem  verbis  funt  in  Grascis  V.  T.  exemplis.  Ergo  Splritus  S.  ifta  fum- 
fit  e  verfione  ilia  Grseca.  BelliiTima  conclufio !  Enimvero,  fi  quis  fum- 
mse  locorum  omnium  detrahat  primum  ea,  quae  I'unt  divena,  et  vel  prel- 
fms  ad  Hebraicum  exemplum  exprefTa,  quod  maxime  fit  in  libris  eorum, 
qui  inter  Graecos  non  funt  verlati,  ut  Johannis,  vel  ah  uUifque  excm- 
P  4  pli8> 


232  Rotations  from  the  Old  Tefiament.     chap.  v. 

from  the  fame  original,  without  any  reference  to  each 
other,  fhould  yet  agree  in  their  very  words,  and  that  in 
numerous  examples,  is  hardly  credible  ;  and  Ernefli  has 
fupported  his  fufpicion  relative  to  thefe  alterations  with 
not  a  fingle  fad.  That  the  Apoftles  were  intimately  ac- 
quainted with  the  Greek  Bible,  is  manifeft  from  their 
very  ftyle ;  no  reafon  therefore  can  be  affigned  for  deny- 
ing that  thofe  tranflations  from  the  Hebrew,  which  cor- 
refpond  word  for  word  with  the  verfion  of  the  Seventy, 
were  immediately  taken  from  that  verfion,  the  propriety 
of  which  has  been  fhewn  in  the  preceding  feflion.  And 
it  refleds  no  difhonour  on  the  Apoftles,  that  they  had 
recourfe  to  a  tranflation  inftead  of  the  original,  fmce  the 
tranflation  alone  was  underftood  by  the  generaUty  of  their 
readers,  and  every  preacher  of  the  Gofpel  muft  quote 
the  Bible  according  to  the  language  of  the  country,  in 
which  he  lives.  Be  fides,  the  quotations  ufed  in  the  New 
Teftament,  are  fometimes  inaccurate  tranflations  of  the 
Hebrew,  in  which  cafes  it  is  furely  better  to  luppofe 
that  they  were  taken  from  an  eftabliflied  verfion,  than 
made  by  the  Apoftles  themfelves. 

It  is  true  that  certain  paflTages  may  be  produced,  where 
the  Septuagint  has  been  altered  from  the  New  Tefta- 
ment, as  well  as  the  New  Teftament  from  the  Septua- 
gint. An  inftance  of  this  fort  is  Pfalm  Ixviii.  1 9.  where 
an^-nq^  which  correfponds  to  the  Hebrew,  was  changed 
into  the  third  perfon  ai^tS-/),  fo  early  as  the  time  of  Juftin 
Martyr  %  the  corredion  being  probably  grounded  on 
Ephef.  iv.  9.  A  ftill  more  remarkable  inftance  is  the 
long  interpolation  in  the  Codex  Vaticanus,  Pfalm  xiii.  3. 
(in  the  Hebrew  xiv.  3.)  taken  from  Rom.  iii.  13—  18, 
which  has  crept  from  the  Septuagint  into  the  iEthiopic 
and  Maronitic  Syriac  ^  verfions,  and  confequently  muft 

have 

plis  Hebraicis  Graeclfque  diverfa,  delnde  quas  plane  ad  verbum  He- 
braica  exprimiint,  In  qiiibus  veitendis  quifque  fua  fponte  confentiat 
cum  verfione  Alexandrina  etiam  nunquam  lefta  aut  infpefta,  parvse 
reliquiae  fuerint :  et  his  ipfis  leftat  dubitare  annon  exempla  ruv  6  fub- 
inde  ad  N,  T.  leflionem  confcrmata  a  libiariis  Chriftianis  inter  defcri- 
bcndum  fuerint,  quod  nullo  modo  abhorret. 


SECT.  IV.    Rotations  from  the  Old  Teftament.  233 

have  been  found  in  various  manufcripts  of  the  Greek 
tranflation.  But  the  numerous  alterations  which  Ernefli 
pretends,  I  have  not  been  able  to  difcover,  nor  do  the 
examples  alleged  afford  the  leaft  prefumption  in  favour 
of  that  opinion^.  Matth.  ii.  18.  differs  confiderably 
from  Jeremiah  xxxi.  (xxxviii.)  15.;  even  among  the  va- 
rious readings  of  this  paffage,  litde  fimilarity  is  to  be 
found  to  the  words  of  St.  Matthew ;  and  as  the  fame 
may  be  faid  of  other  examples,  we  have  no  reafon  to 
conclude  that  the  Chriflian  tranfcribers  of  the  Septuagint 
were  accuftomed  to  corred  it  according  to  the  New  Tef« 
tament  ^ 

On  the  contrary,  there  is  a  pafTage  in  which  it  is  more 
reafonable  to  fufpe6t  that  the  New  Teflament  has  been 
altered  from  the  Septuagint.  St.  Paul,  in  the  fifteenth 
chapter  of  his  epiftle  to  the  Romans,  recommends  both 
to  the  Jewilh  and  Gentile  converts,  inftead  of  dividing 
themfelves  into  feparate  communities,  to  unite  in  the 
common  fervice  of  the  Chriftian  church.  To  this  pur- 
pofe  he  quotes  feveral  examples  from  the  Old  Tefla- 
ment, and  laftly  in  the  lath.  verfe  he  quotes  Ifaiah  xi. 
10.  in  confirmation  of  his  advice.  It  is  true  that  the 
words  of  the  Hebrew  are  admirably  adapted  to  the  de- 
fign  of  the  Apoflle,  '  In  that  day  there  fhall  be  a  root 
of  JefTe,  which  fhall  ftand  for  an  enfign  of  the  people  ; 
to  it  fhall  the  Gentiles  feek'.'  But  St.  Paul  has  quoted 
from  the  Septuagint,  which  was  more  intelligible  to  the 
Chriflian  converts  in  Rome  than  the  figurative  expref- 
fions  of  the  Hebrew  original.  Now  it  mufl  be  remark- 
ed, that  the  Seventy,  in  tranflating  this  pafTage,  had 
probably  a  copy  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  in  which  two 
readings  of  this  pafTage  of  Ifaiah  were  different  from  our 
Maforetic  text,  i.  ^{'ti^i^,  inflead  of  Dj'?,  or  the  Seventy 
have  committed  an  error  in  tranflating  Di'?  by  ap-x^av  *". 
2.  Inflead  of  ItJ^llS  their  copy  muft  have  had  a  verb 
that  fignifies  '  to  hope,'  or  they  have  again  made  a  mif- 
take  in  taking  ti^m  in  the  fenfe  of  eXtti^w  ".  If  the  hy- 
pothefis  of  Erncfti  be  true,  that  the  Septuagint  bis  been 
altered  from  the  New  Teflament,  this  tranflation  mufl 

have 


^34  Rotations  from  the  Old  Tejlament.     chap.  v. 

have  been  made  by  St.  Paul  himfelf,  who  either  had  a 
copy  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  with  the  two  various  readings 
mentioned  above,  or  he  has  committed  two  miftakes  in 
the  tranflation'*..  But  befide  thefe  two  deviations  from 
the  Hebrew,  there  is  a  third,  which  defeats  the  very 
purpofe  for  which  St.  Paul  made  the  quotation,  namely, 
D^tDJ^  is  tranflated  e^i/wi/,  whereas  it  ought  to  have  been 
tranflated  Aawi/,  i.  e.  the  people  of  Ifrael  '^  the  word  ufed 
in  the  two  preceding  verfes.    From  the  following  words, 

«ra(  71  P'^a  TX  li(T(Ta,iy    y.oci  o  a.i/tfaf/.it/og  ot^yjiii  Aa&jv,    £7r  auTW 

t3-i,*i  £A7r»3(7t,  an  inference  may  be  deduced,  that  Jews 
and  Gentiles  fhall  unite  in  the  fervice  of  Chrift,  but  as 
the  words  (land  at  prefent  in  St.  Paul's  epiftle,  t^ai  n 

iATr.ao-t,  no  fuch  inference  can  be  deduced,  as  they  relate 
to  the  Gentiles  alone.  Here  then  we  may  naturally  fuf- 
pe6l,  that  after  a^yjiv  St.  Paul  had  originally  Xam,  and 
that  it  has  been  altered  by  the  tranfcribers  to  i^vuv,  on 
the  authority  of  the  Septuagint.  I  will  not  contend  that 
this  fufpicion  is  really  grounded,  but  the  contrary  fup- 
pofition,  that  the  Septuagint  has  in  this  cafe  been  altered 
according  to  the  New  Tedament,  is  almoft  incredible, 
as  it  implies  that  St.  Paul  has  made  a  tranflation,  which 
is  not  only  inaccurate,  but  fubverfive  of  the  defign  for 
which  he  quoted  the  prophet.  Whether  the  preceding 
example  be  thought  admiflible  or  not,  it  is  certain  that 
many  readings  of  the  New  Teflament  are  nothing  more 
than  alterations  from  the  Septuagint,  of  which  the  Codex 
Laud.  3.  A6ls  vii.  3.  affords  an  evident  proof  In  this 
manufcript  the  words  iv.  ts  oiks  m  -nyocTpog  ^thj  which  Ste- 
phen purpofely  omitted  in  his  fpeech^,  and  which  are  to 
be  found  in  no  other  copy  ''^,  have  been  interpolated 
from  the  Septuagint.  Another,  though  lefs  certain  ex- 
ample, is  Luke  xxiii.  46.  where  ra-a^aTj3-£jw,a»  is  probably 
the  true  reading,  and  israf  aS-no-o/Aat  borrowed  from  Pfalm 
XXX.  5. 

To 

y  Stephen  npplies  the  words  of  the  Septuagint  to  Abraham's  firft  jour- 
ney, which  was  from  Ur  in  Chaldjea,  in  which  journey  he  was  accom- 
panied hy  his  father,  and  therefore  cannot  be  faid  to  have  left  his  fa- 
ther's houfe. 


SECT.  IV.      Rotations  from  the  Old  Tejiament.  235 

To  the  two  preceding  hypothefes  let  it  be  permitted 
to  add  a  third.  The  difference  between  the  quotations 
in  the  New  Teftament  and  the  words  of  the  Seventy, 
may  be  explained  on  the  principle  of  various  readings, 
which,  in  the  copies  of  the  Greek  Bible,  that  were  ufed 
by  the  writers  of  the  New  Teftament,  might  differ  from 
the  manufcripts  of  the  Septuagint,  which  we  have  at  pre- 
fent.  It  is  likewife  poffible,  that  in  thofe  cafes,  where 
the  quotations  are  materially  different,  another  tranOa- 
tion  mi^ht  have  been  added  in  the  Septuagint  as  a  mar- 
ginal note,  in  the  fame  manner  as  we  find  in  the  Hex- 
apla  under  the  name  of  «AAof .  In  the  Proverbs  of  Solo- 
mon are  inftances  where  the  fame  Hebrew  words  are 
twice  tranflated,  which  can  be  explained  on  no  other 
fuppofition,  than  that  one  of  them  was  originally  a  mar- 
ginal note,  which  has  infenfibly  crept  into  the  text  itfelf. 
But  this  is  a  fubjed  on  which  we  have  too  little  infor- 
mation to  fpeak  with  certainty,  and  what  I  have  ad- 
vanced has  been  rather  with  a  view  of  exciting  others  to 
a  more  minute  inveftigation.  The  following  is  an  in- 
ftance  in  which  the  Seventy  has  given  a  falfe  tranQation, 

Prov.  X.    12.    -sravTa?   th?  ^»i  (ptXonK8i/T«?  kocXv^u  (piXiOiy    a 

paffa^e  which  is  twice  quoted  in  the  New  Teftament, 
and  both  times  with  a  more  accurate  tranftation,  James 

V.  20.    KxXv^u  STXyi^Q?  a^oc^nmy   and    I    Pet.  iv.    8.   OTi  n 

ay«x>]  yixXv^H  z^xn^o?  ai^oc^r^m.  The  queftion  may  be 
alked,  whether  the  two  Apoftles  found  this  reading  in 
their  Greek  Bibles  ?  A  fuppofition  of  this  fort  is  by  no 
means  contradiftory  to  the  hypothefis  of  Ernefti,  pro- 
vided a  few  examples  be  not  laid  as  the  bafis  of  a  general 
rule.  In  ftiort,  with  refpeft  to  the  quotations  froni  the 
Old  Teftament,  we  muft  wait  for  a  more  perfeft  edition 
of  the  Septuagint,  collated  from  the  beft  manufcripts,  be- 
fore we  can  fpeak  with  decifion ;  for  in  the  editions  which 
we  have  at  prefent,  too  little  attention  has  been  paid  to  the 
accuracy  of  the  text,  and  the  manufcripts  which  have  been 
ufed  are  not  only  inconfiderable  in  number,  but  though 
antient,  precifely  thofe  which  are  the  leaft  correa% 

*  See  the  Orient.  Bib. '5  Vol.  IX.  p.  162— 171.  e  t7  r-  T- 


236  Rotations  from  the  Old  Teftament,      chap.  v. 

SECT.      V. 

Whether  apocryphal  pajfages,  that  is,  Juch  as  are  not  con- 
tained in  our  Hebrew  and  Greek  Bibles ^  are  Jome times 
quoted  in  the  New  Tejlament. 

DISPUTES  had  arifcn  fo  early  as  the  age  of  Jerom, 
whether  apocryphal  pafTages  were  difcoverable  in 
the  New  Teftament,  upon  which  fubjed:  the  learned 
father,  in  his  commentary  on  the  epiftle  to  the  Ephe- 
fians,  immediately  after  the  words  quoted  from  him  in 
the  third  feftion  of  this  chapter,  has  the  following  re- 
mark *,  hoc  autem  totum  nunc  idcirco  obfervavimus,  ut 
ctiam  in  casteris  locis  ficubi  teftimonia  quafi  de  prophetis 
et  de  veteri  teftamento  ab  apoftolis  ufurpata  funt,  et  in  nof- 
tris  codicibus  non  habentur,  nequaquam  ftatim  ad  apo- 
cryphorum  ineptias  et  deliramenta  curramus  :  fed  fcia- 
mus,  fcripta  qujdem  ea  efle  in  veteri  teftamento,  fed  non 
ita  ab  apoftolis  edita,  et  fenfum  magis  ufurpatum :  nee 
facile  nifi  a  ftudiofis  pofle  ubi  fcripta  fmt  inveniri.  He 
expreffes  himfelf  in  ftill  ftronger  terms  in  his  note  on 
Ifaiahlxiv.  3.  a  text  which  St.  Paul  has  quoted,  i  Cor. 
ii.  9*.  but  the  words,  which  are  ufed  by  St.  Paul, 
were  likewife  found  in  feveral  not  only  apocryphal,  but 
even  defpicable  writings,  from  which  many  writers,  and 
cfpecially  Origen  *,  had  fuppofed  that  St.  Paul  had  im- 
mediately taken  them  *.  On  this  occafion  the  zeal  of  the 
pious  Jerom  breaks  forth  in  the  following  exclamation  *, 
unde  apocryphorum  deliramenta  conticeant,  qu£e  ex  oc- 

cafione 

*  In  his  Commentary  on  Matth.  xxvil.  9,  10.  a  text  which  he  fays 
may  be  fought  in  the  apocryphal  writings  of  Jeremiah,  "  fciens,  quoniam 
et  apoftohis  fcripturas  quafdam  fecretorum  (fc.  anto)ipv(puv')  profert, 
ficut  dicit  alicubi,  *  quod  oculus  non  vidit,  nee  auris  audivit>'  in  nullo 
regulari  libro  pofitum  invcnitur,  nifi  in  fecretis  Eli»  prophetse."  He 
then  obferves,  that  fome  were  inclined  to  rejeft  the  fecond  epiftle  to 
Timothy,  on  account  of  the  mention  of  Jannes  and  Jambres,  of  whom 
no  notice  is  taken  by  Mofes.  But  as  he  adds,  primam  autem  epiftolanj 
ad  Corinthios  propter  hoc  aliquem  refutaffe  quafi  adulterinam  ad  aurea 
meas  nunquam  pervenit,  it  appears  that  he  confidered  the  quotatio* 
from  the  book  of  Elias  as  genuine  and  lawful. 


SECT.  V.      Rotations  from  the  Old  Tejiament,  237 

cafione  hujus  teflimonii  ingeruntur  ecclefiis  Chrlfti.  De 
quibus  vere  dici  poteft,  quod  fedeat  diabolus  in  infidiis 
cum  divitibus  in  apocryphis,  ut  interficiat  innocentem. 
Et  iterum  :  '  infidiatur  in  apocrypho,  quafi  leo  in  fpe- 
lunca  fua,  infidiatur  ut  rapiat  pauperem.'  Afcenfio  enim 
Ifaise,  et  Apocalypfis  Eli^  hoc  habet  teftimonium.  Et 
per  hanc  occafionenij  multaque  hujufcemodi,  Hifpani- 
arum  et  Lufitaniae  deceptae  funt  mulierculas,  oneratse 
peccatis,  quge  ducuntur  defideriis  variis,  femper  difcentes, 
ct  nunquam  ad  fcientiam  veritatis  pervenientes:  ut  Ba- 
fiJidis,  Balfami,  atque  Thefauri,  Barbilonis  quoque  et 
Leufiborse  ac  reliquorum  nominum  portenta  fufciperent. 
De  quibus  diligentiflime  vir  apoftolicus  fcribit  Iien^us, 
cpifcopus  Lugdunenfis,  et  martyr,  multarum  origines 
explicans  hserefewn  et  maxime  Gnofticorum  qui  per  Mar- 
cum  iEgyptium  Galliarum  primum  circa  Rhodanum, 
deinde  Hifpaniarum  nobiles  foeminas  deceperunt,  mif- 
centes  fabulis  voluptates,  et  imperitise  fuae  nomen  fcien- 
tise  vindicantes.  Here  it  is  evident  that  Jerom,  by  apo- 
cryphal books,  underftands  not  thofe  which  are  annexed 
in  our  Bibles  to  the  Old  Teftament,  which,  though  not 
equal  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  may  be  read  for  example 
of  life  and  inftrudlion  of  manners,  but  certain  fpurious, 
and  even  fabulous  works,  fuch  as  *  The  taking  away  of 
Moles,  The  Afcenfion  of  Ifaiah,  The  Revelation  of  Eli- 
jah, The  Prophecies  of  Enoch.'  It  were  indeed  to  be 
lamented,  if  fuch  defpicable  writings  as  thefe  had  been 
quoted  in  the  New  Teftament  as  holy  Scripture,  or  even 
in  fupport  of  a  fmgle  truth ;  and  candour  obliges  me  to 
feparate  from  the  reft  of  the  New  Teftament  the  epiftle 
of  St.  Jude,  the  author  of  which  has  taken  his  accounts, 
as  will  be  ftiewn  in  the  fecond  part,  from  the  weakeft 
and  moft  fabulous  productions,  a  circumftance  which 
fufficiently  evinces  not  only  its  w^nt  of  infpiration,  but 
even  its  want  of  authendcity.  No  fuch  quotations  can 
be  produced  from  the  other  books  of  the  New  Tefta- 
ment, for  Jannes  and  Jambres,  mendoned  2  Tim.  iii.  8. 
though  no  where  named  in  the  writings  of  Mofes,  are 
taken  from  the  well  known  hiftorical  accounts  of  the 

Jews. 


238  Rotations  from  the  Old  Teftament.       chap.  v. 

Jews  ^  On  the  other  hand,  I  have  reafon  to  fufpeft  that 
fome  of  thefe  fpurious  apocryphal  productions  were  com- 
pofed  after  the  period  in  which  the  New  Tefl"ament  was 
written,  and  that  thofe  pafTages  in  which  a  refemblance 
to  the  icriptures  has  been  obferved,  were  taken  from  the 
writings  of  the  Apoftles.  A  want  of  materials  renders  a 
proof  of  this  affertion  impofliblc,  as  the  greateft  part  of 
thefe  miferable  compofitions  have  met  with  the  fate  which 
they  deferved,  having  been  either  totally  loft,  or  at  beft 
preferved  in  very  imperfetft  fragments  ^. 

A  queftion  very  nearly  allied  to  the  preceding,  and 
included  in  it  by  Jerom,  is,  whether  pafiages  are  quoted 
as  proofs  in  the  New  Teftament,  which  might  have  for- 
merly ftood  in  a  genuine  copy  of  the  Old  Teftament, 
but  which  at  prefent  are  contained  neither  in  our  He- 
brew nor  Greek  Bibles  ?  This  queftion  is  anfwered  in 
the  affirmative  by  Whifton,  and  feveral  other  critics,  who 
have  contended  that  the  paffages  which  are  wanting  have 
been  defignedly,  and  with  a  malicious  intention,  erafed 
by  the  Jews.  Now  it  is  by  no  means  impofiible,  that  in 
a  colledion  of  writings,  of  fuch  antiquity  and  extent  as 
the  Old  Teftament,  fingle  words,  or  even  whole  lines, 
ihould  have  been  omitted  in  tranfcribing  during  the 
fpace  of  1700  years  :  but  to  afcribe  it  to  the  malice  of 
the  Jews  is  contrary  to  all  probability '' .  On  the  other 
hand,  the  afiertion  of  Jerom,  that  the  Apoftles  fome- 
times  quoted  in  fuch  a  manner,  ut  non  facile  nifi  a  ftu- 
diofis  poflet,  ubi  fcripta  fint,  reperiri,  is  equally  extra- 
ordinary. Did  the  Apoftles  write  merely  for  the  learned, 
and  if  the  generality  of  their  readers  are  unable  to  dif- 
cover  the  places  to  which  they  allude,  for  what  purpole 
did  they  make  the  allufions  ?  It  is  moft  rational  to  chufe 
a  medium  between  thefe  two  opinions,  to  allow  that  cer- 
tain paflages  of  the  Old  Teftament  have  been  loft,  to 
which  reference  is  made  by  the  Apoftles,  and  which  ex- 
ifted  in  the  time  of  Chrift,  but  to  afcribe  the  lofs  to  one 
of  thofe  accidents  to  which  all  writings  whatfoever  are 
expofed. 

I  will  conclude  this  fe6bion  with  a  few  obfervations  on 

two 


WCT.  V.      flotations  from  the  Old  Tejiament.  239 

two  remarkable  quotations.  It  is  fald,  Matth.  ii.  23. 
'  Jefus  dwelt  in  a  city  called  Nazareth,  that  it  might  be 
fulfilled  which  was  fpoken  by  the  prophets.'  The  doubts 
refpefting  the  two  firft  chapters  of  this  Gofpel,  whether 
they  were  written  by  St.  Matthew,  or  another  perfon,  af- 
fe6l  not  the  prefent  queltion  j  for  whoever  was  the  au- 
thor, it  is  certain  that  he  lived  in  the  firft  century,  and 
the  quotation  'Hx^a^ccioq  xAnS-no-sTat  he  muft  have  beheved 
to  have  been  in  the  Old  Teftament,  if  not  in  thofe  very 
terms,  at  leaft  in  words  cxpreffive  of  the  lame  meaning. 
Many  have  fuppofed,  that  reference  is  made  to  a  palTage 
which  is  now  loft,  or,  as  Jerom  would  have  called  it, 
apocryphal.  But  this  example  may  be  explained,  with- 
out recurring  to  that  hypothefis,  as  a  fa6l  foretold  by  the 
prophets,  but  delivered  in  the  words  of  the  Evangelift, 
or  perhaps  in  the  terms  that  were  ufed  by  the  adverfaries 
of  Chrift.  Several  of  the  prophets  had  declared  '  that 
the  Mcffiah  would  be  regarded  as  an  impoftor,  and  re- 
je6led  by  the  Jews,*  and  Ifaiah,  ch.  liii.  1 1.  fays  exprefsly, 
that  he  was  numbered  with  the  tranfgreffors.  Now  the 
word  Nazarene  was  ufed  in  the  time  of  Chrift  as  a  term 
of  contempt  or  reproach,  and  conveyed  the  meaning  of 
impoftor,  or  a  man  of  infamous  charafter.  It  appears 
from  the  queftion  of  Nathaniel,  John  i.  46.  ^  Can  there 
any  good  thing  come  out  of  Nazareth,'  that  the  Naza- 
renes  were  held  in  contempt  j  and  in  the  paffage  aon  <tv 
fjLirx  Ina-s  r.aSrx  Nx^x^nvi,  which  is  the  reading  followed  by 
the  Syriac  tranflator^  Mark  xiv.  67.  it  is  certain  that 
Na^af Ti^s  was  intended  as  a  token  of  infult.  Expreffions 
of  contempt,  derived  from  the  name  of  a  city  or  prov-nce, 
are  frequent  among  men  of  no  education,  and  even  the 
derivation  of  a  name  may  give  occafion  to  a  vulgar  quib- 
ble %     This  explanation,  which  I  had  formerly  given  as 

mere 

a  It  is  uncertain  whether  Nazareth  was  written  with  t  or  2^.  /T1T3  or 

rniJi-     According  to   the  former   orthography,    ^iO   might  have  been 

T     : 

ufed  to  fignify  unclean,  difguftful,  from  r'^  faftidire,  Xj^'^  ftercus,  and 
it  is  peflible  that  ID]  is  ufed  iu  this  fenfs9,  Ifaiah  i,  4.     If  we  write  it 

accord- 


240  Rotations  from  the  Old  Tejiament,      chap.  v. 

mere  fuppofition,  has  been  fince  confirmed  by  the  ac- 
counts of  travellers,  who  relate  that  there  exift  at  this 
very  day  in  Galilee,  Chriftians  called  Nazarenes,  but  who 
are  ftyled  by  the  Muhammedans  Nazara,  a  word  which 
they  ufe  to  denote  a  man  of  infamous  charafter  *'.  This 
epithet  is  fo  frequently  given  to  Chrift  by  his  bittereft 
enemies,  that  it  is  hardly  credible  they  intended  to  exprefs 
only  the  place  of  his  refidence,  without  applying  it  in  the 
double  meaning  which  the  words  admit.  The  prophecies 
therefore,  in  which  was  foretold  that  Chrift  fhould  be  called 
an  impoftor,  were  fulfilled  by  the  application  of  a  name 
which  is  exprelTive  of  the  fame  notion  '^  The  word  may 
have  been  even  borrowed  from  a  Chaldee  paraphrafe**  of 
Ifaiah  liii.  12.  nor  the  quotation  be  deemed  apocryphal. 

But  the  other  example  to  which  I  alluded,  Matth. 
xxvii.  9.  10.  v/ill  hardly  admit  a  fimilar  explanation,  as 
the  book  of  Jeremiahj  from  which  the  quotation  is  taken, 
has  the  pafTage  neither  in  the  Hebrew  nor  in  the  Greek. 
The  commentators,  in  order  to  refcue  the  Evangelift 
from  the  charge  of  an  apocryphal  quotation,  have  con- 
tended that  he  has  mentioned  the  prophet  Jeremiah,  xar 
ihyjiVy  for  the  prophets  in  general,  becaufe  in  fome  ma- 
nufcripts  Jeremiah  is  placed  the  firft  in  the  book  of  the 
prophets,  and  that  in  reality  the  pafTage  is  taken  from 
Zechariah  xi.  12,  13.  But  a  fmgle  view  of  the  text  in 
Zechariah  is  fufficient  to  refute  this  opinion.  The  Sep- 
tuagint  verfion  xa*  £^»5<J■<^^  fjna-^'ov  f^a  T^taxovra  oc^yv^is?.  Ka» 
siTTS  Kv^iog  ZT^og  /xe,  xaS'ff  ocvrsg  eig  to  ^oviVTri^iovy  x«(  (niiil>0' 
f^oii  n  So-miAOV  sfiv  ov  t^ottov  i^o^ifjt.a.frB'viv  VTnp  Oivrupj  xxi  iXoi^ov 
T8?  T^ia,KO]/TX  cx-^yv^xg  xcci  tviQoiXov  oiVTug  ji?  tov  oikov  Kv^m  ft? 

p^wkEUTTifioi/,  has  only  three  words,  xai  iKk^ou  r^iomovroc,  in 

common 

according  to  the  Syrlac  orthography,  "HliJ  may  fignify  ulcerous,  un- 
clean, for  "S'^'^  in  Arabic  j.>cJ  fignlfies  '  to  bud,'  *  to  bloom,'  a  term 
applied  by  the  Eaftern  nations  to  eruptions  of  the  Ikin  '°.  See  Exod.  ix. 
9,  10.  Levlt.  xiii.  12.  a  Chron.  xxvi.  19.  and  hence  in  Syrlac  |;0-J  fig- 
nifies  an  hemorrhoidal  excrefcence.  Ifaiah  likewife,  ch.  xiv.  18.  ufes 
DJ^n3  "123  ^or  3.  corpfe  that  was  fo  unclean,  that  no  one  would  carry 
it  to  the  grave  ",  and  the  literal  Aquila  has  tranflated  it  by  wj  ^X'^f' 
b  See  the  Orient.  Bibl.  Vol.  X.  p.  47  ". 


SECT.  Vi      Rotations  from  the  Old  Tejfament.  241 

common  with  St.  Matthew,  and  the  fubjefl  matter  itfelf 
is  totally  different,  for,  according  to  the  Septuagint,  the 
thirty  pieces  of  filver  are  cad  into  the  meking  pot  in 
order  to  be  proved^  whereas,  according  to  St.  Matthew, 
they  are  applied  to  the  piirchafe  of  the  potter's  field. 
Nor  can  the  quotation  have  been  taken  from  the  original 
Hebrew,  which  relates  to  a  different  fubjeft  from  that 
treated  by  St.  Matthew  j  for  though  mention  is  made  in 
the  Hebrew  of  a  potter,  no  mention  is  made  of  a  potter's 
field.  The  following  comparifon  of  the  words  of  St. 
Matthew  with  the  words  of  the  Hebrew  original,  will 
fufficiently  demonflrate  that  the  Evangehft  has  not  taken 
his  quotation  from  Zechariah. 

Kaj  iXeiQov  rot.  rpiaxovra  upyvpix.  Thefe  are  almofl  the 
only  words  of  the  paffage  which  correipond  to  the  He- 
brew, QDDrr  D^ti/b^  nnpKI,  bur  the  correfpondence  is 
rather  apparent  than  real,  for  the  Hebrew  word  which 
anwers  to  £A«6ov,  is  in  the  firft  perfon  fingular,  whereas 
tXx^ovj  which  if  alone  might  be  taken  in  the  fame  perfonj 
is  determined  by  t^uKctv  to  be  the  third  perfon  plural. 

Tnv  T(|W>i^  Tn  TETijWTii/Ei/a.  Thefe  words  are  wandng  in 
the  Hebrew,  for  1p»n  "TINS  which  are  faid  to  correipond 
to  them,  are  differently  placed  in  the  Hebrew,  as  they 
come  before  the  words  thatanfwer  to  xxi  fAaSov,  and  fig- 
nify  egregium  predum,  taken  in  an  ironical  fenfe. 

Ov  iri(A7\<Tocyro,  Here  the  Greek  words  are  in  the  third 
perfon  plural,  and  the  Hebrew  *n"lp»  '^^^i  quo  eftima- 
tus  in  the  firft  perfon  fingular. 

Airo  viu\)  lo-pafiA.  To  thefe  words  ^T\'hV'0  is  faid  to  an- 
fwer.  But  if  that  were  true,  the  Greek  would  not  be  a 
tranflation,  but  a  paraphrafe. 

Kai  iSusKocTi  aura.  Thefe  words  are  totally  wanting  in 
the  Hebrew. 

Ek  roy  a.y}Qv.  Likewlfe  Wanting  in  the  Hebrew,  though 
they  relate  to  the  chief  fubjeft  of  the  quotadoni 

Ta  Kipoiixiug.  It  is  true  that  a  potter  is  mentioned  in 
the  Hebrew,  but  not  a  fy liable  of  the  potter's  field. 

K«S-wf  (TuvETa^E  poi  Kupiof.      Likcwilc  wanting  in   the 

Hebrew,  for  it  would  be  too  great  a  critical  licence  to 

Q^  refer 


242  Rotations  from  the  Old  Tejiament.     chap.  ir, 

refer  them  to  'h^  rTiH*  "l/!2t<'i  at  the  beginning  of  the 
13  th  verle. 

Befides,  there  are  words  in  the  Hebrew,  of  which  no  trace 
is  difcoverable  in  the  quotation  of  St.  Matthew,  fuch  as 
ibpti^n  appcnderunt,  'l^D'bs^•j^  abjice  id,  r\'1  IDK  yhti^^^l 
nins  idque  in  tempkim  Dei  abjeci,  which  laft  expreflion 
would  hardly  have  been  omitted  by  St.  Matthew,  if  he 
had  quoted  from  Zechariah. 

The  matter  being  thus  circiimftanced,  it  feems  not  a 
little  extraordinary,  that  commentators  fhould  infifl  that 
St.  Matthew  has  quoted  from  Zechariah,  when  the  Evan- 
gelift  himfelf  declares  that  he  has  taken  the  paflage  from 
Jeremiah.  As  far  as  I  am  able  to  judge,  the  only  mode  of 
iolvliic;  i\\Q  difficulty,  is  to  fuppofe  that  St.  Matthew  has 
borrowed  the  quotation  from  fome  fragment  of  Jere- 
miah which  is  no  longer  extant,  efpecially  as  Jerom  him- 
felf relates  that  he  had  (ttn  it  in  an  apocryphal  book  of 
that  prophet,  written  in  Hebrew,  and  in  the  hands  of  the 
Nazarenes*^.  The  difcovery,  which  has  been  made  of 
this  pafiage  in  a  Coptic  Leftionarium,  I  fhall  not  men- 
tion here,  as  I  have  given  an  account  of  it  in  another 
place".  It  is  likewife  probable,  that  it  ftood  in  certain 
copies  of  the  Arabic  tranflation,  as  appears  from  the  re- 
lation of  Dominions  Macer  in  his  Apparentes  facras 
fcripturas  contradidiones,  p.  25.  fed  hie  prstereundum 
non  eft,  quod  mihi  nuper  oftendit  D.  Abraam  Echellen- 
fis,  Maronita,  in  Romano  Sapientix  Archigymnafio  Chal- 
daicae  ac  Arabic^e  iingure  publicus  profeffor,  et  meus  in 
prsecognofcendis  Arabicis  biblicis  diligentiffimus  collega. 
Apud  hunc  virum  inter  comnlures  libros  Arabicos  manu- 
fcriptos  quidam  fmgularis  ex\(tit  infcriptus  liber  margari- 
tarum  pretiofarum,  eftque  de  operibus  Domini.  Audlor 
hujus  libri  ait  odio  ac  malitia  Judsorum  iftam  prophe- 
tiam  erafam  fuifife,  unde  cap.  7.  loquens  de  Chrifti  paf- 
fione  Jeremias  verba  citat,  qu£  ex  Arabico  in  latinum 
converfa  talia  funt :  "  tum  dixit  Jeremias  ad  Pefhiur,  tatn 
diu  cum  patribus  veftris  eftis  contrarii  veritatij  filii  au- 
tem  veftri,  qui  venient  poft  vos,  perpetrabunt  peccatum 
magis  enorme  quani  vos,  quoniam  appretiabimt  ilium, 

«  See  the  Orient  .Bib},  1(5  Vol.  IV.  p.  zoj—xii. 


Sect,  vi,     Rotations  from  the  Old  Teftamenf,  243 

qui  non  habet  pretium,  et  pati  facient  qui  fanat  morbos,  et 
dimittit  peccata.  Et  accipient  triginta  argenteos  'pretium 
illius  quern  emerunt  filii  Ifrael,  &c.'*  Now  even  without 
the  afliftance  of  the  Arabic  and  Coptic  fragments,  it  is 
eafy  to  fee  in  what  part  of  Jeremiah  a  paffage  fimilar  to 
that  quoted  by  St.  Matthew  might  have  flood,  namely, 
after  the  fixth  verfe  of  the  twentieth  chapter;  but  we  have 
reafon  tobediflatisfiedwith  Jerom,  for  not  having  commu- 
nicated the  paffage,  which  he  had  feen  in  the  Jeremiah 
of  the  Nazarenes,  as  no  doubt  can  be  entertained  that 
the  Evangelift  has  quoted  from  a  part  of  Jeremiah  that 
is  no  longer  extant.  The  queftion  whether  that  paffage 
was  genuine,  muft  be  determined  by  the  infpiration  of 
St.  Matthew:  an  infpired  writer  would  hardly  have  quoted 
a  text  that  was  fpurious,  but  if  any  one  can  convince  me 
that  St.  Matthew  was  not  infpired,  I  leave  the  quotation 
undetermined. 

Another  fo  remarkable  inftance  of  the  quotation  of  a 
loft  paffage  I  do  not  at  prefent  recolleft,  though  it  is  not 
improbable  that  St.  James  in  the  fourth  chapter  of  his 
cpiftle,  ver.  5.  has  introduced  a  maxim  that  formerly 
flood  in  the  Proverbs  of  Solomon,  which  at  prefent  is 
fought  in  vain. 


.SECT.       VI. 

Of  the  Rahhinical  mode  of  quotation  in  the  New  Tefimnent, 

THE  writers  of  the  NewTeftament  quote  in  general 
like  the  Rabbins,  without  mentioning  the  place, 
from  which  the  quotation  is  taken,  as  they  prefuppofe  the 
reader  to  be  fo  well  acquainted  with  the  Old  Teftament, 
that  he  vtill  be  able  to  find  it  without  particular  diredion. 
To  quote  by  chapter  and  verfe  was  at  that'  time  impoffi- 
ble,  yet  there  is  a  fingle  inftance,  A6ts  xiii.  ^2-  where  a 
paffage  is  exprefsly  faid  to  be  taken  from  the  firft  Pfam% 

d  My   reafons  for   preferring   the   reading    jv  tw  vVaVj*  tw    <zj^utu!, 
will  appear  in  the  fequel. 

(^  2  which 


444  Rotations  from  the  Old  Tejlament.     chap.  v. 

which  very  pafTaoie  we  read  at  prefent  in  the  fecond,  a 
matter  which  different  critics  hnve  differently  attempted 
to  explain".  The  method  iifcd  by  the  Rabbins  to  de- 
note the  feflion,  from  which  they  borrowed  a  quotation, 
has  been  defcribed  in  the  fiffh  feftion  of  the  fourth  chap- 
ter ;  to  which  I  will  here  fubjoin  the  following  examples, 
Luke  XX.  37.  Mark  xii.  26.  Rom.  xi.  1.  in  which  a  fingle 
word  determines  the  place  of  the  Old  Teftament  from 
which  thofe  paflages  are  taken*. 

Heinfius  has  made  a  very  juft  and  ufeful  obfervation, 
that  fometimes  the  initial  wojds  only  of  a  quoted  paffage 
are  produced,  while  thofe,  in  which  the  force  of  the  argu- 
ment confifts,  or  the  abfence  of  which  deffroys  the  con- 
nexion, are  omitted.  This  was  the  ufual  practice  of  the 
Rabbins,  as  appears  from  numberlefs  examples.  Abe- 
nefra  has  the  following  remark  on  Hof  ii.  8.  *  The  If- 
raelites  had  hitherto  fuppofed  that  the  Baals,  to  whom 
they  facrificed,  had  been  the  promoters  of  their  profpe- 
rity,  as  we  read  D'JDtJ^n  ndbry)  "lOpb  liblH  TK  V^Ij  i-  e* 
fince  we  left  off  to  burn  incenfe  to  the  queen  of  heaven.' 
This  quotation  is  taken  from  Jeremiah  xliv.  18.  but  the 
principal  words  are  omitted,  namely,  '  we  have  wanted 
all  things,  and  have  been  confumed  by  the  fword,  and  by 
the  famine.'  The  fame  Rabbi  obferves  on  Hof  ii.  11. 
that  ^iV^^  is  twice  ufed  in  that  fenfe,  to  denote  the  con- 
ftant  and  the  eternal.  *»  mnHi  ^^^m  1D^.  The  words 
m"ini  1NJi^3  are  taken  from  Pfalm  xciii.  3.  and  are  ufed 
twice,  as  ^^V^C  is  in  the  text  of  Hofea ;  but  Abenefra  has 
omitted  the  repetition,  in  which  alone  the  fimilarity  con- 
fifts, and  has  left  it  to  be  fupplied  by  his  readers.  In 
the  fame  concife  manner  he  has  quoted  Jerem.  xxii,  3. 
in  his  note  to  Hof  ii.  23.  It  is  true,  that  we  ourfelves, 
in  certain  cafes  quote  only  the  initial  words  of  a  biblical 
text,  but  as  the  cliapter  and  verfe  is  ufually  prefixed, 
immediate  reference  can  be  made  to  the  place,  from  which 

it 

^  The  manner  in  which  I  have  attempted  to  reconcile  the  feeming 
contradiflicn,  may  be  feen  in  the  Orient.  Bibl.  Vol.  II.  p,  220'.  My 
opinion  was  firft  founded  on  the  Caflel  ManuCcript,  and  has  been  fince 
confirmed  by  the  difcovery  of  another  Manufcript,  written  in  1298, 


SECT.  VI.     flotations  from  the  Old  Teftament,  Z45 

it  is  taken.  The  Rabbins,  on  the  contrary,  without  any 
reference  whatfoever,  quoted  in  this  manner  on  every  oc^ 
cafion  ;  which  prefuppofes  in  the  reader  a  very  intimate 
acquaintance  with  the  Bible,  an  acquaintance  the  more 
to  be  expe(5led  from  a  Jew,  as  that  book  alone  compre- 
hended the  whole  compafs  of  Jewifh  literature.  This 
mode  of  quotation  muft  have  taken  place  in  a  very  early 
period,  for  we  find  an  inftance  of  it  in  the  firft  book  of 
Maccabees,  ch.  vii.  17.  where  the  verb  belonging  to<r«^- 
xa?  auTwi/  is  omitted,  and  the  conftru6tion  thereby  ren- 
dered imperfe(ft'. 

The  Apoftles  and  Evangeliils  have  fometimes  quoted 
in  the  fame  manner,  of  which  ha  t7r»3-ujtx»i!r£K,  Rom.  vii. 
7.  xiii.  9.  is  an  undeniable  inftance*.     In  the  following 

example,  Rom.  X.  8.  tyyvq  o-a  to  ^>?jM.a  i^iv  iv  TwrOjCAarj  (ra 

xat  IV  TV  na^Sioc  ira,  there  is  undoubtedly  wanting  fomc 
principal  word,  the  abfence  of  which  makes  the  con- 
ftru6lion  itfclf  deficient  i  for  the  words  as  they  ftand  at 
prefent  convey  really  no  meaning,  though  enthufiafts 
have  pretended  to  difcover  in  them  a  certain  inward 
light.  But  if  we  fupply  the  words  which  are  omitted, 
zTotnu  a.vTo,  the  whole  palTage  becomes  intelligible,  and 
fignifies,  '  the  word  which  is  at  hand,  to  do  it  with  thy 
mouth  and  with  thy  heart  j'  and  though  St.  Paul  has 
not  exprefTed  them,  it  is  certain  that  he  underftood  them*, 
as  appears  from  the  following  verfes,  where  he  Ihews  in 
what  manner  the  word  of  fiith  muft  be  fulfilled  in  our 
mouths,  and  in  our  hearts.  See  the  note  to  Deut.  xxx. 
14.  in  my  German  tranflation  of  the  Bible '^.  St.  Paul, 
Rom.  X.  20.  has  quoted  Ifaiah  Ixv.  i.  but  only  in  part, 
and  the  words,  which  he  has  omitted,  are  more  exprefiive, 
than  thofe  which  he  has  produced  ;  no  doubt  therefore 
can  be  made,  that  he  intended  to  include  thofe  alfo  in  the 
quotation.  Rom.  xi.  27.  a  paflage  is  quoted  to  prove 
the  future  general   converfion   and   acceptation  of  the 

JeWlftl  nation,  xat  avrrt  ccVTOi;  *)  -arap^  «|txa  cJjaOnxr,   oI«i'  *?>£- 

^WjiAat  ra;  a/xa^Tia?  ocvTuvy  which  breaks  ofF  fo  Very  ab- 
ruptly, as  to  leave  the  fentence  devoid  of  meaning,  and 
even  of  grammatical  conftru6lion.     Here  it  is  almoft 
0^3  certain. 


fl4^  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.       chap,  vu 

certain,  that  St.  Paul  intended,  that  after  Six^vkv  fhould 
be  fupplied  that,  which  follows  it  in  Ifaiah  lix.  21.  which 
is  fo  elTcntial  to  his  purpofe  :  and  with  refpe6t  to  otuv 
€c(pi'KwiJ^cfA  rag  a,[jt.xcriccg  avruvy  the  Apoftle  intended  thac 
the  reader  fhould  fupply  the  whole  paflage  taken  from 
Jeremiah  xxxi.  33 — 37.  or  thefe  very  words  were  in  St, 
Paul's  copy  of  Ifaiah^.     St.  Matthew,  ch.  xxi.  13.  quotes 

from  Ifaiah  Ivi.  J.  0  omog  ^a  oiy.oq  sxcotTiv^ig  xA7iG}i(r£Ta»,  but 

as  the  fubjecfl:  immediately  related  to  the  court  of  the 
Gentiles,  which  the  fellers  had  profaned,  by  converting 
it  into  a  market  place,  he  naturally  meant  to  imply  the 
remaining  words  roig  thuri,  which  St.  Mark  in  the  pa- 
rallel place  has  expre{^ed^  St.  Luke,  ch.  i.  17.  has 
quoted  Malachi  iv.  6.  but  has  omitted  half  of  the  quo- 
tation %  which  has  occafioned  fome  obfcurity.  See  my 
Note  on  Heb.  ii.  13'°.  Another  inftance,  which  how- 
ever is  doubtful,  is  that  of  yn  Za€«Xwi/,  Matth.  iv.  15. 

From  this  mode  of  quotation  we  may  conclude  that  the 
Apoftlcs  and  Evangelifls  prefuppofed  that  their  reader? 
were  well  acquainted  with  the  Old  Teftamentj  and  thaC 
it  formed  the  fubjed  of  their  daily  ledure. 


CHAP.      VI. 

CRITICAL      INQUIRY      INTO      THE     VARIOUS     READING^ 
OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

SECT.      I. 

The  Autographa^  or  original  manufcripis  of  the  New  Tefia- 
'  ment  are  lofi. 

AUTOGRAPHA,  or  original  manufcripts  of  the 
NewTellament',  are  the  firfl  copies  of  each  book, 
•which  were  written  either  by  the  Apoflles  themfelves,  or 
by  amanuenfcs  under  their  immediate  infpedlion.  The 
latter  mode  was  ufually  adopted  by  St.  Paul,  but  to  avoid 
the  circulation  of  fpurious  epiftles,  he  wrote  the  conclud- 
ing benediftion  with  his  own  hand% 

None 

a  See  Rom,  xvi.  22.  Gal.  vi.  11.  and  2  Theff.  Hi.  17,  18,  compared  with 
Ch.  ii.  a.  and  i  Cor,  xvi.  zj. 


SECT.  I.  Various  Readings  of  the  N, .  T,  (^47 

None  of  thefe  original  manufcripts  are  now  remaining, 
nor  could  tlieir  prefervation  be  expedled,  without  the  in- 
terpofition  of  a  miracle,  during  the  fpace  of  feventeen 
centuries.  Were  they  now  extant,  they  would  greatly 
exceed  in  antiquity  the  oldeft  manufcripts  that  are  known, 
in  which  a  thoufand  years  are  confidered  as  a  very  great 
age,  and  none  perhaps  can  be  produced,  that  were  writ- 
ten prior  to  the  fixth  century.  The  pretended  original 
of  St.  Mark's  Gofpel  at  Venice  will  be  more  fully  exa- 
mined in  the  fequel :  it  is  known  at  prefent  to  be  nothing 
more  than  a  copy  of  the  Latin  verfion,  and,  confidering 
the  dampnefs  of  the  place,  in  which  it  is  kept,  the  cir- 
cumftance  of  its  prefervation,  were  it  as  ancient  as  many 
have  fuppofed,  would  be  fliil  more  miraculous  than  the 
work  itfelf. 

But  what  benefit  fhould  we  derive  from  the  poffeffion 
of  thefe  manufcripts,  or  what  inconvenience  do  we  fuf- 
tain  from  their  lofs  ?  No  critic  in  claillcal  literature  in- 
quires after  the  original  of  a  profane  author,  or  doubts 
of  the  authenticity  of  Cicero's  Offices,  becaufe  the  copy 
is  no  longer  extant,  which  Cicero  wrote  with  his  own 
hand.  An  antiquarian,  or  colleftor  of  antient  records, 
will  hardly  maintain  that  the  probability  of  thefe  books 
being  genuine  is  inferior  to  the  probability  that  a  record 
in  his  poflefTion  of  the  twelfth  century  is  an  authentic 
document  of  that  period  j  for  though  his  record  is  only 
fix  hundred  years  old,  and  the  works  of  Cicero  are  thrice 
as  antient,  we  are  more  expofed  to  impofitlon  in  the 
former  inftance,  as  the  forgery  of  antiquities  is  often 
praftlfed  by  thofe,  whofe  bufmefs  and  profit  is  to  lead  the 
curious  into  error.  But  fuppofing  that  the  original  ma- 
nufcripts of  Cicero,  Cccfar,  Paul,  and  Peter  were  now  ex- 
tant, it  would  be  impoflible  to  decide  whether  they  were 
fpurious,  or  whether  they  were  aftually  written  by  the 
hands  of  thefe  authors.  The  cafe  is  different  with  refpedt 
to  perfons,  who  have  lived  in  the  two  laft  centuries,  whofe 
hand-writing  is  known,  with  which  a  copy  in  queftion 
may  be  compared  and  determined;  but  we  have  no  cri- 
terion, that  can  be  applied  to  manufcripts  fo  old  as  the 
0^4  Chriftian 


248  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.       chap,  vr, 

Chriftian  nera.  Yet  admitting  that  thefe  original  writ- 
ings were  extant,  that  we  had  pofitive  proofs  of  their  au- 
thenticity, and,  what  is  flill  more,  that  the  long  period  of 
feventeen  centuries  had  left  the  colour  of  the  letters  un- 
faded,  ftill  they  would  be  no  infallible  guide  in  regard  to 
the  various  readings.  Miftakes  of  writing  are  frequently 
found  in  the  copy,  which  proceeds  from  an  author  him- 
fdf;  in  the  publication  of  various  works  I  have  difco- 
vered,  from  revifing  the  printed  fheet,  errors  in  the  fup- 
pofed  corre6l  manufcript  that  was  fent  to  the  printer,  and 
the  fame  inaccuracies  might  have  happened  to  the  co- 
pyift  employed  by  St.  Paul.  The  late  Reilke  has  fhewn 
with  very  convincing  arguments  that  the  copy  of  Abul- 
feda's  Geography,  in  the  univerfity  library  at  Lcyden,  is 
written  with  Abulfeda's  own  hand,  yet  in  fome  cafes  we 
juftly  prefer  the  reading  of  other  manufcripts,  where  the 
author  feems  to  have  committed  an  error,  which  was  af- 
terwards correfted  in  the  publication  of  the  work.  But 
as  the  letters  of  the  autographa  muft  have  been  rendered 
illegible  by  length  of  time,  they  would  afford  no  critical 
afliftance  in  deciding  on  doubtful  readings. 

Knittel,  in  his  edition  of  a  Fragment  of  Ulphllas, 
p.  129*,  accounts  for  the  lofs  of  the  original  manufcripts 
of  the  New  Teftament  in  a  very  extraordinary  manner. 
He  is  of  opinion,  that  the  original  Gofpels  and  Epiftles, 
as  foon  as  the  different  communities,  for  whofe  ufe  they 
were  written  had  taken  a  copy,  were  returned  to  the 
authors  -,  he  fays  it  was  the  general  practice  among  the 
Chriftians  of  that  age,  and  in  fupport  of  that  afTertion 
appeals  to  a  pafTage  in  Polycarp,  and  another  in  Jerom, 
His  arguments  fcem  very  unfatisfaftory,  and  it  is  reafon- 
able  to  fuppofe  that  the  very  fame  accidents  which  have 
robbed  us  of  other  antient  documents,  have  deprived  us 
likewife  of  thefe  originals.  Dr.  Semler,  in  his  *  Attempt 
to  elucidate  an  antient  Fragment  of  the  Gothic  Verfion,^ 
publiihed  at  Halle  in  1764.^  has  made  leveral  ftriftures 
on  Knittel,  and  his  work  may  be  confulted  by  thofe  who 
wiH-i  to  have  more  ample  information. 

It  has  been  concluded^  from  a  psflage  of  Ignatius,  in 

th§ 


SECT.  r.        Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.  249 

the  eighth  chapter  of  his  cpiftle  to  the  Phlladelphians, 
that  fomc  of  the  firft  Chriftians  appealed  to  the  original 
maniifcripts  at  that  time  extant,  and  held  them  in  great 
veneration  ;  for  which  they  were  ridiculed,  as  is  likewife 
inferred  from  the  fame  pafTage,  by  the  early  fathers,  and 
tl^'fc  who  had  the  greateft  authority  in  the  church.  To 
determine,  whether  this  inference  is  juflly  drawn,  it  is 
neceflary  to  read  the  H'hole  epiflle  to  the  Philadelphians, 
which  will  throw  more  light  on  the  fubjedl:,  than  all  the 
writings,  to  which  the  conteft  has  given  birth  in  modern 
ages  ;  two  of  thefe  however  I  would  recommend  to  the 
perufal  of  my  readers,  though  I  differ  in  opinion  from 
the  authors  of  both,  namely,  Pfaffii  Difl'ertatio  de  genui- 
nis  N.  T.  leClionibus,  §  i,  2,  3,  and  Frickii  Commen- 
tatio  de  curaEcclefi^  Veteris  circa  canonem  Sacras  Scrip- 
ture, cap.  iv.  §  5  and  16.  According  to  the  common  tran- 
flation,  the  pailage  in  queftion  is  as  follows,  *  I  have  heard 
fome  perfons  fay,  if  I  find  it  not  in  the  original  manu- 
fcripts  (ev  Toi?  «^j^aioi?)  in  the  Gofpel,  I  believe  it  nor. 
And  when  I  faid,  thus  it  is  written,  they  anfwered  here 
are  the  original  manufcripts.  But  my  original  manu- 
fcript  (ra  a^;)^at«)  is  Jefus  Chrift,  and  the  incorruptible 
writings  are  his  Crofs,  and  his  Death,  and  his  Refurrec- 
tion,  and  Faith  in  him^'  If  this  tranflation  were  accu- 
rate, it  would  of  courfe  follow,  that  the  original  manu- 
fcripts of  the  Apoftles  exifted  in  the  time  of  Ignatius, 
but  it  would  likewife  follow  that  the  anfwer  of  the  apof- 
tolic  father  was  extremely  weak.  Now  cc^y^yAx  appears  to 
me  to  convey  no  other  meaning  than  the  writings  of  the 
Old  Teftament,  in  which  cafe  the  words  of  Ignatius  ought 
to  be  tranflated  in  the  following  manner,  ^  I  have  heard 
fbme  perfons  fay.  If  I  find  it  not  in  the  Old  Teftament 
(£1/  Toi?  a.^-)(^xioiq,  i.  e.  y^xy.[AOia-i)  I  behcve  it  not,  and  when 
I  faid  thus  it  is  written  (appealing  probably  to  the  Greek 
Bible),  they  anfwered,  Her-e  is  the  Old  Teftament  (re- 
ferring 

k  Some  of  the  copies  inftead  of  u^x'^tce.  and  ct^x.*^oi^'  have  x^x^ix 
and  «f;/£ioi?,  according  to  which  reading  appeal  was  made  to  tr.c  arc  lives 
of  the  charchcs,  in  which  faithful  tranfcripts  .of  the  New  Teftament  were 
preferved  4. 


950  Various  Readings  of  the  N,  T.       chap,  vr, 

ferring  to  the  Hebrew  original).  But  to  me  is  Jefu^ 
Chrift  the  oldefl  book,  and  my  incorruptible  book  is  his 
Crofs,  his  Death,  his  Refurredion,  and  Faith  in  him.* 
Ignatius  difputed  with  perfons,  who,  though  not  of  Jewifh 
origin,  yet  preached,  as  he  calls  it,  Judaifm,  becaufe  they 
believed  only  thofe  tenets  which  could  be  proved  from 
the  Old  Teftament  as  well  as  from  the  New ;  and  the 
diftinftion  which  he  has  made  previous  to  the  palTage 
in  queftion  between  the  New  Teftament  and  the  pro- 
phets, implies  that  his  opponents  had  preferred  the 
prophets  to  tlie  Gofpel.  His  words  are,  *'  I  flee  to  the 
Gofpel  as  to  the  body  of  Chrift  himfelf,  and  to  the  Apof- 
tles  as  the  high  council  of  his  church.  Though  we  re- 
fpetfl  tlie  prophets  becaufe  they  have  predided  the  Gof- 
pel, &c^"  and  foon  after  he  fays,  "  Will  any  man  preach 
the  Jewifh  religion,  hear  him  not;  it  is  better  to  hear  the 
doflrines  of  Chrift  from  one  circumcifed,  than  Judaifn:^ 
from  one  uncircumcifed.  But  if  neither  of  them  fpeak 
of  Chrift,  regard  them  as  infcribed  ftones,  or  monuments 
of  the  dead,  on  which  are  the  names  only  of  men."  Ac- 
cording  to  this  explanation,  the  apoftolic  father  has  given 
a  proper  anfwer :  the  Chriftian  religion,  confirmed  by 
miracles,  can  ftand  of  itfelf  without  foreign  fupport,  an4 
the  requeft  was  unreafonable  that  the  articles  of  faith 
jQiould  be  likewife  demonftrated  from  the  Old  Tefta- 
ment. But  in  this  manner  the  paflage,  to  which  appeal 
is  made,  in  order  to  prove  the  exiftence  of  the  original 
manufcripts  in  the  time  of  Ignatius,  is  found  to  relate  to. 
a  different  fubjedl. 

Tetullian,  in  his  Treatife  de  Prasfcriptionibus,  §  36. 
refers  to  many  autographa'^  as  ftill  extant,  and  Peter,  an 
Alexandrine  bifhop  of  the  fourth  century,  appeals  to  an 
original  manufcript  of  St.  John's  Gofpel,  preferved  and 
worfhipped  at  Ephefus^  But  as  true  criticifm  was  at 
that  time  imperfedly  underftood,  the  charader  of  anti- 
quity 

^  That  TertuUIan  underftands  by  authentlcae  literae  the  original  epKtles, 
has  been  fhewn  by  J,  E.  J.  Walch,  in  his  eflay  De  Apoftolorum  literis 
authenticis  a  TertuUIano  commemoratis^. 

d  See  Dionyfii  Petavii  Uranologia,  p.  397, 


SECT.  I.        Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.  251 

quity  was  often  applied  by  fraud  and  fuperftltion  to  ob- 
jects, that  were  only  modern.  Tertullian,  in  defending 
the  caufe  of  religion  and  the  church,  is  too  partial  an 
advocate  to  be  entitled  to  implicit  faith ;  and  by  magni- 
fying his  account,  fo  as  to  exceed  the  bounds  of  proba- 
bility, he  renders  his  evidence  ftill  more  fufpicious.  He 
fays,  "  apud  quas  authenticns  literse  apoftolorum  recitan- 
tur,"  but  it  is  hardly  credible  that  the  epiflles  were 
iifually  read  in  the  public  fervice  at  Philippi,  Corinth, 
Thcffalonica,  Ephefus,  and  Rome,  from  thofe  very  ori- 
ginals, which  the  Apoftle,  a  century  and  an  half  previ- 
ous to  that  period,  fent  to  thofe  communities;  for  if 
the  church  had  been  ftill  in  pofTeflion  of  thofe  precious 
manufcripts,  inftead  of  expofing  them  to  the  danger  of 
being  worn  out  by  frequent  ule,  it  would  rather  have 
preferved  them  in  its  archives,  and  made  ufe  of  tranf- 
fcripts  for  the  common  fervice. 

It  has  been  juftly  remarked,  that  the  original  of  St. 
Paul's  Epiftles  to  the  Romans  could  not  have  been  ex- 
tant in  the  middle  of  the  fecond  century ;  for  Marcion, 
who  made  fo  many  alterations  in  the  text  of  the  New 
Teftament,  came  himfelf  to  Rome,  where  an  appeal  to 
the  original,  had  it  then  exifted,  muft  have  expofed  him. 
to  public  fhame,  whereever  his  alterations  were  unwar- 
ranted, and  have  confirmed  thofe  which  were  really 
grounded  -,  but  as  the  Hiftory  of  the  Church  is  filent 
upon  this  fubje£t,  it  is  reafonable  to  fuppofe  that  no  fuch 
comparifon  either  was  or  could  be  made. 

The  early  lofs  of  the  Autographa  of  the  New  Tefta- 
ment affords  juft  matter  of  furprife,  when  we  refleft  that 
the  original  manufcripts  of  Luther,  and  other  eminent 
men  who  lived  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  whofe 
writings  are  of  much  lefs  importance  than  thofe  of  the 
Apoftles,  are  ftill  fubfifting.  Various  caufes  may  have 
contributed  to  this  extraordinary  circumftance,  of  which 
feveral  have  been  alledged  in  GrieflDach's  Hiftoria  textus 
epiftolarum  Pauli,  fed.  ii.  §  7,  8.  My  fentiments  upon 
this  fubjed  are  as  follows. 

The  original  manufcripts,  that  are  now  extant,  are 
6  chiefly 


252  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.       chap.  vi. 

chiefly  of  fuch  works,  as  have  never  been  publilhcd;  but 
when  a  book  is  made  known  to  the  public,  the  hand- 
writing of  the  author  ceafes  to  be  of  value,  and  dwindles 
into  oblivion.  The  edition  itfelf  fupplies  the  place  of 
the  author's  copy,  which  a  printer  thinks  it  ufelefs  to 
preferve,  when  the  publication  is  finifhed.  In  the  fame 
manner  the  feveral  books  of  the  New  Teftament  circu- 
lated among  the  Chriflians  in  numerous  copies :  thefe 
were  foon  colleded  into  a  volume,  and  formed  the  edi- 
tion in  general  ufe ;  and  as  no  difputes  had  then  arifen 
on  the  fubjedl  of  various  readings,  they  felt  not  the  ne- 
cefijty  ofprefervingin  a  common  archive  the  manufcripts 
of  the  Apoftles.  The  fituation  of  the  Chriftian  churches 
was  at  that  time  extremely  different  from  the  prefent^ : 
the  moft  eminent,  which  were  thofe  of  Rome  and  Co- 
rinth, confifled  of  a  number  of  fmall  focieties,  that  af. 
fembled  feparately  in  private  houfes,  having  no  public 
building  as  a  common  receptacle  for  the  whole  commu- 
nity; and  even  in  thofe  private  houfes  a  moderate  num- 
ber only  could  meet  together,  as  it  was  their  cuftom  not 
merely  to  pray  and  to  teach,  but  likewife  to  celebrate 
their  feafls  of  love.  The  epiftle,  which  they  had  received 
from  St.  Paul,  was  not  the  property  of  any  one  fociety  in 
particular,  but  belonged  to  the  community  at  large,  and 
that  which  was  fent  to  the  Corinthians  was  addrefled  to 
the  communities  throughout  all  Achaia.  Each  fociety 
copied  the  epiftle  in  its  turn,  and  befide  the  general 
copies,  many  individuals  probably  took  copies  for  them- 
felves,  whence  the  original  manufcript  of  the  Apoftle, 
in  pafllng  through  fo  many  hands,  where  perhaps  not 
always  the  greateft  care  was  taken,  muft  unavoidably 
have  fufFered.  The  Chriftian  communines  in  Rome  and 
Corinth  had  no  common  archive,  or  public  library,  in 
which  the  manufcript  of  the  Apoftle  might  have  been 
afterwards  depofited,  for  want  of  which  the  original,  as 
foon  as  a  fufficient  number  of  copies  had  been  made,  was 
forgotten  and  loft.  In  other  cities  the  number  of  fingle 
focieties,  among  which  the  epiftle  was  divided,  was  in- 
ferior indeed  to  that  in  Rome,  Corinth,  or  Ephefus,  but 

the 


SECT.  r.         Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.  255 

the  fame  caufes  contributed  in  each  to  the  lofs  of  the 
original  epiftle. 

The  late  or  early  lofs  of  the  Autographa  has  no  in- 
fluence on  the  grounds  of  our  faith,  for  the  credibility 
of  a  book,  which  during  the  life  of  the  author  has  been 
made  known  to  the  world,  depends  not  on  the  prefer- 
vation  of  the  author's  manufcript.  No  reader  of  the  pre- 
fent  work  will  inquire  after  the  copy,  which  I  fend  to  the 
printer,  to  determine  whether  the  work  itfelf  be  fpurious 
or  authentic ;  nor  was  it  neceflary,  for  determining  the 
authenticity  of  the  New  Teftament,  to  prefcrve  the  ori- 
ginals, for  each  book,  during  the  lives  of  the  Apoftles, 
•was  circulated  throughout  the  Chriftian  world  in  num- 
bcrlefs  copies,  though  they  were  not  collefted  during  that 
period  into  a  fmgle  volume. 


SECT.      II. 


Whether  the  early  lofs  of  the  Autographa  has  occafwned  mij- 
takes  in  all  the fubjequent  copes.  Twofold  edition  of  the 
books  of  the  New  Tejlament,  one  before y  the  other  after, 
the  death  of  the  Apfiles, 

AS  the  Autographa  of  the  New  Teftament  fell  {o 
early  into  oblivion,  it  is  natural  to  inquire,  whe- 
ther the  true  reading  of  certain  paflages  be  not  entirely 
loft,  and  without  any  trace,  either  in  the  oldeft  manu- 
fcript, or  in  the  moft  antient  verfion.  This  queftion, 
delivered  in  other  terms,  amounts  to  nothing  more  than, 
whether  it  be  not  allowable,  in  certain  cafes,  to  make  ufe 
of  critical  conjefture  in  the  New  Teftament,  as  well  as 
in  other  books.  We  take  this  liberty  with  writers  in  ge- 
neral, and  corredl  fometimes  the  very  manufcript,  which 
an  author  had  written  with  his  own  hand,  who,  as  well 
as  a  copyift,  is  expofed  to  the  danger  of  wridng  wrong. 
The  oldeft  manufcripts  of  the  New  Teftament  were  made 
many  centuries  after  the  lofs  of  the  originals  ;  we  muft 
inquire  therefore  intQ  the  mode  of  publication  adopted 

in 


254  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.       chap,  iv* 

in  the  firfl:  age  of  Chriftianity,  with  refpecl  to  thofe  v/rit- 
ings  which  compofe  at  prefent  the  New  Teftament.  No 
certain  hiltorical  evidence  can  be  produced  on  this  fub- 
je6l,  our  accounts  of  thfe  primitive  church,  like  thofe  of 
all  focieties  and  nations  in  their  (late  of  infancy,  being 
imperfeft  and  obfcure.  But  no  doubt  can  be  entertained 
that  the  feveral  parts  of  the  New  Teftament  underwent 
originally  a  two-fold  publication ;  and  the  anfwer  to  our 
prefent  inquiry  muft  be  determined  by  deciding  which 
of  thofe  publications  formed  the  bafis  of  thofe  manu- 
fcripts,  which  are  noW  extant. 

I.  The  firft  publication  confifted  in  the  diflribution 
of  the  fingle  parts  of  the  New  Teftament,  as  well  epiftles 
as  Gofpels,  of  which  copies  were  taken  not  only  for  thofe 
communities,  to  which  they  were  immediately  addrefled, 
but  likewife  for  the  Chriftians,  who  were  difperfed  in  dif- 
ferent provinces.  That  this  is  true  of  the  epiftles  of  St. 
Paul,  appears  from  i  Pet.  iii.  I6^  and  it  is  probable 
that  St.  Paul  himfelf  had  copies  taken  of  the  thirteen 
epiftles  which  are  ftill  extant,  in  order  to  diftribute  them 
in  the  Chriftian  world,  and  even  that  he  collefted  thefe 
epiftles  into  a  volume.  If  that  be  true,  which  I  Ihall  at- 
tempt to  demonftrate  in  the  fequel,  that  St.  Paul  wrote 
very  many  epiftles,  befide  the  thirteen  which  are  found 
in  the  New  Teftament,  it  is  inconceivable  that  no  frag- 
ment, nor  even  the  fmalleft  trace  of  them,  fhould  any 
■where  be  vifible,  if  their  publication  had  depended  on 
the  perfons,  to  whom  they  were  addrefled  ^  For  each 
community  muft  have  been  partial  to  that  epiftle  which 
they  themfelves  had  received,  and  as  curiofity  alone 
would  have  tempted  numbers  to  purchafe  copies,  if  co- 
pics  could  have  been  procured,  fome  fragments  at  leaft 
would  have  remained,  in  which  we  ftiould  difcover  the 
fmgular  ftyle  of  the  Apoftle.  But  as  no  fuch  difcovery 
has  hitherto  been  made,  it  feems  as  if  the  right  of  pub- 
liftiing  depended  on  the  writer,  and  that  a  pretenfion  to 

that 

e  I  fpeak  not  at  prefent  of  the  epiftle  to  the  Hebrews,  which  was 
either  not  written  by  St.  Paul,  or  written  in  Hebrew  and  tranflated  into 
Greek. 


StCT.  ir.         Various  Readmgs  of  the  N.  T.  255 

that  privilege  from  other  perfons,  during  the  life  of  the 
author,  was  confidered  as  a  breach  of  literary  property*. 
Cicero  fays,  in  one  of  his  epiftles  to  Atticus^  *  die  mihi 
placetne  tibi  primum  edere  inJulTu  meo  ?  Hoc  ne  Her- 
modorus  ^  quidem  faciebat.  If  the  above  argument  be 
thought  not  abfolutely  conclufive,  yet  fo  much  at  leaft 
is  certain,  that  St.  Paul  took  part  in  the  publication  of 
his  thirteen  epiftles. 

It  feems  highly  probable,  from  1  T^hefT.  ii.  2.  that,  fb 
early  as  the  year,  in  vi^hich  St.  Paul  wrote  his  fecond  epif- 
tle  to  the  ThefTalonians,  there  circulated  among  the 
Chriftian  communities  other  epiftles  than  thofe,  which 
the  Apoftle  had  immediately  addrefled  to  them,  fome 
of  which  being  fpurious,  he  teaches  in  the  third  chapter, 
ver.  17,  18.  how  to  diftinguifh  them  from  the  genuine. 
Now  thefe  fpurious  epiftles  could  have  hardly  been  writ- 
ten to  the  ThefTalonians  themfelves,  as  the  impofture 
would  have  been  too  glaring  and  too  eafily  detedled. 
The  mark  of  diftin6lion  to  which  St.  Paul  refers,  is  pro- 
bably the  concluding  benedi6lion,  '  The  grace  of  the 
Lord  Jefus  Chrift  be  with  you  all,  Amen,'  which  in  the 
genuine  copies  was  written  with  the  Apoftle's  own  hand. 
If  this  be  true,  the  Apoftles  muft  be  confidered  as  pub- 
liftiers  of  their  own  writings,  but  as  the  thought  is  new, 
I  fubmit  it  to  the  confideration  of  the  learned '. 

In  thefe  firft  editions  of  the  fmgle  books  of  the  New 
Teftament,  in  the  time  of  the  Apoftles  and  Evangelifts, 
miftakes  in  writing  were  as  unavoidable,  as  in  modern 
ages  miftakes  in  printing,  as  it  lies  beyond  the  reach  of 
human  abilities  to  produce  what  is  abfolutely  perfed.  It 
was  impoflible  for  St.  Paul,  or  any  other  Apoftle,  to  re- 
vife  and  corred  all  the  copies  which  were  taken  of  his 
writings;  but  as  the  errata  of  the  different  tranfcribers 
related  to  different  paffages,  and  it  is  hardly  poffible  that 
all  could  have  failed  in  the  fame  manner,  and  in  the 
fame  text,  if  we  were  ftill  in  poffeffion  of  all  the  copies 

of 

f  Lib.  XIII.  epift.  21. 

■«  To  whom  the  following  wltticlfm  was  applied,  Aoyot^n*  EjfAO^fc^go; 
t/A7r9§£V£T«t»  Suidas,  Tom.  I.  p.  4.56, 


^5  6  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.        chap.  vi. 

of  this  firft  edition,  we  might  be  certain  that  the  true 
reading  of  every  doubtful  text  of  the  New  Teftament 
might  be  difcovered  in  fome  one  of  them,  and  with  pro- 
per judgement  be  diftinguilhed  from  the  falfe.  Grief- 
bach,  in  his  Fliftoria  Textus  Epiftolarum  Pauli,  fed.  ii. 
§  14.  is  of  opinion  that  the  members  of  the  Weftern 
Church  continued  during  a  longer  period  the  ufe  of  the 
antient  copies  of  fingle  epiflles.  Could  this  fuppofition 
be  confirmed  by  hiitorical  evidence,  the  Weftern  manu- 
fcripts  would  fecure  us  from  the  apprehenfion  of  having 
lofl  the  true  reading  of  any  paffage,  but  it  would  render 
at  the  fame  time  extremely  dubious  the  right  of  critical 
conjefture  ^. 

il.  After  the  death  of  all,  or  the  greateft  part  of  the 
Apoftles,  was  formed  that  coUeftion  of  writings  which 
we  call  at  prefent  the  New  Teftament.  It  contained  at 
firft  not  all  the  books,  which  we  find  in  it  at  prefent,  the 
four  catholic  epiflles  for  inflance  being  wanting ;  and  the 
copy,  which  was  ufed  by  the  old  Syriac  tranflator,  had 
not  the  epiftle  to  the  Hebrews,  for  this  epiftle  has  all  the 
appearance  of  having  been  tranflated  by  another  hand, 
and  in  a  later  period.  It  is  uncertain  by  whom  the  col- 
le6lion  was  made,  perhaps  by  the  elders  of  the  church 
of  Ephefus,  but  we  can  only  conjefture,  as  we  have  no 
hiflorical  evidence.  It  was  undoubtedly  made  after  the 
death  of  mofl  of  the  Apoftles,  and  after  the  deftru6tion 
of  Jerufalem,  as  it  contained  the  Gofpel  of  St.  John, 
which  was  written  after  that  event ;  whether  that  Apoftle 
was  itill  alive  when  the  colleflion  was  made,  is  likewife 
uncertain,  but  it  muft  have  happened  in  the  firft  cen- 
tury ^  as  the  old  Syriac  verfion  was  taken  from  it,  and 
we  have  reafon  to  fuppofe  that  this  verfion  itfclf  was 
made  before  the  firft  century  had  elapfed  *.  Now,  in 
forming  this  collection,  it  is  not  probable  that  the  Auto- 
grapha  of  the  feveral  books  of  the  New  Teftament  were 
fought  among  all  the  Chriftian  communities  difperfed 
throughout  the  Roman  empire  -,  the  filence  of  hiltory  on 
tliis  fubjeft  is  a  proof  of  the  contrary,  for  the  knowledge 
of  fo  remarkable  an  event,  as  the  forming  a  volume  of 

/kcred 


stcT.  III.       Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.  257 

facred  writings,  to  which  the  Eaftern  and  the  Weftern 
churches  contributed  their  afliflance,  would  have  been 
prefervcd  at  leafl  by  tradition.  The  moft  natural  opi- 
nion is,  that  the  colle6lor  of  thefe  writings  a6led  in  the 
fame  manner  as  the  colledor  of  every  other  kt  of  writ- 
ings, that  he  procured  as  fair  and  accurate  a  copy  as 
pofTible  of  every  book,  and  placed  them  together  in  a 
volume.  Whatever  miftakes  were  in  thefe  fingle  copies, 
(and  no  copies  can  be  fuppofed  to  be  peifeftly  free  from 
faults)  were  of  courfe  transferred  to  all  the  tranfcripts, 
which  were  made  from  this  general  collection.  And  as 
we  have  reafon  to  fuppofe  that  all  our  manufcripts  of  the 
New  Teftament,  as  well  as  thofe  from  which  the  Old 
verfions  were  made,  proceeded  from  this  colleftion,  it 
is  poflible  that  the  true  reading  of  feveral  texts  is  abfo- 
lutely  lofV,  which  we  can  reftore  only  by  the  help  of 
critical  conjedlure.  I  will  conclude  this  feclion  by  re- 
marking, that  fome  few  of  our  various  readings  may 
poflibly  be  correftions  of  the  text  of  this  colleftion,  made 
after  its  publication,  and  founded  on  the  authority  of 
more  accurate  tranfcripts  of  fingle  books  taken  previous 
to  that  period. 


SECT.       III. 

Various  Readings,  of  which  only  one  can  be  the  true  readings 
were  unavoidable  in  the  New  Tejtament  \ 

IN  a  book  of  fuch  antiquity,  and  fo  frequently  tran- 
fcribed  as  the  New  Teftament,  the  admiflion  of  mif- 
takes was  unavoidable,  which  increafing  with  the  multi- 
plication of  the  copies,  there  arofe  a  great  variety  of  dif- 
ferent readings.  Whatever  pains  had  been  taken  by  the 
tranfcribers,  unlefs  they  had  been  infpired  as  well  as  the 
Apoftles,  it  was  impoffible  to  avoid  making  fome  few 
miftakes,  fuch  for  inftance  as  leaving  out  a  line,  when 
two  lines  following  begin  or  end  with  the  fame  word. 
Whoever  doubts  of  the  truth  of  this  aflcrtion,  may  make 
H  the 


258  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.       chap,  vi, 

the  trial  by  tranfcribing  a  few  pages  of  the  Greek  Teila- 
ment,  and  comparing  his  copy  with  the  original.  Or 
he  may  examine  a  printed  jfheet  as  it  comes  from  the 
prefs,  in  which  he  will  often  find  miftakes  after  the  fe- 
cond  and  third  corredlion.  In  an  edition  of  the  Bible, 
the  prefs  is  fometimes  corrected  five  times  before  the 
work  is  printed  olTj  yet  in  the  very  editions  which  are 
called  mirabiles,  as  if  abfolutely  perfect,  we  difcover 
typographical  errors*".  If  Providence  therefore  watcher 
not  over  thofe  imprefllons  of  the  New  Teflament,  fo  as 
to  produce  a  fauklefs  copy,  though  printed  with  the 
greateft  care,  and  revifed  vv'iththe  utmoll  attention,  it  is 
in  vain  to  expect  a  fauklefs  manufcript. 

It  is  pofllble  that  many  miftakes,  in  the  firfc  manu- 
fcript of  a  work,  may  be  detedled  as  manifeft  orthogra- 
phical errors,  fuch  as  pulres  for  plures,  in  the  preface  to 
Stephens's  editio  mirabilis  of  the  New  Teftament,  which 
deferves  not  the  name  of  a  various  reading,  becaufe  it  is 
an  evident  erratum  of  the  printer.  But  this  is  not  always 
the  cafe  in  a  book  of  high  antiquity  and  importance, 
where  every  fyllable  is  regarded  with  the  greateft  vene- 
ration. Miftakes  themfelves  admit  fometimes  an  expla- 
nation, the  repetition  of  them  in  fubfequent  copies  in- 
creafe  their  authority,  and  though  art  is  often  requinte 
to  procure  them  the  Ihadow  of  a  meaning,  we  allow,  on 
the  credit  of  feveral  manufcripts,  a  reading,  which,  if 
found  only  in  one,  would  be  inftantly  rejeded  as  an  error 
of  the  copyift.  An  evident  m.iftake  in  one  tranfcript 
may  be  correfled  in  another,  by  the  addition  or  fub- 
traftion  of  a  letter  or  a  fyllable,  fo  as  to  give  the  expref- 
fion  a  meaning  difi'erent  from  the  original,  and  in  fuch 
cafes  what  at  firft  was  orthographical  error,  acquires  the 
title  of  a  various  reading.     Thefe  various  readings  are 

often 

Ji  In  tlie  treatlfe  De  Prlticipio  Inclifcernibilium,  p.  219.  of  the  fecond 
volume  of  my  Syntagma  Comnicntationum,  the  reader  will  find  a  re- 
markable inftancc  of  an  erratum  in  an  edition  of  the  New  Teftament 
called  Stephanica  Mirabilis,  which  in  the  preface,  p.  3.  has  pulres  for 
plures. 


BtCT.  nr.       Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.  ^259 

often  difficult  to  be  diftinguiflied  from  mere  miflakes ; 
in  many  examples,  what  appears  at  firft  fight  to  be  an 
error  of  the  tranfcriber,  is  found,  on  a  more  minute  in- 
quiry, to  convey  an  adequate  fenfe ;  and  we  dil'cover 
fometimes  in  a  word,  that  feems  totally  without  meaning, 
a  remnant  of  the  true  original  reading,  in  which  one  or 
more  letters  have,  by  time  or  accident,  been  erafed.  The 
difficulty  of  this  diflindtion  is  particularly  great  in  regard 
to  the  New  Teftament,  which  has  not  only  been  copied 
times  unnumbered,  but  is  confidered  as  the  fountain  of 
knowledge  by  Chriftians  of  every  denomination,  whether 
orthodox,  heterodox,  or  heretics,  all  of  whom  have  con- 
tributed their  fhare  in  altering  and  amending  according 
to  their  refpe6live  principles. 

It  is  ufelefs  to  appeal  to  the  care  and  attention  of  the 
early  Chrillians  in  copying  the  New  Teftament,  fince 
with  the  beft  intentions  they  had  not  ability  to  efFedt, 
what  lies  not  within  the  power  of  the  belt  regulated 
prefs.  But  this  boafted  attention  in  every  copyift  is  to- 
tally ungrounded,  for  they  were  often  men  of  no  know- 
ledge, wJio  wrote  for  hire.  To  appeal  to  the  interpofition 
of  Providence,  which  could  not,  as  is  fuppofed,  allow 
the  admiffion  of  errors,  is  a  violation  of  common  fenfe; 
it  is  to  prefcribe  rules  for  the  conduft  of  Providence,  and 
from  thofe  rules  to  draw  an  unwarranted  conclufion  j  it 
is  to  argue  in  the  fame  manner,  as  if  an  hiftorian  in  re- 
lating the  account  of  a  battle,  fhould  premife  that  Pro- 
vidence could  not  fail  to  give  viftory  to  the  jull  party, 
and  inftead  of  abiding  by  real  fa6ls,  determine  from 
thofe  premifes  the  event  of  the  a(Sbion.  In  fhort,  it  im- 
plies an  impofilbility,  unlefs  we  alTume  a  feries  of  never- 
ceafmg  miracles;  for  no  tranfcriber,  when  left  to  his  own 
natural  abilities,  will  ever  produce  a  copy,  that  is  per- 
feftly  fimilar  in  every  letter  to  the  original.  This  fub- 
jedl  belongs,  in  fome  meafure,  to  the  principium  indif- 
cernibilium,  from  which  we  derive  the  maxim,  Art  can- 
not produce  a  perfed:  imitation  *. 

The 

*  See  my  Programma  de  Piincipio  Indlfcernlbillum,  p.  zxg,  %zo. 
R  2 


26o  Parlous  Readings  of  the  N.  T.       chap.  vi. 

The  foregoing  obfervadons  would  have  been  entirely 
ufelefs,  had  not  many  learned  divines  in  the  former  part 
of  this  century  *  been  alarmed  at  the  immenfe  number 
of  various  readings  in  the  New  Teftament,  and  main- 
tained that  we  fhould  at  all  events  deny  them,  as  incon- 
fiflent  with  divine  infpiration.  But  as  the  editions  of 
Mill  and  Wetftein  contain  fo  many  examples  of  different 
readings,  which  cannot  poffibly  be  referred  to  the  clafs 
of  fimple  errata,  it  is  ufelefs  to  deny  what  lies  open  to 
the  fight.  This  mode  of  thinking,  with  refpeft  to  the 
New  Teftamcnt,  feems  therefore  to  have  vanifhed ;  but 
as  the  fame  complaints  have  been  renewed  in  later  times, 
in  regard  to  the  various  readings  colle6ted  of  the  Old 
Teilament,  there  is  reafon  to  apprehend  that  ignorance 
may  raife  her  voice  again  in  fome  future  period,  as  in 
the  age  of  Mill,  whofe  work  a  pious  but  unlettered  zeal 
condemned  as  impious.  The  late  Bengel,  whofe  truly 
devout  and  religious  charafter  was  univerfally  acknow- 
ledged, contributed  in  a  great  meafure  to  introduce  a 
more  rational  way  of  thinking,  and  the  critical  treatment, 
which  the  New  Teftament  received  under  his  hands, 
removed  gradually  that  anxiety  and  fufpicion,  which  the 
various  readings  had  before  excited. 


SECT.      IV. 

Difference  between  Errata,  and  Various  Readings. 

AMONG  two  or  more  different  readings,  one  only 
can  be  the  true  reading,  and  the  reft  muft  be 
either  wilful  corruptions,  or  millakes  of  the  copyiil.  It 
is  often  difficult  to  diftinguilh  the  genuine  from  the  fpu- 
rious,  and  whenever  the  fmalleft  doubt  can  be  entertain- 
ed, they  all  receive  the  name  of  Various  Readings ;  but 
in  cafes,  where  the  tranfcriber  has  evidendy  written  falfe, 
they  receive  the  name  of  Errata.  The  application  of  this 
rule  in  particular  cafes  is  again  attended  with  difficulty, 
for,  though  no  doubt  can  be  made,  that  if  one  manu- 

fcript 


SECT.  IV.        Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.  i6i 

fcript  has  a  word  that  conveys  no  meaning,  and  another 
manufcript  has  a  reading,  that  is  intelligible,  and  fuited 
to  the  connexion,  that  the  former  is  an  adifal  rniftake  j 
yet  it  is  pofiible,  and  in  the  New  Teftament  it  has  fre- 
quently happened,  that  a  reading,  which  was  fuppofed  to 
be  unintelligible,  may,  on  a  more  minute  inquiry,  and  a 
more  intimate  acquaintance  with  the  language,  be  found 
to  be  well  adapted  to  the  purpofe  for  which  it  was  ufed. 
A  diftinftion  muft  be  likewife  made  between  a  book  of 
fuch  antiquity  as  the  New  Teftament,  and  a  produ£lion 
of  modern  ages.  If  I  had  an  hundred  copies  of  a  new 
book,  and  ninety-nine  of  them  agreed  in  a  particular 
reading,  for  which  the  hundredih  had  a  different  word, 
I  fhould  not  heficate  a  moment  to  pronounce  that  the 
reading  of  the  ninety-nine  proceeded  from  the  author, 
and  the  reading  in  the  hundredth  from  the  tranfcriber, 
even  were  its  meaning  as  perfpicuous,  as  that  fupported  by 
the  authority  of  the  ninety-nine.  But  an  hundred  manu- 
fcripts  of  a  book  fo  antient  as  the  New  Teftament  is  a 
very  fmall  number,  in  comparifon  with  the  thoufands 
and  tens  of  thoufands  which  are  loft;  here  then  it  is  pof- 
fible,  and  often  highly  probable,  that  the  true  reading 
is  preferved  in  only  one  of  the  manufcripts,  that  are  now 
extant,  and  not  impoffible  that  it  is  contained  in  none. 

The  editors  of  the  Greek  and  Ladn  clafiics  have  been 
often  too  negligent  in  colleding  the  readings  of  the  dif- 
ferent manufcripts,  in  order  to  reftore  the  text  of  their 
author,  and  have  fometimes  rejedcd  as  a  manifeft  error, 
a  word  that  has  been  afterwards  difcovered  to  be  the 
pcnuine  reading,  Colledors  therefore  of  the  various 
leftions  of  the  New  Teftament  are  not  to  be  cenfured, 
if  they  fomedmes  produce  expreflions,  which  are  taken 
for  manifeft  errors  of  the  copyifts.  A  diffidence  in  their 
own  judgement,  and  a  regard  to  critical  fidelity,  may 
induce  them  to  lay  before  the  pubhc  the  fpurious  as  well 
as  the  genuine  documents ;  and  if  they  have  fallen  into 
error,  their  error  is  excufable,  as  it  is  better  to  colled 
too  much  than  too  little. 

Inaccuracies  of  grammar  are  commonly  referred  to  the 
R  3  clafs 


2,62  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.       chap.  vr. 

clafs  of  errata,  and  thought  not  to  merit  a  place  in  a 
colleftion  of  various  readings.  But  neither  apparent,  nor 
even  real  grammatical  errors,  are  at  all  times  to  be  re- 
jefled.  A  falfe  method  of  conf^ruing  the  words  of  the 
context  may  give  a  various  reading  the  appearance  of 
being  ungrammatical,  and  in  other  inftances,  that,  which 
feems  to  be  a  real  fault,  may  be  a  lawful,  though  un- 
ufual  exception  from  the  general  rule.  The  author  him- 
felf  may  have  committed  a  grammatical  miftake,  and 
when  this  is  really  the  cafe,  the  erroneous  reading  is  the 
genuine,  and  not  to  be  altered  by  the  rules  of  grammar. 
That  fuch  examples  are  f:-equently  found  in  the  book  of 
Revelation  has  been  remarked  above,  and  they  will  be 
examined  more  at  large  in  the  fecond  part. 

The  moft  flriking  orthographical  errors  are  tliofe 
which  are  called  Itacifms,  and  arife  from  confounding  a, 
»),  I,  at,  £,  &c.  with  one  another,  errors  which  are  pecu- 
liar to  certain  manufcripts.  But  if  that  which  feems 
an  overfight  of  the  copyift  alters  the  fenfe,  and  is  found 
in  feveral  manufcripts,  it  deferves  to  be  ranked  among 
the  various  readings,  and  it  is  fometimes  difficult  to  de- 
termine what  is  original,  and  what  is  overfight;  for  in- 
ftance,  Rom.  xiii.  5.  where  for  uTroracra-Eo-S-fxi,  wc  find  in 
four  manufcripts  uTrcTaTo-EdS-f,  which  is  alfo  exprelTcd  in 
two  verfions.  Readings  of  this  nature  ought  always  to 
be  noticed  in  every  collection,  but  it  is  a  queftion  whe- 
ther thofe  ought  not  to  be  omitted  which  are  palpable 
miftakes.  Now  in  fuch  general  collcftions  as  thofe  of 
Mill  and  Wetftein,  except  in  thofe  few  examples  where 
critical  conjecture  has  raifed  them  nearly  to  the  level  of 
various  readings,  they  ought  undoubtedly  to  be  rejeCted  : 
but  when  only  two  manufcripts  are  collated,  a  diligent 
attention,  to  every  even  orthographical  error,  might  be 
attended  with  advantage,  might  enable  us  to  judge  how 
far  the  inaccuracies  of  the  Greek  tranfcribers,  efpecially 
thofe  arifmg  from  the  Itacifm,  have  gone,  and  thus  direct 
us,  on  fomc  occafions,  in  the  proper  choice  of  a  various 
.reading.  Cefar  de  Mifiy  has  compared  two  manu- 
fcripts 


SECT.  V.         Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.  1^3 

fcripts^  in  this  minute  and  painful  manner,  but  the  in- 
fluence which  fuch  a  collation  may  have  on  the  criticifm 
of  the  New  Teftament  will  be  (hewn  in  the  fequel. 


S     E     C     T.      V. 

Whether  our  Faith  is  affe^ed  by  the  Various  Readings. 

IT  is  a  very  ungrounded  fear,    that  the    number  of 
Various  Readings,  which  either  have  been,  or  (hall 
hereafter  be  collefted  of  the  New  Teftament,  may  di- 
minifli  the  certainty  of  the  Chriflian  religion.     Inftead 
of  being  alarmed  at  their  number,  we  ought  rather  to 
exult,  as  the  probability  of  reftoring  the  genuine  text  of 
an  author  increafes  with  the  increafe  of  the  copies,  and 
the  moft  inaccurate  and  mutilated  editions  of  antient 
writers  are  precifely  thofe  where  the  fewcft  manufcripts 
remain  *.     As  no  copy  can  be  perfeft,  and  each  has  its 
peculiar  errors,  a  want  of  various  readings  implies  either 
a  poverty  of  manufcripts,  or  that  the  copies  which  are 
extant  are  all  taken  from  the  fame  antient  manufcript ''j 
whofe  fiults  are  of  courfe  tranfmitted  to  the  fubfequent 
tranfcripts,  whether  accidental  miflakes  of  a  copyift,  or 
intended  alterations  of  a  critic.     No  book  is,  more  ex- 
pofed  to  the  fufpicion  of  wilful  corruptions,  tha^n  the  New 
Teftament,  for  the  very  realbn  that  it  is  the  fountain  of 
divine  knowledge ;  and  if  in  all  the  manufcripts  now  ex- 
tant we  found  a  fimilarity  in  the  readings,  we  fhould 
have  reafon  to  fufpe6t  that  the  ruling  party  of  the  Chrif- 
tian  church  had  endeavoured  to  annihilate  whatever  was 
inconfiftent  with  its  own  tenets,  and  by  the  means  of 
violence  to  produce  a  general  uniformity  in  the  facred 
text.     Whereas  the  different  readings  of  the  manufcripts 
in  our  poflefiion  afford  fufficient  proof  that  they  were 
written  independently  of  each  other,  by  perfons  fepa- 
rated  by  diftance  of  time,  remotenefs  of  place,  and  di- 

verfity 

i  See  the  Orient.  Bibl.  Vol.  XI.  p.  182—191*. 
•  Sec  Ernefti's  preface  to  Tacitus,  p.  17. 
R  4 


264  Varicus  Readings  of  the  N.  T.       chap.  vi. 

verfity  of  opinions.  They  are  not  the  works  of  a  fingle 
faftion,  but  of  Chriftians  of  all  denominations,  whether 
dignified  with  the  title  of  orthodox,  or  branded  by  the 
ruling  church  with  the  name  of  heretic  ;  and  though  no 
fingle  manufcript  can  be  regarded  as  a  perfect  copy  of 
the  writings  of  the  Apoftles,  yet  the  Truth  lies  fcattered 
in  them  all,  which  it  is  the  bufinefs  of  critics  to  feledl 
from  the  general  mafs. 

A  comparifon  of  the  New  Teftament  with  the  Old 
will  make  the  matter  ftill  clearer.  Before  the  middle  of 
the  prefent  century,  it  was  fuppofed  that  all  the  manu- 
fcripts  of  the  Old  Teftament,  with  exception  to  a  few 
orthographical  errors,  were  fimilar  to  each  other,  or  in 
other  words  without  various  readings  of  any  confequence. 
If  this  were  true,  our  biblical  cridcifm  v/ould  be  in  a 
very  deplorable  ftate,  as  it  would  be  certain  that  all  our 
manufcripts  had  been  wholly  altered  from  the  Mafora  j 
and  as  the  Maforets  were  afluredly  not  infaUible,  every 
miilake  which  they  committed  muft  have  been  tranf- 
mitted  to  us ;  a  true  reading  loft  in  the  Mafora,  muft 
have  been  irrecoverably  loft  to  pofterity,  and  in  every 
doubtful  palTage,  inftead  of  referring  to  the  authority  of 
manufcripts,  no  ojher  refource  would  remain  than  criti- 
cal conjefture  *.  No  folid  anfwer  could  have  then  been 
given  to  the  fufpicion  of  the  Jews  having  altered  the 
Hebrew  text  ^  to  ferve  the  purpofes  of  their  religion, 
iinlefs  fome  andent  verfions,  fuch  as  the  Syriac  and  the 
Greek,  had  ftill  been  extant,  which  lay  beyond  the  reach 
of  their  amendments :  but  then  thefe  andent  verfions,  as 
being  the  only  criterion  by  which  the  Hebrew  text  could 
have  been  examined  and  confirmed,  would  have  often 
ufurped  an  authority  over  the  original  itfelf.  The  col- 
ledtion  of  Kennicott  has  fliewn  thefe  apprehenfions  to  be 
ungrounded,  the  manufcripts  are  not  uniform,  as  we 
fuppofed,  and  a  great  numiber  of  very  different  readings 
has  been  difcovered,  of  which  many  are  ratified  by  their 
coincidence  with  the  antient  verfions.  But  ample  as  the 
collection  may  appear,  it  is  only  a  part  of  what  remains 
to  be  executed  by  future  critics,  for  in  many  pafiages 

which 


SECT.  V.         Various  Readwgs  of  the  N,  T.  ^65 

which  are  defervedly  fufpefted,  no  various  reading  has 
been  found,  and  the  antient  verfions  differ  not  feldom 
from  the  common  text,  in  places  where  all  our  manu- 
fcripts  are  uniformly  the  fame ;  whence  we  may  reafon- 
ably  conclude,  that  the  manufcripts  hitherto  collated  are 
either  too  few,  or  too  modern.  We  have  knowledge  of 
none,  that  are  older  than  the  Mafora,  and  thofe  which 
are  at  prefent  in  our  pofleffion  have  been  too  exadly  re- 
gulated by  that  ftandard.  The  antient  and  genuine 
reading,  therefore,  is  often  totally  loft  \  and  in  numerous 
examples  we  have  no  other  aid  than  antient  verfions,  and 
critical  conjedlure.  Thefc  are  inconveniences  which  are 
infinitely  lefs  felt  in  the  criticifm  of  the  New  Teftament, 
becaufe  we  are  affifted  by  the  immenfe  number  of  dif- 
ferent readings. 

The  learned  labours  then  of  Mill  and  Wetftein  de- 
ferve  our  warmeft  approbation,  and  we  have  reafon  to 
wifli  that  future  critics  may  again  prefent  us  with  fimilar 
colleftions.  Without  the  aid  of  various  readings,  we 
muft  rely  on  the  authority  of  a  fingle  manufcript,  or  a 
fmgle  edition,  which  if  v/e  fuppofe  to  be  perfefl^,  or  ab- 
foiutcly  free  from  all  miftakes,  we  muft  believe  that 
either  the  copyift,  or  the  printer,  or  the  editor,  were 
infpired  by  the  Holy  Ghoft.  Jf  various  readings  were 
aftually  injurious  to  our  religion,  and  deprived  it  of  its 
abfolute  certainty,  yet  as  truth  is  preferable  to  every 
other  confideration,  it  would  be  as  abfurd  to  deny  both 
them  and  their  confequence,  as  to  clofe  our  eyes  in 
order  to  conceal  a  danger,  that  prefents  itfelf  diftinftly 
to  the  fight.  But  experience  has  lliev/n  that  no  fucli 
inference  can  be  deduced ;  their  difcovery  has  fliaken 
the  foundation  of  no  fundamental  article  of  faith,  but  on 
the  other  hand  has  refcued  numberlefs  examples  from 
obfcurity. 

If  the  Chriftian  religion  be  true,  of  which  no  doubt 
can  be  entertained,  it  is  impoffible  that  its  truth  Ihould 
be  affefted  by  a  comparilbn  of  its  original  documents ; 
the  various  readings  can  have  no  influence  in  altering 

thofe 

i  See  the  Orient.  Blbl.  Vol.  XL  N°  i8i  4. 


z66  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.      chap.  vr. 

thofc  do6lnncs  that  are  really  grounded,  and  we  are  not 
deftitute  of  critical  affiftance  in  diftinguifhing  the  genuine 
from  the  fpurious.  I  will  divide  my  remarks  on  this 
fubjeft  into  the  fix  following  heads : 

1.  By  the  laws  of  criticifm  ^  which  will  be  given  in 
the  fequel,  we  are  able  to  diflinguifh  in  moft  cafes  the 
true  reading  from  the  falfe. 

2.  It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  fome  fev/  of  the  various 
readings  affeft  do6lrines  as  well  as  words,  and  without 
caution  might  produce  error ;  but  thefe  are  fo  few,  that 
the  generality  of  divines  would  be  unable  to  recolledt  a 
fingle  infbance,  and  thefe  few  are  fo  eafily  diftinguifhed 
by  critical  rules,  that  not  one  has  been  fcledted  by  the 
reformers  of  the  prefent  age,  as  the  bafis  of  a  nev/  doftrine. 

3.  On  the  other  hand,  the  difcovery  of  the  various 
readings  has  removed  many  objedions  which  had  been 
made  to  the  New  Teftament,  of  which  the  motion  of 
the  v/ater  in  the  pool  Bethefda,  by  the  intervention  of  aii 
angel,  John  v.  4.  is  a  ftriking  example "". 

4.  It  is  true  that  the  number  of  proof  pafiages,  in 
fupport  of  certain  doftrines,  has  been  diminifhed  by  our 
knowledge  of  the  various  readings.  We  are  certain,  for 
inftance,  that  i  John  v.  7.  is  a  fpurious  pafiage,  but 
the  do6lrine  contained  in  it  is  not  therefore  changed,, 
fmce  it  is  delivered  in  other  parts  of  the  New  Teftament. 
After  the  moft  diligent  inquiry,  efpecially  by  thofe  who 
would  banifh  the  Divinity  of  Chrift  from  the  articles  of 
our  religion,  not  a  fingle  various  reading  ^  has  been  dif- 
covered  in  the  two  principal  paftages  John  i.  i.  and 
Rom.  ix.  5.  and  this  very  do6lrine,  inftead  of  being 
fhaken  by  tlie  colleftions  of  Mill  and  Wetftein,  has  been 
rendered  more  rertain  than  ever.  This  is  fo  ftrongly 
felt  by  the  modern  reformers  in  Germany,  that  they 
begin  to  think  lefs  favourably  of  that  fpecies  of  crincifm 
which  they  at  firft  fo  liighly  recommended,  in  the  hope 
of  its  leading  to  difcoveries  more  fuitable  to  their  maxims, 
than  the  antient  fyftem. 

5.  The  moft  important  readings,  which  make  an 
alteration  in  the  fcnfe,  relate  in  general  to  fubjeds  that 

have 

m  See  the  Orient.  Bibl.  Vol.  III.  p.  iC~20  ^ 


SECT.  V.         Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.  267 

have  no  connexion  with  articles  of  faith,  of  which  the 
Cambridge  manufcript,  that  differs  more  than  any  other 
from  the  common  text,  aPrbrds  fufficient  proof. 

6  By  far  the  greateft  number  relate  to  trifles,  and 
make  no  alteration  in  the  fenfe,  fuch  as  Kayu  for  xai  lyu, 
£X«TTw^  for  fAao-o-wi/,  Ku^iof  for  0foc,  (which  in  moft  cafes 
may  be  iifed  indifferently).  This  obfervation  was  mdde 
by  Kufter,  in  his  preface  to  Mill's  edition  of  the  New 
Teftament. 

It  has  been  thought  fuperfluous  to  colIc6l  thofe  read- 
ings, which  appear  to  make  no  alteration  in  the  fenfe, 
and  Mill  has  been  cenfured  for  this  painful  accuracy  by 
Bayer  in  his  Differtatio  de  variis  LeClionibus  Scripturse 
Sacr^,  §.  5.  feq.  But  this  cenfure  is  extremely  unjuit, 
for  that  which  appears  to  a  colledor  to  be  trifling,  may 
be  afterwards  found  to  be  important.  The  difference 
even  of  an  article  mufl:  not  be  negledled  in  collating  a 
manufcript,  for  we  know  that  ujo?  ai/S-^wTra  has  a  different 
meaning  from  0  uto?  ra  ocvS-^oo-n-Sy  the  Socinian  diftinguifhes 
Srsog  from  0  ^£0?,  and  Kluyt  has  grounded  his  explanation 
of  Luke  ii.  2.  chiefly  on  the  ufe  of  the  Greek  article  ^. 
By  thefe  minutise  the  reader  is  likewife  enabled  to  judge 
of  the  merits  of  a  manufcript,  whether  the  copyiit  has 
tranfcribed  with  care,  in  what  country  it  was  written,  to 
what  other  manufcripts  it  is  related,  or  from  what  more 
antient  manufcript  it  was  copied ".  But  where  it  is  the 
objed:  of  an  author  to  make  only  a  choice  colleftion  of 
the  moft  important  readings,  as  was  the  cafe  with  Ben- 
gel  and  Grieftach,  an  attention  to  thefe  feeming  trifles  is 
not  to  be  expefted. 

The  adverfaries  of  the  Chrifl:ian  religion  have  no  rea- 
fon  then  to  triumph  in  the  formidable  number  of  our 
various  readings,  and  the  members  of  the  church  of 
Rome  take  in  vain  occafion  to  depreciate  the  authenti- 
city of  the  Greek  text,  in  order  to  promote  the  authority 
of  the  Vulgate.  The  Ladn  verfion  has  a  greater  num- 
ber of  various  readings,  than  the  Greek  original,  and 
even  thofe  two  editions,  which  have  been  reviled  by  two 

different 

n  Sec  Wetftein's  Prolegomena,  p.  199 — 201, 


268  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.       chap.  vi. 

different  Popes,  and  both  declared  to  be  authentic,  are 
contradictory  to  each  other".  But  thefe  catholics,  who 
make  ufe  of  this  argument,  miftake  the  principles  of  their 
Uv/n  church,  which  has  never  declared  the  Vulgate  to  be 
Infallible  in  a  critical  fenfe.  The  holy  Pontiff  ufurps  no 
authority  but  in  matters  of  confcience,  and  leaves  Tub- 
jeds  of  criticifm  to  the  difcufilon  of  the  learned. 


SECT.       VI. 

Of  the  origin  of  the  Various  Readings^  and  the  befi  methods 
of  difcovering  their  different  caufes. 

IT  is  impolTible  to  form  an  accurate  judgement  on 
the  various  readings,  without  a  knowledge  of  the  dif- 
ferent fources  from  which  they  arife,  and  through  igno- 
rance on  a  fubjed  on  which  every  fetter  of  aprefs  could 
have  given  them  information}  men  of  high  rank  in  the 
republic  of  letters,  have  frequently  formed  rules  on  thofe 
very  grounds  on  which  they  ought  to  be  rejefted. 

One  of  the  befl  methods  of  difcovering  their  different 
caufes,  is  to  compare  negligent  copies  with  the  original 
manufcript  of  an  author,  and  in  every  example  where  the 
copyift  has  deviated  from  the  original,  to  examine  the 
particular  circumflances,  which  might  have  led  him  inta 
error.  The  other  method,  from  which  the  greatefV  be- 
nefit has  been  derived,  though  reckoned  among  the  un- 
avoidable evils  in  the  world,  is  to  correft  the  prefs  in  the 
publication  of  any  work.  Here  we  are  not  left  to  mere 
conjefture,  as  is  too  often  the  fate  of  critics,  but  can  im- 
mediately diftinguifli  truth  from  falfehood  j  we  have  the 
author's  copy  before  our  eyes,  and  have  a  certain  guide 
to  dired  us,  not  only  in  difcovering  miflakes,  but  like- 
wife  in  dete6ling  the  caufes  which  produced  them.  The 
fame  advantage  which  a  natural  philofopher  derives  from 
aftual  experiments,  is  prefented  to  the  critic  by  the  faulty 

fheets 

»  See  James's  Bellum  Papale,  five  Concordia  Pifcors  Sixti  Y.  et  de- 
mentis VUI.  . 


SECT.  VI.       Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.  269 

flieets  of  the  firft  impreflions,  which  from  a  careful  exa- 
mination of  the  miftakes  of  the  compofitor,  may  enable 
him  in  mofl  cafes  to  decide  on  the  caiifes  which  gave 
birth  to  error  in  antient  mannfcripts.  In  correding  the 
prefs,  I  have  obferved  numberlefs  examples  of  the  omif- 
fion  of  phrafes  and  paflages,  that  flood  between  two  words 
with  the  fame  termination;  it  is  no  wonder  therefore 
that  the  fame  miftake  has  frequently  happened  to  tran- 
fcribers.  The  habit  of  corre6ling  the  prefs,  and  revifing 
inaccurate  copies  of  modern  writings,  gives  a  readinefs 
and  ability  in  diftinguifhing  the  true  reading  of  an  antient 
manufcript  from  the  falfe,  which  m.en  of  the  deepeft 
learning  can  never  attain  without  it.  Erafmus  was  de- 
fervedly  efteemed  a  moll  accurate  critic  ;  but  he  was  in  a 
meafure  indebted  for  the  accuracy  of  his  criticifms  to  the 
circumftance  of  his  being  many  years  corredlor  in  a 
printing  office.  It  muft  however  be  obferved,  that  where 
the  analogy  fails  between  writing  and  printing,  no  infer- 
ence can  be  drawn  from  the  one  to  the  other ;  the  errors 
arifing  from  the  compofitor's  miftaking  the  types  have  no 
relation  to  the  former,  and  thofe  arifmg  from  the  mode 
of  diftating  to  feveral  copyifts  at  once  have  no  reference 
to  the  latter. 

Profane  criticifm  has  been  culdvated  by  greater  num- 
bers, and  with  more  fuccefs,  than  the  criticifm  of  the 
Bible  ;  a  knowledge  therefore  of  this  branch  of  learning 
is  highly  ufeful  to  a  theologian,  efpecially  on  the  fubjeft 
of  the  various  readings.  Every  commentator  on  the 
Bible,  (liould  firft  exercife  his  talents  in  the  Greek  and 
Latin  claffics,  or  at  leaft  be  well  acquainted  with  the  cri- 
tical refearches  of  other  literati ;  without  a  knowledge  of 
which  he  is  expofed  to  the  danger  of  committing  the 
moft  glaring  miftakes.  The  New  Teftament  has  been 
more  fortunate  in  this  refpe6t  than  the  Old,  many  of  its 
critical  commentators  having  been  men  profoundly  fkilled 
in  Grecian  literature,  and  Wetftein  neither  was  nor  could 
be  guilty  of  thofe  errors  which  we  often  find  in  critical 
remarks  on  the  Old  Teftament.  It  is  not  my  intention 
to  fignify,  that  the  rules  "for  judging  of  the  Greek  and 

Latin 


Q.']o  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.       chap,  vr* 

Latin  claflics,  are  at  all  times  applicable  to  the  NeW 
Teftament;  in  fome  cafes  diredtly  oppofite  principles 
mull  be  adopted,  and  wliat  I  here  advance  muil  be  con- 
fined to  the  various  readings. 


SECT.      VII. 

Five  caujes  of  the  Various  Readings. 

THE  various  readings  in  our  manufcripts  of  the 
New  Teftament  have  been  occafioned  by  one  of 
the  five  following  caufes, 

1.  The  omifTion,  addition,  or  exchange  of  letters^ 
fyllables,  or  words,  from  the  mere  careleflhefs  of  the 
tranfcribers. 

2.  Miftakes  of  the  tranfcribers  in  regard  to  the  true 
text  of  the  original. 

3.  Errors  or  imperfections  in  the  antient  manufcript 
from  which  the  tranfcriber  copied. 

4.  Critical  conjedure,  or  intended  improvements  of 
the  original  text. 

5.  Wilful  corruptions  to  ferve  the  purpofes  of  a  party, 
whether  orthodox  or  heterodox. 

To  the  laft  caufe  alone  I  apply  the  word  corruption^ 
for  though  every  text  that  deviates  from  original  purity, 
may  fo  far  be  faid  to  be  corrupted,  yet  as  the  term  is 
fomewhat  invidious,  it  is  unjuft  to  apply  it  to  innocent 
or  accidental  alterations. 

The  treatife  of  my  late  Father,  entitled  Traftatio  cri- 
tica  de  variis  lc6lionibus  Novi  Teftamenti  caute  colli- 
gendis  et  dijudicandis,  §  4 — 8.  publifhed  at  Halle  in 
1749,  may  be  confulted  upon  this  fubje6l;  it  is  the 
foundation  on  which  I  have  built,  and  contains  many 
inftances  which  it  is  unnecelTary  to  quote  at  prefent,  as  I 

hope 


SECT.  viir.     Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.  271 

hope  that  every  reader  of  this  Introduction  has  the  trca- 
tife  itlelf  in  his  pofTefTion  p. 


SECT.       VIII. 

Firji  Caufe.  The  omiffioriy  addition,  or  exchange  of  letters^ 
JyllahleSy  or  words,  from  the  mere  carelejfnefs  of  tran- 
Jcribers  '. 

IN  the  firft  place,  the  omiffion  of  letters,  fyllables,  or 
words,  is  very  frequently  occafioned  merely  by  the 
hurry  and  negligence  of  tranfcribers,  as  we  know  from 
the  experience  of  copying  even  our  own  writings.  The 
various  readings  colleded  by  Wetftein,  afibrd  numberlefs 
examples ;  and  when  in  a  fmgle  manufcript  or  edition  a 
word,  to  which  in  other  refpefts  no  objedlion  can  be 
made,  is  omitted,  the  omiffion  is  to  be  ranked  among 
the  fimple  errata  %  as  in  the  Codex  Cantabrigienfis, 
Matth.  xi.  7.  where  the  article  0  is  omitted  before  Ijia-a?, 
and  in  the  Codex  Alexandrinus,  which  is  the  only  manu- 
fcript in  which  ^»a  t*)?  wjj-ew?  is  omitted,  Rom.  iii.  25, 
A  fmgle  manufcript,  and  the  edition  of  Colinseus  alone, 
omit  iM,  Matth.  x.  14.  the  omifllon  is  therefore  an  erra- 
tum. But  if  feveral  manufcripts  agree  in  the  omiffion  of 
a  word,  it  is  entitled  to  a  place  among  the  various  read- 
ings ',  and,  as  in  making  a  collection,  no  one  can  be  cer- 
tain what  examples  may  be  found  in  future,  the  omiffion 
in  a  fmgle  manufcript  is  not  unworthy  of  notice. 

Omiffiions  are  frequently  occafioned  by  what  is  called 
an  chaoioteXeutov,  or  when  a  word,  after  a  fhort  interval, 
occurs  a  fecond  time  in  a  paflage  :  here  the  tranfcriber, 
having  written  the  word  at  the  beginning  of  a  paflage,  in 
looking  again  at  the  book  from  which  he  copies,  his  eye 
catches  the  fame  word  at  the  end  of  the  paflage,  and 

con- 

P  Though  written  in  his  Gxty-ninth  year,  it  is  In  my  opinion  the  beft 
of  his  produ6lions :  the  fecond  rank  I  would  allot  to  his  diflertations  an 
feveral  fubjcfls  of  grammar  and  hiftory :  the  third  to  his  Not^  uberiorcs  on 
the  Proverbs  of  Solomcn. 


ay 2  Farious  Readings  of  the  N.  T.       chap,  vr, 

continuing  to  write  what  immediately  follows,  he  of 
coiirfe  omits  the  intermediate  words.  Wetftein's  Codex 
22,  omits  entirely  Matth.  x.  40.  where  the  copyift  was 
led  into  error  by  two  following  verfes  beginning  with 
0  ^ExofJi-ivog.  Wc  find,  Matth.  xi.  18,  19.  i^nrs  -srirnvj  xa» 
Xiy-do-i  J^aj/Aonov    £X^».      HX0£i/   0   viog  ra   fll^9^a)7r8  tir^iuu  nat 

znvuy  i  here  Wetftein's  Codex  59  omits  all  the  words 
between  the  firft  and  fecond  tztivwv.  The  Fragmentum 
Borgianum  omits  f^Knn/  v[/.oig  iy.i  <??,  John  vii.  7.  and  leaves 
the  paflage  totally  without  meaning*.  A  great  number 
of  manuicripts  have  a  fimilar  omiffion,  Rev.  ix.  i,  2. 
Knittel  having  collated  a  manufcript  of  the  Revelation, 
found  that  the  tranfcrib.er  had  fallen  into  this  miftake  not 
lefs  than  twelve  different  times  in  that  book  alone "-,  nor 
is  it  unfrequently  dctefted  in  the  Hebrew  manufcripts  of 
the  Old  Teftament,  as  I  have  fhewn  in  another  place  ^ 
In  Ihort,  no  error  in  writing  is  more  eafily  or  more  fre- 
quently committed,  and  it  is  not  feldom  the  reafon  that 
feveral  manufcripts  agree  in  the  omiffion  of  the  fame 
pafTage. 

As  nearly  an  hundred  and  fifty  manufcripts  of  the  New 
Teftament  have  been  aftually  collated,  an  omiffion  of 
this  nature  in  four  or  five  might  be  juftly  confidered  as 
a  mere  erratum.  Were  the  number  more  confiderable, 
it  might  be  reckoned  among  the  various  readings ;  but 
if  even  one  half  of  the  manufcripts  agreed  in  the  omif- 
fion, they  would  not  be  equivalent  to  the  remaining  half, 
as  the  omiffion  of  a  pafi^age  between  two  homoioteleuta 
is  eafy  to  be  conceived,  but  not  fo  eafy  the  infercion. 
Even  tlie  fuperiority  of  numbers  is  not  decifive  in  the 
prefent  cafe,  as  the  error  once  admitted  into  two  or  three 
antient  manufcripts  would  be  of  courfe  tranfmitted  to  all 
the  fubfequent  copies,  which  were  taken  from  them. 

We  find  a  remarkable  inftance,  and  well  fuited  to  the 
prefent  purpofe,  in  Matth.  xxvii.  ^S-  where  the  words 
between  xXvpov  in  the  beginning  of  the  verfe,  and  xXri^ou 
at  the  end  of  the  verfe,  namely,  ma  zyXnpu^  to  pnhu  vtto  ts 

•cr/JoipJiTa,  J'lfjtAf^nravTO  t«  ijwarta  jUs,  xai  ettj  tov  i^XTKrfJi.ov  [ah 

q  See  the  Orient.  Bibl.  Vol.  VIII.  p.  i6i  S. 
'  Orient.  Bibl.  Vol.  II.  p.  234.,  2356, 


SECT.  v/ii.        Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T,  273 

i^oiXov^  are  omitted  in  94  manulcripts  quoted  by  Wetflein* 
to  which  we  may  add  the  four  following,  Codex  Parrah- 
fii,  Lambecianus  29  and  30.  and  Carolinus,  mentioned 
in  Trefchow's  Tentamen  defcriptionis  Codicum  Vindo- 
bonenfium.     They  are  likevvife  omitted  in  the  Complu- 
turn  edition,  whence  we  may  conclude  that  the  Spanifh 
editors  had  found  them  in  no  Greek  manufcript,  as  they 
have  retained  them  in  the  Latin  tranflation.    Some  other 
objcftions  that  are  made  to  this  pafTage  may  be  found  in 
Wetftein  and  Griefbach,  who  have  rejeded  it  from  the 
text  of  their  editions.     On  the  other  fide  of  the  queftion 
Bengel,  in  his  Adparatus  Criticus,  has  quoted  the  autho- 
rities in  favour  of  the  paflage  in  the  following  manner, 
atextuftant  Er.  Colb.  4.  8.  Laud.  4.  5.  L.  Med.  Mont. 
M.  I.  2.  Par.  7.  8.  Wheel,  i.  Arm.  Hebr.  Latini aliqui, 
in  his  prsftantifTimus  Trevirenfis,  nee  non  Hieronymus, 
Sax.  et  diferte  Eufebius  ac  fermo  de  paffione  apud  Atha- 
nas.  T.  I.  fol.  992.  looi.     Here  then,  if  numbers  were 
to  decide,  no  doubt  could  be  made  that  the  paflage  is 
fpurious,  but  the  Angular  circumftance  that  aXn^ov  im- 
mediately precedes  and  immediately  follows  the  omitted 
words,  makes  the  authority  of  12  manufcripts  in  their 
favour  more  than  equal  to  the  authority  of  100  manu- 
fcripts, in  which  they  are  omitted.     The  omiffion  of  the 
words  between  xAn^ov  and  y.Xn^ov  is  a  very  natural  acci- 
dent in  the  hurry  of  tranfcribing,  but  the  interpofition  of 
thofe  words  fo  as  exaftly  to  fuit  the  context  is  much 
more  difficult  to  be  conceived,  and  for  this  very  reafon 
I  am  more  inclined  to  the  opinion  of  Bengel,  that  the 
paflage  is  genuine.     It  cannot  be  an  interpolation  from 
the  Gofpel  of  St.  John,  where  the  quotation  is  difi^erently 
mtroduced,  »>«  r\  y^oc(pn  7r?,ncuh  >i  Xiyna-ac,  and  the  author 
of  the  quoted  Pfalm  is  in  the  pi-cfent  paflTage  ftyled  0  tt^o- 
^nT»if,  the  application  of  which  title  to  the  Pfalmift  is 
peculiar  to  St.  Matthew.    See  Matth.  xiii.  25.    Whoever 
defires  to  examine  other  examples  of  this  nature,  may 
refer  to  Matth.  xxviii.  9.  and  i  John  ii.  23.  But  we  mult 
be  cautious  of  carrying  this  rule  to  the  extreme,  nor  can 
we  conclude  that  an  homoioteleuton  is  alone  fufficicnt  to 
S  render 


274  Varicus  Readings  of  the  N.  T.       chap.  rf< 

render  a  text  authentic,  which  wc  have  folid  reafons  to 
condemn  as  Ipurious'^.  Many  have  defended  on  this  prin- 
ciple I  John  V.  7.  though  the  verfe  is  rejeded  by  every 
antient  Greek  manufcript,  and  abfolutely  inadmiffible  *. 

Another  caufe  of  omifTiOn  is,  when  the  fame  letter, 
fyllable,  or  word,  is  immediately  repeated  ;  where  the 
tranfcriber  may  miftake  the  fecond  inftance  for  the  firft. 
An  example  of  this  kind  is  found  in  the  Septuagint, 
1  Kings  xvii.  30.  where  inftead  o(  ^r^v  n^yiX  (^jl")i)  is  mv 
zpysXy  and  v.  31.  for  Tr,i>  ui^xaa-B^  is  t»i/  itxtxa-t^.    The  text 

of  Tohn  v.  22.  is  hJ~£  ya^  0  Trx-ri^  x^ivii  a^ivocj  uXXa. — jc.t.A. 

which  is  quoted  by  Cyprian,  who  inftead  of  -shvoc^  axxa. 
has  aSiVj  axxu,  v/hich  gives  a  totally  different  fenfe  to  the 
whole  paflage.  This  miftake  is  extremely  obvious,  when 
we  recolleft  that  the  antient  Greeks  wrote  in  capital  let- 
ters, without  points,  and  without  any  interval  between 
the  words,  as  OTAENAAAAA.  The  Codex  Magdale- 
nenfis,  inftead  of  Kv^n  Ku^u,  Matth.  vii.  22.  has  Ku^ie 
only  once;  and  for  xat  aurn,  avr"^  tvj  w^a,  Luke  ii.  38.  fe- 
veral  good  manufcripts  have  xon  xvtvi  t^  wpa.  Omiflions 
of  this  kind  are  innumerable,  and  it  is  a  matter  of  fur- 
prife,  that  in  the  following  text,  i  Cor.  i.  15,  16.  ivsc  i^-zi 

TJf  SITTH    OTt    Et,    to    ilJi.Qy    OVO-^Ot    iQiXTnitTOi.         "EQ (XTT T KT Oi    J'f    XOCl   TOV 

SxEfpaila  otjtoi/,  no  inftance  has  been  difcovered  among  all 
the  manufcripts  of  the  omifTion  of  the  fecond  ((^oc-rrTia-oi. 
We  might  be  tempted  to  lay  down  a  general  rule,  that 
the  full  reading  ought  always  to  be  preferred  to  the  de-^ 
fe6Live,  where  the  fame  letter,  fyllable,  or  word,  is  re- 
peated, unlefs  it  were  counterbalanced  by  the  probability 
of  an  oppofite  miftake,  which  may  as  eafily  be  commit- 
ted as  the  other. 

This  miftake  is  the  writing  twice  a  letter,  fyllable,  or 
word,  that  in  the  orginal  ftood  only  once,  whence  many 
paflages  have  loft  all  meaning,  though  in  others  a  fenfe 
is  ftiil  difcoverable,  and  the  alteration  deferves  in  fuch 
cafes  a  place  among  the  various  readings.  An  undeni- 
able inftance  of  the  falfe  repetition  of  a  fyllable  may  be 
produced  from  the  Septuagint,  Gen.  viii.  5.  where  the 
true  reading  is  iu  &i  rx  (^s/.ciT/  ,wr;w,  but  not  only  the  Codex 

Alexan- 


SECT.  VIII.        Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.  275 

Alexandrinus,  which  from  its  inaccuracy  is  not  entitled 
to  the  commendations  bellowed  on  it,  but  even  the  edi- 
tion of  Aldus  has  iv  h  tw  £ii^zy.xr-jj  fxnvi.  For  KccTnovccaiM  », 
Matth.  xi.  23.  feveral  manufcripts  have  KaTrf^vaajM.  u-n, 
which  exa<flly  inverts  the  fenle ;  and  initead  of  o)(Xi}  ay-n- 
coiVTtgj  John  vii.  40.  the  Fragmentum  Borgianum  has 

Since  therefore  the  tranfcribers  might  as  eafily  fall  into 
the  miftake  of  repeating,  as  into  that  of  omitting,  it  is 
difficult  to  give  a  general  and  pofitive  rule  with  refped: 
to  this  fubjed,  and  the  decifion  muft:  depend  on  the 
number  and  authenticity  of  the  teftimonies,  or  other  ac- 
cidental circumftances.  In  many  cafes  it  is  almoll  im- 
poffible  to  decide;  the  common  text  of  Luke  vii.  21.  is 
s^oc^KTocTo  TO  (^AETTuv,  (ov  which  22  manufcHpts  quoted  by 
Wetftein  have  ixoc^Kraro  (Saettejv.  Thefe  two  readings, 
according  to  the  antient  manner  of  writing,  were  EXA- 
PISATOTOBAEnEIN  and  EXAPIZATOBAEllEIN,  and  as 
a  confiderable  number  of  good  manufcripts  may  be  pro- 
duced in  favour  of  each,  it  is  impoffible  to  decide  whe- 
ther in  the  firft  inftance  the  tranfcriber  committed  the 
miftake  of  repeating  to,  or  whether  in  the  fecond  inftance 
the  tranfcriber  omitted  the  feccnd  to,  becaufe  to  had  pre- 
ceded in  the  original. 

Another  caufe,  which  fometimes  leads  a  copyift  into 
the  error  of  inferting  a  word,  efpecially  an  article,  is  when 
the  arrangement  of  the  words  in  the  original  differs  from 
the  common  conftru6lion,  which  latter  being  familiar  to 
him,  he  ufes  it  in  the  copy,  without  attending  to  the  dif- 
ference in  the  manufcript,  from  which  he  tranfcribes.  But 
as  enough  has  been  faid  on  the  fubjedl  of  omiftions  and 
infertions,  I  will  now  examine  the  caufes  which  might 
produce  an  unintentional  exchange  of  letters,  fyllables, 
or  words. 

Words  of  a  fimilar  found  are  cafily  exchanged  for  each 
other,  an  inftance  of  which  we  find  in  the  Codex  Can- 
tabrigienfis '%  Rom.  i.  30.  where,  inftead  of  y.aTxXxX:-;^ 
the  tranfcriber  has  written  xaAoXccXa;,  an  error  which  arofe 
from  iiOiy>.o-/)hio',g  almoft  immediately  preceding,  and  the 
s  2  found 


^■j6  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.       chap,  vf, 

found  of  v.ot.y.Q  being  ftill  in  his  ears.  Miflakes  of  this 
nature  were  fometimes  unavoidable  from  the  antient 
praflice  of  diclating  to  feveral  tranfcribers  at  the  fame 
time  j  i:  might  happen  even  when  the  copyill  tranfcribed 
immediately  from  the  original,  as  it  is  not  uncommon  to 
repeat  to  ourfelves  the  words  which  we  read  or  write ; 
and  in  printing,  where  it  is  not  the  cuftom  to  did:ate,  no 
error  is  more  common. 

A  deviation  from  the  original  arifes  frequently  from 
<an  accidental  tranfpofition.  No  man,  in  copying  a  work 
compofed  in  a  language  which  he  underftands,  writes 
letter  for  letter,  or  word  for  word,  but  fixes  in  his  me- 
mory fometimes  a  whole  paffage  before  he  writes  j  and  if 
the  words  are  not  bound  by  the  rules  of  grammar  to  one 
particular  arrangement,  it  is  eafy  to  fall  into  the  error  of 
a  tranfpofition.  In  fuch  cafes  the  number  and  authority 
'of  the  manufcripts,  or  the  nature  of  the  fubjecb  itfclf, 
mull  determine  the  true  reading :  examples  may  indeed 
be  given  where  the  dccifion  is  difficult,  but  they  are  ge- 
nerally fuch  as  convey  the  fame  meaning,  and  therefore 
■of  no  importaDce  ". 

No  miilake  arifing  from  an  exchange  of  letters  is  ^o 
Common  as  that  which. is  occafioned  by  the  Itacifm,  and 
many  of  the  various  readings  derived  from  this  fource 
are  not  only  of  confequence,  but  remain  flill  undecided. 
i  know  not  whether  this  error  is  as  frequently  difcovcred 
in  the  copies  of  profane  authors,  as  I  have  never  exa- 
mined a  manufcript  of  a  claffic  writer  with  attention  ; 
but  in  many  manufcripts  of  the  New  Teftament  and  of 
the  Septuagint  it  occurs  inceflantly.  A  variety  of  exam- 
ples have  been  collected  by  Adler  from  the  Roman  ma- 
nufcripts %  and  inftances  may  be  feen  even  in  die  critical 
(ireek  notes,  written  in  the  margin  of  the  Oxford  manu- 
icript  of  the  Philoxenian  verfion,  publiflied  by  White*. 
The  Itacifm  is  not  only  the  common  pronunciation  of 
the  modern  Greeks '%  but  is  probably  more  antient  than 

the 

s  See  the  Orient.  Bibl.  Vol.  XVII.  p.  131,  13a  ". 

t  Seethe  Orient.  Bibl.  Vol.  XVI.  p.  164— j66.  and  Vol.  XVIII.  p.  i73» 


SECT.  VIII.       Fanous  Readings  of  the  N.  T.  277 

the  oldeft  manufcript  of  the  Greek  Teftament,  or  per- 
haps than  that  of  any  author  now  extant.  So  early  as 
the  age  in  which  the  New  Teftament  was  written  we 
find  traces  of  the  Itacifm,  without  which  xf '^"^  ^"^  x^^s-og 
could  never  have  been  confounded  '^ ;  an  example  of 
which  we  find  in  Suetonius,  who  has  written  Judasos 
impulfore  Chrcfto  aflidue  tumultuantes  Roma  expulit ". 
But  whether  this  pronunciation  be  really  as  antient  as  I 
fuppofe,  or  not,  it  is  fufficient  for  our  prefent  purpofe,  that 
it  is  more  antient  than  any  of  our  manufcripts,  of  which 
the  oldeft,  efpecially  the  Alexandrine,  have  faults  that  feem 
inexphcable  on  any  other  principle :  and  if  traces  of  it 
are  found  in  the  moft  antient  verfions,  fuch  as  the  Syriac 
and  the  old  Latin,  it  muft  have  exifted  fo  early  as  the 
firft  century,  Woide,  in  his  preface  to  the  Codex  Alex- 
andrinus,  §  23-  derives  thefe  mutations  from  the  Egyp- 
tian pronunciation,  but  I  can  fee  no  reafon  for  having 
recourfe  to  this  method  of  accounting  for  the  origin  of 
errors,  which  can  be  fo  naturally  explained  on  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  Itacifm'^.  It  is  true  that  this  might  oftener 
happen  in  Egypt  than  in  other  countries,  for  the  Egyp- 
tians, when  they  adopted  a  Greek  word  in  their  own  lan- 
guage, exchanged  n  for  *,  e.  g.  o-£a»u»  for  a-iXnvry  luna ''. 

The  greateft  number  of  examples  of  the  exchange  of 
letters  are  fo  manifeftly  orthographical  errors  as  to  de- 
ferve  not  a  place  among  the  various  readings,  as  nXiKpiv 
for  nKri(piv  in  the  Codex  Alexandrinus,  i  Cor.  x.  13  which 
Mill  has  quoted,  but  Wetftein  very  properly  rejeded. 
Sometimes  they  convey  a  tolerable  meaning,  as  xevw  /xhj- 
/tAEiu,  which  is  found  in  two  manufcripts,  and  is  the  read- 
ing quoted  by  Chryfoftom  ^,  inftead  of  xaji/w  fxvnfAncpy 
Matth.  xxvii.  60.  but  no  doubt  can  be  made  that  noam 
is  the  true  reading,  for  it  is  confirmed  by  the  coincidence 
of  the  antient  verfions,  as  well  as  by  a  plurality  of  manu-  . 
fcripts,  and  the  miftake  of  £  for  at  is  common  in  many 
manufcripts.  Inftead  of  a  ^iXirs  J^g^ao-S-a.,  Matth.  xi.  14. 
the  Syriac  tranflator  has  rendered  u  ^iXirt^  (Ff^ao-.S-f,  which 

was 

u  Claudius,  cap,  25,  *  S«e  Wetftein  on  Matth.  xxvU.  6e, 

s  3 


278  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.        chap.  vr. 

was  undoubtedly  an  error  in  the  manufcript,  from  which 
he  tranflated. 

In  other  places  the  manufcripts  in  favour  of  the  dif- 
ferent readings  are  more  divided,  and  it  is  then  difficult 
to  determine  which  of  the  two  is  the  error  arifing  from 
the  Itacifm,  unlefs  particular  circumftances  of  the  con- 
text lead  us  to  a  conclufion.  We  find  John  xi.  54,  £(ppat)A, 
If^aiiu,  and  i(p^i[x.  I  Cor.  iv.  2.  ^TiTEixat  and  ^rmirc.  Some 
of  the  manufcripts  have  2  Cor.  xii.  i .  h,  others  ^a  '^.  i  Pet. 
ii.  3.  x^nfo?,  others  ;<;? iro?,  where  the  preceding  verb  syiv- 
o-ao-S-H  determines  the  former  to  be  the  true  reading,  i  John 
iv.  2.  yivua-yiiTi,  for  which  others  have  yivwo-jcsraj,  where 
we  have  no  ground  for  deciding  which  is  the  true  read- 
ing. Rev.  ii.  13.  fome  have  AvTjTra?,  others  avraTra?  ". 

Inftead  of  iSiy  Rom.  ii.  17.  a  very  confiderable  number 
of  manufcripts  have  u  Si,  which  is  iikewife  confirmed  by 
feveral  antient  verfions".  This  variation  occurs  fre- 
quently, and  among  other  inftances  in  the  Septuagint, 
Job  xxxiv.  17.  where  the  Hebrew  original  determines  n 
}i  to  be  the  true  reading*',  but  in  the  above  pafiage  from 
the  epiftle  to  the  Romans  it  is  impoflible  to  decide  with 
any  certainty.  I  have  often  wondered  that  the  fame  va- 
riation has  never  occurred,  Rom.  ix.  22.  but  in  that  text 
ti  h  has  been  found  invariably  in  all  the  manufcripts. 
Another  remarkable  inftance  is  that  of  uTrorao-o-to-S^s  and 
UTTOTao-o-fo-S-aj,  Rom.  ix.  22.  in  which  pafTage  there  are 
three  different  readings  which  I  will  write  in  capitals,  in 
order  to  avoid,  what  was  not  written  in  the  antient  ma- 
nufcripts, the  Iota  fubfcriptum. 

1.  The  common  reading  is  AIO  ANAFKH  TnOTAS- 
XKSQAI. 

2.  Four  codices  latinizantes*^  have  AIO  TnoTAS- 
SF.20E,  a  reading  followed  by  Iren^us,  Hilary,  and  the 
Gothic  verfion. 

3.  The  editio  complutenfis  has  AIO  ANAFKH  TnO- 
TASSESGE,  with  which  the  Vulgate  agrees,  where  we 
find  ideo  necefiitate  fubditi  eftote,  which  might  be  given 
in  better  Latin  ideo  neceffitati  parete. 

This  example  I  fhall  have  occafion  to  mention  again 

in 


SECT.  VII I.       Various  Readings  of  the  N,  T.  279 

in  fpeaking  of  compound  readings,  and  Ihall  only  ob- 
ferve  at  prefent,  that  it  is  difficult  to  determine  which  is 
the  true  reading,  unlefs  we  chule  to  be  guided  by  a  ma- 
jority of  manufcripts.  Properly  fpeaking,  there  are  only 
two  fundamental  readings  in  this  pafTage,  <?»o  ccvxyxv  utto- 
rao-fl-Eo-S-ak,  and  J'to  u7roT5so-(r:a-3-£,  the  third  being  compound- 
ed of  both.  The  two  firft  are  Itacifms,  and  yet  more  an- 
tient  than  the  time  of  Hilary,  of  the  author  of  the  Gothic 
verfion,  and  probably  of  Iren^us,  which  I  will  not  po- 
fitively  affirm,  as  the  conftruftion  in  Irenceus  might  have 
come  from  his  Latin  tranflator.  If  the  firft  and  common 
reading  is  the  genuine,  it  is  probable  that  the  reading  of 
the  four  latinizing  manufcripts  arofe  from  the  error  of 
miftaking  vTroTocrg-ia-ds  for  vTroTxa-a-sa-Sraty  and  then  leaving 
out  a-vxyxn,  as  difficult  to  be  conftrued  with  the  former. 
If  the  fecond  reading  be  the  genuine,  the  firft  arofe  from 
miftaking  yTroTao-o-so-S-aj  for  uTroTao-o-so-S-j,  and  then  admit- 
ting xvxyyiYt  into  the  text  as  a  fcholion  necelTary  to  render 
the  conftruclion  complete.  It  is  true  that  the  majority 
of  manufcripts,  as  well  as  the  Syriac,  Coptic,  and  Arabic 
verfions,  are  in  favour  of  the  common  reading ;  but  as 
the  miftake  was  eafily  committed,  I  am  rather  inclined 
to  abide  by  the  authority  of  the  Latin  verfion  *^,  and 
four  antient  latinizing  manufcripts,  in  regard  to  a  read- 
ing in  the  epiftle  to  the  Romans.  I  hope  no  reader  v/iJl 
be  difpleafed  with  this  example,  as  he  may  learn  from  it 
this  ufeful  leflbx-^,  that  it  is  often  highly  neceffary  to 
doubt. 

Orthographical  errors  very  frequently  arife  from  con- 
founding O  and  n,  of  which  many  examples  have  been 
produced  from  the  Roman  manufcripts ".  Even  in  the 
critical  Greek  notes,  written  in  the  margin  of  the  Syriac 
verfion  of  Philoxenus,  this  fault  occurs  frequently,  at 
leaft  in  the  Oxford  manufcript,  though  other  copies  are 
faid  to  be  more  correct  y.     This  fimple  exchange  has 

given 

X  See  the  Orient.  BIbl.  Vol.  XVII.  p.  151,  i3a»4, 

y  See  the  Orient.   Bibl.   Vol.  XVI.  p.    164,    165,    and  Vol.  XVIII, 

s  4 


28o  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T,        chap.  vi. 

g^ven  birth  to  doubtful  readings>  on  which  the  critics 
are  unable  to  decide,  an  inftance  of  which  is  /«,£Ta  (J'twyjuoi*, 
and  lAtza,  (^icoyjUwv,  Mark  x.  30.  but  Wetftein  has  given 
the  preference  to  the  former. 

Letters,  that  have  no  fimilarity  in  found,  may  be  ex- 
changed for  each  other,  if  they  have  only  a  fimilar  figure, 
as  A,  A  and  A, — O  and  0, — O,  C  and  6.  Montfaucon, 
in  his  Prolegomena  to  the  Hexapla,  c.  iv.  §  7.  has 
produced  many  examples  from  the  Septuagint,  to  which, 
as  he  has  alleged  no  inftance  of  a  confufion  between  A 
and  A,  I  will  add  that  of  OTA  for  OTA,  i  Chron.  i.  17  *^ 
The  following  is  a  very  remarkable  inftance  from  Pto- 
lemy's Geography.  The  fame  city,  which  in  his  map 
of  Arabia  is  called  Lathrippa,  we  find  written,  p.  155. 
AAOPinnA",  an  evident  miftake  for  AAGPinnA^  Er- 
rors of  this  kind  are  occafioned  efpecially  by  the  ftrokes 
being  faded:  of  this  we  find  an  inftance  i  Tim.  iii.  16. 
a  text  of  great  importance  in  the  prefent  difputes.  Vel- 
thufen,  in  his  Obfervations  on  Various  Subje6ls%  has 
remarked  in  regard  to  this  palTage,  that  it  is  extremely 
difficult,  and  fometimes  impoftible,  to  diftinguifli  in  the 
Codex  Alexandrinus  0  from  O.  Again,  if  one  half  of 
O  is  faded,  it  may  be  miftaken  for  C  or  6,  on  the  other 
hand  a  C,  or  6,  in  which  the  middle  ftroke  is  faded,  may 
be  taken  for  an  half-faded  O.  Even  where  the  letters 
are  ftill  frefh,  they  may  be  eafily  confounded  in  the 
hurry  of  reading,  and  an  accident  of  this  kind  having 
happened  to  me  a  few  days  ago,  I  will  mention  it  as 
fuitable  to  the  prefent  purpofe.  ProfelTor  Koppe  fent  me 
a  Programma,  which  he  had  lately  written,  entitled  O 
AN0Pf2noS  THI  AMAPTIA2,  but  On  the  firft  view  of 
the  title-page,  inftead  of  reading  0  a^3-fW7rof,  I  began  to 
read  ©sai/S-pwTro?,  and  the  fame. miftake  which  I  commit- 
ted in  the  hurry  of  reading,  might  happen  to  a  tran- 
fcriber  of  the  New  Teftament  in  the  hurry  of  writing. 

But 

z  According  to  its  derivation  It  ought  to  be  written  lAOPIIinAj  as  it 
comes  from  the  Arabic  4_*oj.aj. 
a  See  the  Orient.  Bibl.  Vol.  VI.  p.  83  ^8, 


1,4 


SECT.  VIM.         Various  Readings  of  the  N.T.  aSi 

But  various  readings,  arifing  from  the  exchange  of  fimi- 
lar  letters,  efpecially  A  and  A,  I  have  found  more  fre- 
quently in  the  Septuagint  than  in  the  Greek  Teftamtnt. 

Befide  the  letters  above-mentioned,  there  are  others 
which  may  be  eafily  exchanged,  efpecially  when  one  or 
more  of  the  ftrokes  are  obliterated,  for  inftance,  m  for 
AAy  or  AA.  In  the  apocryphal  book  of  Ezra,  ch.  v.  34. 
y\72i<  ♦:!  fhould  be  tranflated  TI0I  AMIIN,  inftead  of 
which  mod  of  the  editions  have  TIOI  AAAXIN,  and  the 
Alexandrine  manufcript  TIOI  AAAXIN  ^'.  In  the  fame 
manner  I  have  obferved  AMA  and  AAAA  exchanged  for 
each  other  in  the  New  Teftament.  And  Dr.  Lefs  has 
found  examples,  where  it  was  difficult  to  diftinguilli  B 
from  K,  and  H  from  N,  on  account  of  the  crofs  ftrokes 
being  faded  ^ 

Whoever  would  acquire  a  facility  in  judging  of  thofe 
various  readings,  which  arife  from  an  exchange  of  letters, 
muft  firft  obtain  areadinefs  of  reprefenting  to  himfelf  the 
words  as  written  in  capitals  j  for  though  a  refemblance 
between  the  fmaller  letters,  fuch  as  v  and  v,  0  and  u,  oc- 
cafions  very  frequently  errata  in  printing,  they  are  too 
modern  to  have  been  the  caufe  of  various  readings,  and 
in  thofe  paflages  of  the  later  manufcripts,  in  which  ex- 
amples may  be  found,  they  are  eafily  obferved  to  be  or- 
thographical errors.  It  is  of  great  advantage  therefore  to 
a  critic  in  the  Greek  Teftament,  and  in  Greek  litera- 
ture in  general,  to  read,  and  extrafl  from  the  antient 
manufcripts,  and  infcriptions  that  are  written  in  capitals ; 
which  will  better  enable  him  to  form  an  accurate  judge- 
ment of  the  origin  and  goodnefs  of  a  reading,  than  any 
method  whatfoever.  The  late  Gefner  has  related  a  very 
excellent  praftice,  and  worthy  of  imitation,  adopted  by 
the  mafter  of  the  fchool  in  which  he  was  educated,  whofe 
cuftorn  it  was  to  write  fentences  from  the  Greek  authors 
in  capital  letters,  without  any  interval  between  the  words 
to  be  read  and  decyphered  by  his  fcholars.  It  is  univer-, 
fally  known  how  well  the  trial  fucceeded  with  Gefner, 
and  if  the  mafters  of  other  grammar  fchools  would  a6t 

as 

t>  See  the  Orient.  Bibl.  Vol.  IX.  p.  144,  145  5o. 


2  82  Various  Readings  of  the  N.T,       •€  h  a  p .  vr. 

as  judicioiifly,  the  world  might  have  reafon  to  expe6b  an- 
other Gefner.  Thofe  who  have  no  opportunity  of  fludy- 
ing  the  anticnt  manufcripts,  may  derive  nearly  the  fame 
benefit  from  reading  frequently  and  attentively  the  Codex 
Alexandrinus  publifhed  by  Woide  ^'.  Without  exer- 
cife  and  experience  of  this  nature,  our  attempts  to  ana- 
lyfe  a  doubtful  paflage  will  be  always  irkfome,  and  com- 
monly fruitlefs.  A  man  accuilomed  only  to  the  Greek 
letters  in  modern  ufe,  has  no  other  refource  than  to 
write  the  palfage  in  capitals,  but  here  the  very  pains  that 
are  requifite  before  he  can  begin  his  inquiry,  are  often 
fufficient  to  defeat  its  very  end.  For  it  is  an  undeniable 
fa6l,  that  when  a  writing  is  prefented  to  be  read,  and  at 
the  fame  time  a  word  is  pointed  out  that  feems  illegible, 
with  a  requeft  to  explain  it  as  a  matter  of  importance, 
the  reader  will  be  more  perplexed  in  difcovering  its 
meaning,  than  if  he  had  read  the  whole  paflage  without 
previous  information  of  the  difEculty.  His  whole  atten- 
tion being  occupied  with  the  word  in  queftion,  it  is  di- 
verted from  the  context,  which  alone  can  lead  to  a  dif- 
covery. 

Synonymous  words  are  often  exchanged  by  a  tran- 
fcriber,  who  fixing  the  fenfe  of  a  whole  paflTage  in  his 
memory  before  he  commits  it  to  writing,  fubftitutes  the 
word  that  firft  occurs  to  him,  inftead  of  the  word  in  the 
original.  This  miftake  happens  frequently  in  printing, 
and  I  have  feen  examples,  in  which  the  word  inferted  by 
the  compofitor  by  miftake,  was  as  fuitable  to  the  pur- 
pofe,  as  that  ufed  by  the  author.  We  find  an  inftance 
of  this  exchange  Rev.  xvii.  17.  where  for  nXta-^n  rot 
pnixccTcy.y  feven  manufcripts  quoted  by  V/etftein  have 
TiXiT^r.a-ovToci  oi  Aoyot '%  and  fcven  others,  which  he  has 
likewife  quoted,  riXKr^wa-iu  oi  Xoyot,  the  reading  of  the 
Wolfenbiittel  manufcript  collated  by  Knittel  ^K  More 
examples  may  be  {ctn  in  my  father's  Tradlatio  Critica, 
p.  II.  Various  readings,  arifing  from  the  exchange  of 
fynonymous  words,  muil  be  dillinguifhed  from  thofe, 
which  are  occafioned  by  intruding  marginal  notes  into 
the  text;  but  it  is  fomedmes  difficult  to  determine  to 

which, 


SECT.  IX.         Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.  283 

which  of  thefe  two  caiifcs  a  reading  is  to  be  afcribed, 
e.  g.  I  Pet.  iii.  13.  jU»|M.7iTa»,  where  others  have  ^>iAwt«i. 
If  the  exchange  of  fynonymoiis  words  occurred  too  often 
in  any  work,  it  might  create  fiifpicion  that  it  was  not  an 
original,  but  a  tranflation,  and  that  the  fime  text  had 
been  differently  rendered  by  different  tranflators.  This 
argument,  which  proves  the  Latin  Teftament  to  be  only 
a  verfion,  affefts  not  the  Greek  Teftament,  as  it  is  ap- 
plicable not  to  whole  books,  but  only  to  detached  paf- 
fages;  But  with  refpeft  to  the  readings  xxn^xiviv  and 
sXxiTo  ^^  John  V.  4.  it  is  fo  difficult  to  comprehend  how 
a  tranfcriber  could  poffibly  exchange  the  one  for  the 
other,  that  the  whole  verfe,  which  in  other  refpeds  is 
very  fufpicious,  feems  nothing  more  than  a  tranflation 
of  a  marginal  note,  originally  written  in  fome  other  lan- 
guage than  Greek '. 

Another  exchange  of  words  may  arife  from  a  tran- 
fcriber's  ufmg  that  which  was  common  in  the  age  in 
which  he  wrote,  inftead  of  the  antient  word  ufed  when 
the  original  was  written.  Of  this  kind  •z^^wTOjU.aprupoj 
feems  to  be  an  inftance,  which  is  found  in  fcveral  manu- 
fcripts  for  juc^pTupof,  A6ls  xxii.  20.  zr^ooro^a^r-j^  being  the 
title  which  was  afterwards  given  to  Stephen  by  the  Chrif- 
tian  church.  St.  Paul  at  leaft  could  not  have  given  him 
that  title  on  his  return  to  Jerufalem  after  his  converfion, 
becaufe  Stephen  was  at  that  time  not  the  firft,  but  the 
only  martyr  for  the  Chriftian  religion  ^  befides,  if  juapTu^ 
be  taken  in  its  proper  fcnfe,  that  of  witnefs,  Stephen 
could  not  be  called  the  firft  witnefs  to  the  truth  of 
Chriftianity. 

SECT.       IX. 

Second  Cauje.  Mijiakes  of  the  tranfcriber s  in  regard  to  the 
true  text  of  the  original. 

MISTAKES   arifing  from  a  fdlfe  divifion  of  v/ords, 
fuch  as  ou  x£p£K   for  cv>c  Epsi?,  in  the  prefent  Got- 
tingen,  formerly  Miffy  manufcript,  belong  not  properly 

to 

c  Orient.  Bibl.  Vol.  III.  p.  18—20  '5* 


2S4  Various  Readings  of  the  TV.  T.        chap.  vi. 

to  this  chapter,  not  being  confidered  as  various  readings, 
becaufe  the  divifion  of  the  letters  of  the  New  Teftament 
into  words,  with  intervals  between  them,  is  too  modern 
to  admit  the  errors,  which  might  refult  from  it,  into  that 
colledion.  The  preference  is  here  determined  not  by 
the  majorityjfof  manufcripts,  but  the  rules  of  interpre- 
tation i  and  the  fubjeft  will  be  confidered  in  a  feparate 
chapter  toward  the  clofe  of  the  next  volume. 

But  an  ample  fource  of  various  readings  is  the  miftak- 
ing  the  notes  of  abbreviation,  which  are  very  frequently 
ufed  in  the  antient  manufcripts,  as  0C  for  3-?o?,  KC  for 
Kuptof,  u?  for  y«o?,  &c  *.  To  form  an  adequate  judge- 
ment of  miflakes  of  this  nature,  it  is  neceflary  to  be  con- 
verfant  with  thofe  manufcripts  in  which  thefe  abbrevia- 
tions are  a6lually  ufed,  and  not,  as  fome  critics  have 
done,  make  hypothefes  for  ourfelves,  that  fuch  and  fuch 
abbreviations  might  have  been  ufed,  in  order  to  fupport 
a  critical  conjedure.  The  Prolegomena  ofWetftein, 
p.  iii.  §  7.  may  be  confulted  on  this  fubje6t,  and  I  have 
quoted  a  remarkable  inftance  of  an  abufe  of  this  kind, 
made  even  by  Grotius  ^,  in  my  Expofition  of  the  firfi 
book  of  the  Maccabees,  ch.  xiv.  2S'  ^^  ^^^  other 
hand,  where  it  is  certain  that  two  different  readings  arofc 
from  a  falfe  interpretation  of  a  mark  of  abbreviation,  we 
are  eafily  led  to  a  decifion  of  the  true  reading  by  the  ab- 
breviation itfelf.    For  inftance,  feveral  manufcripts  have 

Ttf)  Jtatpo)  J'aA£iioi'T£f   for    Tw   Ku/5iw  J'aAEUovTf?,    Rom.  XU.   II« 

where,  fetting  afide  other  arguments  alleged  by  Wetftein 
in  favour  of  the  latter  reading,  we  may  be  convinced 
that  it  is  genuine,  by  the  very  circumftance  that  gave 
rife  to  the  former.  The  manufcripts  in  general,  and  that 
of  Gottingen  in  particular,  abbreviate  very  frequently 
Kupiw  into  Kw,  which  might  be  miftaken  by  a  later  tran- 
fcriber  for  an  abbreviation  of  xai/jw,  which  he  would 
therefore  write  in  the  copy  that  he  was  taking :  x.ajpw,  on 
the  contrary,  was  written  at  length  in  the  antient  manu- 
fcripts, which  a  tranfcriber  would  hardly  miftake  for 
KupJM.     Hence  we  may  conclude,  that  x^zj/jw  is  the  falfe 

reading. 


SECT.  IX.        Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T,  285 

reading,  becaufe  this  might  arife  through  error  from 
Kupiw,  not  Kupiu  from  xajpw.  Thofe  who  would  take 
the  trouble  of  noting  the  different  marks  of  abbreviation, 
in  reading  an  antient  manufcript  of  the  Greek  Teftament, 
as  Knittel  has  done  in  his  commentary  on  Ulphilas, 
would  be  entitled  to  the  thanks  of  the  public,  and  ftiil 
more,  whoever  would  fubmit  to  the  labour  of  collecting 
and  forming  them  into  a  general  index.  Grielbach  is  of 
opinion  that  many  abbreviations,  at  prefent  unknown, 
and  more  difficult  than  thofe  which  are  now  extant,  were 
common  in  the  five  firft  centuries,  and  the  fources  of 
many  of  our  falfe  readings.  But  this  opinion  is  not 
grounded  on  hiftorical  evidence,  and  the  arguments  al- 
leged in  its  fupport  are  not  fufficiently  convincing.  The 
defign  of  this  hypothefis  is  to  account  for  certain  read- 
ings, which  may  be  explained  (without  having  recourfe 
to  fuppofed  abbreviations)  from  the  letters  being  ef- 
faced, which  the  copyifl  endeavoured  to  fupply  by  falfe 
conjectures  \ 

Another  fource  of  falfe  readings  Is  a  tranfcriber's  mif- 
taking  a  marginal  note  for  a  part  of  the  text :  for  having 
obferved  that  an  omiflion  in  the  text,  or  a  pafTage  wrong- 
ly written,  was  fometimes  fupplied  or  corredled  in  the 
margin,  he  falfely  concluded  that  every  word,  which  he 
faw  before  him,  muft  be  admitted  into  the  body  of  the 
work,  which  he  was  then  writing.  It  was  not  unufual, 
in  the  antient  manufcripts,  to  write  in  the  margin  an  ex- 
planation of  a  difficult  paflagc,  or  a  word  fynonymous 
to  that  in  the  text,  but  more  ufual  and  more  eafily  un- 
derftood,  or  with  the  intent  of  fupplying  a  feeming  de- 
ficiency J  any  or  all  of  which  might  in  the  copies  taken 
from  the  manufcript,  in  which  thefe  notes  were  written, 
be  eafily  obtruded  on  the  text  itfelf  The  two  following 
are  examples  of  this  kind,  and  the  reaidings  being  found 
only  in  finglc  manufcripts,  no  doubt  can  be  made  of 
their  being  errors.    We  find,  Mark  xi.  10.  evXoynixsi^ri  n 

where  it  is  evident  that  j3acrjAfta  mull:  be  underftood  be- 
fore Ts  srsiTpog  ^,ua;j'.  This  cllipfis  might  naturally  be  noted 

in. 


286  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.       chap,  vr, 

in  the  margin,  with  a  mark  of  reference  before  t8  Tsrarpo?, 
and  it  is  probable  that  the  manufcript,  which  takes  its 
name  from  Lord  Winchelfea,  was  written  by  a  copy  id, 
who  had  a  manufcript  in  his  pofleffion  with  this  very 
marginal  note,  which  he  has  falfely  inferted  in  the  text, 

i\jKoyr,iJ.im  -n    tp-x^oixBuri  |3«o-»A£ja  sv    oi/o[jlocti   Kupia,   n  ^oc(TiXuoc 

m  zso.rpq  ni/^m  ^.  In  the  epiftle  to  the  Romans,  ch.  viii. 
20,  is  iifed  the  word  ^araioTJiTJ,  for  which  the  Codex 
Vindobonenfis  34.  has  vJ/S-opa,  which  is  fynonymous  in- 
deed to  |u,aT5i»0TJiTj,  but  St.  Paul  ufing  ^3-opa  in  the  fol- 
lowing verfe,  feems  to  have  ftudied  variety,  in  ufmg  two 
different  words  for  the  fame  fubjed.  Now  the  origin  of 
fS-opa  can  be  explained  in  no  other  manner,  than  by  fup- 
pofing  it  to  have  been  written  as  fynonymous  to  iw-araio- 
TJiTi  in  the  margin  of  fome  antient  manufcript,  from 
which  the  Codex  Vindobonenfis  34.  was  tranfcribed 
This  fame  manufcript  has  in  feveral  places  an  explana- 
tion of  a  word,  as  well  as  the  word  itfelf,  for  inftance, 
Rom.  xii.  7.  of  Snx-auvixv  ....  to  xnpuyiwa,  ch.  xvi.  19. 
of  aycc^ov  . .  .  »)  wifK :  thefe  have  the  appearance  of  va- 
rious readings,  but  are  in  fa6l  only  gloffes  inferted  in  the 
text.  See  Trcfchow's  Tentamen  Defcriptionis  Codicum 
Vindobonenfmm  ^  p.  68. 

No  fource  of  various  readings  is  fo  produflive  as  the 
prefent,  and  none  fo  frequently  mentioned  by  the  cridcs : 
but  as  their  opinions  are  widely  different,  and  what  ap- 
pears a  manifeft  fcholion  to  fome,  is  taken  by  others  for 
the  genuine  reading,  it  may  be  ufeful  to  enumerate  fome 
of  the  principal  examples,  v/hich  I  have  collecfled  fmce 
the  pubhcadon  of  the  third  edition  of  this  work.  On  a 
fubjeft  of  doubtful  criticifm,  I  cannot  expe6t  that  all  my 
readers  fhould  be  of  the  fame  fentiments  with  myfelf, 
but  in  thofe  inftances  where  they  fubfcribe  to  my  opi- 
nion, they  will  obferve  how  feducing  the  falfe  reading  is, 
and  how  neceffary  to  be  diftinguifhed  from  the  true  ;  and 
their  attention  will  by  thefe  means  be  excited  to  the  dif- 
covery  of  other  fcholia,  which  have  infenfibly  crept  into 
the  text  of  the  New  Teftament. 

Markii.  14.  for  Aiwrov  m  AA^csia,  three  manufcripts, 

quoted 


sect:  ^  .         Farious  Readings  of  the  N.  T.  287 

quoted  by  Wetftein,  and  feveral  fo  antient  as  the  time 
of  Origen,  with  the  Latin  Codex  Veronenfis,  and  Ver- 
cellenfis,  have  laxw^oi/  rov  t8  AX(pai3.  Now  no  tranfcriber 
could  copy  Ixnu^ov  by  miftake  for  Asuti/,  but  it  is  pof- 
fible,  and  even  probable,  that  fome  one  had  written 
laxwSci/,  as  a  marginal  note  oppofite  to  Aauiv,  in  confe- 
quence  of  having  found  the  name  of  James  among  the 
fons  of  Alph^us,  Matth.  xiii.  55.  and  fuppofing  him  to 
be  the  fame  perfon  as  Levi,  a  name  which  is  there 
omitted  '\ 

Mark  viii.  24.  on  w?  hvS^a.  opu  ■uripiTroi.r^vrix.q  feems  to  me 
to  be  a  fcholion,  or  explanation  of  the  text.  But  many 
editors  of  the  New  Teftament  have  been  of  a  different 
opinion,  and  Mill  held  it  to  be  the  belt  reading  ^. 

Luke  xxiii.  45.  xat  itr-aoria^n  0  hAjo?  is  an  antient  and 
celebrated  example.  Inftead  of  thi^  reading,  which  ex- 
prefles  the  darkening  of  the  fun  by  the  intervention  of 
thick  clouds,  the  eighth  Codex  Stephani,  and  feven 
Ledlionaria,  quoted  by  Wetftein,  have  vAXn-n-oyroq  m  nXm, 
a  phrafe  which  is  never  applied  but  to  an  aftual  eclipfc 
of  the  fun,  an  event  that  could  not  poflibly  have  hap- 
pened at  the  time  of  the  crucifixion.  This  alteration  had 
taken  place  in  fome  of  the  manufcripts  fo  early  as  the 
time  of  Origen,  who  in  his  commentary  on  Matthew 
xxvii.  45.  has  the  following  obfervation,  forfitan  aufus 
eft  aliquis,  quafi  manifeftius  ^  aliquid  dicere  volens,  pro 
*  et  obfcuratus  eft  fol'  ponere  '  deficiente  fole,'  exifti- 
inans  quod  non  aliter  fieri  potuiffent  tenebrse,  nifi  fole 
deficiente. 

Aftsi.  12.  after  o-afSara  o^o]>j  the  third  Codex  Petavi- 

anus  has  TOcaroK  o^  to  ^•.xi-niJ.ccy  otroy  ^vvcctov  Ja^aiov  zs'iPi-n-c^nv 

iv  troc^QocTU!,  and  as  this  reading  is  found  in  no  other  ma- 
nufcript,  no  doubt  can  be  made  of  its  being  a  fcholion. 

Rom.  V.  18.  (Jt'  ivoq  (S-ixpflCTTTw/xaTo?  may  be  tranflated 
either,  '  by  the  fall  of  one,'  or  *  by  one  fall.'  The  read- 
ing of  this  text  in  fome  manufcripts  is  Si  ivog  to  ■zuapaTrluiJ.oc, 
and  in  one  fingle  manufcript  (?/  ivo?  avS-pwTra  to  :3-apa7r1w/x«, 
which  feem  to  be  different  fcholia  intended  to  determine 
a  conftrudtion,  which  admits  of  a  two-fold  explanation  ^ 

Rem, 

^  It  appears  therefore  that  sv.7;£i7ro»7cc  ts  i;7.(a  is  a  fcholion. 


a^'  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.       chap.  vi. 

Rom.  viii.  28.  TIuvtoc  cuvipyH  af  xyx^v.  The  com- 
mon tranflation  is  omnia  operantur  ad  bonum,  but  the 
words  admit  of  a  different  tranflation,  which  is  given  by 
the  Syriac  tranflator,  who  has  rendered  them  '  God  con- 
du6ls  all  things  to  the  befl  end. '  And  the  Codex  Alex- 
andrinus  inftead  of  a-vfipyn  a?  aya^ov,  has  a-wipyn  0  ^iog 
n<;  a.yxB-ov,  but  as  this  is  the  only  manufcript  in  which 
that  reading  is  found,  it  proceeds  undoubtedly  from  the 
explanation  of  a  fcholiaft,  who  preferred  the  conftrudtion 
of  the  Syriac  tranflator,  and  noted  it  in  the  margin. 

Rom.  X.  I.  the  common  reading  is  v-m^  ra  I(rpa,nX,  but 
that  of  the  mod  antient  verfions,  and  of  our  oldefb  ma- 
nufcripts,  as  well  as  the  manufcript  quoted  by  Origen,  is 
vTTi^  au-w!/.  Our  prefent  reading  therefore  is  falfe,  and 
mufl  have  proceeded  from  a  marginal  note. 

1  Cor.  xvi.  2.  after  c-aQ^oirm  is  added  in  one  of  the 
manufcripts  ufed  by  Beza^  rnv  xvpiannv.  Here  the  fufpi- 
cion  that  the  words  inferted  arofe  from  a  marginal  note 
is  confirmed  by  matter  of  fad,  for  Wetftein's  Codex  46, 
the  fame  with  the  Codex  Petavianus  3,  has  mv  xuptaxrji/  in 
the  margin. 

2  Cor.  viii.  4.  ot^ac-S-yA  ny,a?  is  clearly  a  fcholion  that  has 
crept  into  the  befl  of  our  editions ;  and  the  {eni^e  of  the 
paflage  is  as  intelligible  without  it,  if  the  fourth  and  fifth 
verfes  be  only  properly  conne6led,  and  x'^^'^  referred  to 
Ei^'wjtav  9.  The  authorities  which  Wetftein  has  quoted  in 
favour  of  its  omiflion  are  very  important,  and  even  fo 
late  as  the  beginning  of  the  twelfth  century  it  had  found 
no  admifTion  into  the  text ;  for  Theophyla6t  endeavours 
to  explain  the  pafl^age  by  means  of  an  ellipfis,  faying  Xn- 

Tcii  TO,  wapixixXiiv  ry^ocg  a,i/cx.$ic,xcr^xi  rviV   ^iXKCviau  t«dt?]V,  no 

manufcripts  therefore  were  known  to  him  which  had  av«- 
JE^a(r3-a»,  or,  according  to  the  prefent  reading,  ofgao-S-at '°. 
The  pafl^age  being  confidered  as  elliptical,  it  was  natural 
to  note  the  ellipfis  in  the  margin,  which  later  copyifts 
have  intruded  into  the  text.  Bengel  relates  that  it  was 
found  in  two  manufcripts  by  Beza,  but  of  thefe  we  have 

no 

c  In  his  note  to  this  pafTage,  lie  fays,  in  uno  vetufto  codice  additum  legr 
7riv  y.v^ia,y.r,)i,  ad  lioc  videlicet  explicandum. 


SECT.  rx.         Various  Readings  of  the  N.T.  289 

no  knowledge,  and  with  rcfpeft  to  the  others  which  he 
lias  quoted,  they  are  not  only  manufcripts  devoid  of  au- 
thority, but  Bengel  is  himfelf  uncertain  whether  they 
contain  it.  The  Ruffian  tranflation  exprefles  fumere 
vobis,  but  we  cannot  therefore  conclude  the  old  Sclavo- 
nian  tranflator  found  them  in  his  Greek  original,  for  like 
Theophyla6l,  he  has  probably  followed  the  example  of 
Chryioftom  in  fupplying  an  ellipfis  ",  at  a  time  when  it 
made  no  part  of  the  Greek  text^  Yet  this  ipurious  and 
modern  fcholion  is  permitted  to  have  a  place  in  our  com- 
mon editions. 

I  Pet.  ii.  13.  Tsa.(Tv\  a.]/^pu7ni>n  xTiCB,  which  is  tranflated 

*  to  every  ordinance  of  man,'  has  been  taken  by  feveral, 
and  by  the  Syriac  tranflator  in  particular,  in  the  fenfe  of 

*  the  whole  human  creation,'  or  '  every  human  being.' 
The  reading  therefore  zs-ao-/]  avOpuTrnvi  tpva-st,  which  is  found 
only  in  the  Codex  Covel.  2.  is  the  fcholion  of  an  antient 
commentator  who  took  it  in  the  latter  {enfe. 

For  yjicr^oi,  I  John  ii.  27.  the  Codex  Covell.  2.  with 
the  Coptic  and  ^thiopic  verfions,  have  zn/ivy.a,  which  we 
have  the  more  reafon  to  believe  to  be  the  refult  of  a  fcho- 
lion, as  Wetftein  found  in  two  other  manufcripts  xP^'^y-'^ 
TO  zTU£v[j.tz  written  in  the  margin. 

I  John  iv.  3.  the  common  reading  is  0  [ji.n  ofj,o\cyu,  for 
which  there  is  a  different  reading  of  great  importance 
0  Au£i :  moft  critics  agree  in  fuppofing  one  of  them  to  be 
a  fcholion,  but  they  are  not  unanimous  in  their  choice. 
Now  the  words  0  Xvei  rov  Ua-isv  X^ig-ov  admit  of  two  fenfes, 
I .  *  He  who  divides  Jefus  Chrift  in  the  fame  manner  as 
Cerinthus,  who  made  a  diftinftion  between  Jefus  and 
Chrift,  faying  that  he  was  an  JEon  of  the  firft  order  that  was 
united  with  the  man  Jefus  at  the  time  of  his  baptifm,  and 
feparated  from  him  before  his  crucifixion.'  This  fenfe 
is  admirably  adapted  to  the  defign  of  the  Apoftle.  2.  *  He 
who  denies  Jefus  Chrift.'  An  andent  commentator,  who 
took  it  in  the  latter  fenfe,  might  naturally  write  in  the 
margin  |W-/)  o[jLoXoysi,  as  fynonym.ous  to  Ausi,  which  expla- 
nation has  been  adopted  in  the  text.  On  the  other 
hand,  if  y-n  o^oXoyn  be  the  antient  reading,  Xvu  is  a  very 
T  cxtra- 

i  Vide  CHryttomi  Opera,  Tom,  X.  p.  555. 


290  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.        chap.  vr» 

extraordinary  fcholium,  as  it  is  more  obfcure  than  the 
word  to  be  explained  '*. 

in  the  fame  manner  two  diftin<5l  readings  have  been 
fometimes  joined  together  by  miftake,  as  if  they  made 
only  a  fmgle  reading.  For  inftance,  a  tranfcriber  finds 
in  his  original  two  fynonymous  expreflions,  one  in  the 
text,  the  other  in  the  margin,  and  fuppofing  that  they  be-* 
long  to  each  other,  copies  both^  or,  he  has  two  manu- 
fcripts  with  different  readings,  and  not  being  able  to  de- 
termine which  is  the  bell,  copies  them  both,  that  neither 
may  be  loft.  Not  only  fynonymous,  but  other  readings 
have  been  compounded  in  this  manner,  of  which  we  find 
an  example,  Rom.  xiii.  5.  mentioned  in  the  preceding 
fecftion,  namely, 

1.  ^10  otiayxr]  VTroTX(7-(n<y^aii 

2.  J'jo  V7roTot,(r(ri<r^s 

3.  Sio  avx.yy.vi  \j'jrorx(T(ri(T^i,  which  is  a  COmpofltlOn  of 

the  two  firft.     The  two  principal  readings.  Rev.  iv.  3., 

are  ojuokz  c^«(r»?  (T^a,^a,y^^]^'^  '^  and  oixoiog  o^ot.<Tii  (r[ji.oi,^ot,y$ii^iOj 

from  which  a  third  has  been  compounded  oixoio;  o^ao-if 
(T/Aa^ay^n-w  in  the  Wolfenbiittel  manufcript  '*  collated  by 
Knittel.  The  fame  manufcript.  Rev.  xix.  20.  has  0  (j^dcx, 
rars,  which  arofe  from  confounding  0  [xir  aura,  a  various 
reading,  and  (jlstoi.  t8T3,  the  common  reading  '^     Rev, 

XX.   14.    is  araj  snv  0  huTe^o;  S-avaro?,   tO  which    in    fome 

manufcripts  the  following  words  are  added,  v  At/A^jiTSTru/Jo?, 
but  the  Wolfenbiittel  manufcript  has  liTog  0  ^ivnpog  ifiv 
^t^m  T8  zB-upof.  The  fame  manufcript.  Rev.  xxii.  5.  has 
a  ;!^p£iav  Au^i/8,  which  is  taken  partly  from  the  reading 
preferred  by  Bengel  a  xp«»«  ^^^x^^)  partly  from  the  com- 
mon reading  XP^^'^"  ''^^  ^X^<^^  "^^x^'^'  This  manufcript. 
Rev.  xiv.  14.  has  jta^yi^afkov  ojtAOjo?,  which  is  again  taken 
from  the  various  reading  Kx^yif^svov  ofxoiovy  and  the  com- 
mon reading  y.xhi^ii'og  oy,oiog.  The  Codex  Alexandrinus, 
Dan.  xi.  45.  has  iug  (j-ipisg,  opag,  one  of  which  words  was 
probably  at  firft  only  a  marginal  note  ^. 

Compofitions   of  this  nature  have  fometimes  given 

birth 

g  Another  example,  taken  from  Luke  xvr.  8.  may  be  feen  la  Knitter* 
New  Ciiticifais  on  i  John  v.  7.  p.  376  >6, 


SECT.  IX.     '    Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.  291 

birth  to  readings,  which  though  falfe  are  intelligible,  and 
not  unfuicable  to  the  paflage  in  which  they  are  found ; 
at  other  times  they  have  produced  exprefllons,  which  are 
abfurd,  and  manifeft  errors.  Yet  a  careful  feleftion  of 
thefe  latter  readings  might  be  attended  with  advantage, 
partly  becaufe  it  would  enable  us  to  account  for  errors  in 
other  pafTages,  where  they  are  lefs  confpicuous,  partly  be- 
caufe a  valuable  reading  lies  fometimes  concealed  in  thcfe 
abortive  expreflions''. 

Knittel  in  his  Commentary  on  a  Fragment  of  Ulphi- 
las'^  §  137.  goes  aftep  farther,  and  fuppofes  that  letters 
written  in  the  margin  of  a  manufcript,  to  denote  num- 
bers, might  occafion  various  readings.  The  Codex  Can- 
tabrigienfis  has  tstusvij^oc.  S^m  xaraSan/oi/Ta,  inllead  of  ■cri/£Lijaas 
:&£a  ndTa^ccii^ov,  Matth.  iii.  16.  for  which  he  accounts  by 
fuppofing  that  KATABAINON  flood  at  the  end  of  the  line 
in  the  antient  manufcript  from  which  the  Codex  Canta- 
bric^ienfis  was  copied,  that  in  the  margin  not  far  from 
the^laft  letter  N,  the  letter  A  flood  to  denote  a  number 
in  reference  to  the  Harmony  of  Eufebius,  and  that  the 
tranfcriber,  miftaking  it  for  a  part  of  the  adjoining  word, 
fupplied  T  in  order  to  make  it  complete.  The  opinion 
of  Knittel  is  worthy  of  notice,  becaufe  the  principle  is 
new,  and  may  hereafter  be  applied  with  fuccefs  in  the 
inveftigation  of  various  readings ;  but  in  regard  to  the 
prefent  inflance  Wetflein's  method  of  accounting  for  it 
feems  to  be  the  moft  probable  *^. 

Falfe  readings  are  frequently  occafioned  in  manufcripts, 
as  well  as  in  printed  books,  by  correding  an  error  in  the 


h  See  Wetfteln's  remarks  on  fjura  ravina,  the  reading  of  the  Codex 
Sangermanenfis,  i  Cor.  xv.  5.  in  the  Prolegomena  to  the  fecond  part  of 
his  Greek  Teftament,  p.  7.  and  the  Orient.  Bibl.  Vol.  XVII.  p.  148. 
where  two  fimilar  errors  are  produced  from  the  Boigian  Fragment, 
namely,  y.an  »  vTrctyu,  John  vili.  14.  which  is  formed  from  the  two  read- 
ings, xoti  •an  VTtctyu,  and  »j  tun  viruyto,  and  v.  16.  a^^'  iyu  a>.r,Btvy) 
v.ai  0  «rE^.-4/«;  ^-s  TTaTi,^,  where  the  infertion  of  a^rS^v»  arofe  from  this 
clrcumftance,  that  In  the  claufe  immediately  preceding  Come  of  the  MSS. 
have  a.Xr,9ivn  for  aX^Grj;,  and  the  intended  correftion  was  in  this  MS. 
*nf€rted  in  a  wrong  place, 

T    2 


i92  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.        chap.  vr. 

wrong  place '.    Bengel,  in  his  apparatus  criticus,  p.  383. 
(or  15,  16  of  the  fecond  edition)  has  mentioned  feveral 
inftances,  one  of  which  is  taken  from  the  Aiign:>urg  ma- 
mifcript  of  the  Gofpels,  No.  i.    The  writer  of  this  ma- 
nufcript  has  written  (ru  for  croi,  Luke  xiv.   10.  an  error 
which  either  the  copyift,  or  fome  other  perfon,  feems  to 
have  been  willing  to  corred,  but  has  unfortunately  cor- 
refted  in  the  wrong  place  j  for  inftead  of  changing  into 
oi  the  laft  letter  of  the  word  to  be  correfted,  he  has  al- 
tered the  word  awriKaXEo-wo-t  in  the  twelfth  verfe  into  avn- 
xaXfo-wcroj.     The  example  mentioned  by  Knittel,  p.  274. 
of  his  commentary  on  Ulphilas,  is  ftill  more  confpicuous.    | 
The  writer  of  the  Wolfenbiittel  manufcript,  inftead  of    ■ 
<l>o^og,  Luke  i.  12.  had  written  f3o|3of,  this  error  it  was  the 
intention  of  fome  one  to  corredl,  but  inftead  of  altering 
the  firft  p,  he  has  changed  the  fecond  p  into  <pj  and 
made  (3o(pof.     Thefe  are  manifeft  orthographical  errors, 
but  if  a  falfe  correftion  gives  birth  to  an  intelligible  word, 
it  is  ranked  among  the  various  readings.     Examples  of 
this  kind  may  be  feen  in  my  Curas  in  A6lus  Apoftolorum 
Syriacos,  §  viii.  p.  86,  87.  96.  in  the  remarks  on  Acts  iii. 
lo.  vii.  29,  30.  where  it  is  uncertain  whether  the  miftake 
is  to  be  afcribed  to  the  Syriac  verfion,  or  to  the  Greek 
manufcript,  from  which  that  verfion  was  taken.     In  the 
fame  manner  ot»,  which  is  found  Mark  xii.  29.  is  omitted 
in  that  verfe  by  the  Syriac  tranfiator,  and  falfely  inferted 
in  the  following  *°. 

Interpolations  of  a  greater  length  are  occafioned  fome- 
times  in  the  following  manner.  The  owner  of  a  manu- 
fcript makes  a  note  in  the  margin,  either  explanatory  of 
fome  narration  in  the  text,  or  containing  an  account  of 
fome  event  that  was  handed  down  by  tradition,  which 
m.anufcript  being  afterwards  tranfcribed,  the  copyift 
writes  text  and  notes  without  diftindion  in  the  body  of 

his 

i  To  llkiftrate  this  by  an  inftance,  let  us  fuppofe  that  a  compsfitor 
inftead  of  j^gypti  had  fct  ^gipti,  and  being  informed  that  i  muft  be 
altered  to  y,  makes  the  alteration  in  the  wrong  place,  and  converts  the 
word  into  y^gipty.  An  example  of  this  kind  in  an  Hebrew  iiianufcript 
may  be  feen  in  the  Orient.  Bibl.  Vol,  I.  p.  z-jo  '9. 


SECT.  IX.         Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.  293 

his  work.  I  am  perfuaded  that  John  v.  4.  a  very  fufpi- 
cious  palTage,  and  omitted  in  a  very  great  number  of 
manufcripts,  has  been  intruded  in  this  manner  into  our 
preient  text,  and  that  this  fcholion  was  written  originally 
not  in  Greek,  but  in  fome  Oriental  language  ^. 

The  moft  evident  and  mod  important  example  of 
this  kind,  is  the  long  but  beautiful  pafTage  found  in 
fome  of  the  manufcripts  quoted  by  Wetftein  immedi- 
ately after  the  twenty-eighth  verfe  of  the  twentieth  chap- 
ter of  St.  Matthew.  It  deferves  to  be  examined  particu- 
larly in  an  Introdu6lion  to  the  New  Teftament,  as  it  is 
in  general  neglefted  by  the  commentators,  and  lies  not 
within  the  province  of  a  collector  of  various  readings". 
In  the  Codex  Cantabrigienfis  the  pafTage  is  as  follows, 

Vfxnq  $i  Ci^lili  £>t  jxeiKPii  au^>](raj,  H«t  ex.  fji^nC,cvoq  sAarlov  siuai. 
EJ<^fpJ^OjM,£^o^  ^e  kch  zs'xpixy.XTi^iuriq  SnirvYidOfA  ^y\  «^a>cA£JV£(rS'ai™ 
£»?  T«s  i^i')(OVTa,q  TOTTXgy  fAYitroTi  ivSo'^OTicog  (ra  STraXS'*)  xoci  zr^o- 
asA^uv  0  hiTTVoy.XrHcc^  *  inrr\  (roi,  in  kocIu  y^w^Hy  aai  kccIockt^vv- 
6»l(r».  Exu  $i  ai/aTTECT'/ij  ng  tov  rir\ovx  tottoi',  xocj  iirO.^-^  tra  rir/o!*", 
£^£»  (TOi  0  $niryoxXrai^^   <Tvvayi°   u<;   rx    xvwy   kxi  ifxi  (rot  thto 

X^n<Tii^oi/.  This  pafTage  was  certainly  not  written  by  St. 
Matthew,  for,  not  to  mention  the  impofTibility  that  To 
long  a  paragraph  could  be  omitted  by  almofl  all  the 
tranfcribers,  the  flyle  is  efTentially  different  from  that  of 
the  Evangelift,  or  any  other  writer  of  the  New  Tefla- 

ment, 

^  See  the  Orient,  Bibl.  Vol.  III.  p.  i6 — 20.  where  I  fully  accede  to  the 
•pinion  of  Dr.  Senjler,  who  contends  that  this  paflage  is  fpurlous  ii. 

'  An  evident  miftake  for  jxi/.^y,  occafioned  by  the  Itacifm. 

"  It  Is  probable  that  this  is  an  error  arifing  from  the  fame  caufe,  and 
that  it  ought  to  be  a,vo'.-/.>.tiviahi.  But  the  word,  as  it  ftands  at  prefent, 
is  ftill  intelligible,  as  the  Greeks  frequently  ufed  the  Infinitive  to  exprefs 
a  moral  command.  See  Democratis  fententia  aurea  7.  et  39.  and  Rom. 
xli.  I5^J. 

•  This  word,  though  unufual,  and  wanting  in  fome  of  the  oldeft  Greek 
Lexicons,  is  perfeftly  good  Greek,  and  is  quoted  by  Athenasus  from 
Artemidorus. 

»  A  manifeft  erratum  for  -nrruv. 

•  CoUige,  feu  contrahe  membra  tua, 


294  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T,         chap.  vr. 

ment.  The  expreflions  ty.  juti^ovo?  iXurlo]^  snui,  ^^^x"^ '"'''" 
TTog,  viocroa  x^P^^)  o'^^^y^  f*?  ^a  ai/w,  and  the  puie  though  iin- 
iifiuil  word  ^e^TTuoy/AYiTup,  are  no  where  ufed  in  the  New 
Tedament.  It  cannot  have  been  infcrted  from  the  four- 
teenth chapter  of  St.  Luke,  for  the  expreffions  which  he 
has  ufed  are  totally  different,  nor  has  the  context  of  the 
two  Gofpels  in  this  place  the  leaft  fimilarity.  But  as  the 
parable  of  the  higheft  and  loweft  feats  at  table  was  al- 
moft  proverbial  among  the  Jews,  it  is  probable  that 
Chriil  had  introduced  it  on  more  occafions,  than  that 
^vluch  is  recorded  by  St.  Luke.  Some  one  of  thefe  ex- 
amples, prefcrved  by  oral  tradition,  might  have  been 
wririen  in  the  margin  of  a  manufcript  in  the  early  ages  of 
Chriftianity,  and  afterwards  inferted  in  the  text  of  the 
few  remaining  copies  that  contain  it.  The  circumftance 
of  its  ftyle  being  different  from  that  of  the  New  Tefta- 
ment,  and  its  being  chiefly  admitted  into  the  Laun  ver- 
fions,  make  it  probable  that  the  author  of  this  interpo- 
lated paffage  was  a  native  or  inhabitant  of  the  Weft. 

It  has  been  generally  fuppofed  that  the  paragraph  was 
firft  inlerted  in  the  Latin  verfions,  and  afterwards  tran- 
flated  into  Greek.  To  this  opinion  I  fubfcribed  in  the 
two  firft  editions  of  this  Introdudlion,  but  at  prefent  I 
am  perfuaded  that  it  was  written  originally  in  Greek, 
Were  the  Latin  the  original,  we  fhould  hardly  find  two 
different  Latin  texts,  and  the  paffage,  as  it  ftands  in  the 
Latin  verfion  of  the  Codex  Cantabrigienfis,  is  fo  diffimi- 
lar  to  that  which  is  found  in  other  manufcripts^'*,  that 
they  are  clearly  diftinft  tranflations  of  a  Greek  original  ^^ 
I  will  place  them  in  two  columns,  oppofite  to  each  other, 
than  the  reader  may  more  cafily  determine. 


Codex 


SECT.  X.  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T,  295 

Codex  Cantab.  Codd.  alii  MSS. 


Vos  aiitem  qii£eritis  de 
minimocrefcere,etde  mag- 
no  miniii,  Tntroeiintes  au- 
tem  et  rogati  coenare,  ne 
difcubueritis  in  eminenti- 
bus  locis,  ne  forte  dignior 
te  fuperveniat,  et  accedens 
coen^  invitator  dicat  tibi, 
adhuc  deorfum  accede,  et 
confundaris.  Si  autem  dif- 
cubueris  in  minimum  lo- 
cum, et  fuperveniat  minor 
te,  dicit  tibi  invitator  coen^e, 
collige  adhuc  fuperius  et 
erit  tibi  hoc  utile. 


Vos  autem  quseritis  de 
pufillo  ere  fee  re  et  de  majore 
minores  effe.  Intrantes  au- 
tem et  rogati  ad  coenam  no- 
lite  difcumbere  in  locis  emi- 
nentibus,  ne  forte  clarior  te 
fuperveniat,  et  accedens  qui 
ad  coenam  vocavit  te  dicat 
tibi,  adhuc  deorfum  accede, 
et  confundaris.  Si  autem  in 
loco  inferiore  difcubueris, 
et  fuperveniat  humilior  te, 
dicet  tibi  qui  te  ad  coenam 
vocavit  accede  adhuc  fur- 
fum,  et  erit  tibi  hoc  utilius. 


The  bare  perufal  is  fufficient  to  ihew  that  thefe  are 
two  different  tranfiations  of  a  Greek  original.  The  lite- 
ral, anxious,  and  yet  different  manner  in  which  Sii7rvoy.Xv\^ 
ru^  is  rendered,  the  ufe  of  coen^e  invitator,  a  phrafe  which 
no  Lann  author  would  have  chofen  in  writing  his  own 
thoughts,  and  the  miftake  of  qu^eritis  for  qu^rite,  from 
the  fuppofition  that  <^tit£jt£  was  the  indicative,  by  which 
the  fenfe  is  rendered  obfcure,  are  circumftances  which 
tend  to  confirm  the  truth  of  this  opinion. 


SECT.       X. 

TTpird  Caufe.     Errors  or  imperfe5fions  in  the  antient  manU" 
Jcripty  from  which  a  tranjcriher  co-pied. 

IN  the  two  preceding  feftions  the  miftakes  have  been 
examined,  which  are  to  be  afcribed  to  the  copyifts 
alone  ;  but  there  are  cafes  in  which  the  antient  manu- 
fcript  itfelf,  from  which  a  tranfcriber  copied,  might  lead 
him  into  error.  Befide  the  miftakes  ariHng  from  the 
ilfokes  of  certain  letters  being  faded  or  erafed^  others  of 
T  4  aeon- 


296  Vanoiis  Readings  of  the  N,  T.        chap.  vr. 

a  contrary  nature  may  arife  from  the  tranfparency  of  the 
paper  or  vellum,  whence  the  ftroke  of  a  letter  on  one  fide 
of  the  leaf  may  feem  to  be  a  part  of  a  letter  on  the  other 
fide  of  the  leaf,  and  in  this  manner  O  may  be  taken  for  0. 
According  to  Wetftein,  this  very  accident  happened  to 
Mill,  in  examining  the  celebrated  pafTage,  i  Tim.  iii.  16. 
in  the  Codex  Alexandrinus.    Mill  had  affcrtcd,  in  regard 
to  the  OC  in  this  manufcript,  that  fome  remains  of  a 
ftroke  were  flill  vifible  in  the  middle  of  the  omicron, 
and  concluded  therefore  that  the  word  was  properly  ©C. 
But  Wetftein,  who  examined  this  manufcript  more  ac- 
curately, could  difcover  no  trace  of  any  ftroke  in  the 
omicron,  but  took  notice  of  a  circumftance  which  he 
fuppofes  led  Mill  into  error.     On  the  other  fide  of  the 
leaf,  direftly  oppofite  to  O  is  the  letter  q,  in  the  word 
exCGBeiA,  the  middle  ftroke  of  which  is  vifible  on  the 
former  fide,  and  occupies  the  hollow  of  O.     Wetftein 
having  made  the  difcovery,  called  feveral  perfons  to  wit- 
nefs,  who  confirmed  the  truth  of  it'.    Velthufen,  on  the 
other  hand,  who  again  iufpeded  the  pafiage,  has  made 
feveral  objections  to  Wetftein's  account  in  his  Obferva- 
tions  on  Various  Subjects,  p.  84,  85.  which  the  reader 
may  confult  and  examine*.     I  muft  confefs  that  fome  of 
Velthufen's  arguments  I  do  not  fully  comprehend,  or  if 
I  rightly  underftand  them,  they  are  not  in  favour  of  the 
author. 

Miftakes  of  a  fimilar  nature  may  arife  from  the  an- 
ticnt  pra6lice  of  ftamping  or  burning  into  the  vellum 
certain  letters  with  types  cut  for  that  purpofe :  the  im- 
preflion  produced  a  prominence  on  the  other  fide  of  the 
leaf,  which  in  later  times  may  be  taken  for  a  half-faded 
ftroke  y  this  is  the  cafe  with  the  Codex  Argenteus,  and 
Junius,  in  decyphering  it,  was  frequently  led  into  error 
by  this  very  circumftance  ^. 

The  obliteration  of  ftrokes,  and  the  tranfparency  of 
the  paper  or  vellum,  feem  to  be  fuch  fruitful  fources  of 

error, 

p  See  Wetftein's  Prologotnena,  p,  19—22.  Ihre's  Preface  to  his  Ul- 
philas  Illuftiatus,  01  the  Gottingcn  Relationes  de  libris  novis,  Fafc.  II. 
p.   394.    III.  p.  57  3. 


SECT.  X.         Various  ReaJvdgs  of  the  N.  T.  297 

error,  that  the  moderate  number  of  various  readings  in 
the  New  Teftament,  occafioned  by  an  exchange  of  e,  C, 
0,  o,  for  each  other,  is  reallyj_  matter  of  furprife.    For 
though  the  line  drawn  over  0C  would  clearly  determine 
it  to1)e  an  abbreviation  of  ^so?,  even  were  the  middle 
ftroke  of  0  effaced,  yet  there  are  numberlefs  examples 
where  no  fuch  criterion  is  ufed  for  determining  the  true 
reading,  and  even  this  ftroke  may  be  obliterated  by  time. 
In  cafes,  where  the  error  was  of  fuch  a  nature  as  to  give 
birth  to  a  word  that  had  no  exiftence  in  the  Greek  lan- 
guage, a  tranfcriber,    who  underftood  what  he  wrote, 
would  fupply  in  his  copy  the  deficiency  of  his  original ; 
but  if  the  erroneous  reading  were  intelligible,  as  well  as 
the  genuine,  it  m.ight  be  extremely  difficult  to  decide. 
Woide,  Lefs  and  Grielbach  have  all  three  examined  the 
Codex  Ephrem  in  Paris,  to  determine  whether  the  read- 
ing of  I  Tim.  iii.  16.  in  that  manufcript  be  0?  or  ^so?,  and 
alf  three  differed  in  their  accounts,  but  Dr.  Lefs  in  parti- 
cular declared,  that  what  he  could  difcover  led  to  no  de- 
cifion"^.     It  is  certainly  of  importance  in  paffages  like 
thefe  to  decide  on  the  true  reading,  and  determine  whe- 
ther a  ftroke,  on  which  fo  much  depends,  exifted  origi- 
nally, or  not.     But  unfortunately  thefe  very  paffages  are 
the  moft  expofed  to  the  danger  of  being  effaced,  as  they 
are  examined  not  only  by  men  of  real  learning,  who 
would  make  a  critical  ufe  of  their  difcoveries,  but  by 
thofe  who  have  no  other  objea:  than  to  gratify  curiofity ; 
and  as  this  is  feldom  fatisfied  with  an  examination  of  the 
eye,  but  muft  like  wife  apply  the  finger  to  the  doubtful 
letter,  it  is  no  wonder  that  what  is  vifible  in  one  period 
fhould  be  invifible  in  another.     The  alteration  which 
may  be  made  in  fifty  years  is  fo  great,  that  the  remnant 
of  0  in  the  Codex  Alexandrinus,  which  Wetftein  was 
unable  to  difcover,  might  have  been  feen  by  Mill.    The 
upper  part  of  the  figma  in  that  manufcript  has  been  fo 
worn  away,  that  in  another  century  we  Ihall  probably 
read  neither  0C  nor  OC,  but  fimply  O,  nor  has  even  this 

letter 

1  See  the  Orient.  Bibl.  Vol.  VII.  p.  138,  J  39-  Vol.  IX.  p.  H3.  H4. 
Vol.  X.  p.  564. 


598  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.        chap,  vr, 

letter  been  fpared,  though  It  takes  no  part  In  this  dis- 
pute '. 

To  difcover  the  genuine  reading  of  a  manufcrlpt, 
where  the  letters  are  faded,  the  beft  method  is  to  have 
recourfe  to  fuch  as  are  related  to  it,  either  in  time,  place, 
or  charadler,  and  if  polTible,  to  thofe  which  were  imme- 
diately copied  from  it  while  the  letters  were  ftill  legible. 
Velchufen'  and  Griefbach'  are  unanimous  in  regard  to 
the  propriety  of  this  rule,  but  in  their  application  of  it 
to  I  Tim.  iii.  16.  they  have  drawn  dlredlly  oppofite  con- 
clufions :  and  as  the  manufcripts  are  fo  divided  In  this 
pafTage,  It  Is  more  equitable  to  declare  them  neutral, 
and  quote  them  neither  In  favour  of  0?  nor  ^loq.  Thofe 
"who  endeavour  to  fupply  what  time  has  deftroyed,  and 
venture  to  write  anew  the  remnant,  or  feeming  remnant 
of  a  faded  llroke,  are  guilty  of  an  a6l  that  deferves  the 
higheft  cenfure :  the  Codex  Alexandrinus  has  fuffered 
in  this  manner  %  but  the  authors  of  thefe  amendments 
have  deprived  their  fucceffors  of  the  means  of  judging 
for  themfelves,  and  have  defeated  the  end  which  they 
intended  to  anfwer. 

It  was  formerly  the  pradllce  of  the  Chrlftlans  to  write 
in  their  Ledionarium,  or  book  of  lefifons,  certain  words 
at  the  beginning  of  each  lefTon.  If  the  lefTon  was  taken 
from  the  Gofpels,  and  the  portion  fele6led  to  be  read 
had  reference  to  Jefus,  the  word  I^o-a?  was  generally  pre- 
fixed :  if  taken  from  the  eplflles,  the  word  a.^£X<poi,  and 
if  from  thofe  of  Timothy,  they  prefixed  tskvov  T»|UoS-££. 
Now,  when  thefe  words  are  found  only  in  Leftionaria, 
they  are  evident  additions,  and  entitled  to  no  place 
among  the  various  readings.  But  from  thefe  collecftlons 
of  fclecl  parts  they  have  crept  into  copies  of  the  whole 
New  Teflament,  and  many  of  our  various  readings  can 
be  afcribed  to  no  other  caufe.  Numerous  examples 
might  be  given,  in  which  0  Uo-h;,  after  kxi  httsi/,  feems 
totally  fuperfluousj  but  that  which  is  mcfl  ftriking  Is 

Luke 

»  See  Velthufen's  Obfervations  on  various  fubjeSls, 

»  In  his  Obfervations  on  various  fubjecl^. 

t  In  the  preface  to  tlic  fecopd  volume  of  his  Greek  Teftaraent» 


SECT.  X.  Various  Readings  of  the  N.T.  299 

Luke  vii  31.  where  the  words  sjtts  Si  0  Kv^toir,  which  are 
inferted  in  the  text  of  our  common  editions,  are  wanting 
in  aimoft  all  the  manufcripts  of  the  New  Teftament^ 
but  are  contained  in  the  Le6lionaria ".  In  fc^rming  an 
eflimate  of  readings  of  this  kind,  we  may  apply  the  fol- 
lowing rules. 

1.  The  Le<5lionaria  are  not  to  be  admitted  as  evi- 
dence, but  only  manufcripts  of  whole  books  of  the  New 
Teftament. 

2.  When  Ivio-gf,  aSiXipoiy  or  other  fimilar  words,  arc 
found  at  the  beginning  of  a  lefTon,  they  arc  to  be  con- 
fidered  as  fufpicious,  and  rifty  manufcripts  which  con- 
tain t  :em,  have  no  weight  againft  the  fame  number 
which  omit  them. 

The  omilTion  of  a  pafTage  in  an  antient  manufcript, 
■which  the  writer  added  afcerwards  in  the  margin,  might 
again  lead  a  copyift  into  error,  unlefs  it  was  particularly 
marked,  in  what  part  of  the  text  the  pafTage  ought  to  be 
inferted.  Many  manufcripts  are  ftill  extant,  in  which 
omiflions  are  in  this  manner  fupplied,  efpecially  in  thofe 
preferved  at  Mofc'.)W,  which  Matthai  has  extracted, 
and  accurately  defcribed.  In  tiie  twenty  third  chapter 
of  St.  Matthew  it  is  ftill  undecided,  whether  the  13th- 
or  14th.  verfe  ought  to  precede :  in  four  manufcripts  of 
good  authority,  which  are  quoted  by  Wetftein,  and  in 
fome  ©f  the  verfions,  the  14th.  verfe  is  entirely  omitted: 
in  fome  of  the  manufcripts  the  13th.  verfe  of  our  com- 
mon editions  precedes,  in  others  the  14th.  Thefe  diffe- 
rent phenomena  feem  to  be  explicable  only  on  the  fol- 
lowing hypothefis  -,  that  the  1 4th-  verfe  was  originally  a 
part  of  the  text ;  that  the  circumftance  of  its  beginning 
with  the  very  fame  words  as  the  13th.  gave  rife  to  its 
omifTion,  through  an  overfight  of  the  early  tranfcribers; 
and  that  thofe  manufcripts,  in  which  we  find  the  verfe 
omitted,  were  taken  from  thefe  defe6tive  copies  :  again, 
that  in  fome  of  thefe  defc6live  copies  the  omifTion  was 
fupplied  in  the  margin,  which  fubfequent  fubfcribers, 
unable  to  determine  its  proper  place,  inferted,  fome  im- 
mediately 

•  See  Matthai's  Note  to  this  pafTage?. 


300  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T,        chap.  vi. 

mediately  after  the  12th.  others  immediately  before  the 
15th.  verfe.  From  thefe  circumftances  important  con*- 
clufions  might  be  made  refpefbing  fome  of  the  antient 
editions  of  the  New  Teftament,  namely  the  Weftern, 
the  Alexandrine,  and  the  Grecian :  but  this  is  not  the 
place  for  fuch  an  inquiry  ^. 

An  autograph  itfelf  might  be  the  innocent  occafion 
of  an  error :  for  if  a  new  thought  occurred  to  an  Apoftle, 
after  the  period,  or  perhaps  page,  was  already  written, 
it  is  probable  that  his  amanuenfis,  inftead  of  writing  the 
whole  n-ieet  over  again,  would  note  it  in  the  margin. 
Nov  if  a  tranfcriber  copied  from  fuch  an  autograph, 
at  the  time  Usat  tranfcripts  were  taken  from  the  fcattered 
books  of  the  New  Teftament,  in  order  to  colle6t  them 
into  a  volume,  and  inferted  the  marginal  claufe  in  a 
wrong  place,  the  error  muft  of  courfe  be  univerfal,  as 
this  colleftion  was  the  bafis  of  all  our  prefent  manu- 
fcripts.  There  is  a  paflage  in  the  ninth  chapter  of  the 
epiftle  to  the  Romans  which  excites  a  very  ftrong  fuf- 
picion  of  this  kind:  the  16th.  verfe,  as  it  ftands  in  all 
our  manufcripts,  is  very  improperly  placed  between  the 
15th.  and  17th.  It  is  generally  explained  as  having  re- 
ference to  the  hiftory  of  Efau,  related  in  the  27th.  chap- 
ter of  Genefis ;  and,  as  no  doubt  can  be  made  that  this 
was  the  defign  of  the  Apoftle,  its  proper  place  is  imme- 
diately after  the  13th.  verfe.  Every  one  muft  be  con- 
vinced that  the  verfe  in  queftion  can  have  no  relation  to 
Pharaoh,  who  was  certainly  neither  S■£Aw^  nor  r^i^i^v^  yet 
as  it  ftands  at  prefent,  it  is  fo  intimately  connected  with 
the  15th.  verfe  by  ccoa.  ac,  and  with  the  17th.  by  Asya 
y«^,  both  of  which  relate  to  Pharaoh,  that  without  the 
iitmoft  violence  it  cannot  be  referred  to  any  other  per- 
fon.  But  the  whole  palfage,  which  at  prefent  is  contra- 
di<5lory  to  common  fenfe,  is  rendered  perfedly  intelligi- 
ble by  placing  the  verfes  in  the  following  order,  13,  16, 
I4j  15?  '7-  What  then  can  be  more  natural  than  to 
fuppofe  that  St.  Paul  diftated  at  firft  only  the  13th.  14th. 
15th.  17th.  verfes,  that  the  thought  exprefled  in  the 
1 6th.  verfe  occurred  to  him  afterwards,  perhaps  on  a  re- 

vifal 


SECT.  X.  Various  Readings  of  the  N.T.  301 

vifal  of  the  epiftle,  and  that  this  claufe  was  added  in  the 
margin  in  the  following  manner  ? 


Tw  "vaf  Mwirw  Xsyn  iXsn<roo  ov  av  f Afw,  "nxv  oiiileipvKru 
«v  av  omrupci}.      Atya  yotp  y\  ypx<pn  toj  ^ao«w,  on 

^uvxfM]/  {x%,  Y.XI  OTW?  J'ia'yyjA'i;)  to  qvo^ax  (as  si/  -zsrao-vj 


There  is  another  remarkable  paflage  in  the  epiftle  to 
the  Romans,  which  deferves  to  be  examined  more  at 
length,  becauie  the  variations  in  the  manufcripts  may 
pofTibly  be  afcribed  to  a  caufe  which  feems  to  have  ope- 
rated in  this  place  alone.  If  I  am  not  miftaken  in  af- 
figning  the  reafon,  it  will  throw  feme  light  on  a  cele- 
brated text,  which  has  engaged  the  attention  of  the 
critics,  but  has  never  been  fully  refcued  from  obfcurity. 
It  appears,  from  a  great  majority  of  manufcripts  and 
other  authorities,  that  the  three  laft  verfcs  of  Rom.  xvi, 
ftood  originally  at  the  end  of  the  xivth.  chapter'.  The 
queftion  is,  what  could  be  the  caufe  of  this  tranfpofition  ? 
but  infread  of  anfwcring  this  queftion,  we  may  propofe 
another :  Is  it  not  poffible  that  the  fame  concluding  be- 
nediction v/as  written  originally  at  the  end  of  both  chap- 
ters ?  It  was  the  common  pra6Vice  of  the  Jews  to  clofe 
every  book,  or  important  portion  of  fcripture,  with  words 
of  comfort  and  exhortation  ;  and  where  thefe  were  omit- 
ted by  the  author,  \r  was  not  unufual,  at  the  end  of  a 
paragraph  defcriptive  of  the  divine  judgements,  to  repeat 
a  paflage,  from  the  fame  author,  relating  to  the  goodnefs 
and  mercies  of  the  Deity.  Of  this  cuftom  four  books  of 
the  Old  Teftament,  Ifaiah,  Malachi,  the  Lamentations, 
and  Ecclefiaftes,  contain  evident  examples '°.  The  fame 
benediftion  therefore,  which  had  been  already  written 
at  the  end  of  the  xivth.  chapter,  might  have  been  re- 
peated at  the  clofe  of  the  epiftle,  either  by  command  of 

the 


J02  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.        chap,  vi, 

the  Apoftle,  or  according  to  the  pra6lice  of  the  Jews, 
by  the  amanuenfis  himfelf;  but  being  probably  con- 
fidered  as  an  addition  of  the  latter,  it  was  omitted  in 
moft  of  the  fubfequent  copies.  As  this  fubjeft  has  not 
been  exhaufted  by  the  critics",  I  will  fubjoin  a  table  of 
variations,  in  which  the  reader  may  fee  the  ftate  of  the 
cafe  at  a  lingle  view.     This  paflage  is, 

I.  Placed  at  the  end  of  the  xivth.  chapter,  in  68  ma- 
nufcripts,  in  which  are  included  thofe  quoted  by  Wet- 
ftein  and  Matthai,  the  five  Vienna  manufcripts  collated 
by  Trefchow'',  and  in  two  others:  likewife  in  the  new 
Syriac  and  Sclavonian  verfions'%  and  the  fathers  quoted 
by  Wetftein  and  Griefbach.  Alfo  in  fome  of  the  manu- 
fcripts that  exifted  in  the  time  of  Origen;  and  Marcion 
muft  have  found  it  in  this  place,  as  he  has  rejefted  it, 
as  well  as  a  part  of  the  preceding  verfe,  viz.  za-a^  h  o  ay. 

II.  Placed  at  the  end  of  the  xvith.  chapter,  in  the 
Codex  Alexandrinus,  where  it  is  twice  found,  and  in  the 
Codex  Baroccianus,  but  the  Codex  Lu.  quoted  by  Ben- 
gel,  is  very  uncertain.  Griefbach  quotes  likewife  the 
Codices  '^,  Ephrem,  Cantabrigienfis,  Bafil.  2,  and  Re- 
gius 54.  Alfo  in  fome  of  the  manufcripts  in  the  time  of 
Origen,  a  circumftance  of  great  importance,  and  in  the 
following  antient  and  venerable  verfions. 

The  old  Syriac,  with  the  Arabic  verfion  taken  from  it^ 
publifhed  by  Erpenius. 

The  Coptic. 

The  Armenian  "*. 

The  Latin,  where  Sabatier  found  no  various  reading : 
but  it  is  omitted  in  the  Codex  Boernerianus  *. 

The  ^thiopic,  which  is  of  lefs  value  than  the  pre- 
ceding. 

Now 

w  See  the  Orient.  BIbl.  Vol.  XXIII.  p.  151,  132". 

*  Mr.  Stemler,  in  a  letter  dated  Sept.  12,  1782,  writes  as  follows,  *  The 
Latin  verfion  of  the  Codex  Boernerianus  is  interlined,  and  written  later 
than  the  Greek  text  i7,  but  in  paflages  where  there  is  no  Greek  text, 
there  is  no  verfion.  Rom.  xvi.  24..  is  neither  at  the  end  of  the  epiftle, 
nor  at  the  end  of  the  i4.th.  chapter,  but  in  the  latter  place,  after  <K/A«gTi» 
ifiy,  is  a  vacant  fpace  for  fix  lines  of  text  and  verfion.' 


SECT.  X.  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.  303 

Now  the  old  Syriac,  the  Latin,  and  the  Coptic  ver- 
fions,  are  evidence  of  the  firft  rank,  and  it  is  unjufl  to 
condemn  a  reading  which  they  fupport.  The  moft  pro- 
bable conclufion  therefore  is,  that  the  pafTage  which  had 
been  written  at  the  end  of  the  xivth.  chapter,  was  re- 
peated at  the  end  of  the  epiftle,  either  by  command  of 
the  Apoftle,  or  by  the  amanuenfis,  of  his  own  authority. 

III.  Omitted  at  the  end  of  the  xvith.  chapter,  in  the 
Claromontanus  '^  Augienfis,  and  Boernerianus,  and  ac- 
cording to  the  account  of  Fleifcher,  in  two  Paris  manu- 
fcripts  47  and  56,  which,  with  thofe  enumerated  No.  I. 
make  upwards  of  feventy  manufcripts,  befide  the  ver- 
fions  and  quotations  of  the  fathers,  in  which  the  paflage 
is  omitted  at  the  end  of  the  xvith.  chapter. 

IV.  Placed  at  the  end  of  both  chapters,  in  the  Codex 
Alexandrinus  "  alone.  Now  as  it  appears  from  No.  I. 
that  the  paflage  at  the  end  of  the  xivth.  chapter  is  ge- 
nuine, and  from  No.  II.  that  it  moft  probably  had  a 
place  likewife  at  the  end  of  the  xvith,  we  might  con- 
clude that  the  Codex  Alexandrinus  was  the  only  manu- 
fcript  exifting  that  was  a  genuine  copy  of  the  original, 
were  not  the  probability  diminifhed  by  a  circumftance, 
that  has  given  birth  to  falfe  readings  on  other  occafions' 
and  poflibly  in  the  prefent  inftance,  namely,  that  the 
writer  of  this  manufcript  tranfcribed  from  two  or  more 
that  had  different  readings,  and  being  uncertain  which 
was  the  proper  place,  copied  both,  that  neither  might 
be  loft. 

V.  Omitted  in  both  places  by  Marcion '°,  accordino- 
to  a  paffage  in  Origen,  quoted  by  Wetftein  in  his  re° 
marks  on  Rom.  xiv.  23.  Alfo  in  feveral  manufcrip'ts 
that  exifted  m  the  time  of  Jerom%  and  among  thofe 
which  are  now  extant,  in  the  Claromontanus'',  Auc^i- 
enfis,  and  Boernerianus.    The  writers  of  thefc  three  m^'a- 

nufcripts 

«  Jeroni,  In  his  note  to  Ephef.  lii.  5.  Tom.  Iv.  p.  551.  ed.  Benedia, 
fays,  qui  volunt  piophetas  noii  intellexiffe  quod  dixerint,  et  quafi  in 
exftafi  locutos,  cum  pr.tfeiiti  tefti.nonLo  illud  quoque,  quod  ad  Roma.- 
nos  in  fkrifquc  ccdicibus  invenitur,  ad  confirmatlonem  fui  dogmatis 
trahum,  legentcs,  '  ei  autem  qui  potelt  vos  luboraie/  &c. 


304  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.         chap.  Vf, 

nufcripts  doubted  probably  its  authenticy,  becaufe  it 
was  found  in  different  copies  in  different  places,  but  in 
the  laft  manufcript  a  vacant  fpace  of  fix  lines  is  left  at 
the  end  of  the  xivth  chapter  ". 


SECT.      XI. 


Fourth  Cauje.    Critical  conje^ure,  or  intended  improvement 
of  the  original  text. 

IN  reading  the  works  of  an  author  of  known  literary 
reputation,  we  afcribe  grammatical  or  orthographical 
errors,  if  any  are  to  be  found,  rather  to  a  miftake  of  the 
printer,  than  to  a  want  of  knowledge  in  the  writer.  In 
the  fame  manner  the  tranfci  iber  of  a  manufcript  attri- 
butes the  faults  of  his  original  to  the  error  of  a  former 
copyift,  and  alters  them,  as  he  fuppofes  they  v/ere  written 
by  the  author.  But  if  he  carries  his  cridcal  conjedures 
too  far,  he  falls  himfelf  into  the  error  which  he  intended 
to  avoid  :  this  may  be  done, 

I.  When  through  ignorance  of  the  principles  of  gram- 
mar he  takes  an  expreffion  to  be  faulty,  which  in  reality 
is  not,  as  was  the  cafe  with  Houbigant,  in  his  critical 
amendments  of  the  Old  Teftament.  This  has  fomedmes 
happened  to  the  tranfcribers  of  the  New  Teftament,  for 
inftance  A(5ls  xx.  3.  -yvw/Aj]  has  been  altered  by  feveral 
into  yvu[ji.7iq,  from  the  fuppofition  that  ra-ointraf  was  the 
nominative,  which  fliould  be  referred  to  tyivtro.  Afts 
xxvi.  1.  rtynfxoii  i[xoiVTov  ixaxu^ioVf  |!a£XAwi/ '.  a  Codex  CoiQi- 
nianus,  (Wetftein's  Codex  17.)  has  altered  fA.iXXu>  into 
/lAfAAovra,  and  in  the  third  verfe  three  manufcripts  have 
iinrocfAii'og  before  yvufnv  ovra,  the  conftruftion  appearing 
imperfeft  becaufo  i-m  <ra  had  immediately  preceded.  Sec 
likewife  the  various  readings  Matth.  xxii.  16.  (XEyo^Ts?) 
I  Cor.  X.  16.  2  Cor.  vi.  4.  and  my  father's  Tra6latio 
Critica,  §  7.  b.  Sometimes  we  find  orthographical  cor- 
redions,  or  a  word,  that  is  written  two  difl^erent  ways,  al^ 
tered  to  that  which  is  fuppofed  the  moft  accurate.     The 

brook 


SCET.  XI.         Various  Readings  of  the  N,  T.  305 

brook  and  valley  of  Kedron,  is  properly  0  Ke^^uv,  ra  Ke- 
J'^wi/of,  and  is  fo  written  by  Jofephus :  but  it  was  the 
foible  of  the  Greeks  to  derive  foreign  proper  names  from 
their  own  language,  and  hence  we  find  in  the  Septuagint 
the  valley  of  Kedron,  ftyled  the  valley  mv  xs^^uv,  of  ce- 
dars. St.  John  ufes  it  in  the  fame  manner,  ne^av  nt 
^BifMoc^^a  ruv  xio^uu,  but  the  Codex  x^lexandrinus,  the 
only  manufcript  in  which  an  alteration  is  made,  has  ra 
Ke^^wy  which  is  likewife  the  reading  of  the  Vulgate  ^ 
Now  this  correction  is  exadly  the  fame,  as  if  we  altered 
Mufililmen  into  Muflernin,  which  is  the  plural,  accord- 
ing to  the  language,  from  which  the  word  is  taken. 

2.  When  a  tranfcriber  miftakes  the  fenfe  of  the  au- 
thor, and  fuppofes  that  he  has  difcovered  a  grammatical 
error,  when  in  fa6l  he  himfelf  conftrues  falfely.  Every 
man,  verfed  in  literary  publications,  knows  that  this  very 
frequently  happens  to  compofitors,  and  half-learned  cor- 
rectors of  the  prcfs :  but  what  is  more  extraordinary, 
even  the  great  Bentley  has  expofed  himfelf  to  this  cen- 
fure,  and  in  his  correction  of  Gal.  iv.  25.  has  betrayed  a 
want  of  knowledge,  as  great  as  his  prefumpdon^. 

3.  When  the  grammadcal  error  intended  to  be  cor- 
rected proceeded  aCtually  from  the  author  himfelf.  In 
this  cafe  no  critic  is  at  liberty  to  make  an  alteradon, 
whofe  bufinefs  is  to  reftore  the  genuine  text,  as  it  pro- 
ceeded from  the  writer,  and  not  to  regard  it  as  the  ex- 
ercife  of  a  fchool-boy.  Corrections  of  this  kind  have 
been  attempted  more  efpecially  in  the  book  of  Revela- 
tion, for  which  I  refer  my  readers  to  Bengel's  Apparatus 
Cridcus,  §  5.  of  the  fcCtion  fundamenta  crifeos  Apoca- 
lyptic^'. 

Hence  we  may  deduce  the  following  critical  rules, 
I.  In  thofe  paflages,  where  we  find  only  an  apparent 
grammatical  error,  the  feemingly  erroneous  reading  may 
be  generally  confidered  as  the  genuine,  and  the  other 
readings  as  corrections,  and  therefore  fpurious. 

2.  Real 

y  See  Wetftein's  Note  to  John  xviii.  i. 

»  Remarks  on  Bentley's  intended  edition  of  the  Gveek,  Teftament  will  be 
given  in  a  fvibfequent  chapter. 

u 


2o6  Various  Readings  of  the  N.T.        chap.  v/. 

1.  Real  grammatical  errors,  in  the  works  of  a  corredt 
and  clafTical  writer,  are  juftly  afcribed  to  a  miftake  of 
the  copyifl-,  and  the  fame  fentiments  may  be  entertained 
of  an  audior  of  lefs  eminence,  when  among  feveral  copies 
one  or  two  only  have  the  fali'e  reading. 

3<  But  when  exprefllons,  that  deviate  from  the  ftrift- 
neft  of  grammar,  are  found  in  the  writings  of  an  author, 
who  had  not  the  advantage  of  a  learned  education,  and 
was  totally  regardlefs  of  the  accuracy  of  his  ftyle,  not  in 
fingle,  but  repeated  inftances,  and  retained  in  a  very 
great  number  of  manufcripts,  they  mufh  be  attributed 
not  to  the  tranfcriber,  but  the  author. 

4.  When  one  grammatical  error  in  particular  is  fre- 
quently found  in  one  and  the  fame  writing,  as  the  im- 
proper ufe  of  the  nominative  in  the  book  of  Revelation, 
no  doubt  can  be  made  that  it  proceeded  from  the  author 
himfelf. 

Wetfl:<:in,  in  his  Animadverfiones  ad  examen  variarum 
leftionum  neceflariie,  in  the  fecond  volume-  of  the  New 
Teftament,  p.  859 — 86i,  has  made  fome  very  important 
obfervations  upon  this  fubjeft  :  it  remains  therefore  only 
to  obferve,  that  thefe  corrections  are  not  always  to  be  at- 
tributed to  real  defign  ;  for  a  tranfcriber,  who  copied  not 
word  for  word,  but  fixed  in  his  memory  a  whole  paf- 
fage  before  he  wrote  it,  might  inadvertendy  ufe  the  more 
ufual  conftruftion,  inflead  of  that  in  the  original.  This 
again  is  a  confirmation  of  the  firft  of  the  above  rules. 

The  amendments  of  tranfcribers  have  not  been  con- 
fined to  grammatical  mlftakes,  in  the  proper  lenfe  of  the 
word,  but  have  been  applied  to  cafes  where  the  con- 
fcru6lion  was  fuppoled  to  deviate  from  Grecian  purity* 
Jvnlttel,  in  his  Criticlfms  on  the  book  of  Revelation,  p. 
t8.  has  the  following  excellent  remark'' :  '  The  vicious 
practice  of  rendering  tlie  Grecian  text  of  the  New  TeR-a- 
rnent  more  Grecian  than  the  original,  is  very  antient. 
The  firft  attempt  was  made  by  Tatian  %  who  correfted 
in  this  manner  the  epiftles  of  St.  Paul ;  to  whom,  if  I 
am  not  miftaken,  we  niay  add  Triphyllrr.s,  an  Egyptian 

bilhop, 

a  Evifcbii  Hi!l.  Ecclef.  Lib.  IV,  cap.  29. 


SECT.  XI.        Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.  307 

bifliop,  for  this  opinion  is  juftified  by  the  relation  of 
Sozomen''.  As  fo  much  attention  has  been  lately  given 
to  the  Codices  Latinizantes,  I  am  aftonifhed  that  no  one 
has  attended  to  the  Codices  Grsscizantes,  which  exift  as 
well  as  the  Latinizing  manufcripts,  and  vary  from  the 
text  of  the  original.  Perhaps  feveral  paffages  in  the  Co- 
dex Guelferbitanus  H,  which  I  have  piibliflied  with 
Ulphilas,  may  be  referred  to  this  clafs.'  Examples  of 
this  kind  I  have  likewife  obferved,  but  having  negle6lcd 
to  note  them,  can  recoiled  at  prefent  only  two.  Luke  i.  64. 

avKfyPvi  TO  s'oiJi.oi,  oiVTis   y.a.i  ri  yKooa-crx  ocvth  appeared  to  fome 

of  the  critical  tranfcribers  to  be  inaccurate,  becaufe  the 
mouth  only,  and  not  the  tongue  is  opened  in  fpeaking ; 
we  find  therefore  in  the  Complutum  edition,  and  a  Mof- 
cow  manufcript,  the  addition  of  ^inp^pu^n,  while  others 
wrote  tXv^n  0  Si<Ty.og  rng  yXu(T(Tri;.  The  other  inflance  is 
A6ls  viii.  45.  where  ai^nXiyovrsg  is  omitted  in  feveral  of 
the  manufcripts  as  an  ill-founding  word',  and  two 
manufcripts  have  even  fubftituted  iVix,vriis(ji.iuoi.  This  read- 
ing has  been  preferred  by  many  critics  of  real  learning, 
which  is  the  more  furprifmg,  as  Wetftein  very  juftly  ob- 
ferves,  that  in  a  book  like  the  New  Teftament,  which 
is  manifeflly  written  in  impure  Greek,  the  Hebraizing 
and  idiotical  reading  is  always  to  be  preferred  to  the 
pure  and  clafiical  *. 

Some  of  the  copyifts  have  ventured  a  ftep  further,  and 
have  not  only  coi-redled  ungrammatical  or  inaccurate  ex- 
prellions,  but  have  converted  inelegant  into  elegant 
phrafes.  The  late  Gefner,  in  his  preface  to  Claudian, 
has  made  the  following  obfervation.  *  If  two  different 
readings,  the  one  elegant  the  other  inelegant,  be  found 
in  a  paffage  of  an  author  who  is  known  to  have  poflefTed 
the  graces  of  compofition,  in  Horace,  in  Claudian,  in 
Job,  the  Pfalms,  or  Ifaiah,  we  may  prefume  that  the 
elegant  is  the  genuine  reading.  But  if  found  in  authors 
who  have  entirely  neglefted  the  beauty  and  propriety  of 
language,  fuch  as  the  writers  of  the  New  Teftament,  we 
may  rather,  with  a  very  few  exceptions,  lay  down  the 

contrary 

k  Hift.Eccicf.  Lib.  I  cap.  xi. 

U  a 


3o8  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.       chap.  vr. 

contrary  as  a  rule,  and  prefer  the  Hebraizing  and  idio- 
tical  reading  to  that  which  is  refined  and  claflical.  But 
this  rule  admits  of  different  modifications,  when  applied 
to  difix^rent  books  of  the  New  Teftament,  nor  muR  we 
draw  precifely  the  fame  inference  with  refpeft  to  a  read- 
ing in  tlie  A6ts  of  the  Apoftles,  or  the  epiitle  to  the 
Hebrews,  as  in  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Mark.  In  the  epiftles 
of  St.  Paul,  the  moft  exquifite  and  delicate  terms  are  not 
to  be  fufpefted  as  fpurious ;  and  in  the  book  of  Revela- 
tion the  moll  probable  reading  is  that  which  is  rudely 
fublime,  not  that  which  is  corredlly  beautiful.  If  ex- 
amples are  required,  in  which  tranfcribers  have  attempted 
to  improve  and  beautify  the  text  of  the  New  Teftament, 
"we  may  produce  the  following:  Matth.  v.  lo,  oTi  uvtuiu 
tfiv  71  (^oKTiXdx  Tuv  ap«vwv,  being  the  very  fame  words, 
which  had  been  ufed  in  the  third  verfe,  were  altered  in 
Xeveral  manufcripts,  fo  antient  as  the  time  of  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  into  on  auTo»  Eo■o^Ta^  nhnoiy  to  avoid  the  in- 
elegance of  a  repetition  ;  and,  as  a  further  improvement 
on  the  paffage,  was  added  xa»  |u,«xaoio»  oi  ^e^iuyy^zvoi  ivBua 
J/A8,  oTi  £^80"t  TOTTo  07^^  ov  (J'lw^S'iitroi'Tixj.  Another  inftance 
is  John  xvi.  6.  in  which  ■^nrXr^ooasu  was  in  a  very  early 
age  altered  into  zs-ettw^ w>c£v,  with  a  view  of  amending  the 
original. 

To  the  improvements  intended  to  be  made  by  cor- 
refting  what  appeared  inaccurate,  or  fupplying  what 
feemed  to  be  deficient,  may  be  added  thofe  of  omitdng 
what  was  deemed  fuperfluous ;  yet  omifTions  are  fome- 
times  occafioned  by  an  overfight  of  the  copyift,  or  by 
miftaking  a  real  part  of  the  original,  for  a  fcholion  ob- 
truded on  the  text.  Mark  xii.  23.  the  words  ot«i/  avx- 
^ooa-iy  immediately  following  iu  ty,  ^v  ai-araff-fj,  appear  to 
be  unnecefTary ;  in  feven  manufcripts  quoted  by  Wet- 
ilein  they  are  omitted,  and  Beza's  opinion  was  *  poteft 
cxpungi  nulla  fenfus  injuria.'  It  is  true,  that  the  mean- 
ing of  the  paffage  would  not  fuifer  if  they  were  omitted, 
yet  they  are  not  abfolutely  ufelefs,  becaufe  they  are  xo 
be  referred  not  to  the  Refurreftion  of  the  Dead  in  gene- 
ral, but  to  that  of  the  feven  brethren  in  particular :  but 

admitting 


SECT.  XI.         Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T,  309 

admitting  them  to  be  ufclefs,  they  are  not  therefore  to 
be  deemed  fpurioiis  in  fuch  a  writer  as  St.  Mark.  In 
the  fame  Golpel,  ch.  xiv.  ver.  51.  the  Syriac  verfion, 
the  Coptic,  the  Vulgate  ^  two  antient  manufcripts  of 
the  old  Italic,  namely  the  Vercellenfis  and  Brixienfis  ^ 
with  three  Greek  manufcripts  ^  omit  ot  ysavKrxoj,  and 
Mill  was  inclined  to  believe  it  a  fcholion  ^  Now,  in  a 
writer  of  taftc  and  elegance,  we  might  reafonably  fufpedt 
its  authendcity,  becaufe  it  is  iinnecefiary,  and  x^arao-iv 
auTov  is  not  only  intelligible,  but  more  harmonious  with- 
out it,  whereas  the  effedt  produced  by  the  whole  (tn.- 

tence  xa»  ek  tk  viOi.iiKry.og  ■nnoXsB'n  auTU  ZTS^i^i^Xriixsvog  (rivSovoc 
iTTi  'yu^w,^«,    xaj  y-POi-rafriv  auTOf  o»  yiocvKyaoi  is  difagrceable  tO 

the  ear.  Were  this  paflage  in  a  clafilc  author,  we  fhould 
naturally  afcribe  its  inelegance  to  fome  miftake  of  a  tran- 
fcriber,  and  fuppofe  him  to  have  been  guilty  "of  an  over- 
fight,  in  transferring  i/fano-xo?  from  the  beginning  to  the 
end  of  the  fentence,  and  writing  it  in  the  plural.  But 
inftead  of  venturing  a  conje(5lure  to  refcue  the  language 
of  St.  Mark  from  the  charge  of  inelegance,  it  is  agree- 
able to  truth  to  pronounce  the  leaft  elegant  of  the  two 
readings  to  be  the  genuine.  For  this  Evangelift  has 
never  avoided  the  ufe  of  an  exprcfTion  on  account  of  its 
harfhnefs  or  fuperfluity :  of  the  two  readings  therefore, 
that,  which  is  preferable  in  itfelf,  we  may  alcribe  to  the 
correftion  of  a  tranfcriber.  St.  Mark  was  fo  accuftomed 
to  ufe  the  word  £u^£co?  on  every  occafion,  that  it  is  found 
forty-one  times  in  the  Greek  Concordance  from  his  Gof- 
pel  alone.  In  feveral  of  thcfe  paffages  £uS-«w?  is  omitted 
in  one  or  more  of  the  manufcripts,  but  on  the  other 
hand,  in  many  places  where  it  is  omitted  in  our  printed 
editions,  it  is  found  either  in  manufcripts  or  verfions. 
Now,  in  forming  a  judgement  of  the  true  reading,  the 
queftion  is,  whether  the  fuperfluous  £u3-£w?  is  to  be  re- 
jected or  not  ?  This  queftion  we  may  fafely  anfwer  in  the 
negative,  for  were  it  an  addition  made  by  the  copyifts,  it 
would  hardly  be  confined  to  this  Gofpel  alone ;  but  from 
g  writer  who  paid  no  attention  to  propriety  of  compofi- 

tion 

c  Prolegomena,  §  409. 

u  3 


3IO  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.       chap.  vi. 

tion  it  may  naturally  be  expefted;  it  is  therefore  proba- 
ble, not  only  that  the  one-and-forty  paflages  are  genuine, 
but  that  £uS-£w?  was  written  by  the  author  in  ftill  more 
examples,  and  one  of  my  pupils  has  aftuaily  counted 
twelve  other  inftances  among  the  various  readings. 

Ir  is  true  that  other  critics  are  of  a  different  opinion  ; 
Semlcr,  whofe  objecl  was  to  render  the  text  of  the  New 
Teftament  as  concife  and  energetic  as  poffible,  has  never 
failed  to  adopt  the  fhorteft  reading,  though  fupported 
only  by  the  authority  of  a  (ingle  manufcript**:  and  Grief- 
bach,  in  the  preface  to  his  edition  of  the  New  Tefta- 
ment,  has  laid  it  down  as  a  rule,  that  in  paflages  where 
there  arc  different  readings,  the  fl:iortefl:  is  to  be  prefer- 
red'. But  as  it  is  the  bufinefs  of  a  critic  to  inquire,  not 
which  is  the  beft,  but  which  is  the  genuine  reading,  or 
that  which  proceeded  from  the  author  himfelf,  the  ftyle 
and  character  of  the  author  muft  be  examined  before 
any  pofitive  conclufion  can  be  drawn.  I  admit  that  in 
the  works  of  Tacitus  the  concife  reading  is  probably  the 
genuine,  and  that  which  is  dilated  into  weaknefs,  a  fcho- 
lion  obtruded  on  the  text :  but  in  the  copious  and  dif- 
fufe  Mofl-ieim,  we  might  fufped  a  paffage  to  be  fpurious 
that  refembled  the  brevity  of  the  Roman  hiftorian.  In 
the  fame  manner  the  writers  of  the  New  Teftament  have 
their  peculiarides  of  ftyle,  to  which  ftrift  attendon  muft  be 
paid  in  deciding  on  the  authendcity  of  a  reading.  Writers 
of  unpolifhed  language  have  ufually  fome  favourite  fu- 
perfluous  pardcle,  and  no  reafon  can  be  afcribed  why 
£uS-fwf  fliould  be  denied  to  St.  Mark.  The  ftrength  and 
elegance  of  claffic  diftion  is  no  where  to  be  difcovered 
in  the  New  Teftament ;  for  though  the  language  of  St. 
Paul  is  concife  and  forcible,  it  arofe  merely  from  the 
warmth  of  liis  chara6ler,  and  has  no  refemblance  to  that 
ftudied  compofition,  which  is  careful  to  corre6t  and  erafe 
whatever  may  diminifti  the  beauty,  or  weaken  the  energy 
of  the  periods. 

But  alterations  in  the  text  are  fometimes  to  be  afcribed 
to  the  ignorance,  rather  duin  to  the  tafte  of  the  tranfcrib- 
ers,  in  fuppofmg  an  exprefiion  to  be  faulty  which  in  reality 

was 


SECT.  XT.         Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.  3  x  i 

-was  correfl.  E.?  li^aa-ccXn^^  Atts  iv.  5.  was  thought  to 
involve  a  contradidion,  as  it  feemed  abfiird  to  fay  that 
the  members  of  the  Sanhedrim  came  to  Jerufalem..  The 
Syriac  tranflator  has  omitted  the  reading,  and  in  ten  ma- 
niifcripts  quoted  by  Wetftcin  it  is  changed  into  sv  Je^x- 
cxX-Au.  Mill  preferred  the  latter  reading,  becaiife  it  is 
the  mod  eafy,  but  Bengel,  who  had  fubfcribed  to  this  opi- 
nion, revoked  it  afterwards  in  his  Guomon,  and  Wet- 
ftein,  the  very  befl:  judge  in  the  choice  of-  a  readino-, 
gave  the  preference  to  the  former  '^,  which  is  warranted 
by  a  great  majority  of  manufcripts.  Wetftein  was  un- 
doubtedly right,  for  if  St.  Luke  had  v/ritten  iv  Ii^'sa-aXT^y.,  it 
is  inconceivable  that  tranfcribers  ftould  alter  a  reading, 
whofe  fenfe  is  obvious,  into  one  that  is  obfcure  -,  but 
though  obfcure  and  mifunderftood,  it  conveys  an  ade- 
quate meaning,  it  being  common  in  Jerufalem,  as  in 
other  capitals,  for  men  of  rank  and  fortune  to  fpend  a 
part  of  the  year  either  in  the  fuburbs,  or  at  a  fummer 
refidence  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  city.  The  words 
of  Herod,  Macth.  xiv.  2.  aro?  is-iu  Tw«l/^»lf  0  |Sa7rTtr»)?, 
have  the  appearance  of  contradi6ling  Luke  ix.  9.  and  it 
was  manifeftly  with  a  view  of  removing  the  difficulty, 
that  in  the  Codex  Cantabrigienfis  they  are  altered  to  |oi?iTf 

8T0?  tfiv  loosiv^ng  0  |3«7rT»r^?,     The  reading  sttw  ya,p  riv  Tn/svy.x 

uyiovy  John  vii.  39.  is  fomewhat  harlli,  in  the  Codex 
Vaticanus  therefore  we  find  Moyivov  added,  and  in  the 
Codex  Cantabrigienfis  ^tt'  avTo;?  or  aurou? "  ;  but  as  the 
two  manufcripts  difagree  in  their  additions,  it  is  a  proof 
that  neither  is  genuine  ".  I  am  really  furprifed  that,  as 
the  three  firft  words  were  written  in  the  antient  manu- 
fcripts OrnnrAPHN,  it  has  never  occurred  to  alter  it 
into  orrmrAPnAPHN,  and  I  fhould  be  difpofed  to 
make  this  critical  conie6ture,  as  a  copyift  might  very 
eafily  be  guilty  of  the  overfight  of  omitting  HAP  imme- 
diately after  TAP,  if  the  fame  harfli  conftru6lion  were 
not  to  be  found  in  another  paillige ''.  More  examples 
of  this  kind  may  be  feen  in  my  father's  Tradatio  Cri- 
fica,  §■  7.  h. 

Kence 

d  ARs  xix,  z  n. 
V  ^ 


312  Various  Readings  of  the  N,  T.       chap,  vu 

Hence  we  may  juftly  draw  the  following  rule  i  '  When- 
ever two  different  readings  occur,  one  of  which  feems 
difficult  and  obfcure,  but  may  be  explained  by  the  help 
of  antiquity,  and  a  more  accurate  knowledge  of  the 
language,  whereas  the  other  is  fo  eafy  as  to  be  obvious 
to  the  mcaneft  capacity,  the  latter  reading  is  to  be  fuf- 
pefted.  No  tranfcriber  would  defignedly  change  a  clear 
into  an  obfcure  reading,  nor  is  it  poffible  that  inadver- 
tency fhould  make  fo  happy  a  miftake  as  to  produce  a 
reading,  that  perplexes  indeed  the  ignorant,  but  is  un- 
derftood  and  approved  by  the  learned.  This  rule  is  the 
touchitone  which  diflinguifhes  the  true  critics  from  the 
falfe.  Bengel  and  Wetftein,  critics  of  the  firft  rank, 
have  admitted  its  authority,  but  thofe  of  inferior  order 
prefer  in  general  the  eafy  reading,  for  no  other  reafon 
than  becaufe  its  meaning  is  moll  obvious  '\ 

An  application  of  the  rule  to  particular  cafes  will 
render  it  more  intelligible,  and  I  will  fele6l  an  inftance 
in  which  even  Bengel  appears  not  to  have  felt  its  influ- 
ence, though  Wetftein  with  his  ufual  fagacity,  has 
adopted  the  genuine  reading,  not  without  perceiving 
the  difficulty,  which  he  was  unable  to  remove.  Rom. 
xvi.  5.  Epcenetus  is  called  oLira^'xjA  Tn;  A^cciag  t*?  %f  frov, 
but  fix  manufcripts  quoted  by  Wetftein  have  A«ria?  in- 
ftead  of  A^ocixgy  and  the  Codex  Vindobonenfis  34,  has 
the  fame  as  a  corredion  '^  Grotius,  Mill,  Whitby,  and 
Bengel,  prefer  A(naf,  but  Wetftein,  whofe  critical  judge- 
ment we  have  no  reafon  to  fufped,  gave  the  preference 
to  Axoii^';,  which  is  the  common  reading  "^.  Thofe  who 
are  in  favour  of  the  alteration,  ground  their  arguments 
on  the  apparent  contradidion  between  this  paffage  and 
I  Cor.  xvi.  15.  where  the  houfe  of  Stephanas  is  called 
cciJt.oc^X/'  "^^^  A;)(^ai«?,  and  Wetftein  himfelf  has  made  only 
a  weak  attempt  to  remove  it,  in  faying  potuit  Epsne- 
tus  domefticus  Stephani  Romas  fuifle  quern  Paulus  tw 
ciKiav  ErKpccvcx,  falutans  intelligit.  But  in  fad  the  com- 
mentators have  created  a  difficulty  where  no  difficulty 
exifts.  On  the  day  of  Pentecoft  three  thoufxnd  perfons 
were  converted  to  Chriftianityj  all  of  whom  might  be 

ftyled 


SECT.  XI.         Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.  313 

ftyled  «7rafp(,Ti  Icpoo-oXvfAuv  fi?  Xpirov,  and  in  the  fame 
manner  ocTrxpx;^  t>i?  A;)(;aiaf  is  to  be  confined  neither  to 
EpJEnetus,  nor  to  the  houfe  of  Stephanas  in  particular, 
but  is  appUcable  to  the  firft  Achaean  converts  in  gene- 
ral '^.  From  thefc  premifTes  it  follows,  that  A^ot'KX';  is 
the  genuine  reading,  and  Atria?  a  correction,  and  there- 
fore fpurious ;  for  had  St.  Paul  written  Ao-ta?,  no  reafon 
could  be  afiigned  for  altering  it  into  Axccia,?,  whereas  the 
feeming  contradi6lion  of  the  latter  reading  was  fufficient 
to  induce  a  copyift  to  change  it  into  Ao-;a?  '^  On  the 
very  fame  principles  we  may  determine  which  is  the 
genuine  reading,  and  which  is  corre6bion,  ^ivrspto  or 
TO-pwTu,  Afls  xiii.  23  ^-  Ernefti,  in  his  Caftigationes 
Wetftenians  editionis,  difapproves  the  prepofidon  xara, 
A6ts  xvii.  25.  as  rendering  the  palTage  obfcure,  but  the 
Arabic  tranilator  mufl  have  fuppofed  it  to  be  intelli- 
gible, having  rendered  it  ^j^  3.^  ^  in  omnibus  locis. 

Wetftein  therefore  was  not  to  be  cenfured  for  being 
guided  by  a  majority  of  the  manufcripts,  as  the  reading 
has  been  fmce  confirmed  by  other  arguments  *°.  But 
in  the  application  of  this  rule  we  muft  never  forget  the 
eflential  claufe,  "  if  the  difficult  reading  admits  a  fatis- 
faftory  explanation,"  as  perfpicuity  is  at  all  times  to 
be  preferred,  unlefs  folid  reafons  can  be  given  to  the 
contrary. 

The  various  readings  which  have  been  defcribed  in 
this  feftion,  are  in  reality  critical  conjeflures  inferted  in 
the  text :  the  remarks  therefore  on  this  fubjeft,  which  the 
reader  will  find  toward  the  clofe  of  the  next  volume,  where 
a  llriking  example  will  be  given  of  a  critical  but  falfe 
conje6lure  of  the  very  learned  Origen,  that  has  been  in- 
truded into  all  our  edidons,  may  be  referred  to  the  pre- 
fent  chapter.  In  fome  of  the  manufcripts,  which  are 
ftill  extant,  cridcal  conje6bures  are  found  in  the  margin, 
of  which  the  Codex  Vindobonenfis  Lambecii  24.  is  an 
inftance  ^ :  and  if  a  tranfcript  had  been  taken  from  this 

raanu- 

e  See  the  Orient,  BIbl.  Vol.  II.  p.  219— »22  »9^ 
f  Orient.  Bibl.  *'  Vol.  VI.  p,  20,  zi. 


314  Various  Readings  of  the  N.T.         chap,  vr, 

manufcript,  that  which  is  critical  error  would  have  been 
converted  into  a  various  reading. 

Another  fource  of  various  readings,  which  occupies  a 
middle  rank  between  critical  conjedure  and  wilful  cor- 
ruption, is  the  omifTion  of  a  word  that  feemed  to  be  of- 
fenfive,  or  to  derogate  from  the  dignity  of  fome  virtuous 
and  eminent  charadler.  This  fource  may  be  termed 
Jewifli,  for  the  Jews  themfelves  acknowledge  that  they 
had  purpofely  changed  Mofes  into  Manaffes,  Judges 
xviii.  30.  with- a  view  of  refcuing  their  lawgiver  from  the 
imputation  of  having  grand-children  that  offered  to 
idols  ".  Tranfcribers  of  the  New  Teflament  have  been 
fometimes  of  the  fame  opinion,  and  no  doubt  can  be 
made  that  the  original  reading,  Matth.  xxvii.  16,  17.  was 
I'/io-av  BapaC^av.  Origen,  whofe  words  I  fliall  prefently 
quote,  exprefsly  declares  it,  and  Ir^o-av  is  found  in  the  Ar- 
menian, and  in  a  Syriac  tranflation  which  Adler  difco- 
vered  in  Rome  ^.  The  reading  is  probable  in  itfelf,  for 
Jefus  was  at  that  time  a  very  common  name  among  the 
Jews,  as  we  learn  from  Jofephus;  and  Barabbas  was  only 
an  addition  to  the  real  name,  fignifying  the  fon  of  Abba 
or  Rabba.  The  relation  of  St.  Matthew  feems  to  be  im- 
perfect without  it,  and  every  impartial  reader  will  prefer 
the  following  to  the  common  text,  *  Therefore  when  they 
were  gathered  together,  Pilate  faid  unto  them.  Whom 
will  ye  that  I  releafe  unto  you,  Jefus  the  fon  of  Abba,  or 
Jefus  which  is  called  Chrift  ?'  It  is  true  that  the  word 
Jefus  before  Barabbas  is  omitted  in  all  our  modern  ma- 
nufcripts,  and  ftill  more  modern  editions ;  but  Origen, 
by  the  very  argument  which  he  ufes  for  rejefting  it, 
proves  that  the  greateft  number  of  manufcripts  in  the 
third  century  Itill  retained  it,  and  is  able  to  affign  no  crid- 
cal  reafon  for  its  omiffion.  He  fays  in  multis  exemplaribus 
non  contineter  quod  Barabbas  etiam  Jefus  dicebatur,  et 
forfitanre6l:e,ut  ne  nomenjefuconveniat  alicui  iniquorum. 
In  tanta  enim  fcripturarum  multitudine  neminem  fcimus 
Jefum  peccatorem,  ficut  in  aliis  nominibus  juftorum. — 
Non  autcm  conveniebat  effe  tale  aliquid  in  nomine  Jefu: 
ex  puto,  quod  in  h^erefibus  tale  aliquid  fuperadditum  eft, 

%  Orient.  Bibl.  "-^  Vol.  XIX.  p.  119,  130. 


SECT.  XI.         Various  Readings  of  the  N.T.  315 

&c.  This  is  an  admirable  argument  for  deciding  on  a 
man's  name  ;  it  is  the  fame  as  if  a  culprit  were  arraigned 
in  a  court  of  juftice,  and  the  judge  Ihould  anfwer  *  that 
cannot  be  the  name  of  the  culprit,  for  I  know  many 
honeft  men  who  are  fo  called.'  Another  inllance  of  the 
fame  pious  alteration  is  found  in  the  Ads  of  the  Apoftles, 
ch.  xiii.  6.  where  the  name  of  the  importor  Ba^i^io-a? 
has  been  tortured  by  commentators,  tranfcribers  and 
tranflators,  all  poffible  ways.  Jerom  was  of  opinion  that 
it  ousht  to  be  written  Barjehu,  and  hence  feveral  Latin 
manirfcripts,  quoted  by  Bengel,  have  Barjehu  or  Barjeu. 
According  to  the  Syriac  orthography  it  fhould  be  writ- 
ten v\QA.;o,  which  was  probably  the  antient  reading, 
and  in  Arabic  ^^*vo^  ;  but  this  was  altered  by  tranfcrib- 
ers in  two  different  methods.  In  the  prefent  copies  of 
the  old  Syriac  we  find  iica»;o  Barfhuma  or  filius  nomi- 
nis,  where  l^a*  is  ufcd  in  the  fame  emphatical  fenfe  for 
I»)(ra?  as  Dt^^n  among  the  Jews  for  Jehovah.  Other  co- 
pyifts  endeavoured  to  conceal  the  name  of  Jefus  by  re- 
tainino-  in  the  Syriac  the  termination  of  the  -Greek,  and 
wrote  -icaail-;  and  the  author  of  the  Arabic  verfion 
publifhed  by  Erpenius  muft  have  tranflated  from  a  Syriac 
verfion  which  had  this  reading,  as  he  has  written  ^yA^^\j. 
The  oppofite  and  artificial  means  therefore  which  have 
been  ufed,  either  to  remove  or  conceal  the  name  of  Je- 
fusj  afford  fufficient  evidence  that  all  the  readings  which 
refult  from  them  are  fpurious. 

Examples  of  this  kind  may  direfl  us  in  judging  of  the 
authenticity  of  other  pafifages,  which  have  been  either 
altered,  or  omitted  for  the  fame  reafon  as  the  foregoing. 
The  beautiful  paragraph  in  St.  John's  Gofpel,  which 
begins  with  the  laft  verfe  of  the  feventh  chapter,  has 
been  omitted  by  many  of  the  tranfcribers,  for  no  other 
reafon  than  becaufe  in  their  opinion  it  afibrded  an  ex- 
cufe  for  adultery.  It  is  furprifing  that  this  motive  has 
never  occurred  to  modern  critics,  who  have  themfelves 
made  objeftions  to  the  paffage  which  appear  from  the 
262"^.  feftion  of  the  Mofaical  law '+  to  be  totally  un- 
grounded.    Wetflein,  from  whole  judgement  I  am  in 

this 


2  I  6  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.         chap,  vr, 

this  c.ik  obliged  to  diflent,  has  faithfully  quoted  in  his 
various  readings  the  opinions  of  the  antient  critics  with 
refpe6l  to  this  paHlige,  from  which  we  may  deduce  the 
motives  which  led  them  to  rejecft  it ;  but  the  authorities 
which  he  has  collected  againft  it  are  real  proofs  of  its 
authenticity  ''.  Another  inftance  of  omilTion  on  the  very 
fame  principles  is  Matth.  xvi.  2,  3. 

The  caufes  which  have  produced  a  variation  in  paf- 
fages  of  this  nature  may  teach  us  at  lead  to  doubt  the 
authenticity  of  many  others.  Mark  i.  2.  the  reading  of 
almoft  all  our  prefent  manufcripts  is  ev  toj?  zr^opnraigy  and 
only  in  a  very  few  antient  copies  ^^  sv  Ha-atot,  tw  zr^otpTtT-^. 
As  the  latter  reading  aflforded  Porphyry  an  opportunity 
of  attacking  the  truth  of  the  New  Teftament,  it  was 
changed  into  the  former  reading;  yet  the  name  of  Efaias 
was  Itill  retained  in  the  manufcripts  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, as  appears  from  the  words  of  Jerom,  who,  in  order 
to  avoid  the  ridicule  of  Porphyry,  contended  that  the 
name  of  that  prophet  fhould  be  omitted,  for  which  he 
afTigns  the  following  weighty  reafon,  Efaias  nomen  PU- 
TAMUS  additum  fcriptorum  vitio.  On  the  fame 
ground  we  may  fufpeft  the  authenticity  of  xttw  a^a€a»i/w, 
John  vii.  8.  which  is  found  in  almoft  all  our  manu- 
fcripts; whereas  two,  which  are  quoted  by  Wetflein  % 
and  a  few  Mofcow  manufcripts,  quoted  by  Matthai,  are 
the  only  copies  remaining  which  have  an  *i/ag«i^w.  This 
reading  had  again  afforded  Porphyry  an  opportunity  of 
attacking  the  New  Teftament,  but  the  ecclefiaftical 
writers  of  the  four  firft  centuries  permitted  «>c  to  remain, 
and  were  contented  to  anfwer  Porphyry  by  an  explana- 
tion of  the  palTage  ;  whereas  tranfcribers  in  later  ages, 
in  order  to  remove  the  objeflion  fundamentally,  have 
changed  it  into  sttw.  The  word  xf^^^^^  ^  ^^^*  ^-  9-  ^^^ 
deemed  improper,  becaufe  it  feemed  to  imply  that  the 
Ifraelites  in  the  time  of  Mofes  had  tempted  Chrift  :  to 
remove  this  difficulty,  tranfcribers  have  ventured  an 
amendment,  though  they  differ  in  their  mode  of  mak~ 
iug  it,  fome  having  changed  x?^^°^  i^^^  -^"^  others  into 
xupjoK ;  but  that  which  appears  excepdonable  is  the  true 
reading,  and  needs  only  a  proper  explanation,  t! 


SECT.  XI.         Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.  317 

It  has  fometimes  happened  that  the  frequent  ufe  of 
a  word  in  a  Gofpel,  or  Epiftle,  has  induced  a  tranfcriber 
to  write  it  even  in  thofe  cafes,  where  the  author  had 
chofen  a  more  unufual  word.  The  alterations  of  this 
kind,  which  are  occafioned  by  inadvertency,  have  been 
examined  in  the  eighth  fedlion  of  this  chapter,  and  thofe 
only  belong  to  the  prefent,  which  arofe  from  adual  de- 
fign.  An  inftance  of  the  latter  fort  is  James  v.  15.  re- 
fpedling  an  exchange  of  ivyrn  and  Tz^odiv-xr^  *',  and  the 
reader  will  find  another  in  my  remarks  to  i  Mace.  iii. 
26.  of  a  fimilar  exchange  of  zzr«p«Ta^£«^  and  zsrpoc^iuv. 

But  of  all  the  fources  of  various  readings  which  are 
fubjedls  of  this  fedion,  the  moll  ample  and  the  moft 
productive  of  fpurious  paflages  in  the  New  Teftament 
is  the  practice  of  altering  parallel  places,  fo  as  to  render 
more  perfed  their  conformity  with  each  other.  No 
books  have  fuffered  in  this  refped  fo  much  as  the  Gof- 
pels,  efpecially  in  the  old  Latin  tranflations,  the  tran- 
fcribers  of  which,  as  we  learn  from  the  complaints  of 
Jcrom,  inftead  of  faithfully  copying  the  original,  afled 
rather,  as  if  it  was  their  bufinefs  to  compofe  a  harmony 
of  the  Gofpels.  In  the  epiftles  of  St.  Paul,  who  in  ex- 
prefllng  the  fame  fentiment  in  different  parts  of  his  writ- 
ings would  hardly  have  ufed  in  all  precifely  the  fame 
words,  examples  of  this  kind  are  frequently  obferved ; 
and  the  quotations  from  the  Old  Teitament,  in  cafes 
where  they  differed  from  the  words  of  the  Septuagint^ 
have  been  often  corre6led  by  tranfcribers  in  order  to 
make  them  harmonize  with  the  Greek  verfion.  Nume- 
rous paflciges  in  the  Ads  of  the  Apoftles  have  been 
disfigured  by  thefe  amendments,  and  where  the  fame 
(lory  is  related  more  than  once,  as  the  converfion  of  St. 
Paul '',  and  that  of  Cornelius  ^  tranfcribers,  and  more 
frequendy  tranflators  have  fupplied  from  the  one  what 
feemed  to  be  deficient  in  the  other ''.     The  later  tran- 

fcripts 

h  Ch.  ix.  where  it  is  related  by  St.  Luke,  ch.  xxii.  and  xxvi.  where  it  is 
related  by  St.  Paul  himfelf. 
»  Ch.  X.  and  xi. 

J^  This  book  has  likewife  fuffered  materially  from  Interpolations,  of  a 

different 


3i8    '  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.         chap,  vi, 

fcripts  of  the  Latin  vulgate  (for  the  more  antient  the 
manufcripts,  the  more  free  they  are  from  corruptions,  as 
appears  from  the  Codex  Laudianiis)  have  been  efpecially 
defaced  by  thefe  interpolations,  of  which  feveral,  that  are 
no  where  to  be  traced  among  the  Greek  manufcripts, 
have  been  obtruded  by  the  authority  of  Erafmus  on  the 
text  of  our  common  editions.  But  the  copyifts  who 
wrote,  and  the  critics  who  defend  them,  have  lefs  tafte 
and  judgement  than  the  facred  hiftorian  ;  nor  is  it  pro- 
bable that  an  author  like  St.  Luke,  in  recording  at  dif- 
ferent periods  the  fame  event,  would  relate  it  precifely 
in  the  fame  manner. 

When  two  different  readings  therefore  are  difcovered 
in  a  paflage,  to  which  another  pafTage  either  in  the 
New  Teftament  or  in  the  Septuagint  is  parallel,  one  of 
which  readings  gives  the  text  a  perfeft  conformity  with 
the  parallel  paflage,  the  other  a  lower  degree  of  fimi- 
larity  -,  the  -firft  is  always  to  be  fufpeded,  unlefs  very 
important  reafons  can  be  urged  in  its  favour.  But  this 
rule,  though  founded  on  truth,  has  been  not  only  vio- 
lated, but  even  inverted  by  men  of  fuperficial  knowledge, 
whom  the  caprice  of  fortune  has  converted  into  critics, 
who  frequently  allege  in  proof  of  the  authenticity  of  a 
reading,  that  it  is  exaftly  the  fame  in  another  paflage  of 
the  facred  writings.  Even  the  learned  Wolf,  for  whom 
I  have  the  mofl:  profound  refpeft,  has  fallen  into  this 
mifl:ake ;  for  the  acutenefs  of  his  criticifm  was  very  dif- 
proportionate  to  the  depth  of  his  erudition.  If  examples 
be  required,  to  which  the  foregoing  rule  may  be  applied, 
I  refer  my  readers  to  the  following  various  readings, 
Mark  xiv.  22.  (pxyin,  Matth.  xxiv.  2^-  ^^^  °  ^^°^y  Luke 
xvii.  2^'  and  Luke  xi.  2,  3,  4.  in  which  lafl:  example 
the  Lord's  prayer  has  been  dilated  by  the  copyifl:3  in  a 
manner  not  warranted  by  the  original. 

The  ufual  refped:  which  is  entertained  for  every  ver- 
fion  efliabliflied  by  authority,  and  read  in  the  fervice  of 

the 

different  kind,  for  inftance,  £Js|e  h  ru  E^^«  tiriy^nvoti  aura,  ch.  xv.  34- 
and   V.  zo.  and  29.  y.cn  uaa.  \f.t\  Ss^ste   £«dtok  yevEaSas  ere^i?  /x>)  -crot- 

StTE  JO. 


SECT.  XI.         Various  Reading's  of  the  N.  T.  319 

the  church,  has  been  fometimes  carried  fo  far  as  to  in- 
duce tranfcribers  to  alter  the  original  Greek,  where  it 
differed  from  the  verfion  to  which  they  were  accuftomed. 
Thefe  alterations  may  be  confidered  in  three  different 
points  of  view. 

I .  A  tranfcriber,  without  the  authority  of  any  Greek 
manufcript,  fets  in  the  copy  that  he  was  taking  the  read- 
ino-  which  correfponds  to  that  in  his  verfion,  and  which 
the  author  of  this  verfion  had  found  in  the  manufcript 
from  which  he  tranflates.  This  is  no  new  reading,  but 
only  an  evidence  in  favour  of  one  that  exifled  before,  yet 
the  evidence  is  of  no  weight. 

1.  He  felefts  out  of  various  manufcripts  that  reading 
which  is  moft  fuitable  to  the  reading  of  his  verfion.  Our 
earliefl  editors  of  the  Greek  Teftament,  Erafmus  as  well 
as  the  Spanifh  editors  have  been  guilty  of  this  fault,  nor 
are  they  entirely  free  from  a  fufpicion  of  the  former. 

3.  He  alters  the  Greek  text  on  the  authority  of  his 
verfion  in  places  where  the  verfion  is  abfolutely  falfe. 

It  has  been  very  generally  fuppofed  that  many  of  thefe 
alterations  have  been  made  from  the  Latin  verfion  ;  and 
thofe  Greek  manufcripts,  which  have  been  expofed  to 
the  charge,  are  termed  Codices  Ladnizantes.  Now  thefe 
manufcripts  are  the  moft  important,  and  the  moft  valu- 
able in  our  poffeffion,  and  except  in  fome  few  inftances, 
I  am  perfuaded  that  the  accufadon,  as  far  as  it  regards 
the  Codices  Ladnizantes,  is  ungrounded.  But  it  is  not 
improbable  that  the  Syriac  and  Copdc  verfions  have  had 
fome  influence  on  the  Greek  copies  of  the  New  Tefta- 
ment. A  tranfcriber  who  a6ls  in  this  manner  cannot  be 
faid  to  have  defignedly  corrupted  the  text,  as  he  is  really 
milled  by  too  great  a  veneration  for  the  verfion  eftablifli- 
ed  in  the  church,  of  which  he  is  a  m.ember. 

Laftly,  if  the  manufcript  in  the  poffeffion  of  a  tran- 
fcriber or  editor  was  in  any  place  defeftive,  he  was  re- 
duced to  the  neceffity  either  of  leaving  a  vacancy  in  the 
copy,  or  filling  up  the  fpace,4^y  tranfladng  into  Greek 
the  paffage  as  it  flood  in  the  verfion.-  This  unpardon-^ 
uble  method  of  reftoring  the  loft  text  of  an  aut'nor  was 

a.iopted 


320  Farious  Readings  of  the  N.  7\        chap.  vi. 

adopted  by  Erafmus  in  the  Revelation  of  St.  John: 
•whether  the  fame  liberty  has  been  taken  in  fome  of  the 
manufcripts,  and  a  part  of  the  fynonymous  readings  is  to 
be  afcribed  to  this  caufe,  is  a  queflion  that  deferves  to 
be  examined. 


SECT.       XII. 


Fifth  Caufe.     Wilful  corruptions,  toferve  the  purpnfes  of  a 
party,  whether  orthodox  or  heterodox, 

THE  antient  fathers  have  accufed  the  heretics  of 
having  falfified  various  paffages  in  the  New  Tefta- 
ment,  with  a  view  either  to  annihilate  the  proof  of  fome 
eftablifhed  doftrine,  or  to  furnifh  new  arguments  in  fup- 
port  of  their  opinions.  But  as  religious  zeal  is  incapable 
of  a  cool  and  philofophical  inquiry,  and  the  fathers  of 
the  church  were  more  diftinguifhed  by  pious  enthufiafm 
than  critical  judgement,  they  were  too  much  inclined 
to  attribute  every  deviation  from  the  copy,  which  they 
themfelves  poflefied,  to  the  wilful  corruption  of  the  op- 
pofite  party.  Though  we  admit  their  teftimony,  we  are 
bound  by  the  laws  of  candour  to  deduft  from  their  evi* 
dence,  as  often  as  an  ardent  paffion,  in  protedting  the 
caufe  in  which  they  were  engaged,  has  led  them  beyond 
the  bounds  of  probability  and  truth  No  man  will  deny 
that  the  early  Chriftians,  who  differed  from  the  ruling 
church,  have  altered  the  New  Teftament  in  numerous 
examples,  according  to  their  particular  tenets  j  yet, 
though  highly  blameable  where  they  have  actually  cor- 
rupted the  facred  writings,  their  guilt  is  in  general  lefs 
heinous  than  the  orthodox  have  believed. 

No  charge  is  fo  fevere  as  that  which  has  been  laid  to 
Marcion  ',  and  no  one  has  more  juftly  deferved  it.  A 
great  part  of  his  various  readings  are  preferved  in  the 
forty-fecond  treatife  of  Epiphanius  againit  heretics ' ; 
but  as  Epiphanius  colle^Ud  gnly  from  thofe  books  of 

the 


S£CT.  Xil.         Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T,  321 

the  New  Teftament,  which  Marcion  acknowledged  to 
be  canonical,  a  confiderable  part  are  loft.  For  his  alte- 
rations, which  arc  often  ingenious,  were  not  confined  to 
thofe  Gofpels  and  Epiftles,  the  authority  of  which  he  ad- 
mitted: he  rejeded  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew,  yet  ch.  5. 

17.  ^y]  vo[ji.i(rriTi  on  >iA6oi/  5taTaA'j(ra»  toi/  voy.01/  vi  t8?  zrpo(pnrx<;y 
x>c    rAOof    xaraAuo-aj    aXXx   wAn^wtrai,    a  paflage  which   the 

members  even  of  the  orthodox  church  found  it  difficult 
to  explain,  Chrift  having  adlually  aboliflied  the  Levitical 
lavv'  ^,  he  changed  into  rt  J'oxejte  j  on  ?iaOoi'  -a-Xvipuo-ai  rov 

iiofxoii  n  TKf  'STpo<f>nTOii; ;   na   iiAOoi/  zrXvipuroci    aAAa  JcaraAuo-ai, 

This  alteration,  which  arofe  merely  from  his  hatred  of 
the  law  of  Mofes  and  the  Old  Teftament,  is  among 
many  others  attempted  by  Marcion,  an  inftance  of  wil- 
ful corruption ;  and  we  muft  approve  at  the  fame  time 
the  conduct  of  the  orthodox,  who,  though  perplexed  by 
the  paftage,  prefumed  not  to  alter  the  original.  Mill 
is  of  opinion  that  his  difciples  have  followed  the  ex- 
ample of  their  mafter,  and  either  changed  or  erafed  the 
paflages,  that  were  unfuitable  to  their  do6trines<, 

Yet  not  all  the  deviations  of  Marcion 's  text  from  that, 
which  is  in  common  ufe,  are  to  be  ranked  in  the  lift  of 
wilful  corruptions ;  and  the  various  readings,  for  which 
he  has  been  branded  with  the  name  of  heretic,  muft  be 
divided  into  three  feparate  claffes. 

1.  Unwarranted  alterations  made  in  favour  of  Mar- 
cion's  own  fyftem. 

2.  Alterations  grounded  on  the  authority  of  manu- 
fcripts,  which  had  various  readings  that  differed  from 
the  common  text,  and  which  are  ftill  retained  in  many 
of  our  prefent  manufcripts. 

3.  Readings  that  are  not  only  warranted  by  authority, 
but  preferable  to  the  text  of  our  common  editions. 

For  mftance  xa»  u7p5(r>ioAAr;6>i(r£T«t  Ts-poj  mv  yvycuy^x,  ocvTHf 

Ephef.  V.  31.  was  omitted  by  Marcion',  and  Jerom 
himfelf  was  of  opinion  that  the  pafiage  came  not  from 
the  hand  of  St.  Paul  +.  Xpa-op,  which  is  the  reading  pre- 
ferred by  Marcion,  i  Cor.  x.  8.  is  probably  genuine,  and 

the 

I  £es  Mill's  Note  to  this  paffag?, 

X 


3J2  Farious  Readings  of  the  N.  T,       chap,  vi, 

the  other  a  corredlion  of  a  copyifl  * ;  at  leaft  we  cannot 
afcribe  it  to  the  heterodoxy  of  Marcion,  as  it  affords  no 
argument  in  his  favour. 

The  readings  belonging  t6  the  fecond  and  third  clafs 
are  of  importance  in  the  criticifm  of  the  New  Tefta- 
ment,  and  Mill  and  Wetftein  are  therefore  to  be  com- 
mended for  having  colledled  all  the  readings  of  Marcion, 
which  they  were  able  to  difcover.  It  is  very  improbable 
that  thofe  readings  of  Marcion,  which  are  likewife  found 
in  our  manufcripts,  arofe  from  his  corruption  of  the 
text :  for  he  was  fo  univerfally  branded  as  a  heretic,  that 
no  tranflator  would  have  ventured  to  follow  his  ex- 
ample, except  thofe  who  were  his  immediate  difciples ; 
but  among  all  our  manufcripts,  not  one  has  the  leaft 
appearance  of  being  written  by  a  Marcionite.  Mill,  in 
his  Prolegomena"",  has  made  fome  excellent  obferva- 
tions  on  this  fed,  to  whom  I  refer  my  readers  for  more 
perfedl  information. 

It  is  not  my  intention  in  the  prefent  chapter  to  write 
a  hifbory  of  the  corruptions  of  the  New  Teftament,  or 
to  enter  into  a  long  detail  in  refpcdt  to  the  pcrfons  who 
have  been  guilty,  or  at  leaft  acctrfed  of  the  attempt. 
Lucian",  Tatian°,  AfclepiodotusP,  Hermophilus,  Apol- 
lonius.  Hefychius  *^,  with  the  followers  of  Manes  ',  and 
Valentinns  \  have  been  fucceflively  expofed  to  the 
charge.  But  the  Manichsans  could  have  no  motive  to 
faifify  particular  paflTages,  as  they  were  able  to  anfwer 
their  purpofe  in  a  more  fhort  and  ealy  manner;  and  had 
they  been  difpofed  to  corrupt  the  original,  they  were 
deficient  in  tlte  means,  as  the  moft  diftingurfhed  per- 
fons  of  that  fefi:  were  ignorant  of  Greek,  a  language 
iifelefs  to  philofophers,  who  believed  that  Perfian  meta- 
phyfics  Gomprifed  all  human  knowledge.  It  is  true  that 
many  of  this  party  believed  the  New  Teftament  to  have 
been  falfified  in  numerous  pafTages  ;  but  if  they  had  at- 
tempted to  reftore  them  to  their  priftine   purity,   the 

alte- 

*"  §  3o<5 — 327.  «  Miim  Prolegomena,  §  333 — 340.^ 

®  §  361, 362.  P  §  649 — 651.  1  §  728. 

'  §721—727.'  *  §  328—333' 


SECT.  xir.         Various  Readings  of  the  TV..  T.  323 

alterations  would  be  found  not  in  the  Greek  original, 
but  in  the  Syriac  and  Latin  verfions ;  as  the  former  was 
the  language  of  Manes  and  his  Eaftern'difciples,  and 
the  latter  the  only  language  that  was  known  to  the  Ma- 
nichieans  of  Africa.  The  Syriac  manufcripts  have  not 
been  fufficiently  collated  to  enable  us  to  judge  whether 
traces  of  Manicheifm  are  there  vifible  or  not ;  but  Jerom 
has  preferved  an  interpolated  Latin  paflage  that  has  the 
appearance  of  coming  from  that  party,  and  was  added 
after  the  14th  verfe  of  Mark  xvi.  viz.  *  et  illi  fatisfacie- 
bant,  dicentes  :  feculum  iftud  iniquitatis  et  increduli- 
tatis  fubftantia  eft,  quse  non  fmit  per  immundos  fpiritus 
veram  Dei  apprehendi  virtutem.  Idcirco  jam  nunc  re- 
vela  juftitiam  tuam.'  But  what  is  extraordinary,  and, 
if  it  IS  true,  defeats  the  foregoing  hypothefis  refpeding 
the  Manichaean  corruptions,  Jerom  fays  of  this  paflage, 
*  in  quibufdam  exemplaribus,  et  maxime  in  Grascis  co- 
dicibus,  juxta  Marcum  in  fine  ejus  evangelii  fcribitur '.' 
A  careful  examination  of  the  hitherto  uncollated  manu- 
fcripts in  Greek,  Latin,  and  particularly  Syriac,  in  re- 
gard to  this  paflage,  might  lead  to  a  difcovery,  and 
throw  light  upon  a  fubjeft  that  is  at  prefent  obfcure. 

Of  all  the  feds  into  which  the  Chriftian  church  has 
been  divided,  none  have  had  it  in  their  power  to  alter 
the  New  Tcftament  in  a  higher  degree  than  the  Arians, 
becaufe  they  were  more  than  once  the  ruling  party. 
They  have  been  accufed  of  the  moft  violent  corruptions 
of  the  facred  text,  but  though  it  cannot  be  denied,  that 
when  in  power  they  were  as  much  inclined  to  perfecu- 
tion  as  the  orthodox  themfelves,  yet  the  crime  of  cor- 
ruption has  never  been  proved  in  a  Angle  inftance. 
They  are  charged  by  the  antient  fathers  of  having  erafed 
a  paflage  found  in  the  old  Latin  verfion  of  St.  John's 
Gofpel,  '  quia'  Deus  Spiritus  eft,'  ch.  iii.  6. ;  now  at 
leaft  one  half  of  the  aflertion  is  falfe,  as  appears  from 
Blanchini  Evangeliarium  quadruplex "  s  but  admitting 
the  whole  to  be  true,  the  orthodox  convid  themfelves 

of 

Hieior.yml  Opera,  Tom.  IV.  P.  li.  p.  520.  ed.  Mailbray. 
"  Tom.  I.  Prolegon'.  p.  Ci — 64. 


^«4  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.       chap.  vj. 

of  error,  and  not  the  Arians,  for  every  man  acquainted 
with  the  criticifm  of  the  New  Teftament,  knows  that 
thefe  words  are  fpurioiis,  unlefs  the  Latin  verfion  is 
better  authority  than  the  Greek  original  We  have  no 
reafon  therefore  to  fuppofe  that  the  celebrated  pafTage 
in  the  firft  epiftle  of  St.  John '^j  which  is  univerfally 
omitted  in  the  okl  Greek  manufcripts,  was  erafed  by  the 
fraud  of  the  Arians ;  and  thofe  who  fupport  the  argu- 
ment, contradid  the  accounts  of  their  own  party,  who 
relate  that  when  Huneric,  king  of  the  Vandals  in  Africa, 
made  his  confefiion  of  faith,  the  true  believers  appealed 
to  this  pafTage  in  the  Latin  verfion,  and  that  the  Arians 
make  no  objeftion. 

It  is  inconceivable  how  a  critic  like  Wetftein  could 
aflert,  '  orthodoxi  ra?  tTfpoJ'o^a?  haud  temere  unquam 
mutatJE  fcripturae  accufarunt ",'  and  as  the  charge  haiS 
been  as  frequently  falfe  as  true,  I  am  at  a  lofs  to  com- 
prehend the  meaning  of  a  pafTage,  that  Teems  to  have 
been  diftated  by  mere  partiality.  Though  no  advocate 
for  herefy,  I  candidly  confefs  that  the  orthodox  them- 
felves  have  been  goilty  of  the  charge,  which  they  have 
laid  to  others ;  nor  do  I  confine  this  afTertion  to  thofe 
who  have  afllimed  the  title  without  deferving  it,  but 
extend  it  even  to  Tuch  as  have  taught  the  pure  and 
genuine  doftrines  of  the  Bible.  The  hope  of  acquiring 
an  additional  proof  of  fome  eflablifhed  doclrine,  or  of 
depriving  an  adverfary  of  fome  argument  in  his  favour, 
may  fcduce  even  a  true  believer  to  the  commifTion  of  a 
pious  fraud.  Or  blinded  by  prejudice,  and  bound  by 
the  fetters  of  a  theological  fyflem,  he  finds  his  favourite 
doftrine  in  every  line  ;  he  expounds  therefore  not  by 
reafon,  but  by  fyflem ;  his  explanations  acquire  the 
form  of  marginal  notes,  and  thefe  miarginal  notes  are  at 
length  obtruded  on  the  text.  The  words  -^h  o  uio?,  Mark 
xiii.  32.  were  thought  to  afford  an  argument  againft 
the.  Divinity  of  Chrift  j  Ambrofe  therefore  was  of  opi- 
nion that  they  ought  to  be  erafed,  and  fays  that  they 
were  omitted  in  the  old   Greek  manufcripts  *.     I  will 

not 

w  Ch.  V.  7.  X  Tom.  II.  p.  S64. 


SECT.  XII.       Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.  ^25 

not  pofitively  affirm  that  Ambrofe  was  guilty  of  a  falfe- 
hood,  but  this  at  lead  is  certain,  that  no   manufcript 
exifts  at  prefent,  in  which  they  are  not  found.     But  ad- 
mitting the  pious  father  to  have  fpoken  the  truth,  and 
that  he  had  aftually  a  copy  of  a  Greek  manufcript,  in 
which  the  words  were  omitted,  it  is  natural  to  attribute 
the  omiffion  to  the  fame  motives  as  thofe  by  which  be 
was  aduated  himfelf.     The  late  Heumann,  whofe  or- 
thodoxy refpefting  the  Divinity   of  Chrifl  was  never 
called  in  queftion,  was  of  the  fame  opinion  with  Am- 
brofe, and  was  difpofed  to  banifh  this  pafTage  from  the 
text,  in  oppofition  to  the  unanimous  teflimony  of  the 
Greek  manufcripts.     Another  inftance  is  John  viii.  44. 
vixng  iK  z^arpo?  rs  Sioc^oXa  trt,  which  being  ufed  by  the 
Manichseans,  as  a  text  of  fcripture  that  confirmed  cheir 
dodrine  of  the  Origin  of  Evil,  was  altered  in  fuch  a 
manner,  as  to  deprive  them  of  the  pretext  of  proving 
one  of  their  philofophical  tenets  from  a  paflage  in  the 
Bible,  fome  of  the  tranfcribers  omitting  for  that  pur- 
pofe  the  word  xn-arpof,  while  others  inferted  u/awi/  before 
T8  ^iDc^oXs.    In  the  fame  manner  zs^o  ifj-n,  John  x.  8.  was 
rejefted  in  many  manufcripts,  becaufe  the  Manichjeans 
quoted   that  text  to  prove   that    Chrift  had    declared 
Mofes  and  the  prophets  to  have  been  impoftors.     Nor 
have  thefe  wilful  corruptions  been  confined  to  the  Greek 
original,  for  we  may  allege  an  undeniable  inftance  of 
the  fame   unwarrantable  liberty,   that  has   been   taken 
with  Luther's  German  tranflation.    That  great  reformer 
of  our  religion,  being  perfuaded  that  the  well-known  paf- 
fage  in  the  firft  epiftle  of  St.  John  ^  was  not  authentic, 
refufed  it  a  place  in  his  tranflation  of  the  Bible,  and  in 
the  preface  to  his  laft  edition  protefted  folemnly  againft 
it,  requefting  thofe  who  were  of  a  different  opinion  to 
leave  his  writings  uncorrupted,  and  rather  to  make  a 
new  tranflation,  than  obtrude  on  the  old  what  he  de- 
nied to  be  genuine.     But,  guided  by   miftaken  zeal  in 
fupport  of  orthodox  opinions,  the  divines  of  Germany, 
Jong  after  the  death  of  Luther,  inferted  this  fpurious 

pafTage, 
y  Chap.  V.  7, 

X3 


3^6  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.       chap,  vi, 

paflage,  and  yet  retained  the  name  of  *  Luther's  ver- 
fion'  on  the  title.  Even  had  the  paflage  been  genuine, 
it  would  be  ftill  a  corruption  of  the  text  of  Luther;  but 
fince  it  is  infdUbly  fpurious,  the  authors  of  the  inter- 
polation are  without  excufe.  The  orthodox  then  may 
learn  to  have  charity  for  their  brethren,  and  be  cautious 
of  accufing  thofe  who  differ  in  fentiment,  fmce  the 
charge,  that  is  laid  to  their  opponents,  recoils  too  often 
on  themfclves.  Jerom  even  gloried  in  his  talent  for 
theological  conjedlure,  but  if  we  ftrip  a  fimple  fa6t  of 
its  foreign  ornament,  and  fubftitute  plain  language  for 
a  term  that  favours  of  learning,  the  boafted  conje6lura 
theologica  is  nothing  more  than  wilful  corruption  ^ 

As  we  have  received  our  manufcripts  and  editions  of 
the  New  Teftament  from  the  hands  of  the  orthodox, 
or,  which  is  the  fame  thing,  the  ruling  party,  we  have 
lefs  reafon  to  fear  that  they  are  tainted  with  herefy.  Oa 
the  contrary,  it  is  more  natural,  whenever  a  paffage,  that 
is  quoted  in  fupport  of  fome  eftablifhed  opinion,  cannot 
be  fufficiently  ratified  by  antient  authorities,  to  fufpeft 
the  fidelity  of  an  orthodox  tranfcriber,  or  editor.  Yet 
our  apprehenfions  on  this  fubjeft  will  be  greatly  dimi- 
niflied,  when  we  refled  that  many  paffages,  which  were 
obnoxious  to  the  ruling  party,  are  retained  in  all  or 
moft  of  the  manufcripts ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  that 
the  fpurious  paffage  in  the  firft  epiflle  of  St.  John  was 
admitted  into  none  before  the  fixtcenth  century  *.  It 
feems  that  the  opinions  of  the  orthodox  and  heterodox 
were  chiefly  confined  to  their  polemical  writings  ;  and 
that  tlie  antient  tranfcribers,  whofe  profeffion  was  to 
copy  and  not  to  criticife,  were,  as  indifferent  to  the  dif- 
puLes  of  the  learned,  as  a  printer  of  the  New  Teftament 
in  the  eighteenth  century. 

I  readily  fubfcribe  therefore  to  the  rule  which  is  given 
by  Wetllein,  in  the  fecond  volume  of  his  New  Tefta- 
ment,  p.  864.    inter   duas  variantes  leftiones  ea  quje 

magis 

2  In  the  chapter  on  the  Conjeflura  Theologica,  an  example  will  be 
given  in  which  Jerom  erafed  ay.T.y  Matth,  v.  22.  in  fupport  of  his  lyfteni 
of  morality  ". 


flrcT.  XI r.         Various  Readings  of  th£  N.  T.  327 

omagis  orthodoxa  videtiir  (that  is,  as  he  himfelf  explains 
it,  quse  neutri  parti  favet,  ct  fenfum  fundit,  qui  et 
reliquis  fcripturas  locis  congriiens  eft,  et  ab  omnibus 
Chriftianis  admittitur)  non  eft  protinus  alteri  pr^fe- 
renda,  and  recommend  my  reader  to  confult  the  paf- 
fage  in  the  original :  but  when  he  goes  a  ftep  further, 
and  adds  quin  in  dubia  re  hanc  (minus  orthodoxam) 
jlli  prasferendam  efle  judico,  I  am  obliged  to  withhold 
my  aflent,  as  the  two  firft  arguments,  which  he  has  al- 
leged in  fupport  of  that  opinion,  appear  to  me  to  be 
neither  convincing,  nor  defcrving  a  place  among  the 
laws  of  criticifm  ^. 

But  let  us  fuppofe  the  cafe  of  two  different  readings, 
one  of  which  is  not  only  lefs  orthodox  than  the  other, 
but  heterodox  in  fuch  a  fenfe  of  the  word,  as  to  be  re- 
pugnant not  only  to  our  own  fyftem  of  Theology,  but 
to  the  certain  dodlrines  of  the  Bible.  Here  Wetftein 
is  of  opinion  that  the  heterodox  reading  muft  at  all 
events  be  rejecled,  faying,  le6lionem  minus  orthodoxam 
intelligo  non  manifefte  erroneam  quidem  illam  et  hse- 
reticam,  quis  enim  talem  probaret  ?  Now  we  are  bound 
in  candour  to  acknowledge,  that  this  rule  favours  ra- 
ther of  the  partial  advocate  for  religion,  than  the  cool 
unbiaffed  fearcher  of  the  truth.  If  in  arguing  with  a 
Sceptic  on  the  authenticity  of  fome  p*-ticular  reading, 
we  contended  that  the  other  was  fpurious,  becaufe  it 
contradifled  another  paffage  in  the  Bible,  he  would  na- 
rurally  anfwer,  *  Inftead  of  argument,  you  endeavour 
to  convince  me  by  affuming  an  hypothefis  without  de~ 
monftration,  and  attempt  to  deftroy  my  chain  of  rea- 
foning,  by  the  fmgle  authority  of  a  dogmatical  pofition.' 
We  cannot  allege  the  divinity  of  the  New  Teftament, 
before  we  have  proved  it  j  and  if  in  a  critical  inquiry 
into  the  authenticity  of  the  text,  we  take  it  for  granted, 
a  priori,  we  either  argue  in  a  circle,  or  beg  the  quef- 
tion.  Even  if  we  prefuppofe  the  divine  origin  of  Chrif- 
tianity,  the  rule  is  very  uncertain  j  for  a  man  may  be 
thoroughly  perfuaded  of  the  truth  of  the  Chriftian  re- 
ligion, and  yet  doubt  of  the  authenticity  of  the  epiftle 

X  4  of 


5^8  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T,      chap,  vi, 

of  St.  Jude,  and  the  book  of  Revelation.  If  he  founc^ 
a  paflagie  therefore  in  either  of  thefe  writings,  which 
contradidled  the  other  parts  of  the  New  Teflament,  irt- 
ftead  of  pronouncing  the  pafTage  to  be  fpurious,  he 
would  ufe  it  as  an  argument  againft  the  authenticity  of 
that  particular  book  in  which  it  was  contained  '°.  For 
inftance,  fhould  the  account  of  feven  fpirits  in  the  firfl 
chapter  of  the  Revelation,  which  are  ranked  immedi- 
ately after  the  Deity  and  before  Chrift  himfelf,  appear 
difcordant  to  the  known  writings  of  St.  John,  the  na- 
tural inference  would  be,  not  that  the  paflage  is  fpu- 
rious, which  we  have  no  reafon  to  fufpect,  but  that  the 
author  of  the  book  itfelf  was  not  St.  John  the  Apoftle  ". 
I  will  therefore  new-model  the  rule  of  Wetftein  in 
the  following  manner. 

1.  A  reading  contradi6lory  to  a  doctrine,  which  the 
fame  Apoftle  has  delivered  in  another  paflage^  is  to  be 
regarded  as  fpurious,  becaufe  contradiftions  are  im- 
probable in  an  accurate  v/riter,  and  impoffible  in  one 
who  is  divinely  infpired. 

2.  A  reading,  that  contains  heretical  terms  and  doc- 
trines of  a  later  age,  is  to  be  confidered  as  a  forgery  j  of 
•which  the  interpolation  after  Mark  xvi.  14.  mentioned 
in  this  feftion,  is  an  inftance. 


SECT.      XIII. 

General  rules  for  deciding  on  the  Various  Readings^ 

'^F^HE  evidence,  by  which  we  are  direfled  in  judging. 
X  of  Various  Readings,  is  either  internal  or  external; 
that  is,  we  either  inquire  into  the  different  fources  of 
error  which  have  been  examined  in  the  preceding  fec- 
tions,  the  connexion  of  the  paffage,  their  clearnefs  or 
cbfcurity,  and  the  probability  or  improbability  of  their 
having  been  ufed  by  the  author  :  or  we  appeal  to  the 
authority  of  teftimonies,  which  confift  in  the  antienc 
Greek  maaufcripts,  the  ftiil  more  anti^nt  ycrfipnsj  and 

the 


SECT.  XIII.       Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.  325 

the  writings  of  the  early  fathers,  who  have  quoted  from 
the  New  Teftament.  As  the  queltion  to  be  examined 
relates  to  a  matter  of  fadt,  whether  a  particular  word 
pr  phrafe  was  written  by  an  Apoftle  or  not,  the  exter- 
nal evidence  is  the  moft  important ;  but  as  the  wit- 
nefles  which  conftitute  this  external  evidence,  namely 
manufcripts,  verfions,  and  ecclefiaftical  writers  in  the 
early  ages  of  Chriftianity,  very  frequently  contradid 
each  other,  the  validity  of  their  refpeflive  teftimonies 
muft  be  determined  by  rules  which  are  derived  from 
internal  probability.  The  greateft  part  of  thcfe  have 
l)een  already  confidered  under  their  refpc6live  heads,  it 
remains  therefore  only  to  add  the  following  general  ob- 

ji.j.   fervations. 

:i?.  y  I.  As  various  circumftances  might  contribute  to 
■  propagate  very  widely  a  falfe  reading,  we  are  not  im- 
mediately to  infer  that  a  reading  is  genuine,  becaufe  i> 
has  the  greateft  number  of  teftimonies  in  its  favour.' 
It  is  poflible,  and  I  believe  more  than  once  the  cafe  in 
the  New  Teftament,  that  the  true  reading  is  to  be 
found  in  only  a  fingle  manufcript.  A  very  probable  in- 
Hance  is  John  vii.  49.  where  for  ETrj^arapaToj,  the  Co- 
dex Reuchlini  alone  ^  has  nrapxroi.  EIIAPATOS,  accord- 
ing to  Suidas,  Vol.  I.  p.  788.  fignifies,  i.  the  fame  as 
ftrtKarapaToj,  1.  sTraycoyw?,  i.  e.  as  Suidas  explains  it, 
p.  783.  *  feduced,'  or  ^  feducfng.'  In  this  latter  fenfe 
it  is  derived  from  £7r«pa?,  which  Suidas  explains  as  {y- 
nonymous  to  Trfiera?,  and  gives  examples  in  fupport  of 
that  meaning  *.  ETroipocroij  in  the  fenfe  either  of  feduced, 
or  feducing,  is  much  better  adapted  to  the  paflage  in 
St.  John  than  £7n)c«TapaTo;  accurfed  -,  its  being  an  un- 
ufual  word,  and  perhaps  unknown  to  many  of  the  tran- 
fcribers,^  is  an  argument  in  favour  of  its  authenticity ; 
and  as  it  is  in  one  fenfe  fynonymous  to  the  common 
reading,  a  copyift  might  be  eafily  led,  either  by  defign 

or 

a  Since  the  publication  of  the  third  edition  of  this  Introduaion  In 
1777>  £7r«§«Tok  has  been  found  by  Prpfeflbr  Birch  not  only  in  the  Frag- 
mentum  Borgianum,  but  alfo  in  the  celebrated  Codex  Vaticanus,  See  the 
Ovie^t.  Bibl  Vol.  XXIII.  p   151  '. 


330  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T,      chap,  vr, 

or  by  overfight,  to  fubftitute  that  which  was  moft  ge- 
nerally known.  The  objeftion  which  might  be  made 
to  tTTccpccroty  on  the  fuppofition  of  its  being  a  critical 
conjefture,  or  an  intended  improvement  on  the  text, 
is  removed  by  the  circumftance  that  this  reading  is 
found  in  the  paflage  as  quoted  by  Origen,  Cyril,  and 
Chryibftom  :  it  muit  therefore  have  been  the  common 
reading  of  the  oldeft  manufcripts,  though  by  time  it 
has  grown  into  difufe.  In  the  fame  manner  ix  /AEXsf, 
I  Cor.  xii.  27.  found  only  in  the  Codex  Claromontanus, 
xaup(,r(rw/ixat  xiii.  3.  only  in  the  Codex  Alexandrinus ', 
though  it  flood  in  many  Greek  manufcripts  in  the  time 
of  Jerom,  and  nAei,  Mark  xv.  34.  in  the  Codex  Canta- 
brigienfis  alone  *,  are  probably  the  true  readings.  But 
in  thefe,  and  other  fimilar  cafes,  where  more  deference 
is  paid  to  the  authority  of  a  fmgle  manufcript,  than  to 
that  of  united  evidence,  the  reading  muft  have  very 
ftrong  marks  of  authenticity  in  itfelf ;  nor  muft  we  for^ 
get  to  take  into  the  account  the  probability  of  its  being 
either  a  miftake,  or  a  correction  of  the  copyift.  It  is 
likewife  poffible  tliat  the  true  reading  of  a  paflage  may 
no  longer  be  extant  in  any  of  our  manufcripts,  in  which 
cafe  we  have  no  other  refuge  than  critical  conjedlure, 
which  will  be  examined  at  large  in  a  fubfequent  chapter. 
2.  When  all  other  grounds  of  decifion  are  wanting, 
or,  cseteris  paribus,  as  Wetftein  exprefles  it,  we  muft  be 
guided  by  the  majority  of  manufcripts.  If  the  majority 
be  great,  the  probability  increafes  in  proportion  j  but  if 
forty  manufcripts  have  one  reading,  and  thirty  another, 
or  if  the  numbers  approach  ftill  nearer  to  equality,  the 
difference  is  too  fmall  to  warrant  a  decifion,  and  v/e  are 
left  in  a  ftate  of  uncertainty.  But  in  the  application  of 
tliis  rule,  the  words  cfEteris  paribus  muft  never  be  for- 
gotten ;  for  if  thirty  antient  manufcripts  are  in  favour  of 
one  reading,  and  forty  modern  manufcripts  in  favour  of 
another,  we  cannot  fay,  cjetera  paria,  becaufe  the  autho- 
rity of  the  antient,  though  lefs  numerous  teftimonies,  is 
greater  tlian  that  of  the  modern.  In  general  the  appli- 
cation of  this  rule  requires  great  caution,  and  it  fre- 
quently 


5£CT.  XIII.        Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.  331 

fluently  leads  to  no  abfolute  decifion,  It  Is  a  matter  of 
great  doubt,  John  v.  2.  whether  Bn^E^^*,  or  the  very 
antient  reading  Bn^a^*  S  is  to  be  preferred,  i  Cor.  xi. 
17.  it  is  very  uncertain  whether  wapafyyEXXwi/  ax  tTrxivwy 
or'uccpccyy^xxio  a>c  sx^an/wv,  is  the  true  reading  J  and  i  Cor. 
XV  20.  equally  uncertain  whether  ij^viro  is  genuine  or 
not^  In  examples  like  thefe,  it  is  confident  with  mo- 
defty  to  acknowledge  our  ignorance,  and  where  power- 
ful arcruments  may  be  advanced  on  both  fides,  to  leave 
the  queftion  undetermined.         .       ^  ^        , 

3?  An  accurate  manufcript  is  of  courie  to  be  pre- 
ferred to  one  that  is  neghgently  written:  two  manu- 
fcripts,  one  of  which  is  copied  from  the  other,  can  be 
admitted  only  as  a  fingle  evidence,  but  if  a  word  is  faded 
in  the  more  antient,  it  may  be  fupplied  from  the  more 
jnodern.  Manufcripts,  which,  though  not  immediately 
copied  from  each  other,  have  a  great  uniformity  in  their 
readings,  feem  to  be  the  produce  of  the  fame  country, 
and  to  have  as  it  were  the  ufual  readings  of  that  country. 
A  fet  of  manufcripts  of  this  kind  is  to  be  confidered  as  the 
fame  edition,  in  which  it  is  of  no  importance,  in  refpeft 
to  the  authenticity  of  a  reading,  whether  five  hundred 
or  five  thoufand  copies  be  taken ;  numbers  alone  there- 
fore decide  nothing  in  the  prefent  inftance  \ 

4.  Ceteris  paribus,  an  antient  evidence  is  to  be  pre- 
ferred to  one  that  is  more  modern.     From  a  manufcript 
of  the  fixth  century,  twenty  or  thirty  copies  may  have 
been  taken  between  that  period  and  the  fourteenth  cen- 
tury, but  were  we  in  poffeffion  of  thefe  twenty  or  thirty 
copies,  their  united  evidence  would  not  be  greater  than 
that  of  the  fingle  manufcript  from  which  they  were  tran- 
fcribed.     It  is  eafy  to  fee  therefore,  that  a  fingle  manu- 
fcript of  the  fixth  century  is  of  more  value  to  a  critic, 
than  a  very  great  number  of  manufcripts  of  the  thir- 
teenth or  fourteenth  century.     What  then  would  be  the 
value  of  a  manufcript  written  in  the  third  century,  or 
if  pofTible  in  the  fecond,  for  the  firft  is  out  of  the  quef- 
tion !  I  have  faid,  ceteris  paribus  the  more  ancient  ma- 
nufcript is  to  be  preferred,  becaufe  fome  of  the  oldeft 
^  Greek 


332  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T,      chap.  vr. 

Greek  manufcripts  have  been  expofed  to  the  fufpicion 
of  having  been  interpolated  from  the  Latin  verfion.  If 
this  were  true,  their  value  would  be  much  diminilhed, 
but  the  more  I  inveftigate  the  fubjed,  the  more  I  am 
perfuaded  that  the  charge  is  ungrounded. 

A  verfion  made  in  the  ninth,  or  in  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, provided  we  have  a  genuine  copy,  may  be  re- 
garded as  the  reprefentative  of  a  manufcript  of  the 
ninth,  or  fourth  century,  and  probably  of  one  of  the 
moft  accurate.  Now  we  have  no  manufcript  that  can 
be  referred  to  a  period  prior  to  the  fixth  century,  and 
the  ineflimable  treafures  of  the  firft  four  centuries  are 
irrecoverably  loft.  But  their  place  is  fupplied  by  an- 
tient  verfions  made  during  thofe  centuries,  whence  we 
may  difcover  the  readings  of  the  old  Greek  manufcripts 
from  which  they  were  taken,  and  alfo  by  the  quotations 
of  ecclefiaftical  writers  who  lived  in  thofe  ages,  except 
in  cafes  where  we  have  reafon  to  fuppofe  that  thefe 
quotations  have  been  altered  by  tranfcribers  according 
to  the  reading  of  modern  manufcripts. 

5.  But  the  moft  modern  manufcripts,  even  thofe 
written  immediately  before  the  invention  of  printing, 
are  not  tD  be  difregarded :  for  a  manufcript  written  four 
or  five  hundred  years  prior  to  that  difcovery,  is  of  lefs 
value  than  a  faithful  cranfcript  taken  in  that  age  frorrj 
a  manufcript  of  the  fixth  or  feventh  century. 

6.  If  a  learned  tranfcriber  made  ufe  of  feveral  manu- 
fcripts as  the  bafis  of  his  copy,  and  felefted  thofe  read- 
ings which  appeared  to  him  the  beft,  his  tranfcript  is 
called  a  Codex  Criticus,  or  Codex  Ecledicus.  A  manu- 
fcript of  this  kind  may  contain  a  greater  number  of 
true  readings  than  a  common  manufcript,  but  the 
former,  confidered  as  evidence,  is  of  lefs  weight  than  the 
latter ;  for,  the  examination  of  a  reading  being  an  in- 
quiry into  a  matter  of  faft,  the  rule  is  the  fame  here  as  in 
a  court  of  juftice,  in  which  a  v/itnefs,  who  fimply  relate3 
what  he  has  feen  or  heard,  is  preferred  to  him  who 
merely  delivers  his  opinion.  Grielbach^  in  his  Symbols, 

p.  ccii, 


SECT.  xni.       Farious  Readings  of  the  N.  T.  22:^ 

p.  ccii.  has  defcribed  a  very  remarkable  Codex  Ecledi- 
cus,  viz.  Bodleianus  24  *.  ,       j   j 

7.  A  manufcript,  in  which  a  copyift  has  obtruded 
his  own  conjeftures  on  die  text,  or  copied  from  one  in 
which  critical  alterations  had  been  made,  is  of  no  value 
confidered  as  evidence  for  a  reading,  becaufe  it  is  im- 
poffible  to  determine  what  is  conjeaure,  and  what  is  a 
copy  of  the  original :  but  confidered  as  a  colledion  of 
critical  conjeftures,  it  is  of  value,  and  to  be  placed^  on 
a  level  with  Bowyer's  learned  work.  This  rule  I  deliver 
only  as  theoretical,  to  be  put  in  praftice  when  oppor- 
tunity offers,  as  I  recoiled  no  manufcript  of  the  New 
Teftament  to  which  it  is  applicable.  If  a  copy  had 
been  taken  from  the  Codex  Vindobon.^  34.  it  would 
probably  have  become  a  manufcript  of  this  defcription. 

8.  Printed  editions  are  fo  far  only  to  be  admitted  in 
evidence,  as  they  are  immediately  taken  from  manu- 
fcripts.  Properly  fpeaking,  we  have  only  two  fuch  edi- 
tions, that  of  Complutum,  and  that  of  Erafmus,  which, 
occupy  the  fame  rank  as  a  modern  Codex  Criticus. 
From  thefc  two  our  prefent  editions  are  derived,  which 
afford  therefore  no  additional  evidence,  being  only  a 
repetition  of  foregoing  teftimony ;  they  are  then  only 
feparate  evidence,  when  they  depart  from  thefe  ori- 
ginals in  favour  of  fome  antient  manufcript.  This  will 
be  Ihewn  more  fully  in  the  Hiftory  of  the  Editions  of 
the  New  Teftament :  at  prefent  the  reader  may  con- 
fult  the  preface  to  the  fecond  volume  of  Gnefbach's 
New  Teftament,  p.  13—30-  .         . 

No  art  has  contributed  to  the  rapid  propagation  ot 
error,  as  well  as  of  truth,  in  an  higher  degree,  than  the 
art  of  printing.  A  miftake  com.mitted  by  a  copyift  was 
confined  to  a  fingle  manufcript,  but  the  errors,  of  which 
the  firft  editors  of  the  New  Teftament  were  guilty,  were 
transferred  at  once  to  a  thoufand  copies  difperkd  in  every 
part  of  Europe,  and  this  number  was  foon  augmented  to 
an  hundred  thoufand  by  means  of  the  fubfequent  edi- 
tions, to  which  they  ferved  as  models.  It  is  abjurd  there- 
fore to  contend  that  we  Ihould  abide  by  our  printed  text  j 

tor 


334  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T,        chap.  vr. 

for  this  is  to  aflcrt  that  no  reading  can  be  genuine,  which 
was  not  preferred  by  Erafmus  or  the  Spanifli  editors  at 
the  beginning  of  the  fixteenth  century,  and  in  the  in- 
fancy of  criticifm,  when  it  is  known  that  Erafmus  was 
guilty  of  unpardonable  carelefTnefs  and  precipitation  in 
his  edition  of  the  New  Teftament.  But  this  aflertion 
can  proceed  from  no  one  who  is  not  entirely  deftitute 
of  learning,  or  to  fpeak  in  the  language  of  the  apoca- 
lypfe,  who  has  not  the  feal  of  ignorance  on  his  forehead. 

9.  As  the  terms  great  and  fmall  are  only  relative,  in 
applying  them  to  the  number  of  manufcripts  alleged  in 
fupport  of  a  reading,  we  muft  not  forget  to  take  into  the 
account  how  many  have  been  a6lually  collated :  for  a 
number  that  is  great  in  refpe6t  to  the  epiftles,  may  be 
fmall  with  regard  to  the  Gofpels,  almoft  twice  as  many 
manufcripts  of  the  latter  having  been  collated  as  the 
former.  Seven  manufcripts  of  the  Revelation  is  a  great 
number,  the  fame  number  of  the  epiftles  is  fmall,  and  of 
the  Gofpels  very  inconfiderable :  the  whole  number  there- 
fore in  each  muft  be  counted  before  we  can  draw  a  con- 
clufion. 

10.  When  only  a  few  manufcripts  have  a  reading  that 
might  eafily  arife  from  an  overfight  of  the  copyift,  it  is 
of  no  importance,  and  may  generally  be  confidered  as  an 
error. 

1 1 .  In  comparing  two  different  readings,  we  muft  al- 
ways examine  which  of  the  two  could  moft  eafily  arifc 
from  a  miftake  or  corre6lion  of  the  tranfcrlber ;  read- 
ings of  this  kind  being  generally  fpurious,  whereas  thofe 
which  give  occafion  to  the  miftake  or  correftion  are  com- 
monly genuine.     Of  the  following  different  readings, 

AdtS  XX.   28.    S'tS,   )tU^I«,  XfTK,  KUfiB  5-f«,  ^i}i   V.XI  xu^ia,  XU^tJt 

x«t  biXf  the  firft  is  probably  the  true  reading,  and  all  the 
others  are  to  be  confidered  as  corredlions  or  fcholia,  be- 
caufc  S^e«  might  eafily  give  occafion  to  any  of  thefe,  where- 
as none  could  fo  eafily  give  occafion  to  S-fs.  If  St.  Luke 
wrote  S-EK,  the  origin  of  ku^ »a  and  y^!^i<rr^  may  be  explained 
either  as  correftions  of  the  text,  or  as  marginal  notes, 

becaufc 


scET.xrii.       Various  Readings  of  the  N,  T,  23 S 

becaufe  *  the  blood  of  God'  is  a  very  extraordinary  ex- 
prelTioni  but  if  he  had  written  xv^ns,  it  is  inconceivable 
how  any  one  fliould  alter  it  into  3£«,  and  on  this  latter 
fuppofition  the  great  number  of  different  readings  is  in- 
explicable. It  feems  as  if  different  tranfcribers  had  found 
a  difficulty  in  the  paffage,  and  that  each  corrected  ac- 
cording to  his  own  judgement '.  Another  inftance  to 
-which  the  rule  may  be  applied  is  Matth.  xxiii.  25.  to 

the  readings   ax^ao-ja?,  axa^upcriag,  a^ixiocg  ^°. 

12.  The  foregoing  rule  may  be  moft  advantageoufly 
applied  to  paffages  where  there  are  three,  four,  or  ftill 
more  different  readings,  one  of  which  has  a  kind  of  central 
pofition,  from  which  all  the  others  might  naturally  flow  ". 
As  examples  of  this  kind  have  been  given  in  the  ninth 
fedlion,  I  will  add  only  one  taken  from  Luke  xxiv.  17. 
and  arrange  the  readings  in  the  following  order,  that  the 
original  reading  may  be  the  more  confpicuous. 

zrspnraTsi/ni;   <7Xu9/3W7roi 
•STf/JiTraTaj'TE?   KXi   ifs   (Tuv^pwrroi 
ZjfpiTTXTisvTtg   xa.1   zfricroiv   o-xv^puTrot, 

AH  three  afford  an  adequate  fenfe ;  the  firfl:  Is  the  read  - 
ingof  the  Codex  Carttabrigienfis,  the  fecond  that  of  our 
common  editions,  the  third  is  found  in  the  Codex  Ste- 
phani  71,  was  approved  by  Beza,  and  has  been  fmce  dif- 
covered  in  the  Coptic  verfion  ".  Now  the  common 
reading  xxi  ifs  occupies  the  middle  rank,  and  might 
eafily  give  birth  to  the  firft  and  third  reading.     The 

common  COnflruftion  nff?  01  Xoyot  utoi  a?  ch/tiQccXXbte  -srpo; 

axxnXa?,  nxi  ifs  o-jtuOpwro;,  is  not  the  moft  elegant ;  fome 
of  the  tranfcribers  therefore  inftead  of  in  wrote  if^a-avy 
a  corre6lion  which  really  improves  the  paffage,  but  which 
would  hardly  have  taken  place  if  no  sfi  had  flood  in  the 
original ;  while  others,  with  the  fame  view  of  improving 
the  paffage,  omitted  aui  ^re,  to  which  they  could  have  had 
no  temptation,  if  xaj  ii-na-xv  had  been  the  original  rrad- 
ing.  Hence  we  may  rcafonably  conclude  that  the  middle 
reading  is  the  genuine,  and  the  two  others  coriTctions. 
I  will  add  the  following  examples,  to  which   t!)e  rcade;r 

may 


3|36  Vdrious  Readings  of  the  N.  T.       chap.  vr. 

may  himfelf  apply  the  foregoing  rule.     Matth.  ix.  i8. 

Tir/)0(r£A9a;v,  and  a^X'^^  ■cjpornn^^iv. — Mark  i.  l6.  auT«  ts  2j- 
fxwvof,  Ts  St/xwi/oc,  auT«. — IvUke  xxiil.  42.  orai/  eaGw?  ff  t*i 
(Sao-jAfia.  (TBj  ora^  jxOvj?  Eij  rnw  (3a<nAnau  ca,  e^  tij  ^octxiXiia,  (ns, 

IV  Tn  v[j-i^oc  ry\g  zXiV(T£u?  <Tz. — Luke  xxiv.  1 7.  fee  my  Hif- 
tory  of  the  Refurreftion  '^    Acts  v.  24. — v.  36.  -crpoo-E- 

The  above-mentioned  arrangement  of  various  read- 
ings may  fometimes  give  rife  to  a  probable  conjefture, 
for  inilance,  we  find  Rom.  vii.  25. 

and  n  ;(,«pk  tu  S-eu. 
It  may  be  afl<;ed  whether  the  original  reading  were 

13.  If  for  a  pafTage,  that  is  not  abfolutely  neceflary  to 
the  conflru6lion,  various  readings  are  found  that  differ 
materially  from  each  other,  we  have  reafon  to  fufpecl  its 
authenticity,  and  that  all  the  readings  are  interpolations 
of  tranfcribers,  who  have  attempted  by  different  methods 
to  fupply  the  feeming  deficiency  of  the  original.  A(5ts 
V.  41.  we  find  in  eleven  of  the  bell  manufcripts  v-m^  ts 
oi/ouaro?  without  any  further  addition,  a  phrafe  which  fig- 
nifies  *  for  the  name's  fake,'  that  is,  in  the  idiom  of  the 
Rabbins,  *  for  God's  fake.*  But  after  oyo^j^ocroz  is  added 
in  our  printed  editions  auT«,  and  in  the  manufcripts 
we  find  not, Icfs  than  fix  different  additions,     i.  U^s. 

2.   TS  lvi<TH:      3.   ln(T^  X^KTTa.      4.  ra  X^ktts.      5.  m  Ku/3j« 

Ino-a.  6.  T8  Ky^»8.  Here  it  muft  be  obvious  to  every 
one  that  thefe  different  readings  are  interpolations  of  dif- 
ferent tranfcribers,  Rom.  i,  32.  the  reading  of  our  printed 
text,  which  in  my  opinion  admits  a  fatisfa6tory  explana- 
tion, appeared  even  to  Locke  to  be  unintelligible :  tran- 
fcribers therefore,  to  refcuc  the  pafTage  from  obfcurity, 
have  inferted  after  iTnyvopy^  in  the  Vulgate  non  intellexe- 
runt,  in  the  Codex  Claromontanus  and  Codex  Sangerma- 
nenfis  hx.  i-yixaa-au,  and  in  the  Codex  Amandi  s  o■ul/>lK«^♦ 
Now  thefe  manufcripts  arc  of  good  authority,  but  their  evi- 
dence 


srcT.  XIII.        Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.  337 

dence  is  here  contradiaory.  But  this  rule  muft  not  be 
carried  to  the  extreme,  nor  is  a  fingle  variation  fufficient 
to  juftify  our  fufpicion  of  a  word  or  phrafe,  tht>ugh  its 
omimon  affecls  not  the  fenle,  or  even  though  the  con- 
ftruflion  would  be  improved  by  its  abfence  :  for  in  a 
book,  that  has  been  fo  frequtn  ly  tranfcribed  as  the  New 
Teftament,  miftakes  were  unavoidable,  and  therefore  a 
fingle  deviation  alone  can  lead  to  no  inimediate  conclu- 

14.  An  Interpolation  is  fometimes  betrayed  by  the 
circumftance  of  its  being  delivered  in  the  language  of  a 
later  church.  In  the  time  of  the  Apoftles  the  word 
Chrift  was  never  ufcd  as  the  proper  name  of  a  perfon, 
but  as  an  epithet  exprcffive  of  the  miniftry  of  Jefus,  and 
was  frequently  applied  as  fynonymous  to  «  Son  of  God.' 
The  expreffion  therefore  '  Chrift  is  the  Son  of  God,* 
A6ls  viii.  37,  is  a  kind  of  tautology,  and  is  aim  )ft  as 
abfurd  as  to  fay  Cnrift  is  the  Meffiah,  that  is,  the 
anointed  is  the  anointed.  But  the  word  being  ufed  in 
later  ages  as  a  proper  name,  this  impropriety  was  not 
perceived  by  the  perfon  who  obtruded  the  palTage  on 

the  text.  r  ^      ^ 

15.  If  one  or  more  words,  that  may  be  confidered  as 
an  addition  to  a  pafTage,  are  found  only  in  manufcripts, 
but  in  none  of  the  moft  antient  verfions,  nor  in  the 
quotations  of  the  early  fathers,  we  have  reafon  to  fuf- 
pecl  an  interpolation.     Acts  viii.  39.  -crvEu^a  [a,yiov  nsn^ 

is  an  inftance  of  this  kind,  where  the  words  between  the 
crotchets  are  probably  fpurious. 

Though  readings  which  convey  no  meaning  whatever 
are  at  all  times  to  be  afcribed  to  the  negligence  of  tran- 
fcribers,  yet  the  obfcurity  or  fingularity  ot  a  v\ord  is  noc 
fufficient  foundation  to  reject  it.  On  the  c.  nLi  ry> 
when  of  two  different  readings  the  one  is  difficulc  and 
unufual,  the  other  eafy  and  common,  we  may  always 
fufpeft  the  authenticity  of  the  latter. 

17.  Bcfidc  the  rules  which  are  appHcable  to  the  New 

Teftament  in  general,  there  are  others  which  muft  be 

y  applied 


338  Various  Readings  of  the  N.  T.        chap,  vi, 

applied  to  each  book  in  particular,  being  derived  either 
from  the  peculiarities  of  the  ftyle  of  their  refpeftive  au- 
thors, or  from  accidental  circumftances,  that  have  at- 
tended the  prefervation  and  tranfcription  of  the  books 
themfclves.    I  have  obferved  in  a  preceding  feftion,  that 
in  criticifing  the  text  of  a  claflic  writer,  who  attends  to 
propriety  and  elegance  of  language,  the  principles  by 
which  we  muft  direfl:  our  judgement,  are  often  the  re- 
verie of  thofe  that  are  proper,  when  we  invefligate  the 
authenticity  of  a  reading  in  an  author,  who  is  regardlefs 
of  his  ftyle,  and  not  mafter  of  the  language  in  which  he 
wrote.     We  cannot  judge  of  the  flights  of  genius  as  of 
creeping  profe,  or  of  a  conftruftion  that  is  contrafted 
and  nervous,  as  of  one  that  is  difflife  and  weak.    Horace 
and  Ovid,  Tacitus  and  Cicero,  Cicero  and  Pliny,  muft 
be  criticifed  by  rules  that  are  totally  diftind  from  each 
other.     Their  peculiarities  extend  even  to  grammatical 
conftrudions  j  for  in  the  language  of  Cicero  haud  fcio 
an  is  in  that  of  Pliny  haud  fcio  an  non,  and  vice  verfa : 
in  reading  therefore  a  manufcript  of  one  of  thefe  au- 
thors, and  deciding  on  the  authenticity  of  a  pafTage, 
whether  non  has  been  improperly  added,  or  improperly 
omitted  by  the  copyift,  we  muft  be  guided  by  the  known 
praftice  of  the  author.     In  the  fame  manner,  to  deter- 
mine whether  £u9u?  and  £u0£w?,  which  are  fo  frequently 
found  in  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Mark,  are  to  be  afcribed  to 
the  author,  or  to  a  tranfcriber,  we  need  only  inquire 
into  the  general  manner  of  St.  Mark's  writing,  which 
abounding  on  the  whole  with  fupcrfluous ,  exprefTions 
leads  of  courfe  to  a  decifion  in  favour  of  the  former. 
Ora^  amo-Two-j,  Mark  xii.  23.  which,  as  being  an  actual 
pleonafm,  and  for  that  reafon  omitted  in  fome  of  the 
beft  manufcripts,  I  ftiould  make  no  fcruple  to  condemn 
as  fpurious,  if  it  were  in  the  epiftles  of  St.  Paul,  is  not 
therefore  to  be  rejeded  from  the  Gofpel  of  St,  Mark. 
In  the  epiftle  to  the  Hebrews  we  are  not  always  jufti- 
fied  in  correfting  even  a  raanifeft  error,  becaufe  it  may 
proceed  not  from  a  tranfcriber,  but  the  tranflator:  an  in- 
ftancc  of  this  kind  is  found,  ch.  xii.  1 5 .  where  the  tranfla- 
tor 


SECT.  xiii.      Parlous  Readings  of  the  N.  T,  ^jo 

tor  has  ufed  ivox>^^  for  iv  ^oXt:,  the  reading  of  the  Septua- 
gint.  In  tranflating  from  the  original  Hebrew,  he  pro- 
bably referred  to  the  Septuagint  '♦,  where  he  found  EN- 
XOAH,  which  he  might  eafily  miftake  for  ENOXAH,  as  the 
meaning  of  this  word  is  admirably  fuited  to  the  paflage ; 
and  as  the  concurrence  of  all  the  manufcripts  confirms 
the  common  reading,  I  prefumc  not  to  hazard  a  critical 
conjedure.  It  was  the  cuftom  of  St.  John  to  repeat 
the  words  of  the  preceding  claufe:  the  reading  therefore 
xaj  £3-|a£k,  I  John  iii.  i.  which  is  found  in  many  manu- 
fcripts and  verfions  after  xA»iGw,u£v,  though  not  in  our 
printed  editions,  is  probably  genuine. 

Laftly,  accidental  circumftances,  that  have  attended 
the  preservation  of  the  feveral  books  of  the  New  Tefta- 
ment,  muft  be  taken  into  the  account,  as  much  greater 
latitude  may  be  given  to  critical  conjefture  in  works, 
that  have  been  corrupted  or  negligently  copied,  than  in 
thofe  of  which  we  have  faithful  tranfcripts.  No  book 
of  the  New  Teftament  has  fuffered  in  this  refped  ^o 
much  as  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Luke,  and  none  therefore  re- 
quires in  a  higher  degree  the  aid  of  critical  conjedurc. 
Caufes  unknown  to  us  muft  have  had  peculiar  influence 
on  this  Gofpel,  which  has  been  more  vitiated  by  antient 
copyifts,  than  the  other  production  of  this  Evangelift, 
the  Acts  of  the  Apoftles  i  though  the  latter  has  been 
more  corrupted  by  modern  editors,  who  have  inferted 
in  the  text  interpolations  unwarranted  by  the  authority 
of  a  fingle  manufcript'*. 


Yd  TRANS 


INTRODUCTION 

TO  THE 

NEW   TESTAMENT. 

BY 
JOHN  DAVID  MICHAELIS, 

X,ATE  PROFESSO.R  IN  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF    GOTTINGEN,   &C. 

TRANSI.\TF.a    FROM 

THE  FOURTH  EI>ITION  OF  THE  GERMAN, 

AND 

CONSIDERABLY    AUGMENTED   WITH    NOTES, 
EXPLANATORY  AND   SUPPLEMENTAL. 

BY 

HERBERT  MARSH,    B.  D. 

FELLOW    OF    ST.  JOHn's    COLLEGE,    CAMBRIDGE. 


VOL.  I.     PART  II. 

CONTAINING    THE    TRANSLATOR'S   NOTES    TO    THE 
FIRST    VOLUME. 


Y  3 


NOTES, 


CHAPTER     I. 

Tide  to  the  writings  of  the  New  Covenant, 

PAGE    1. 

1.T3ROBABLY  in  the  fecond  century,  for  the  word 
JL  Teftamentum  was  ufed  in  that  fenfe  by  the  Latin 
Chriftians  before  the  expiration  of  that  period,  as  ap- 
pears from  Tertullianus  adv.  Marcionem,  Lib.  IV.  c.  i. 
But  the  firil  inftance  where  xa«v*)  Sixhy.n  actually  occurs 
in  the  fenfe  of  *  Writings  of  the  New  Covenant'  is  in 
Origenes  -arE^j  «f^w^,  Lib.  IV.  c.  i.  (Tom.  I.  p.  156.  ed. 
Benedid.)  for  though  Clement  of  Alexandria  (Stromat. 
Lib.  II.  Tom.  I.  p.  444.  ed.  Potter)  ufes  the  expreffion 
xxivn  (?<a0»;>tr),  it  appears  from  the  context  that  he  under- 
ftood  it  in  the  fenfe  of  covenant,  not  the  writings  which 
contain  that  covenant. 

PAGE    1. 

1.  This  work  of  our  author  is  written  in  German, 
and  has  the  following  title,  Michaelis  Erklarung  des 
Briefs  an  die  Hebraer.  Tom.  I.  1780.  Tom.  II.  1786. 
a**,  ed.  He  means  probably  to  refer  to  his  note  on  ch. 
vii,  22.  wheve  he  explains  <J'»a9n>c»i  by  covenant,  and  gives 
the  fame  reafon  why  it  cannot  fignify  teftament. 

3.  But  if  the  old  Latin  tranflator  underftood  $ia.hKn 
in  the  fenfe  of  covenant  or  bond,  why  did  he  ufe  tefta- 
mentum, and  not  rather  foedus  or  padtum  -,  and  is  it  not 
extraordinary,  when  a  word  admits  of  two  fenfes,  that  a 
tranflator  Ihould  adopt  the  term  which  conveys  the  for- 
Y  4  iner 


344  NOTES    TO    CHAP.    I. 

mer  fenfc,  if  he  intended  to  exprefs  the  latter  ?  It  ap- 
pears from  this  very  circumftance  that  the  old  Latin  tran- 
(lator  adlually  miftook  the  meaning  of  Sixhy.-^,  and  ren- 
dered it  by  a  word,  which,  though  it  correfponds  to  the 
Greek  in  one  fenfe,  is  an  improper  tranflation  of  Sixhan, 
at  leaft  in  the  Old  Teftament.  This  is  confirmed  by 
the  authority  of  Jerom  himfelf :  for  when  he  correded 
the  old  Latin  verfion,  or  rather  verfions,  and  publifhed 
a  new  edition,  he  altered  teftamentum  in  the  Old  Tefta- 
ment to  either  fcedus  or  pa6lum.  See  SabatierBiblia  Sacra, 
Tom.  I.  p.  23'  where  the  old  Latin  verfion  and  Jerom's 
corre6led  text,  or  as  it  is  commonly  called,  the  Vulgate, 
are  printed  in  parallel  columns  On  the  other  hand,  the 
learned  father  acknowledges  in  his  commentary  on  Mai. 
ch.  1.  that  teftamentum,  as  ufed  in  the  old  Latin  ver- 
fion, muft  be  imderftood  in  moft  places  to  fignify  a  co- 
venant ;  but  if  it  gradually  acquired  this  and  other  fenfes 
in  church  Latin,  no  argument  can  be  derived  from  this 
circumftance,  that  its  introdu6tion  was  not  founded  on 
error. 

In  fa6t,  when  our  author  applies  the  appellation  of  a 
"  harfti  Grecifm"  (for  this,  and  no  other  is  the  term, 
which  he  has  ufed)  to  the  tranflation  of  ^ixhm  by  tefta- 
mentum, even  where  Sicc^r>x.r,  muft  fignify  a  covenant,  he 
does  nothing  more  than  ufe  a  learned  exprefllon,  which, 
when  put  into  plain  Englifti,  fignifies  a  "  great  miftake." 
This  will  appear  more  clearly,  if  we  take  a  cafe  in  the 
Englifti  language.  The  Latin  word  *^  vir"  may  be 
tranflated  into  Englifti  either  by  "  man"  or  by  "  fpoufe," 
according  as  the  context  requires ;  in  the  fame  manner 
as  Sixhun  which  fignifies  literally  ^'  difpofitio,"  (from 
^iaT»9n,w,»  difpono)  may  figni  y  either  an  arrangement  in- 
tended to  take  place  immediately  (fcedus),  or  an  ar- 
rangement intended  to  take  place  after  one's  death  (tef- 
tamentum). But  if  a  fchoolboy  fliould  tranflate  "  vir 
nobiliflimus,  M.  T.  Cicero"  by  "  The  moft  noble 
jfouje  M.  T.  Cicero,"  the  application  of  the  term  harJJj 
Latinifm  to  this  tranflation,  would  not  prevent  his  mafter 
from  faying,  that  it  was  an  egregious  blunder.     Equally 


NOTES   TO    CHAP.    H  34.5 

•reat  was  the  miflake,  when  y,vn(Th(roixon  m?  (TiaOjixn?  |ia». 
Gen.  ix.  15.  words  afcribed  to  a  Beino;  incapable  of 
death,  were  tranflatcd  by  "  memor  ero  teftatnenti  mei  :" 
nor  will  the  ufc  of  the  term  harjh  Grecifm  be  fufficient 
to  cover  the  miftake.  The  Romans  certainly  never 
ufed  "  Teftamentum"  to  denote  a  contradl  between  two 
living  parties :  the  word  occurs  frequently  in  the  Roman 
law  writings,  and  is  always  taken  in  the  fenfe  of  laft  will 
or  teftament.  It  is  ufelefs  to  make  quotations  from  the 
old  Latin  verfion  in  behalf  of  the  other  meaning :  for, 
when  the  queftion  is  in  agitation,  whether  the  author  of^ 
the  old  Latin  verfion  (whofe  innumerable  barbarifms 
prove  that  he  was  not  a  Roman)  rightly  applied  "  Tef- 
tamentum" in  the  tranflation  of  one  paffage  of  the  Sep- 
tuagint,  a  fimilar  application  of  Teftamentum,  in  an 
hundred  other  inftances,  by  the  fame  author,  cannot  be 
alleged  in  vindication  of  that  paffage,  without  a  manifeft: 
politio  principii.  If  a  man  is  wrong  in  one  inftance,  a 
repetition  of  the  fame  miftake,  however  frequent,  will 
not  let  him  right  again.  In  ftiort,  the  tranflation  of 
^taSuKJi  by  Teftamentum,  is  only  one  among  the  many 
inftances  of  error  arifmg  from  bald  tranflation.  Thus 
i-rro  |3«p£wv  iXi<poi.vrivm,  Pf.  xliv.  8.  (xlv.  8.  in  the  He- 
brew) which  is  rightly  tranflated  in  the  Vulgate  "  a 
domibus  eburneis,"  and  in  our  verfion  "  out  of  the 
ivory  palaces,"  had  been  rendered  by  the  old  Latia 
tranflator  "  a  gravibus  eburneis."  He  miftook  the 
fubftantive  (3ap»?  for  the  adjeftive  p^pu? :  and  then  he 
tranflated  literally,  without  confldering  whether  he  was 
producing  fenfe  or  nonfenfe,  juft  as  he  did  in  regard  to 
Sia^nm.  Of  this  blunder  "  a  gravibus  eburneis,"  Jerom 
himfelf  complains.     Again  at  Gen,  xv.  15.  where  the 

genuine  Greek  text  is  o-y  h  uinXiva-ii  Trpo?  ts?  Trarfpa?  0-a 
lu  itprii/y],  roitpeig  ev  ynpa.  JtaXw,  We  find  in  the  old  Latin 
verfion  "  tu  autem  ibis  ad  patres  tuos  nutritus  (inftead 
of/epultas)  in  fenefta  bona."  Here  is  a  confufion  of 
Tatpfif  and  rpa(png :  either  the  tranflator  himfelf  miftook 
the  one  for  the  other,  or  he  ufed  a  manufcript,  in  which 
^he  piiftake  had  been  made  to  his  hand.     In  either  cafe, 

it 


J46  NOTES    TO    CHAP.    I, 

it  is  manifcft  that  he  tranflated  without  much  thought ; 
or  he  would  not  have  defcribed  a  man  as  going  to  his 
fathers  ^'■fattened  at  a  good  old  age."  He  has  even 
adopted  the  reading  uwi/  inftead  of  u»wv  at  Pf.  xvi.  14, 
(xvii.  1 4.  in  the  Hebrew),  and  has  ufed/«/7/^,  where 
he  ought  to  have  ufed/Z/^j. — We  have  no  reafon  there- 
fore to  wonder,  that  he  falfely  tranflated  ^ioi.^riV.i\. 

4.  This  is  an  overfight  in  our  author :  for  the  quo- 
tation which  he  produces  is  taken  not  from  the  Vulgate, 
but  the  old  Italic.  The  diftindion  is  of  importance  on 
the  prefent  occafion,  becaufe  the  very  word,  for  which 
the  quotation  is  made,  is  not  ufed  in  this  pafiage  in  the 
Vulgate.  The  miflake  however  is  eafy  to  be  explained, 
as  in  Sabatier's  edition  both  texts  are  printed  in  the 
fame  page. 

PAGE  3. 

5.  St.  Paul,  1  Cor.  iii.  16.  ufes  indeed  the  expref- 
fion  xa»v»)  ^»«0»xn,  but  the  term  is  there  applied  to  the 
New  Covenant,  of  which  he  was  a  minifter,  not  to  the 
writings  of  the  Covenant.  The  fame  may  be  faid  of  the 
other  paflages  in  St.  Paul's  epillles,  where  xa^n  and  v£« 
^»«6»ix»  are  ufed. 

6.  This  is  no  contradi6lion  to  2  Pet.  iii.  16. 

7.  Whether  thofe  epillles  of  St.  Paul,  which  are  now- 
extant,  are  all  that  the  Apoflle  ever  wrote,  is  a  queftion 
which  has  frequently  afforded  matter  of  ferious  difpute. 
Dr.  Lardner,  Vol.  VI.  p.  ^di^ — 672.  maintains  the  affir- 
mative J  but  his  arguments  will  be  anfwered  by  our  au- 
thor in  the  particular  introduftion  to  St.  Paul's  epiftles. 
N.B.  whenever  reference  is  made  in  thefe  notes  to  the 
works  of  Dr.  Lardner,  is  to  be  underftood  the  complete 
edition  of  his  works  in  eleven  volumes  odavo^  publifhed 
in  1788. 

8.  Dr.  Benfon,  in  his  EiTay  on  Infpiration,  has  an 
obfervation  which  implies  the  fame  diftinction.  See  Bp. 
Watfon's  Tradts,  Vol.  IV.  p.  471. 

PAGE 


NOTES   TO   CHAP.    11.   SECT.    I.  347 

PAGE   4. 

9.  This  remark  prefiippofes  that  the  Gofpel  of  St. 
Matthew  was  written  before  the  firfl:  epiftle  to  the  Co- 
rinthians, which  is  affirmed  by  Dr.  Owen,  but  denied  by 
Fabricius,  Mill,  Lardner,  and  Scmler.  Befides,  if  St. 
Matthew  wrote  in  the  dialed:  of  Paleftine,  as  our  author 
fuppofes,  it  would  have  been  ufelefs  to  have  referred  the 
Corinthians  to  a  work  written  in  a  language,  to  which- 
they  were  utter  ftrangers. 


CHAPTER    II. 
SECT.     I. 


PAGE    4. 

1.  The  prefent  fe6lion  is  in  the  original  preceded  by 
that  which  follows  in  the  tranflation ;  but  the  reader  will 
pardon  this  inverfion,  becaufe  the  fubjed,  which  is  dif- 
cufled  in  this  feftion,  relating  merely  to  the  importance 
of  the  inquiry,  it  is  rather  a  preface  or  introdudion,  than 
a  part  of  the  inquiry  itfelf. 

2.  Our  author  makes  here  a  proper  diftindion  be- 
tween two  queftions  that  are  often  confounded,  viz.  the 
divine  origin  of  the  Chriftian  dodrine,  and  the  divine 
origin  of  the  books  which  contain  that  dodrine.  The 
diftindion  mult  appear  important  to  our  author,  as  he 
had  himfelf  fallen  into  the  fame  error  in  the  firft  edition, 
but  has  here  correded  it. 

3.  The  words  here  ufed  in  the  German  are  gethan 
haben  follen,  which,  according  to  the  idiom  of  that  lan- 
guage, fignify  only  <  are  faid  to  have  performed.*  It  ap- 
peared therefore  to  our  author  a  matter  of  doubt.  Sec 
Lardner's  Works,  Vol.  VII.  p.  154. 

PAGE  5. 

4.  I  have  here  written  ni")!:!  not  ^'^^i:!  as  it  (lands 
in  the  original,  becaufe  though  Chaldee  nouns  in  ini 

7  are 


34^  NOTES    TO    CHAP.    II.    SECT.    I. 

are  frequently  written  by  apocope  without  the  Tau, 
(Schaafs  Opus  Aramasum,  p.  14.  Michaelis  Grammatica 
Ciialdaica,  p.  67.)  yet  in  every  Lexicon  they  are  written 
v;ith  the  Tail;  it  would  therefore  create  confufion  in 
confuking  Buxtorf  or  Caflel,  if  the  word  appeared  under 
a  different  fhape.  And  our  author  himfelf,  in  the  chapter 
relating  to  the  language  of  the  New  Teftament,  writes 
it  not  only  with  the  Tau,  but  with  the  paragogic  Aleph. 

5.  The  explanation  of  hvaf/.i^;  as  a  Chaldaifm  in  ?he 
fenfe  of  miracle,  necefTarily  implies  the  three  following 
conditions,  i.  That  the  Chaldee  word,  to  which  refer- 
ence is  made,  correfponds  to  the  Greek  in  fuch  a  man* 
ner,  that  in  tranflations  the  one  is  ufed  as  fimilar  to  the 
other,  for  otherwlfe  the  two  words  have  no  connexion. 
1.  That  the  Ghaldee  word  is  ufed  in  a  more  extenfive 
meaning  than  the  Greek  word  in  clafiic  authors.  3.  That 
Jewifh  writers,  accuftomed  to  this  extenfive  meaning 
in  Chaldee,  ufed  the  correfponding  Greek  word  in  the 
fame  latitude.  Now  in  the  prefent  inftance  the  two 
firft  conditions  fail  entirely,  i.  I  have  compared  with 
the  Septuagint  all  thofe  paflages  which  Buxtorf  in  his 
Lexicon  Chald.  Rabbinicum  has  produced  from  the 
Chaldee  paraphrafe,  in  which  ril"!!!!  is  ufed;  but  in  not 
one  of  thefe  inftances  is  ^wafj.ig  ufed  in  the  Greek  ver- 
fion,  though  both  Greek  and  Chaldee  are  tranflations  of 
the  fame  tiebrew.  I  have  like  wife  compared  with  the 
Greek  Teftament  all  the  examples  given  in  Caftelli  Lexi- 
con Heptaglotton,  where  j^o;::^^  is  ufed  in  the  Syriae 
verfion  ;  but  in  none  of  thefe  inftances  is  Sv)^xy.ig  to  be  fo 
found  in  Greek.  2.  The  fenfe  of  miracle  is  afcribed  to 
;— ]")-)2Jl  neither  by  Buxtorf  nor  Caftel,  and  the  elder 
Buxtorf  devoted  his  whole  life  to  the  ftudy  of  Rabbinical 
writings.  The  inference  therefore  of  courfe  falls  to  the 
ground,  as  far  as  it  depends  on  thefe  premifTes.  h 
might  with  more  reafon  be  termed  a  Syriafm,  for  j^oj^:^ 
is  ufed  for  cyhj-hix,  and  T£f«Ta  in  the  Syriac  verfion  of 
the  Greek  Teftament.  See  A6is  ii.  19.  22.  43.  iv.  30. 
vii.  36.  XV.  12.  2  Cor.  xii.  12.  But  here  again  the; 
firft  condition  fails,  for  ^uva/Aig  is  rendered  by  \1a^  evcii 

m 


NOTES   TO    CHAP.    II.    SECT.    I.  349 

in  thofe  places  where  there  is  moft  reafon  to  fuppofc 
that  ^umjui;  fignifies  a  miracle,  fuch  as  Mark  vi.  5.  a 
text  on  which  our  author  grounds  one  of  his  principal 
arguments. 

6.  Our  author  here  alludes  to  a  work  entided  Para- 
phrafis  und  Anmerkungen  uber  die  Briefe  Pauli  an  die 
Galater,  Ephcfer,  &c.  Gottingen  1769.  The  note 
contains  nothing  more  than  an  explanation  of  ^vuscfxi; 
in  the  fenfe  here  given,  which  he  grounds  on  the  fol- 
lowing texts,  Matth.  xiv.  2.  Mark  vi.  5.  i  Cor.  ii.  4. 
Heb.  ii.  4» 

PACE    8. 

7.  It  was  neceflfary  to  retain  in  the  tranflatlon  the 
German  title,  becaufe  it  has  acquired  the  force  of  a 
proper  name,  in  the  fame  manner  as  Herbelot  Biblio- 
theque  Orientale.  It  is  a  periodical  publication  of  our 
author,  begun  in  1771,  and  concluded  in  1783,  and 
confifts  of  twenty-three  volumes,  befide  the  general  In- 
dex. It  was  renewed  in  1786,  under  the  title  Neuc 
Orientalifche  Bibliothek,  eight  volumes  have  been  pub- 
lilhed,  and  the  work  is  ftill  continued.  Its  merits  are 
too  generally  known  to  need  any  commendation.  In 
the  place,  to  which  he  refers,  he  gives  a  fhort  extraft 
from  Dr.  Semler's  Paraphrafe,  but  a  tranflation  of  it  is 
here  unncceflfary,  as  the  Paraphrafe  itfelf  is  written  in 
Latin. 

8.  Dr.  Semler,  who  died  March  14th,  1791,  was 
principal  ProfelTor  of  Divinity  in  the  Univerfity  of 
Halle. 

9.  But  as  our  author  himfelf  acknowledges  that  the 
conclufions  which  he  has  drawn  in  the  preceding  part 
of  this  feftion  depend  on  the  fuppofition  that  Dr.  Sem- 
ler's hypothecs  is  ungrounded,  a  fhort  confutation  of  it 
■would  not  have  been  improper  even  on  the  prefent  oc- 
cafion,  efpecially  as  he  has  never  given  it  in  any  part 
of  his  very  numerous  writings.  This  fubjeft  has  lately 
very  much  engaged  the  attention  of  the  learned,  and 
thofe  who  arc  acquainted  with  German  literature  will 

find 


55©  NOTES   TO    CHAP.   II.    SECT.    I. 

find  the  moft  information  in  Eichhorn's  Allgemeine 
Bibliothek,  Vol.  II.  p.  757.  and  Paulus  Rcpertorium, 
Vol.  I.  p.  266.  and  Vol.  II.  p.  273. 

10.  The  world  is  at  length  favoured  with  this  long 
expected  commentary  of  our  learned  author,  which  was 
lately  publifhed  under  the  following  title :  Michaelis 
Anmerkungen  zu  feiner  Ueberfetzung  des  Neuen  Tef- 
taments.  Vol.  3''.  Gottingen  1791,  which  volume  con- 
tains his  notes  on  the  epiftles  to  the  Romans,  Corin- 
thians, Galatians,  and  Ephefians.  As  the  work  is  writ- 
ten in  German,  and  our  author  has  in  fome  refpedls  al- 
tered his  opinion  fmce  the  publication  of  the  laft  edition 
of  his  Introduftion  to  the  New  Teftament,  I  will  fub- 
join  a  fhort  extraft,  becaufe  every  reader  muft  be  curi- 
ous to  know  the  fentiments  of  fo  celebrated  a  writer,  on 
fo  important  a  fubje6t. 

P.  266,  267.  "  With  refpeft  to  the  gifts  enumerated 
I  Cor.  xii.  7 — II.  and  there  afcribed  to  the  operation 
of  the  Spirit,  there  are  three  different  opinions,  i.  That 
they  were  all,  without  exception,  fupernatural.  This 
cpinion,  which  is  the  mofl  antient  and  moft  general, 
feems  at  firfb  fight  to  be  the  moft  probable,  for  it  is  faid, 
V.  II.  all  thefe  worketh  that  one  and  the  felf-fame  fpi- 
rit.  It  is  really  difficult  to  give  any  other  explanation, 
and  yet  on  the  other  hand  inconceivable  how  fuperna- 
tural endowments  could  have  been  abufed  in  the  man- 
ner which  we  find  defcribed  in  the  14th.  chapter.  Be- 
fides,  other  objections  may  be  made  to  this  opinion* 
2.  That  fome  were  natural,  others  fupernatural ;  but 
here  again  occurs  a  difficulty,  as  they  are  all  afcribed  to 
the  fame  fpirit.  3.  That  all  thefe  endowments  were 
natural.    This  opinion  feems  to  me  to  be  improbable." 

Having  ftated  the  difficulties  attending  the  two  firft 
opinions,  and  objeded  to  the  laft  as  improbable,  he  de- 
livers, p.  268 — 271.  his  own  fentiments.  He  abides  by 
the  notion  that  certain  fupernatural  endowments  really 
exifted  in  the  firft  Chriftian  communities,  but  admit* 
that  the  number  of  enthufiafts,  who  imagined  themfelves 
pofifefted  of  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  was  fuperior  to 

thofc 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.    II.    SECT.    I.  35I 

thofe  who  had  really  thefe  endowments.  He  then  ex- 
amines their  abufe  in  the  Corinthian  community,  and 
endeavours  to  explain  why  St.  Paul  treated  this  abufe 
with  fo  much  lenity.  But  as  the  queftion  in  the  prefent 
chapter  of  his  Introduflion  to  the  N,  T.  relates  only  to 
the  Gift  of  Tongues,  I  will  confine  the  tranflation  of  his 
Commentary  to  what  he  fays  on  that  fubjed. 

P.  271,  272.  "  Still  more  extraordinary  is  the  ridi- 
culous diforder  which  prevailed  in  the  Corinthian  com- 
munity in  the  ufe  of  the  Gift  of  Tongues :  and  it  is 
wholly  inconceivable  how  this  could  have  happened,  if 
all  thofe,  who  were  able  to  fpeak  foreign  languages,  had 
received  their  knowledge  from  the  immediate  interpo- 
fition  of  the  Holy  Ghoft.  For  they  ufed  their  talents  in 
the  moft  irrational  manner,  and  merely  through  often- 
tation,  without  the  lead  benefit  either  to  themfelves  or 
their  hearers.  They  not  only  fpake  in  languages,  which 
no  one  of  the  community  underftood,  but  frequently 
when  no  interpreter  was  prefent  to  explain  their  mean- 
ing :  and  this  was  the  cafe  not  with  one,  two,  or  three 
perfons  only,  though  even  this  muft  appear  extraordi- 
nary, but  a  very  great  number  of  fpeakers  in  foreign 
languages,  under  the  pretence  of  edification,  though 
really  with  a  view  of  exciting  aftonifhment,  harangued 
in  this  alTembly :  and  as  it  appears  that  feveral  fpake  at 
the  fame  inftant,  the  unavoidable  confequence  was  a 
general  confufion.  Can  we  fuppofe  then  that  perfons 
like  thefe  were  under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ? 
They  even  expeded  that  the  whole  aflembly  fhould  fay 
Amen  to  prayers,  which  they  were  unable  to  compre- 
hend, and,  what  is  flill  more,  which  the  orators  them- 
felves were  frequently  unable  to  explain.  Are  talents 
like  thefe  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  ?" 

He  then  proceeds  to  enumerate  the  feveral  inftancey 
where  the  gift  of  languages  was  communicated,  refer- 
ing  to  Ads  ii.  4 — 24.  x.  44 — 46.  xii.  15 — 18.  xv. 
7 — 9,  xix.  6.  and  adds,  "  I  doubt  not  that  in  the  Co- 
rinthian community  likewife  there  were  fome  perfons 
who  had  received  this  gift," 

Here 


^^"1  NOTtS    TO    CHAP.    II.    SECT.    t. 

Here  are  feveral  circumftances  that  are  worthy  of  no- 
tice. Our  author  produces  three  opinions  with  rerpe6t 
to  the  gifts  in  general  mentioned  in  the  firft  epiftle  to 
the  Corinthians,  one  of  which  muft  necefiarily  be  adopt- 
ed :  but  he  rejecfts  the  laft  as  improbable,  without  point- 
ing out  the  improbability,  and  at  the  fame  time  pro- 
duces arguments  to  fhew  the  improbability  of  the  two 
firft.  Withrcfpeft  to  the  Gift  of  Tongues  in  particular, 
as  it  exifted  in  the  Corinthian  community,  and  is  de- 
icribed  in  the  fourteenth  chapter,  he  confefTes  that  St. 
Paul  cannot  poflibly  allude  to  perfons  who  were  under 
the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  As  far  therefore  as 
relates  to  this  epiftle,  it  is  the  fame  as  if  no  perion  in  that 
community  had  received  the  power  of  fpeaking  lan- 
guages by  fupernatural  means,  lince  he  owns  that  the 
14th.  chapter  applies  not  to  any  fuch  perfon.  Nor  does 
he  ground  his  opinion,  that  fome  few  of  the  Chriftians 
of  Corinth  had  really  this  talent,  on  the  epiftle  itfclf,  but 
gives  it  as  a  mere  indu6^ion  from  the  pafTages  which  he 
quotes  from  the  A6ts  of  the  Apoftles. 

11.  The  chara6ler  given  by  Lucian  to  the  Chrif- 
tians of  Syria,  in  the  place  to  which  our  author  refers,  is 

the  following :  nv  toiuw  zc-a^fXS'*)  ti?  h(  aura?  yor.;  xa» 
Tfp^nT»)f  avS'PWTTOf,  xai  sr^ayjtAa(n  ^^nar^rxi  J'ui/a/ASi/o?,  avrmx 
fAoiXa,  -nrAao-Jo?  iv  (3oay£»   iyn/iTO    i^iurxig    av^puTTOig  iy^oii/wv. 

It  feems  therefore  extraordinary  that  Lucian  fhould  be 
produced  as  an  evidence  in  their  favour. 

12.  iEfculapius. 

PAGE    9. 

13.  In  the  note  to  this  paflage  In  Reitz's  Lucian  is 
the  following  remark :  ^  unde  zelus  Chriftianorum  in 
decegendis  fraudibus  et  impofturis  patefcit:'  but  the 
queftion  in  our  author's  Introduction  relates  not  to  the 
incredulity  of  the  Chriftians  in  the  heathen  mythology, 
which  the  very  name  of  Chriftian  necefiarily  implies,  but 
to  their  caution  in  regard  to  the  admiflion  of  fpurious 
writings  as  apoftolical.  Nor  can  this  paflage  from  Lu- 
cian's  Alexander  or  Pfeudomantisj  which  is  an  account 

of 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.    II.    SECT.    II.  2S3 

of  the  artifices  praftifed  by  Alexander,  the  Caglioftro  of 
the  fccond  century,  be  produced  as  a  proof  of  Lucian's 
own  opinion,  for  he  relates  merely  as  an  hiftorian  what 
was  faid  and  done  by  Alexander. 

14.  A6ls    xxviii.    30.    f/xsivE    ^e    0    UocvXa;   Sunav   oArji* 

IV  iiTiw  fAKT^u[jt.xTi.  The  two  years  therefore  were  already 
elapfed  when  St.  Luke  finifhed  his  hiftory :  how  many 
more  were  elapfed  it  is  difficult  to  determine  with  cer- 
tainty.    See  Note  2.  to  chap.  iii.  §  3. 

PAGE  10. 

15.  Other  palTages  are  fometimes  quoted  from  the 
cpiftles  as  referring  to  the  prophecy  of  Chrift ;  but  fome 
of  them  cannot  poffibly  allude  to  the  deltruclion  of  Je- 
rufalem,  efpecially  i  ThefT.  iv.  14 — 18.  v.  i — 4. 

PAGE  12. 

16.  The  expreffion  ufed  by  Titus  to  the  Jews  is 
very  remarkable,  rr^na-u  Si  tov  i/aov  vfxiv  xai  y.?]  S-jAso-j.  Jo- 
fephi  Bell.  Judaic.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  ii.  §.  4. 

17.  To  prevent  miftakes  it  is  necefTary  to  obferve, 
that  though  our  author  quotes  Dr.  Lefs's  Truth  of  the 
Chriftian  Religion,  he  means  in  fa6l  his  Hiftory  of  Re- 
ligion, both  books  having  been  formerly  publifhed  un- 
der the  fame  title.  Dr.  Lefs's  evidence  for  the  authen- 
ticity of  the  New  Teftament  is  contained  in  his  Ge- 
fchichte  der  Religion,  or  Hiftory  of  Religion,  p.  485 — 
634.  of  the  2**.  ed.  printed  at  Gottingen  in  1786.  It 
would  be  impoffible  to  give  an  abridgement  of  it  in  thefe 
notes,  as  the  author  himfelf  is  very  concife,  but  the  whole 
deferves  to  be  translated  in  a  feparate  work. 

PAGE    13. 

18.  This  fmgle  view  may  be  likewife  had  in  the 
works  of  Dr.  Lardner,  Vol.  V.  p.  341 — 419. 


SECT. 


354  NOTES    TO    CHAP.    II.    SECT.    II. 

SECT.      II. 

PAGE     14. 

1.  In  the  German  original.  Vol.  XXXI.  is  an  erra- 
tum for  Vol.  XXI. 

2.  Letter  V.  Vol.  II.  p.  349 — 351.  of  the  4'°.  edit. 

PAGE   15. 

3.  The  refult  of  this  inveftigation  is  the  following. 
From  the  epiftle  of  Barnabas  no  inference  can  be  de- 
duced that  he  had  read  any  part  of  the  N.  T.  From  the 
genuine  epiftle,  as  it  is  called,  of  Clement  of  Rome,  it 
may  be  inferred  that  Clement  had  read  the  firft  epiftle 
to  the  Corinthians.  From  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas  no 
inference  whatfoever  can  be  drawn.  From  the  epiftles 
of  Ignatius  it  may  be  concluded  that  he  had  read  St. 
Paul's  epiftle  to  the  Ephefians,  and  that  there  exifted  in 
his  time  evangelical  writings,  though  it  cannot  be  ihewn 
that  he  has  quoted  from  them.  From  Polycarp's  epiftle 
to  the  Philippians  it  appears  that  lie  had  heard  of  St. 
Paul's  epiftle  to  that  community,  and  that  he  quotes  a 
paflage  which  is  in  the  firft  epiftle  to  the  Corinthians, 
and  another  which  is  in  the  epiftle  to  the  Ephefians : 
but  no  pofitive  conclufion  can  be  drawn  with  refped  to 
any  other  epiftle,  or  any  of  the  four  Gofpels.  Dr.  Lefs 
himfclf  obferves,  that  this  candid  confeffion  muft  deprive 
the  adverfaries  of  Chriftianity  of  a  really  formidable  ob- 
jeclion,  and  make  them  more  ready  to  admit  fuch  ar- 
guments for  the  authenticity  of  the  N.  T.  as  are  founded 
on  truth.  Lefs  Gefchichte  der  Religion,  p.  503  —  537, 
ed.  1786. 

4.  This  obje6lion  made  by  the  Orthodox  to  the 
Manich^eans,  wh^h  appears  fomewhat  obfcure,  may  be 
explained  by  thc%vo  foUowinp;  pjiTages  from  Beaufobre 
Piift.  de  Manichee  ec  du  Manijheilme,  Tom.  I.  p.  291. 
nos  hcretiques  reccvoient  les  quatre  evangiles,  and  ag^in, 
p.  296.  lis  nioicnt  que  les  Evangiles  ayant  etc  ecrits  par 
les  autcurs  dont  ils  portent  les  noms.  For  want  of  at- 
tention 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.   II.    SECT.  II.  355 

tention  to  this  accurate  diftindiion  of  Beaufobre,  Mo- 
fheim,  in  his  Commentary  de  rebus  Chriftianorum  ante 
Conftantinum  M.  p.  749.  has  attempted  to  confute 
Beaufobre,  where  no  confutation  was  neceflary. 

PAGE    16. 

5.  See  Lardner's  Works,  Vol.  III.  p.  495. 

6.  Luke  xiii.'  ^.  The  objedion  which  Fauftus  makes 
to  St.  Luke  is  found  indeed  in  that  chapter  of  Augufti- 
nus  contra  Fauftum,  to  which  our  author  refers  ;  but 
the  quotation,  which  immediately  follows,  is  taken  from 
the  preceding  chapter. 

PAGE   17. 

7.  See  Mofheim  de  rebus  Chriftianorum  ante  Con- 
ftantinum M.  p.  746 — 750. 

8.  If  Beaufobre,  Vol.  I.  p.  298.  really  exprefles  this 
opinion,  which  is  however  a  matter  of  doubt,  he  diredlly 
contradifts  what  he  had  faid  in  general  terms,  and  with- 
out making  any  exception,  p.  294.     See  above  Note  4. 


9.  Though  no  inference  can  be  drawn  from  this 
pallage  that  Fauftus  admitted  the  authenticity  of  St. 
John's  Gofpel,  becaufe  he  might  have  ufed  an  argu- 
mentum  ad  hominem,  yet  to  conclude  from  it,  with 
our  author,  that  he  denied  its  authenticity,  is  equally 
ungrounded ;  and  Fauftus  even  fupports  on  the  filence 
of  St.  John  his  objection  to  the  relation  of  St.  Matthew. 

PAGE   19. 

10.  Beaufobre,  who  devoted  a  great  part  of  his  life 
to  the  ftudy  of  Manicheifm,  is  of  a  different  opinion, 
for  he  fays.  On  a  de  bonnes  raifons  de  croire  que  Manes 
favoit  la  langue  Grecque.  See  the  reafons  which  he  has 
alleged  in  his  Hiftoire  de  Manichee  et  du  Manicheifme, 
Tom.  I.  p.  95. 

Z  2  PAGE 


35^  NOTES    TO    CHAP.  II.    SECT.  II. 

PAGE    20. 

11.  If  we  may  credit  the  accounts  of  Erafmus,  Au- 
gultin  himfelf  was  in  the  very  fame  predicament,  *  Au- 
gullinus  Gr^ce  nefciit,  aut,  fiquid  attigit,  non  magno- 
pere  fuit  iifui  ad  Gr^corum  commentaries  evolvendos. 
Erafmi  Epift.  ad  Eckium,  Lib.  II.  Ep.  26.  Tom.  III. 
p.  98.  ed.  Bafile^  1540,  folio.  [Indeed  Auguftin  him- 
felf confefTes  that  he  knew  little  or  nothing  of  Greek. 
*'  Ego  quidem  Grascse  linguse  perparum  aflccutus  fum 
et  propc  nihil.'*    Auguftinus  contra  Petilianum,  Lib.  II. 

cap.  33-1 

12.  This  quotation  is  taken  from  Auguftinus  con- 
tra Fauftum,  Lib.  XVII.  cap.  i. 

PAGE    21. 

13.  See  Mofheim  de  rebus  Chriftian.  ante  Conftant. 
M.  p.  755^-829,  and  -  Beaufobre  Hift'.  de  Manichee, 
Tom.  I.  p.  465. 

14.  Faulius,  though  he  denied  the  authenticity  of 
the  four  Gofpels,  ftill  profeffed  himfelf  a  follower  of 
Chrift,  and  faid  that  he  was  indebted  to  Manes  for  his 
being  a  Chriftian.  '  Quare  indeficientes  ego  prseceptori 
meo  refero  gratias,  qui  me  fimiliter  labantem  retinuit  ut 
eflem  odie  Chriftianus. 

Auguftinus  contra  Fauftum,  Lib.  XIX.  cap.  5. 

15.  For  an  account  of  the  Manichaean  criticifm  of 
tlie  Greek  Teftament,  fee  Beaufobre  Hift.  de  Manichee, 
Tom.  I.  p,  299 — 301, 

PAGE    22. 

16.  Contra  Fauftum,  Lib.  XXXIII.  cap.  6. 

PAGE    23. 

17.  Namely,  in  the  public  difpute,  which  he  held  at 
Cafcar  in  Melbpotamia  with  Archelaus,  biftiop  of  that 
city.  See  the  A6la  difputationis  Archelai  epifcopi  Me- 
fopotamise  cum  Manete,  ed.  Zaccagni,  Romas  1698,  4to. 
See  alio  on  this  fubjed  Beaufobre  Hift,  de  Manichee, 

Difcours 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.   II.     SECT.   III.  357 

Difcours  preiiminaire,  p.  5.andLiv.  I.  ch.  9,  10,  12, 13. 
compared  with  Molheim  de  rebus  Chriftian,  ante  Con- 
ftant.  M.  p.  729.  A  lift  of  the  writings  compofed  by- 
Manes  may  be  feen  in  Lardner's  Works,  Vol.  III.  p.  430 
— 437,  but  they  are  no  longer  extant,  except  a  fragment 
of  the  Latin  tranflation  of  his  Epiftola  fundament!  pre- 
ferved  in  the  eflay  of  Auguftin  againft  this  epiftle,  and 
two  Greek  fragments  printed  in  Fabricii  Bibliotheca 
Gr^eca,  Tom.  I.  p.  281 — 285. 

SECT.      IIL 

PAGE    23. 

1 .  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  a  writer  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, as  well  as  Eufebius,  has  made  the  very  fame  divi- 
fion  of  the  books  of  the  New  Teftament  in  an  Iambic 
poem  addrefled  to  Seleucus  (GregoriiNazianzeni  Opera^ 
Tom.  II.  p.  194.  ed.  Colonienfis,  1680.) 

OuK  aTracra  (3i€Ao?  oc(r(pxXrt^ 
H  <r£[jt.vov  o^Ojw,a  th?  ypxtpn?  xEXT»ijtA£VTi. 
Eia-iv  yoipy  sitriv  so-Q'  ote  rl/BvSuiiV[j.oi 
Bj^Aot,   TiV£?  jtxEi/  e[J!.iJ.i(rotj   kki  yuro-^ig 
(n?  ocv  TK  £»7roi)  Ticv  aAriQstaj  Koycu]/. 

Even  fo  early  as  the  time  of  Origen,  this  triple  divifion 
took  place,  for  fpeaking  of  the  book  called  Kri^vyfxoi,  lle- 
T^8  (Origenis  Comment,  in  Joannem,  Tom.-  XIV.  in 
princip.  Tom.  2.  p.  211.  ed.  Huetii  Colonienfis)  he  has 
the  following  obfervation,  i^i\(x.C,oy\i<;  -s^i^i  ra  j3»6Aia,  t^oli^ov 
TSTOTi  yvri(Tiov  ^rtf,  *i  voGof,  V  /wjxTo^,  where  [xiktou  correfponds 
to  the  ocvTiXiyo[ji.ivov  of  Eufebius,  and  the  fjtA^aeo-ov  of  Gre= 
gory. 

PAGE    24. 

2.  Eufebius  has  been  frequently  ccnfured  for  having 
ufed  ai/TjAtyojoifva  in  a  very  indeterminate  manner,  fomc- 
times  as  oppofed  both  to  ofMo?.oys[Aim  and  j-pQ^,  at  ether 

Z  3  times 


35^  NOTES    TO    CHAP.   II.    SECT.    III. 

times  as  comprehending  the  latter.  Perhaps  he  cannot 
wholly  be  refcued  from  the  charge  of  inaccuracy  :  but  if 
we  refle6l  that  the  notions  exprefled  by  the  words  *  ge- 
nuine' and  '  fpurious'  relemble  two  fixed  points,  and  that 
conveyed  by  the  term  *  uncertain,'  a  moveable  point  that 
vibrates  between  them,  it  is  no  wonder  if  its  relation  va- 
ries in  proportion  as  it  approaches  to,  or  recedes  from  the 
one  or  the  other. 

3.  See  Eufebii  Hift.  Ecclef.  Lib.  III.  cap.  39. 

4.  Our  author  has  fhewn  great  judgement  in  con-, 
fining  his  general  demonftration  to  the  o,aoAoy8//.£i/a,  for, 
had  he  included  the  avrtAjyo/^Ei/a,  his  concluiions  would 
have  been  vague  and  indecifive.  The  force  of  his  argu- 
ments, when  applied  to  the  firft  clafs,  confifts  in  the  fol- 
lowing circumltance,  that  when  a  book  is  fhewn  to  have 
been  univerfally  received  as  genuine,  it  muft  have  been 
acknowledged  as  fuch  by  thofe  perfons  or  communities, 
to  whom  it  was  immediately  addrefled,  on  whofe  evi- 
dence the  whole  depends.  But  they  are  wholly  inappli- 
cable to  the  fecond  clafs,  becaufe  among  thofe  who  denied 
the  authenticity  of  a  book  of  the  N.  T.  might  be  thofe 
very  perfons,  whofe  teftimony  alone  could  determine  the 
truth.  The  particular  arguments  for  the  authenticity  of 
a]^TiXi'yo[/.ivxj  will  be  given  in  the  fecond  part.  The  rea- 
der will  likewife  obferve  the  clearnefs  and  precifion  with 
which  our  author  has  arranged  his  fevcrai  arguments  in 
the  following  feftions  of  this  chapter.  Perhaps  the  ge- 
neral proof  of  the  authenticity  of  the  New  Teftament 
was  never  ftated  in  a  more  forcible  manner. 

PAGE  28. 

5.  This  is  admirably  difplayed  by  Lardner,  Vol.  VII. 
p.  30— 137. 

PAGE    29. 

6.  See  Lardner's  Works,  Vol.  VII.  p.  29. 

7.  Even  the  learned  Origen  was  reftrained  with  dif- 
ficulty from  rufhing  into  an  unnecelTary  and  voluntary 
martyrdom.    See  Eufebii  Hift.  Ecclef.  Lib.  VI.  cap.  2. 

8.  Our 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.  II.    SECT.   VI.  ^^Q 

S.  Our  author  underftands,  with  Grotius  and  Simon, 
by  |3a7rTi(r|txo?  vwi^  viy.pccu,  I  Cor.  XV.  29.  a  vicarious  bap- 
tifm  for  the  dead.  Whether  this  vicarious  baptifm  was 
pradifcd  in  the  firft  century  and  meant  by  the  Apoftle, 
it  is  difficult  at  prefent  to  determine,  and  Dr.  Teller,  one 
of  the  moft  fenfible  Expofitors  of  the  New  Teftament, 
candidly  confefles,  that  he  is  unable  to  comprehend  the 
meaning  of  the  paflage.  This  however  is  certain,  that 
the  cuftom  was  not  unknown  in  the  fourth  century,  as 
appears  from  Chryfoftom's  fortieth  Homily  to  the  firft 
epiftle  to  the  Corinthians  :  and  in  the  fame  century  it 
was  not  unufual  to  defer  Baptifm  till  the  approach  of 
death,  and  if  the  patient  died  fuddenly,  to  baptife  even 
the  deceafed.  See  the  eighteenth  rule  of  the  Council  of 
Carthage,  held  a.d.  419.  in  the  Codex  Canonum  eccle- 
fise  AfricanJE,  p.  340.  ed.  Juftelli.  Parifiis,  1661,  4'°. 

SECT.       IV. 

PAGE    30. 

I.  The  two  following  fedlions  form  only  one  in  the 
original  German,  which  I  have  divided,  becaufe  the  for- 
mer part  contains  a  ftatement  of  the  queftions  to  be  ex- 
amined in  the  remaining  feflions  of  this  chapter,  the 
latter  part  an  examination  of  the  firft  of  thefe  queftions. 

SECT.      VI; 


PAGE    32. 

1.  See  Note  3.  to  Se6l.  2.  of  this  Chapter;  The  rea- 
fon  why  our  author  has  not  quoted  Clement  will  appear 
from  the  latter  part  of  this  feftion. 

2.  Not  only  the  adverfaries,  but  alfo  the  friends  of 
Chriftianity  have  fufpeded  the  authenticity  of  the  writ- 
ings afcribed  to  the  apoftolic  fathers,  notwithftanding  the 
immenfe  erudition  bellowed  on  them  by  Cotelier,  Uftier, 
Pearfon,  Le  Clerc,  and  otliers  at  the  end  of  the  laft,  and 

Z  4  begin- 


360  NOTES    TO    CHAP.   II.    SECT.  VI. 

beginning  of  the  prefent  century.  Lardner  has  clearly 
fhewn  that  all  the  works  of  Clement  are  fpurious,  except 
his  firft  epiftle  to  the  Corinthians ;  but  even  that  is 
fufpedlcd  by  our  author,  and  Dr.  Semler,  who  has  made  a 
more  particular  ftudy  of  ecclefiallical  hiftory  perhaps  than 
any  man  that  ever  Uved,  doubts  the  authenticity  of  all  the 
writings  afcribed  to  the  apoilolic  fathers.  See  Semleri 
Hift.  Ecclef.  felefta  capita,  Tom.  I.  p.  25.  Commentarii 
Hiftorici  de  antiquo  Chriftianorum  ftatu,  Tom.  I.  p.  39> 
40.  and  his  Novae  Obfervationes  quibus  fludiofius  illu- 
ftrantur  potiora  capita  hift.  et  rel.  Chrift.  ufque  ad  Con- 
ftantinum,  p.  i  5,  24,  40.  This  at  Icaft  is  certain,  that 
pafTages  are  found  in  thefe  writings,  which  from  the  na- 
ture of  the  fubjefts  .could  not  have  exifted  in  the  firft 
century,  and  if  they  prove  not  the  whole  to  be  fpurious, 
they  prove  at  leaft,  that  thefe  writings  have  been  fo  in- 
terpolated, as  to  make  it  difficult  to  diftinguifti  what  is 
genuine  from  what  is  falfe. 

3.  The  Works  of  Papias  are  no  longer  extant,  and 
his  evidence  for  the  authenticity  of  certain  books  of  the 
NewTeftament,  viz.  the  Gofpels  of  St.  Matthev/ and  St. 
Mark,  the  firft  epiftle  of  St.  John,  and  the  firft  epiftle  of 
St.  Peter,  depends  on  the  relation  of  Eufebius,  Hift.  Ec- 
clef. Lib.  III.  cap.  39.  Compare  Lardner's  Works,  Vol. 
U.  p.  106 — 115.  with  Semler's  Novas  Obfervationes, 
p.  95. 

4.  See  Fabrlcii  Bibl.  Grs:ca,  Tom.  V.  p.  51 — 67. 
Mofheim  de  rebus  Chriftian.  ante  Conftantinum  M.  p. 
322.  Lardner's  Works,  Vol.  II.  p.  1 15 — 129.  and  Sem- 
ler's Novs  Obferv.  p.  ^3,  34- 

The  frequent,  though  not  conftant  difference  between 
the  quotations  of  Juftin  Martyr,  takea  from  what  he 
calls  A-rrofji.i'r.fj^oviviJ.xTx  twv  ATrofoXui/  (for  he  has  not  men- 
tioned either  the  four  Gofpels  in  particular,  or  the  names 
of  the  Evangelifts,  though  he  feldom  quotes  from  a  book 
of  the  Old  Teftament  without  naming  the  author)  and 
thofe  pafTages  of  the  Greek  Teftament,  from  which  they 
are  fuppofed  to  be  taken,  is  a  Ibbjeft,  that  has  long  en- 
gaged the  attention  of  the  learned,  and  various  hypothefes 

have 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.   II.    SECT.   VI.  361 

have  been  formed,  to  account  for  fo  extraordinary  a  pha^- 
nomenon.  But  none  of  them  contribute  in  the  leaft  to 
explain  the  difficulty,  except  that  of  Stroth,  a  very  learned 
and  ingenious  German,  whofe  eflay  on  this  fubje6t  is 
printed  in  the  firft  volume  of  Eichhorn's  Repertorium. 
Mr.  Stroth  contends,  that  Juftin  took  not  his  quotations 
from  the  four  Gofpels,  but  from  the  Gofpel  according  to 
the  Hebrews,  which  was  written  in  the  dialed  of  Palef- 
tine,  and  was  in  general  ufe  among  the  Chriftians  of  the 
Eaft :  of  which  Dr.  Rofenmiiller,  in  his  Scholia  in  N.  T. 
Tom.  I.  p.  4.  ed.  3.  fays,  Strothius  vir  celeberrimus 
haud  contemnendis  rationibus  probat  ufum  efle  Juftinum 
eo,  quod  non  tantum  Nazar^eis  et  Ebionseis,  fed  et 
omnibus  primrc  statis  Chriftianis  Pal^ftinenfibus  in 
ufu  fuifie  videtur,  Evangelio  fecundum  Hebrseos.  It  is 
true,  that  if  the  force  of  thefe  arguments  be  admitted 
(and  they  ieem  really  convincing)  we  cannot  produce 
Juftin  as  an  evidence  for  the  four  Gofpels,  but  on  the 
other  hand  no  inference  can  be  deduced  to  their  difad- 
vantage,  fince  no  man  would  conclude,  that  the  Annals 
and  Hiftories  afcribed  to  Tacitus  are  fpurious,  becaufe 
Aulus  Gellius  has  never  quoted  from  his  writings,  though 
frequently  from  thofe  of  Suetonius.  In  fa6l,  the  hypo- 
thefis  of  Mr.  Stroth  is  a  real  advantage  to  the  New  Tef- 
tament,  for  if  Juftin  really  took  his  quotations  from  the 
four  Gofpels,  and  the  works  of  Juftin  be  genuine,  the 
Gofpels  themfelves  muft  have  defcended  to  us  in  a  very 
corrupt  ftate  :  and  it  is  furely  more  advifeable  to  give  up 
a  fingle  evidence,  when  no  injury  arifes  from  its  lofs, 
than  to  retain  it  at  the  expence  of  the  facred  writings 
themfelves. 

5.  In  the  twelve  volumes  of  the  fccond  part  of  his 
Credibility  of  the  Gofpel  Hiftory,  Vol.  11.  III.  IV.  V. 
of  the  ed.  of  1788,  where  the  author,  with  immenfe  la- 
bour and  erudition,  has  produced  the  whole  feries  of 
evidence  for  the  authenticity  of  the  N.T.  from  the  time 
of  the  apoftolic  fathers  down  to  the  middle  of  the  ninth 
century. 

6.  In  his  Gefchichte  der  Religion,  or  Hiftory  of  Re- 

ligion, 


2^1  NOTES    TO    CHAP.   11.    SECT.   VI. 

ligion,  p.  485 — 634.  Dr.  Lefs  has  clofed  his  evidence 
with  Origen,  and  indeed  further  teftimony  is  unnecef- 
fary,  as  that  learned  father  has  quoted  from  ahnoft  every 
part  of  the  New  Teftament.  It  fhould  be  particularly 
obferved,  that  Dr.  Lefs  has  made  an  accurate  diftinflion 
between  two  queilions  that  are  often  confounded : 

Firft,  Thatof  the  Authenticity  of  the  N.T.  i.e.  whe- 
ther the  books  of  the  N.T.  were  written  by  the  perfons 
to  whom  they  are  afcribed.  For  this  we  have  two  kinds 
of  evidence,  external  and  internal.  The  external,  which 
confifts  of  the  teftimonies  of  ancient  writers,  forms  the 
fubjedl  of  the  prefent,  and  three  following  fe6lions  :  the 
iniernal  is  examined  in  the  three  laft  fedions  of  this 
chapter. 

Second,  That  of  the  Credibility  of  the  N.T.  i.e.  ad- 
mitting Matthew,  Mark,  &c.  to  be  the  authors,  the  cre- 
dit due  to  their  accounts.  The  former  is  Ihewn  by  Dr. 
Lefs,  in  his  Gefchichte  der  Religion,  p.  485 — 634.  the 
latter,  p.  648 — 695.;  alfo  by  Dr.  Harwood,  in  his  In- 
troduftion  to  the  N.  T.  Vol.  L  ch.  i.  fed.  2.  Dr. 
Lardner,  though  he  has  ufed  the  title  *  Credibility,'  has 
in  the  twelve  volumes  of  the  fecond  part  produced 
chiefly  the  external  evidence  for  the  former  of  thefe 
queftions.  In  the  firft  part  he  has  produced  the  evi- 
dence for  the  latter  queftion,  as  he  has  done  alfo  in  his 
fifth  and  fixth  fermons  printed  in  Vol.  X.  cd.  1788. 

PAGE  33. 

7.  Our  author  means  perhaps,  that  it  was  not  the 
praftice  of  profane  writers  in  that  age  to  tranfcribe  long 
paflages  :  for  fimple  quotations,  or  allufions  to  the  works 
of  other  authors,  were  very  common  in  the  firft,  and 
beginning  of  the  fecond  century,  as  appears  from  the 
writings  of  the  elder  Pliny,  Quintilian,  Plutarch,  &c. 
See  Fabricii  Biblioth.  Lat.  Tom.  II.  p.  209 — 239.  279 
—319.  ed.  Ernefti,  and  Fabricii  Biblioth.  Grseca,  Tom. 

IV.  p.  374— 392.  ^      .^,, 

8.  This  omilTion  appears  more  formidable  to  our 
author  than  it  really  deferves  j  for,  if  Clement  quoted 

not 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.    II.    SECT.   VI.  ^6^ 

not  St.  Paul's  firft  epiftle  to  the  Corinthians  in  writing 
on  the  fubjedt  of  the  Refurredion,  the  only  inference 
that  can  be  deduced,  is  that  he  had  never  feen  it,  not 
that  the  epiftle  at  that  time  did  not  exift.     If  Clement's 
epiftle  be  genuine,  it  muft  have   been  written  within 
twenty  or  thirty  years  after  St.  Paul  wrote  his  firft  epiftle 
to  the  Corinthians,  and  long  before  the  feveral  parts  of 
the  New  Teftament  were  collected  into  a  volume.    It  is 
probable,  that  many  years  elapfed  before  the  particular 
epiftles,  which  St.  Paul  had  written  to  the  different  com- 
munities, were  known  to  the  Chriftians  in  general :  each 
epiftle  alludes  to  circumftances  of  time  and  place,  which 
were  lefs  intelligible,  and  lefs  interefting  to  other  com- 
munities, than  to  that  to  which  it  was  immediately  ad- 
drefied;  and  as  the  Roman  Chriftians  had  themlelves 
received  an  epiftle  from  St.  Paul,  they  were  perhaps  lefs 
anxious  to  know  what  he  had  written  to  others.    Be  fides, 
the  primitive  Chriftians  were  in  general  poor,  notwith- 
ftanding  Clement  has  been  dignified  with  the  title  of 
Biftiop  and  Pope ;  tranfcripts  were  attended  with  ex- 
pence  ;  the  difficulty  of  communication  in  thofe  ages  in- 
finitely greater  than  at  prefcnt ;  and  when  we  refied  that, 
though  the  modern  art  of  printing  facilitates  the  diftri- 
bution  of  copies  in  the  higheft  poflible  degree,  yet  many 
of  the  moft  valuable  productions  of  Germany,  not  except- 
ing thofe  written  in  Latin,  are  hardly  known  in  England, 
it  is  eafy  to  conceive  that  Clement  had  never  feen  per- 
haps the  greateft  part  of  St.  Paul's  epiftles.     Thefe  re- 
marks are  not  defigned  as  arguments,  that  St.  Paul's  firft 
epiftle  to  the  Corinthians  was  aftually  unknown  to  Cle- 
ment, but  merely  to  remove  the  apprehenfions,  which 
might  arife,  if  the  contrary  were  true. 

PAGE  2^. 
9.  I  have  abridged  the  latter  part  of  this  fe6lion,  as 
it  IS  extremely  tedious  in  the  original,  and  contains  no- 
thing more  than  a  repetition  of  our  author's  fufpicions, 
that  Clement's  epiftle  is  a  forgery,  which  he  grounds  on 
no  other  argument,  than  the  above-mentioned  omiflion. 

But 


364  NOTES    TO    CHAP.  II.    SECT.  VII. 

But  this  very  circumftance  might  be  rather  applied  as  an 
argument  for  its  authenticity,  at  leaft  that  it  was  not 
forged  with  a  view  of  producing  evidence  for  the  anti- 
quity of  the  New  Teftament,  fmce  in  that  cafe  the  allu- 
fions  would  have  been  more  circumftantial.  Dr.  Lard- 
ner,  who  rejeds  the  other  writings  of  Clement,  has  very 
ably  defended  the  authenticity  of  the  epiftle  in  queftion, 
Vol.11,  p.  22 — 29.  Another  argument,  which  has  been 
liitherto  overlooked,  may  be  taken  from  the  circum- 
llance,  that  only  a  fingle  manufcript  is  extant  of  this 
epiftle,  for  had  it  been  forged  in  later  ages  with  a  view 
of  anfwering  fome  particular  purpofe,  it  is  probable  that 
care  would  have  been  taken  to  diftribute  a  confiderable 
number  of  copies. 

I  o.  The  date  of  Wetftein's  edition  of  the  two'epiftles 
of  Clement,  taken  from  a  Syriac  manufcript,  I  have  left 
unaltered,  becaufe  an  edition  of  that  year  may  be  known 
to  our  author,  though  I  have  never  heard  of  it.  It  ap- 
pears however  to  be  an  erratum,  for  Wetft:ein  firft  pub- 
lifhed  them  at  the  end  of  his  Greek  Teftament,  in  1752, 
and  again  feparately  in  1754;  at  all  events  the  date  is 
improperly  chofen,  fince  a  work  publiftied  in  1775  could 
not  have  been  anfwered  in  1753.  See  Walchii  Biblio- 
theca  Patriftica,  p.  212.  Dr.  Lardner's  Diflertation  is 
printed  in  the  laft  volume  of  his  works,  p.  197 — 225. 


SECT.       VII. 

PAGE    35. 

I.  It  is  true  that  Dr.  Lardner  has  taken  little  notice 
of  thofe,  who  are  called  heretics,  in  his  Credibility  of 
the  Gofpel  Hiftory  -,  but  he  has  written  a  particular  trea- 
tife  on  this  fubjed,  which  was  not  publiftied  till  1780, 
after  the  death  of  the  learned  writer,  and  is  perhaps  for 
that  reafon  unknown  to  our  author.  It  is  contained  in 
the  ninth  volume  of  his  works,  p.  219 — 518, 

PAGE 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.   II.    SECT.   VII.  365 

PAGE    36. 

2.  For  an  account  of  Cerinthus  fee  Eufebil  Hift. 
Ecclef.  Lib.  III.  cap.  28.  Mofheim  de  rebus  Chrift. 
ante  Conftant.  M.  p.  196 — 202.  and  Lardner's  Works, 
Vol.  IX.  p.  3^9—330- 

3.  Tom.  I.  p.  113.   ed.  Petavii  Colonic  1682. 

4.  Namely  a  part  of  the  above-mentioned  paflfage 

from  Epiphanius,   oa-oi  iv  ^ojiaw  J'lJiatHo-S-E  m?  y^apirog  i^iTTi.- 

cxn  is  taken  from  Galat.  v.  4.  To  do  juftice  to  this  ar- 
o-ument,  we  muft  recolleft  that  the  quotation  is  not 
made  by  Cerinthus,  but  by  Epiphanius,  who  rela'tes, 
that  the  Cerinthians  rejedled  the  authority  of  St.  Paul, 
becaufe  he  preached  the  dodlrine  contained  in  this  quot- 
ed palTage.  It  follows  therefore  that  the  Cerinthians  were 
acquainted  with  St.  Paul's  doftrine,  not  (from  the  rela- 
tion of  Epiphanius  alone)  that  they  had  feen  his  epifllc 
to  the  Galatians.  Were  any  writings  now  extant  of  this 
Ihort-lived  fedt,  the  queftion  might  be  determined  with 
greater  certainty. 

5,  If  we  may  credit  the  accounts  of  Epiphanius, 
they  adopted  only  a  part  of   St.    Matthew's   Gofpel, 

Xpwi/Ta»  ya,^  tw  aocrot,  MarS-ajoi/  fua-yyEAiw  airo  y-ipag  yiai  aj^i 

oAw,  Haeref  28.  cap.  v.  Tom.  I.  p.  113.  ed.  Colon. 

6.  Ai^ovTOii  y.ni  aoii  ocvtoi  to  xara  MarS'aioi'  iuxyyiXioVy 
T8Tto  yap  Koci  ocvroij  ug  xoci  oi  koctcc  Kripn/3"oi/,  ^punrai  [^ovui^ 
xaAafft  if  ocvTO  naT«  EPpaja?,  Hsr.  30.  cap.  iii.  3.  Tom.  I. 
p.  127.  ed.  Colon.     And  again,  cap.  13.  h  too  yai/  -s^ocf 

CiVTOig  ivocyysXKjp  k«t«  Mcht^ohou  o\/o[jt.o(.^c^svtjO  ^^  oXco  ^e  -srXn- 
pifocrtc  ctXXa.  ^£l/o^■£U|tx£l/u  xai  iKpuTYipioccrfji.ivciiy   >t.  t.  A.      Indeed 

to  judge  from  the  fpecimen  which  Epiphanius  has  given 
in  this  chapter,  the  Ebionite  Gofpel,  according  to  the 
Hebrews,  muft  have  differed  confiderably  from  our  ca- 
nonical Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew.  It  is  from  this  Gofpel, 
according  to  the  Hebrews,  or,  as  it  is  fometimes  called, 
of  the  twelve  Apoftles,  that  Mr.  Stroth  contends  that 
Juftin  Martyr  has  taken  his  quotations. 

PAGE  37. 
7,   The    palTage  which   our    author   has   produced 

from 


366  NOTES    TO    CHAP.  II.    SECT.  VII. 

from  Epiphanius,  to  fhew  that  the  Ebionites  were  ac- 
quainted with  St.  Paul's  epiftles,  feems  to  warrant  no 
fuch  conclufion,  and  if  it  proves  any  thing,  proves  ra- 
ther the  authenticity  of  the  A6ls  of  the  Apoftles,  be- 
caufc  Epiphanius  relates  that  the  Ebionites  appealed  to  a 
declaration  of  St.  Paul,  which  is  recorded  Ads  xxi.  39. 
No  man  will  deny  that  St.  Paul's  doflrine,  with  refpeft 
to  the  abolition  of  the  Mofaic  law,  was  known  to  the 
Ebionites,  and  that  they  refufed  on  that  account  to  ac- 
knowledge him  as  a  divine  Apoflle  :  but  to  conclude 
from  thefe  premifes  that  they  had  feen,  or  even  heard 
of  thofe  particular  epiflles  which  he  wrote  to  the  inha- 
bitants of  Ada  Minor,  Greece,  and  Italy,  is  an  inference 
which  is  hardly  admifiible.  It  is  likewife  a  matter  of 
doubt,  whether  the  Ebionites,  whofe  language  was  Syro- 
Chaldee,  would  have  underftood  St.  Paul's  epiflles,  even 
if  they  had  ktn  them.  The  paflage  in  Eufebius,  ta 
which  our  author  likewife  refersj  is  more  fatisfadtory. 

PAGE    38. 

8.  See  Mofheim  de  rebus  Chrifl.  ante  Conftantinum 
M.  p.401 — 410.  and Lardner's  Works,  Vol. IX.  p.35^ 
—415* 

9.  See  Millii  Prolegomena,  p.  35,  ^6.  of  the  Ox- 
ford edition,  fedt.  307 — 327.  ed.  Kiifter. 

PAGE    39. 

10.  Epiphanius,  in  his  42*^.  herefy,  has  produced  a 
lift  of  pailliges  which  he  fays  had  been  wilfully  corrupted 
by  Marcion,  and  which,  with  the  anfwers,  take  up  not 
lefs  than  fixty-two  folio  pages.  But  as  the  zealous  father 
ungeneroufly  afcribed  the  worft  of  motives  to  thofe  who 
differed  from  his  opinion,  it  is  at  leaft  a  matter  of  doubt 
whether  the  charge  be  grounded.  Dr.  Loeffler  has  writ- 
ten a  learned  differtation,  entitled,  Marcionem  Pauli 
epiftolas  et  Lucas  Evangelium  adulteraffe  dubitatur. 
Trajedi  ad  Viadrum  1788. 


SECT. 


KOTES    TO    CHAP.    II.    SECT.    VIII.  367 

SECT.      VIII. 

.  PAGE    40. 

1.  The  works  of  Cellus  are  no  longer  extant,  and 
the  only  remaining  fragments  are  thofe  detached  quota- 
tions from  his  treatife  entitled  AAr^r?  Xoyof,  which  Ori- 
gen  has  given  in  his  eight  books  contra  Celfum. 

PAGE  41. 

2.  This  is  the  common  refuge  of  the  antient  fathers, 
who  made  no  fcruple,  when  prefled  by  their  adverfaries, 
to  lay  the  charge  to  thofe  whom  they  branded  with  the 
title  of  heretic.  But  candour  and  impartiality  oblige  us 
to  admit  with  great  caution  accufations  of  this  nature, 
as  we  have  evidence  on  only  one  fide  of  the  queftion/ic 
having  been  formerly  the  policy  of  the  ruHng  party  to 
Hipprefs  the  v/ritings  of  their  adverfaries.  This  fubjecSt 
will  be  more  fully  confidercd  in  the  Chapter  of  Various 
Readings. 

PAGE    42. 

3.  Our  author  means  thofe  only  which  Porphyry 
wrote  againft  the  Chriftian  religion,  fome  of  his  other 
works,  fuch  as  his  Lives  of  Pythagoras,  and  Plotinus, 
&c.  being  ftili  extant.  See  Fabricii  Bibl.  Graeca,  Tom. 
IV.  cap.  xxxvii. 

4.  Without  making  fo  dear  a  facrifice,  it  is  polTible 
that  this  wifli  of  our  author  may  be  one  day  gratified, 
for  according  to  the  accounts  of  Ifaac  Voffius,  a  manu- 
fcriptof  the  works  of  Porphyry  is  preferved  in  the  Me- 
dicean  library  at  Florence,  but  kept  fo  fecret  that  no 
one  is  permitted  to  fee  it.  Memini  Salvium  dixifle,  fpem 
fibi  fa6tam  talis  libri,  fed  pretio  ingenti.  Fuit  hie  pefti- 
lentium  ejufmodi  fcriptorum  percupidus :  ita  fane  mul- 
tum  laboravit  ut  compararet  fibi  Porphyrii  Hbros,  quos 
ille  quondam  adverfus  Chriftianam  pietatem  evomuit, 
ubi  ex  Gerhardi  Jo.  VofTii  filio  accepiifet  clanculum  illos 
aiTervari  hodie  Florentias  in  bibliotheca  Magni  Ducis. 

Ritmeieri  Conringiana  epiftolica,  p.  ^;}. 

It 


368  NOTES    TO    CHAP.    II.    SECT.    VIII. 

It  is  at  prefent  however  doubted,  whether  this  report 
be  not  erroneous. 

5.  Of  Kiifter's  edition,  but  p.  66.  of  the  Oxford  edit. 

6.  Vol.  VIII.  p.  207 — 219.  of  the  ed.  of  1788. 

PAGE    43. 

7.  See  the  notes  of  Mill,  Wetftein,  and  Griefbach,  on 
Matth.  xiii.  35.  and  Mark  i.  2.  with  Griefbach's  Sym- 
bolse  Criticae,  p.  29,  60. 


0 


PAGE    44. 


8.  The  objeftion  of  Porphyry  affedls  not  the  autho- 
rity of  Daniel,  becaufe^t  relates  to  a  part  which  is  ac- 
knowledged to  be  fpurious,  or  at  lead  never  to  have  ex- 
ifted  in  the  Hebrew,  and  is  for  that  reafon  feparated 
from  the  prophecy  of  Daniel  in  the  modern  edidons  of 
the  Septuagint,-and  referred  to  tlie  Apocrypha,  though 
in  the  earlieft  editions,  that  of  Complutum  for  inflance, 
as  well  as  in  all  the  manufcripts  of  the  Greek  Bible,  the 
ftory  of  Sufanna,  with  that  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon,  make 
a  part  of  the  book  of  Daniel. 

9.  Our  author  in  this  part  of  his  Orient.  Bibl.  gives 
an  account  of  the  Greek  verfion  of  Daniel  according  to 
the  Seventy,  (the  common  printed  text  being  that  of 
Theodotion)  publifhed  at  Rome  in  1772,  from  a  ma- 
nufcript  in  the  polTeflion  of  Cardinal  Chigi,  which  has 
likewife  the  ftory  of  Sufanna,  with  that  of  Bel  and  the 
Dragon.  But  the  latter  is  feparated  from  the  reft  of  the 
book  by  the  following  fuperfcription,  tK  zj^o<pnruai,g  A/a- 
Qxx3{x,  vns  lr\a-a  m  rr,^  tpvXvt?  Afui,  whence  our  author  con- 
jedures  that  a  fimilar  fuperfcription  ftood  originally  be- 
fore the  ftory  of  Sufanna,  and  appeals  to  the  teftimony 
of  Origen,  ApoHinarius,  and  Jerom.  He  acknowledges, 
p.  24.  that  the  obje6tion  of  Porphyry,  when  confined  to 
this  ftory,  is  grounded.  See  Gray's  Key  to  the  Old  Tef- 
tament  and  Apocrypha,  p.  613 — 616.  Thofe  who  are 
acquainted  with  German  literature  will  find  the  moft 
complete  information  in  Eichhorn's  Allgemeine  Biblio- 

thek 


>jOTrS    TO    CHAP.    ir.    SECT.    X.  2^^ 

\hek  der  biblifchf n  Liceratur,  or  Univerfal  Library  of 
biblical  Literature,  Vol.  II,  p.  i — 46. 

10.  Vol.  Vlll.  p.  394—411.  of  the  cd.  1788., 

SECT.      X. 

PAGE    47. 

I.  Should  it  be  ftill  obje(5led  that  the  epiftles  afcribed 
to  St.  Paul  might  have  been  written  neither  by  the  Apo{^ 
tie,  nor  any  other  writer  of  the  N.  T.,  nor  by  different 
impoflors,  but  by  a  fingle  impoftor  in  a  fubfequent  age, 
in  which  cafe  the  argument  drawn  from  a  fimilarity  of 
ftyle  would  be  obviated,  we  may  anfwer,  that  this  hy- 
pothefis,  though  not  attended  with  the  fame,  is  attended 
with  other  difficulties,  which  are  not  more  eafy  to  fur- 
mount.  The  epiflles  of  St.  Paul,  if  an  impofture,  muft 
have  been  forged  long  before  the  expiration  of  the  fccond 
century,  for  we  need  only  appeal  to  the  writings  of  Cle- 
ment of  Alexandria,  Ircnasus  and  Tcrtulli-in,  to  (Ixw 
that  they  were  univerfally  known  at  that  period  from  the 
eaftern  to  the  weftern  border  of  the  Roman  empire.  But 
is  it  poflible  that  epiftles,  pretended  to  be  addrcfltd  by 
St.  Paul  to  the  inhabitants  of  Rome,  Corinth,  Philippi, 
ThefTalonica,  and  Ephefus,  fhould  have  been  received 
in  all  thofe  cities  as  genuine,  if  invented  after  the  death 
of  the  Apoftle  ?  V/ould  the  Romans,  would  the  Corin- 
thians, have  admitted  epiftles  firft  brought  to  light  in 
the  fecond,  and  pretended  to  have  been  written  in  the 
Hrft  century,  if  they  had  never  heard  of  any  fuch 
epiftles  having  been  fcnt  ?  But  what  impoftor  could  have 
invented  fuch  epiftles  as  thofe  written  to  the  (  orinthians 
for  inftance  ?  A  Corinthian  himfclf  ?  This  is  a  very  im- 
probable conje6liire,  for  abufes  are  defcribcu  in  them 
which  do  no  honour  to  that  city.  But  perhaps  tiicy  were 
v/ricten  by  a  ftranger  ?  Now  no  ftran^:cr  to  that  c  ty 
could  have  entered  into  that  long  and  circumftantial  de- 
tail which  appears  throughout  the  v/hole.  In  fact,  no 
epiftles  were  ever  written  that  are  mure  ftrongly  aurhen- 
A  a  ticaced 


370  NOTES    TO    CHAP.    II.    SECT.    XI. 

ticated  than  thofe  of  St.  Paul.  We  doubt  not  the  aif- 
thenticity  of  the  epiftles  afcribed  to  Cicero  and  Pliny, 
yet  thefe  lay  buried  during  whole  ages  in  the  times  of 
monkifh  barbarifm,  forgotten  or  unknown,  till  the  in- 
vention of  printing,  and  the  revival  of  learning,  called 
forth  the  half-legible  manufcripts  from  the  hidden  re- 
ccffes  of  unfrequented  libraries,  whereas  thofe  written  by 
St.  Paul  have  been  read  in  one  uninterrupted  feries,  from 
the  firft  to  the  prefent  age.  See  alfo  Paley's  Hone  Pau- 
lina, where  the  authenticity  of  St.  Paul's  epiftles  is  de- 
fended on  new  and  very  ingenious  principles. 

PAGE   48. 

2.  See  Dr.  Harwood's  ingenious  Remarks  on  St.  Paul 
as  a  writer,  in  his  Introduftion  to  the  New  Teftament, 
Vol.  I.  ch.  5.  fed:.  5.  though  Dr.  Harwood  afcribes  to 
St.  Paul  a  much  greater  fhare  of  profane  literature  than 
our  author. 

>  In  the  preface  to  his  paraphrafe  on  St.  Paul's 
epiftles. 

SECT.      XI. 

PAGE    49. 

T.  See  Jortin's  Remarks  on  Ecclefiaftical  Hiftory, 
Vol.  I.  p.  28—30.  2^  ed. 

PAGE  50. 

2.  Lardner's  Works,  Vol.  I.  p.  329.  See  alfo  a  fhort 
thefis  written  by  Profeffor  Vollborth  de  caufis  cur  Jo- 
fephus  csedem  puerorum  Bethlehemiticorum  filentio  prse- 
terierit,  Gottingse  1788. 

3.  This  queftion  will  be  particularly  examined  in  the 
Introdudion  to  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel.  The  controverly 
between  Williams  and  Velthufen  on  this  fubjed  is  well 
known  to  the  learned. 

PAGB 


UOtES    TO    CHAP.    li.    SECT.    Xll.  37 1 

PAGE    51. 

•    4.  Itrebfii  Obftrvationes  in  Nov.  Teft.  e  Fl.  Jof.plio, 
Lipfise  1755,  8'". 

PAGE    S2' 

5.  Like  the  viri  confulares  in  the  Roman  fcnate. 

PAGE  54. 

6.  To  the  external  and  internal  evidence  for  the  au- 
thenticity of  the  New  Teftament^  produced  by  our  au- 
thor in  the  preceding  fedlions,  may  be  added  an  argu- 
ment of  a  different  kind.  We  fcruple  not  in  natural 
philofophy  to  adopt  that  hypothefis  as  true,  which  folves 
the  feveral  phcenomena  in  a  fimple  and  eafy  manner ; 
and  if  no  other  can  be  produced,  that  gives  a  fimilar  fo- 
lution,  the  probabiHty  amounts  to  a  moral  certainty. 
On  this  principle  refts  the  truth  of  the  Newtonian  fyf- 
tem,  and  this  principle  may  be  applied  to  the  New  Tef- 
tam.ent.  For  the  hypothefis  that  the  ofxaXoya/xivx  (which 
alone  form  the  fubjeft  of  this  chapter)  were  written  in 
the  firft  century,  and  by  the  perfops  to  whom  they  are 
afcribed,  folves  every  pheenomenon,  not  only  in  the  na- 
ture and  chara6ler  of  the  New  Tcftamert,  but  in  the 
origin  and  propagation  of  the  Chriftian  religion,  whereas 
every  other  hypothefis  is  attended  not  only  with  diffi- 
culty but  contradi6lion. 

SECT.      XIL 

PAGE    58. 

1.  The  words  '  death  of  John  the  Baptifl'  mull  have 
been  inferted  by  miftake  in  our  author's  text,  as  that 
event  is  not  recorded  by  St.  Luke,  who  mentions  only 
that  John  was  caft  into  prifon  by  Herod,  (Luke  iii.  19, 
20.)  of  which  our  author  certainly  was  not  ignorant,  as 
will  appear  in  the  feque). 

A  a  2  PACE 


J72  NOTES    TO    CHAP.    II.    SECT.    XII. 

PAGE    59. 

1.  The  paflage  in  Jofcphus  to  which  our  author  ai^ 
ludes  is  Antiquit.  Lib.  XII.  cap.  v.  §.  4. 

PAGE   61. 

3.  Thefe  fenfible  remarks  are  fuch  as  might  be  ex- 
peclcd  from  a  writer  like  Michaelis,  wltofe   uncommon 

•  knowledge  of  hiftory  was  not  one  of  his  leaft  excellencies. 

PAGE  62. 

4.  This  folution  is  ingenious  and  natural.  Thofc 
who  would  examine  what  other  learned  men  have  writ- 
ten on  this  fubjeft,  may  confult  Lardner's  Works,  Vol.  I. 
p.  405. 

5.  Our  author  has  not  mentioned  by  whom  the  diffi- 
culty has  been  explained,  but  Dr.  Lardner  has  written 
a  particular  treatife,  '  On  the  names  given  to  Herodias's 
firfl:  hufband  by  the  Evangehfts  and  Jofephus.'  See  his 
Works,  Vol.  I.  p.  389 — 397. 

PAGE   6^. 

6.  See  Lardner's  Works,  Vol.  I.  p.  16 — 19. 

7.  This  circumflance  is  of  fome  importance,  becaule 
St.  Peter  was  the  friend  and  companion  of  St.  Mark. 

8.  This  emendation  of  our  author  I  am  unable  to 
comprehend.     The  common  text  in  this  palTage  of  Jo- 

lephus  is  y.ai  yot^  vic^n<ra.v  nri  zrXn^ov  rv)  ccxpoacru  Ttt^v  Xoyuv^ 
hujufmodi  enim  fermonibus  mirum  in  modum  elati  erant. 
Now  it  appears  from  our  author's  tranflation  that  he 
would  fubftitute  a  verb  expreflive  of  fatisfadlion  or  ap- 
probation ;  but  npi^Kj-cct/  comes  from  h^jOji^w,  laceflb,  and 
exprcffes  dire6lly  the  contrary.  Perhaps  he  means  yipm- 
cav,  but  even  this  is  unfuitable  to  the  grammatical  con- 
ltru6bion.  With  refpedl  to  r(3■.3■»l(^a^,  which  he  mentions 
as  a  various  reading,  there  is  no  fuch  word  in  the  Greek 
language,  aia^xvoy-xi  being  never  ufed  in  the  adtive. 
Perhaps  r,pc^Kra]>  and  v-'c-3->?(raf  are  errata  in  the  German 
original  for  r.pio-^n(rai/  and  r,(T^ri(j-xv,  both  of  which  give  a 
very  good  fenfe. 

PAGE 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.    II.    SECT.    XII.  373 

PAGE    64. 

Q  Dr.  Lardner,  (Vol.  VII.  p.  113.)  after  having  de- 
fended the  authenticity  of  that  part  of  Jofephus  which 
relates  to  John  the  Baptift,  and  which  fome  had  fup- 
pofed  to  be  fpurious,  becaiife  it  contradifts  the  Evange- 
lifts,  attempts  to  reconcile  the  two  accounts.  But  our 
author's  fuppofition  that  Jofephus  was  miftaken,  and  his 
ingenious  method  of  accounting  for  the  miftake,  rempvc 
airdifficulty  on  this  fubjeft. 

PAGE    67. 

10.  The  relation  of  Jofephus  is  ftill  improved  by 
Eufebius,  who  has  converted  the  owl  into  an  angel. 
Hill.  Ecclef.  Lib.  II.  c.  lo. 

n.  Vol.  I.  p.  414.  cd.  1788. 

PAGE    68. 

1 2.  Our  author  has  here  inverted  the  words  of  the 
Cod.  Cant,  which  are  tyiviTo  oc7royDy.pn  Trpurrii  an  arrange- 
ment which  is  lefs  favourable  to  his  conjedure  than  that 
which  he  himfelf  has  adopted. 

13.  According  to  the  propofed  emendation,  the  Greek 
of  this  pafllige  is  really  too  bad  to  have  been  written  by 
St.  Luke,  and  the  whole  conftruftion  favours  neither  of 
Greek  nor  Hebrew. 

PAGE   6g. 

14.  The  name  of  a  book  of  the  Talmud.  See  Wolfii 
Bibliotheca  Hebrrea,  Tom.  II.  p.  728.  748. 

15.  In  Lightfoot's  Horse  HebraicjE  in  Matthrtum, 
cap.  xxvi.  ver.  34.  is  the  following  remark.  Mireris  gal- 
lum  gallinaceum  inveniri  Hierofolymis,  cum  canone  pro- 
hibitum fit  gallos  illic  alere.  Bava  Kama,  cap.  7.  '  non 
alunt  gallos  Hierofolymis  propter  facra,  nee  facerdotes 
eos  alunt  per  totam  terram  Ifraeliticam.'  Quonam  modQ 
ct  prsetextu  cum  canone  fit  dilpenfatum  non  difputamus  : 
aderant  certe  galli  gallinacei  Hierofolymis  asque  ac  alibi. 
See  alfo  Meufchen's  Novum  Teft.  ex  Talmude  illullra- 

tum,  p.  119.  ^  ,    _, 

A  a  3  ,  16.  The 


374  NOTES    TO    CHAP.    II.    SECT.   XIII 

16.  The  objedions  of  Reland  with  Schultze's  an-r 
fwers,  and  an  account  of  the  contradictions  between  Jo- 
fephus  and  the  Talmud,  may  be  feen  in  the  following 
work,  Rclandi  de  fpoliis  templi  Hierofolymitani  in  arcu 
T  itiano  Romae  confpicuis  liber  fingularis.  Prolufionem 
de  var  ii>  Ju  Isorum  erroribus  in  defcriptione  hujus  templi 
praemifit  notafque  adjecit  E.  A.  Schultze  S.  Theol.  Doc- 
tor in  Academia  Viadrina.  Trajedli  ad  Rheniim  1775,8'". 

17.  In  the  262''.  fc6lion  of  Michaelis'  Mofaic  Law 
(or  according  to  its  German  tide  Mofaifches  Recht, 
6  vols.  8"°.)  he  treats  of  the  ufual  punifhment  among  the 
Jews  for  adultery.  According  to  the  law  of  Mofes  it 
was  a  capital  offc^nce ;  but  he  had  not  determined  the 
particular  kind  of  death,  having  faid  only  in  general 
terms  ^^^!D^  m!D  Levit.  xx.  ic.  Now  according  to  the 
Talmud  the  ufual  mode  in  thefe  cafes  was  flrangulation, 
whereas  it  is  faid,  John  viii.  5.  *  Mofes  in  the  law  com- 
manded that  fjch  fliould,  be  ftoned  :'  among  other  ob- 
jedlions  therefore  this  has  been  ufed  as  an  argument 
againft  the  authenticity  of  the  whole  relation,  John  viii. 
I — I  r.  To  this  objedion  our  author  replies,  that  the 
Mofaic  law  has  in  no  cafe  prefcribed  flrangulation,  which 
is  a  mere  invention  of  later  Rabbins,  that  capital  offen- 
ders among  the  ancient  Jews  were  either  beheaded  or 
ftoned,  and  that  the  latter,  though  Mofes  had  not  deter- 
mined the  kind  of  death,  was  the  ufual  punifliment  of 
adultery. 


CHAPTER     m. 
SECT.     L 


PAGE    70. 

I .  Thofc  who  are  defigned  for  orders  in  Germany  pafs 
through,  a  regular  fcries  of  Leflures  in  Divinity  during 
at  icait  three  years,  which  are  divided  into  half-yearly 
.   "'■    "  r  ■  courfes. 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.    III.    SECT.    I.  375 

courfes,  In  which  the  feveral  branches,  viz.  hiftorical, 
dogmatical,  polemical,  exegetical,  moral,  and  paftoral 
the°ology  are  refpetlively  treated.  According  to  this  fyf- 
tem  our  author's  introdudion  belongs  properly  to  the 
courfe  of  exegetical  theology. 

2.  Our  author  apologizes  for  not  giving  a  definition 
of  Infpiration,  becaufe  it  is  given  in  all  the  fyftems  of 
dogmatic  theology ;  but  fince  among  the  writers  on  this 
intricate  fubjed  there  prevails  fo  great  a  variety  of  fenti- 
ment,  fome  underftanding  an  infpiration  of  words*  as 
well  as  of  ideas,  others  of  ideas  alone",  a  third  clafs  un- 
derftanding by  infpiration  an  intervention  of  the  Deity, 
by  which  the  natural  faculties  of  the  facred  writers  were 
direcfled  to  the  difcovery  of  truth  %  a  fourth  clafs  affum- 
ing  a  kind  of  negative  intervention,  by  which  they  were 
prevented  from  falling  into  material  error  ^  fome  again 
affuming  a  total  infpiration,  declaring  that  the  fuperna- 
tural  influence  of  the  Deity  was  extended  to  the  moft 
minute  hiftorical  accounts,  while  others  fuppofe  that  it 
was  confined  to  certain  parts  of  fcripture%  not  to  men- 
tion thofe  who  divide  infpiradon  into  modes  and  clafles, 
it  feems  indifpenfable  in  a  treatife  in  which  the  author 
attempts  to  prove  that  the  wridngs  of  the  Apoftles  were 
infpired,  to  define  with  clearnefs  and  precifion  what  he 
himf^lf  at  leaft  underftands  by  this  expreffton.^    This 
omiffion  renders  it  difficult  to  comprehend  what  it  is  his 
intendon  to  demonftrate  j  and  though  the  excufe  which 
he  has  alleged  might  have  been  admitted  for  the  omif- 
fion of  the  treatife  itfelf,  yet,  the  treanfe  once  introduced, 
it  is  no  opology  for  negleding  to  define  the  fubjed  of 
his  inquiry, 

3.  The  difference  between  infpiration  and  revelation 

feems  not  to  have  engaged  the  attention,  of  ancient  au« 

A  a  4  thors ; 

a  Moft  of  the  German  divines  of  the  kft  century,  and  many  in  tlie 
prefent.  Grabe  and  Kiddel  afiume  an  infpiration  of  words  only  in  cer- 
tain cafes :  Jenltln  underttood  rather  a  fecret  guidance  in  the  choice  nt 
them. 

b  Luther,  Beza,  Salmafms.  c  Doddridge. 

i  Warbutton,  Law,  '  Grotius,  Epifcopius,  Lc  Clerc. 


37^  NOTES    TO    CHAP,    III.     SECT.    ?, 

thors;  but  within,  the  lafl:  fifty  years  their  limits  hav<; 
been  de^neci  by  many  German  writers  on  this  fubjeft.. 
Sec  Heilmam's  Compendium  Theologian  dogmaticac, 
p.  30.  and  efpecially  Baumgarten's  DifTertatio  de  dilcri- 
mi.ie  revelationis  et  infpirationis.  All  that  is  neceflary 
to  be  obferved  at  prefcnt  is,  that  the  one  .by  no.  means 
implies  the  other  ;  fmce  a  writer,  who  receives  infpiration 
in  recording  hiftorical  fa6ts  which  he  knew  before,  can- 
not be  faid  to  have  had  a  revelation  ;  and  even  the  latter 
may  exift  without  the  former,  fince,  if  the  doctrines, 
which  were  revealed  by  Chrift,  had  been  recorded  by  the 
Apoftles,  without  any  intervention  of  the  Deity,  during- 
the  aft  of  writing,  we  ihould  have  had  a  revealed  reli- 
gion without  infpiration. 

According  to  Dr.  Benfon's  hypothefis,  infpiration  is  re-, 
velatim  in  the  proper  fenfe  of  the  word.  See  Bp.  Wat- 
fon's  Tra<5ls,  Vol.  IV.  p.  469 — 480. 

4.  It  is  true  that  the  word  xxvuv  fignifies  in  the  Greek 
Teftament  as  well  as  in  the  claffic  authors  *  a  rule,'  but 
in  the  writings  of  the  fathers  of  the  fourth  and  following 
centuries,  after  the  number  of  facred  books,  which  were 
to  be  read  in  the  churches,  had  been  determined  by  pub- 
He  authority,  it  fignifies  a  lift  or  catalogue.  Gregory  of 
Nazianzus,^  in  his  epiftle  to  Scleucus,  having  enumerated 
the  feveral  books  of  the  O.  and  N.  T.  clofes  the  catar 
logue  in  the  following  manner. 

Gregorii  Nazianz.  Op.  Tom.  II.  p.  195.  ed.  Colon. 

Canonical  books  thei;efore  fignify  properly  thofe  which 
Tvere  admitted  by  public  authority  into  the  catalogue  of 
writings  defi:ined  for  the  fervice  of  the  church ;  and 
though  their  divine  origin  was  confidered  as  a  neceffary 
quaUftcation  to  entitle  them  to  this  admiflion,  yet  the 
terms  '.  canonicar  and  *  infpired'  are  by  no  means  fyno- 
nymous. 


PAGE 


NOTES   TO   CHAP.    Iir.    SECT.    I.  211 

PAGE   71. 

5.  I  have  here  taken  the  liberty  to  correct  a  fmall  In- 
accuracy in  our  author's  text.  He  fays  that  the  term 
apocryphal  was  borrowed  from  the  Jews,  whereas  he 
means  to  fay  that  we  have  afcribed  to  a  Greek  word  a 
JcwiOl  notion. 

6.  Not  apocryphal,  as  we  underftand  the  word,  for 
the  ancient  Jews  never  doubted  the  divine  authority  of 
the  Proverbs,  Solomon's  Song,  orEcclefiaftes:  the  Pro- 
verbs arc  frequently  quoted  in  the  New  Tcftament  itfelfj 
and  i^  the  Jews  forbad  the  reading  of  Solomon's  Song, 
and  certain  other  parts  of  the  Old  Teftament  in  the  fy- 
nagogue,  they  were  aduated  by  very  different  motives, 
as  may  be  feen  in  Caftelli  Lex.  Hept.  art,  tiJi,  and  Hot- 
tinger's  Thefaurus  Philologicus,  p.  485.  The  terms  tl^JI 
and  aTTOKoui^o?,  though  fimilar  in  their  original  meaning, 
are  not  fimilar  in  their  ufe  and  application.  It  appears, 
from  the  very  quotation  which  our  author  has  produced 
from  Rabbi  Nathan^  that  the  word  tiiJ  was  applied  to 
books  divinely  infpired,  but  we  apply  the  term  x7roKpv(pog 
to  thofe,  whofe  divine  infpiration  is  denied.  It  is  true 
that  the  ancient  Jews  made  a  diftinftion  (which  varied 
indeed  at  various  periods)  between  books  that  were  to  be 
read,  and  books  that  were  not  to  be  read  in  the  fyna- 
gogue,  which  latter  the  Rabbins  called  D^tl^Jii  but  thefc 
were  included  in  the  facred  canon,  whereas  we  apply  the 
term  oi,7ro}ipv(pog  to  fuch  as  are  excluded  from  it.  The 
JewiHi  Ganufim  were  not  read  in  the  fynagogues,  but 
we  read  the  Apocrypha  in  our  churches.  Thefe  apocry- 
phal books,  which  are  printed  at  the  end  of  the  Old 
Teftament,  are  called  in  the  Talmud  D*i11»»nn  DHSD, 
libri  cjiterni,  (Hottinger's  Thef.  Phil.  p.  518.)  nor  does 
it  appear  that  tDU1i;i  was  the  title  by  which  they  were  in 
general  diftinguiflied.  What  has  been  hitherto  obferved 
relates  only  to  thefe  exprefiions  as  far  as  concerns  the 
Old  Teftament ;  for  the  word  aTroxp^^o?,  when  applied 
by  modern  writers  to  fuch  books  as  have  relation  to  the 
New  Teftament,  fignifies  in  general  *  fpurious,*  in  which 

fenfe 


jyS  NOTtS    TO    CHAP.    III.    SECT.    I. 

fenfe  it  differs  in  a  ftill  higher  degree  from  tIJJ-  Fabri- 
cius  in  his  Codex  Apocryphus  N.  T.  includes  fuch  writ- 
ings as  are  fuppofed  to  be  a  forgery,  whereas  thofe  of  a 
fimilar  defcription  v/hich  have  relation  to  the  O.  T.  are 
contained  in  his  Codex  Pfeudepigraphus.  But  it  would 
be  tedious  and  even  foreign  to  the  prefent  purpofe  to 
enumerate  the  various  fenfes  in  which  «7ro)tpu(po?  has  been 
ufed  both  by  antients*  and  moderns:  every  writer,  pro- 
vided he  gives  a  proper  definition,  is  at  liberty  to  ufe  a 
word  in  the  fenfe  which  he  thinks  the  mofl  convenient ; 
the  meaning  afcribed  to  it  by  our  author  is  '  authentic, 
but  not  infpired';  and  it  will  appear  from  the  fequel  that 
this  notion  muft  be  carefully  diftinguifhed  from  that  af- 
cribed to  it  by  Fabricius. 

PAGE  72. 

7.  Even  this  is  a  matter  of  doubt ;  for  the  value  of 
a  diamond  depends  not  on  the  genuinenefs  of  the  gold 
in  which  it  is  fet,  nor  is  truth  affefted  by  the  inftability 
of  the  vehicle  in  which  it  is  conveyed.  Could  it  be  prov- 
ed that  the  books  of  the  New  Teftament  were  not  writ- 
ten by  the  perfons  to  whom  they  are  afcribed,  it  would 
be  no  neceilary  confequence  that  the  religion  itfelf  were 
a  forgery.  The  truth  of  Chriftianity  might  fubfifl  with- 
out afingle  record;  for  who  would  undertake  to  demon -p 
ilrate,  that,  if  the  New  Teftament  were  annihiUted,  our 
religion  would  therefore  ceafe  to  be  true  ? 

To  prevent  miftakes  in  regard  to  this  note,  care  muft; 
be  taken ;  firft,  not  to  apply  it  to  any  other  paffage, 
than  that,  to  which  the  figure  of  reference  fliews  that  it 
belongs ;  and  fecondly,  not  to  confound  the  abftradt 
truth  of  Chriftianity  with  the  proof  of  that  truth.  The 
words,  to  which  the  note  refers,  are,  "  The  truth  of 
our  religion  depends  upon  the  Lirter,"  that  is,  upon  the 
queftion  whether  the  books  of  the  N.  T.  are  genuine. 
That  this  pofition  is  not  accurate,  will  appear  from,  the 
following  confide  ration.  The  Chriftian  religion  was  as 
true  within  the  firft  ten  years  after  the  death  of  Chrifl:* 

^s 

f  Sfe  Sir.ceri  Thef.  Ecclef.  Tom.  I.  p.  457- 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.    III.    SECT.     I.  ^Jn 

as  it  Is  at  prefent :  but  at  that  time  the  N.  T.  was  not 
wrirten,  confequently  the  truth  of  Chriftianity  could  not 
depend  on  the  authenticity  of  the  New  Teflament. 
Whether  we  fhoulJ  be  able  at  prefent  to  prove  the 
divine  ori^^in  of  Chridianity,  without  the  aid  of  the 
N.  T.,  is  another  in.juiry  :  and  if  our  author,  inftead 
of  faying,  that  the  truth  of  Chriftianity,  had  faid,  that 
the  proof  of  that  truth,  depended  at  prefent  on  the  au- 
thenticity of  thofe  writings,  in  which  its  origin  and  doc- 
trines are  recorded,  I  (hould  certainly  have  admitted  the 
j)orition  without  hefitation. 

8.  PIcre  our  author  makes  a  diftinfbion,  which  is  at 
prefent  very  generally  received,  between  the  divine  origin 
of  the  Chriftian  do6lrine,  and  the  divine  origin  of  the 
writings,  in  which  that  doctrine  is  recorded.  See  Dr. 
Griefbach's  Thefis,  De  theopneuftia  librorum  facrorum, 

"^articula  prima.     Jenas  1784. 

9.  The  comparifon  made  by  our  author  is  between 
the  writings  of  Wolf  and  the  philofophy  of  Leibnitz, 
which  being  lefs  familiar  to  an  Englifh  ear,  I  have  chang- 
ed the  names  into  Maclaurin  and  Newton. 

10.  Erafmus  fays,  Non  eft  necefTe,  ut  quicquid  fult 
in  Apoftolis,  protinus  ad  miraculum  vocemus.  Paflus 
eft  errare  fuos  Chriftus,  enam  pcft  acceptum  paracletum, 
fed  non  ufque  ad  fidei  periculum.  Erafmi  Epift.  l.ib.  II. 
Tom.  III.  p.  97.  ed.  Bafilias,  15 40.  fol.  Grotius,  whofe 
treatife  de  veritate  Chriftianae  religionis  is  confidered  as 
one.  of  the  beft  defences  of  the  truth  of  Chriftianity,  has 
the  following  paflage  in  his  Votum  pro  pace  Ecclefiaf- 
tica,  p.  135.  ed.  1642.  Tom.  III.  p.  672.  ed.  Londin. 
1679.  fol.  A  fpiritu  fanfto  didtari  hiftorias  nihil  fuit 
opus,  fatis  fuit  Icriptorem  memoria  valere.  Le  Clerc 
divides  the  facred  wrinngs  into  three  clafTcs,  prophecies, 
hiftories,  and  doftrines :  in  the  firft  he  admits  infpira- 
tion,  in  the  two  laft  he  abfoluely  denies  it.  See  Senti- 
mens  de  quelques  theologiens  de  Hollande  fur  I'hiftoire 
critique  du  Vieux  Teftament  compofee  par  M.  Simon, 
Lettre  11,  12.  and  Defenfe  des  Sentimens  contre  la  re- 
ponfe  du  Prieur  de  Bolville,  Lettre  lo, 

PAGi 


380        NOTES  TO  CHAP.  III.  SECT.  II. 
PAGE  74. 

1 1 .  According  to  our  author  then,  the  folutlon  of  the 
difficulties  above  enumerated,  if  they  really  are  difficul- 
ties, depends  on  the  dodrine  of  infpiration. 

12.  Here  ends  the  firft  feftion  of  this  chapter  in  the 
third  edition,  and  the  following  paragraph,  which  firft: 
appeared  in  the  prefent  edition,  was  written  after  our 
author  had  in  fome  meafure  changed  his  fentiments  .on 
this  fubjecl.  But  as  what  immediately  precedes  has  re- 
mained unaltered,  there  appears  not  only  a  want  of  con- 
nexion, which  is  frequently  the  cafe  in  this  learned 
work,  where  new  claufes  have  been  inferted  by  the  au- 
thor, but  even  a  contradi6tion,  as  will  appear  from  the 
following  paragraph  of  this  fedion. 

PAGE    75. 

13.  Kiddel,  in  the  beginning  of  the  feeond  ledllon  of 
his  ElTay  on  Infpiration,  entertains  nearly  the  fame  fen- 
timents. The  diftinftion  between  the  infpiration  of  the 
hiftorical  books,  and  that  of  the  epiftles,  is  by  no  means 
new :  Grotius  made  the  fame  dift:in(fl;ion,  and  this  very 
quellion  gave  rile  to  the  famous  theological  difpute  be- 
tween the  Dominicans  and  the  Jefuits.  See  Simon  Hif- 
toire  Critique  du  Texte  du  N.  T.  Tom.  L  ch.  xxiii. 

PAGE  76. 

14.  The  Wolfenbuttel  Fragments,  though  puhlifhed,, 
were  not  written  by  Leffing.  The  author  is  faid  to  have 
been  the  celebrated  Reimarus,  who  wrote  the  Truths  of 
Natural  Religion  vindicated. 


SECT.     ir. 

PAGE    76. 

I.  The  caufe  of  the  perplexity,  with  which  the  In- 
quiry into  the  Canon  has  been  ufually  attended,  is  that 
the  fubjeft  is  of  a  mixed  nature,  partly  hiftorical,  partly 

doo-matical. 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.    III.    SECT.    If.  381 

dogmatical.  The  chief  part  of  the  inquiry  is,  or  ought: 
to  be,  purely  hiftorical ;  for  as  the  word  Canon  fignifies 
a  lift  or  catalogue  of  facred  writings,  the  evidence  of  ec- 
clefiaftical  hiflory  can  alone  determine  what  books  have 
been  admitted  into  this  facred  catalogue  in  various  ages, 
and  by  various  councils.  It  is  Hkewife  in  fome  rcfpeds 
dogmatical ;  for  as  different  councils  have  differed  in 
their  opinions,  it  is  neceffary  to  examine  the  grounds  of 
thofe  opinions.  For  thefe  reafons  few  writers  agree  in 
their  mode  of  treanng  the  fubjeft,  and  it  is  to  be  la- 
mented that  our  learned  author  is  filent  on  this  head,  as 
it  might  be  naturally  expected  that  he  would  have  treat- 
ed it  in  a  more  clear  and  intelligible  manner,  than  molt 
of  his  predecefTors.  On  the  other  hand,  he  is  not  to  be 
cenfured  for  negleft  on  the  prefect  occafion,  becaufe  the 
arguments,  which  he  produces  in  this  fe6lion  for  the  in- 
fpiration  of  the  facred  writings,  apply  immediately  to  the 
Apoftles,  and  their  writings  in  general,  without  reference 
to  this  or  that  book  in  particular.  Thofe  who  would 
examine  this  fubjeft,  may  confult,  befide  the  well  known 
writings  of  Cofin,  Richardfon,  Nye,  Jones,  Lardner, 
&c.  Gerhardi  de  Maftricht  Canon  Scripture  facrce  ec- 
clefiafticus,  Jemc  1725.  Schmidii  Hiftoria  antiqua  et 
vindicatio  canonis  facri  V.  et  N.  T.  Lipfue  1775,  and 
Stofchii  Commentatio  hiftorico-criticade  librorum  N.  T. 
canone.  Francofurd  ad  Viadrum  1755.  Thofe  who  arc 
acquainted  with  German  literature,  will  find  much  new 
and  curious  informadon  in  Dr.  Semler's  Freye  Unter- 
fuchung,  or  Free  Inquiry  into  the  Canon,  3  vols.  ii"^". 
Halle  17';' I — 1773,  Weber's  Beytriige  zur  Gefchichtc 
des  Kanons,  Tubingen  1791,  and  in  Eichhorn's  Reper- 
torium.  Vol.  V.  p.  217.  though  this  laft  treatife  relates 
merely  to  the  Old  Teliament,  but  many  valuable  hints 
may  be  derived  from  it  in  an  inquiry  into  the  Canon  of 
the  New. 

2.  It  is  well  known,  that  the  rejeftion  of  oral  tradi^ 
tion,  and  the  infallibility  of  the  church,  is  one  of  the 
charaderiftics  of  Proteftantifm.  But  Auguftin,  in  his 
book  Contra  cpiftolam  fundamenti,  cap.  v.   fays,  ego 


381  NOTES    TO    CHAP.    III.    SECT.    It, 

vero  Evangelio  non  crederem  nifi  me  commoveret  ec- 
clefias  auftoritas ;  and  Cardinal  Hofius  went  fo  far  as  to 
declare,  *  fcripturas,  fi  defit  ecclefi^  au6toritas,  tantum 
valere  quantum  fabulas  ^fopi.  Hofius  de  au6toritat. 
Script,  contra  Brentium,  Lib.  III.  See  his  whole  trea- 
tife,  p.  513 — 552.  of  the  i''.  vol.  of  Staniflai  Hofii 
Opera,  Colonite  1584. 

PAGE    77. 

3.  Becaufe  the  number  of  canonical  books  was  not 
determined  by  public  authority  before  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, when  the  Chriftian  religion  received  a  civil  efta- 
blifhment. 

4.  For  inftance,  the  council  of  Laodicea  rejefled  the 
Revelation  of  St.  John,  which  in  fubfequent  councils 
was  determined  canonical :  and  the  epiflle  to  the  He- 
brews was  rejedled  by  the  church  of  Rome  in  the  very 
fame  century,  that  the  third  council  of  Carthage  placed 
it  in  the  canon.  Compare  Eufebii  Hift.  Ecclef.  Lib.  IIL 
cap.  iii.  with  the  47th.  rule  of  the  third  council  of  Car- 
thage. 

5.  Jofephus,  who  was  a  Jewifh  Prieft,  is  very  fuffi- 
cient  authority  in  determining  the  number  of  books, 
which  the  Jews  at  that  period  received  as  canonical.  See 
his  teftimony  in  the  treatife  Contra  Apionem,  Lib.  I. 
c.  8.  and  Eufebii  Hift.  Ecclef.  Lib.  III.  c.  10.  which 
is  precifely  the  fame  kind  of  evidence  as  that  of  a  Chrif- 
tian writer  of  the  fourth  century,  in  regard  to  the  num- 
ber of  books  admitted  by  the  Chriftian  church  :  but  that 
his  teftimony  to  the  infpiration  of  the  book  of  the  O.  T. 
Ihould  be  of  more  authority  than  that  of  the  Chriftiari 
church  to  a  book  of  the  N.  T.  feems  really  a  paradox. 

PAGE  78. 

6.  Our  author  enters  here  into  a  critical  review  of  tht 
Koran,  and  p,  95.  to  which  he  particularly  alludes,  he 
argues  againft  the  doftrine  of  Mohammed,  that  an  in- 
ternal divine  fenfation  is  a  proof  of  the  divinity  of  a  re- 
ligion. 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.    III.    SECT.    II.  383 

lig'ion.  It  is  well  known  that  Mohammed  made  no  pre- 
tenfions  to  the  gift  of  miracles. 

7.  Our  author  here  argues  againft  the  opinion  of  Dr. 
SemJer,  who  in  his  Inquiry  into  the  Canon  had  aflferted, 
that  the  internal  excellence  of  the  Chriftian  religion  was 
the  bcft  proof  of  its  divinity.  But  that  is  a  queftion 
which  has  no  reference  to  the  prefent. 

8.  That  the  facred  writings  were  compofed  by  imme- 
diate infpiration  from  the  Deity  is  generally  proved  from 
1  Tim.  iii.  i6.  -za-ao-a  ypatpn  3-£07ri/£-jro?,  as  in  Potter's  Prce- 
le6liones  Theologicce,  and  Kiddel's  Eflay  on  Infpiration: 
from  which  paffiige  likewife  the  name  itfelf  was  borrow- 
ed. Our  author  being  of  opinion  that  this  paflage  has 
no  reference  to  the  New  Teftament  (fee  ch.  i.)  judged 
it  necelTary  to  bring  different  arguments.  But  fome  of 
thefe  are  not  fatisfattory,  as  will  appear  from  the  following 
notes.  On  the  other  hand  we  mud  not  forget  that  a 
weak  argument  is  no  proof  of  the  falfity  of  the  propofi- 
tion,  which  it  is  intended  to  fupport,  fince  abfurd  de- 
monftrations  have  fometimes  been  given  even  of  incon- 
trovertible mathematical  truths. 

PAGE  80. 

9.  To  comprehend  the  force  of  this  argument,  it  is 
neceffary  to  examine  the  palTage  on  which  it  is  founded, 

Matth.  xi.  9 II.      AAAa  TJ  £^y]\d-STS  iSaVy    ■sr^o(pmn^  ;    vcn 

Xtyu)  vfji.iv  xai  zirs^ia-aoTS^ov  zr^oipriTS,  STog  ytx.^  Erif  w£f»  a  y^- 
ypxTTTXi,  tJ'jj  iyco  oiTTOfiXXco  Tou  ayyiXou  jua  sr^o  zs-^o(TUTi}  <rn,  og 
xaTa(7>tEua(r£t  rnv  o§qv  era  s[X7rpo<r^£v  (rn.  A|Uni/  Atyw  ujuif  sk  syn~ 
yiPTOti  £1/  yiMVYiTOiq  ymo(,iv.(jov  ju.El^w^  Imocuvs  th  (SaTrrifa,  0  os  [/.m- 
fiOTipog  £1/  TV)  Pao-tAEia  roov  s^ocvuv  y-ii^oju  otvns  ifiv.      Now  the 

argument  for  the  infpiration  of  the  Apoftles,  which  our 
Author  deduces  from  this  paffage,  confifts,  when  clearly 
dated,  of  the  three  following  fyllogifms. 

The  Prophets  of  the  Old  Teftament  were  infpired. 

John  the  Baptift  was  greater,  than  the  Prophets  of  the 
O.  T.—  Therefore, 

John  the  Baptift  was  infpired. 


j84  NOTES   TO    CHAP.  III.    SECT.  If. 

O  [/.DipoTtpo?  IV  Tvi  pao-iAEtct  Tuv  zpxvuiv  was  greater  thaii 
John  the  Baptifl. — Therefore, 

O  /ujxpoTfpoc)  &c.  was  infpired. 

The  expreflion  o  /uixpoTt/Jo?,  &c.  applies  to  the  Apoftles* 

Therefore,  the  Apoftles  were  infpired. 

To  this  dcmonftration  may  be  made  the  following 
objeftions,  i.  The  propofition,  which  is  the  conclufion 
of  the  firft  fyllogiim  and  the  major  of  the  fecond, 
is  ungrounded,  becaufe  Chrift  himfelf,  in  the  very  paf- 
fage  that  is  quoted,  afTigns  a  totally  different  reafon  why 
John  the  Baptifl  was  to  be  preferred  to  the  Prophets  of 
the  O.  T.  1.  No  reafon  can  be  affigned  why  the  ex- 
prefTlOn  o  [Xixponpo^  a/  TY}  (^xTiXiicc  Twv  apocvuu  fhould  be 
confined  merely  to  the  Apofbles ;  for  fince  j3«(nAa«  rwy 
apavuv  is  univerfally  underllood  to  fignify  in  this  pafTage 
the  fpiritual  kingdom  of  the  MefTiah,  or  the  religion  of 
Chrift,  every  pious  teacher  of  the  Gofpel  may  lay  claim 
to  this  title,  efpecially  as  Chrift  afferts.  Matt,  xviii.  4* 
that  whoever  humbleth  himfelf  as  a  little  child,  fhall  be 
called  even  /xn^wt-  m  rn  j3ao-tA£ja  twv  apauuv.  On  the 
other  hand,  if  the  expreflion  includes  more  than  the 
Apoftles,  as  it  really  muft,  our  author's  argument  proves 
too  much.  3.  On  thefe  principles  we  muft  admit  three 
degrees  of  infpiration,  the  fecond  of  which  is  allotted  to 
John  the  Baptift,  whofe  office  was  merely  to  pave  the 
way  for  the  appearance  of  Chrift,  and  the  very  loweft 
degree  to  thofe,  to  whom  it  is  acknowledged  that  future 
events  were  revealed. 

10.  Our  author  means  at  the  commencement  of  Chrif- 
tianity. 

11.  See  Bardili  fignificatus  primitivus  vocis  sy^opnTn^y 
Goetting-.e  1786,  and  Drefde  de  notione  Prophetse  in 
Codice  facro,  Prolufio  prima  Vitcbergse  1788,  Prolufio 
2.'\  ib.  1789. 

12.  See  Lord  Barrington's  Eflfay  on  the  teaching  and 
witnefs  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  firft  volume  of  his  Mif- 
cellanea  facra. 

7  PAGE 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.  III.    SECT,   Hi  385 

PAGE    82. 

13.  Our  author  has  here  a  very  long  note.  In  which 
he  demonftrates,  that  the  word  Rock  applies  to  Peter, 
which  I  have  taken  the  liberty  to  omit,  becaufc  I  have 
never  heard  of  any  Engliili  divine  that  doubted  it.  It  is 
remarkable  that,  befide  the  Oriental  dialed  fpoken  by 
Chrift,  the  French  is  the  only  language  that  exprelTes 
Peter  and  Rock  by  the  fame  word,  and  with  the  fame 
termination. 

14.  The  promife  given  to  St.  Peter,  that  he  fhould 
be  the  Rock  on  which  the  church  of  Chrift  fhould  be 
founded,  was  made  in  the  prefence  of  St.  Matthew, 
and  St.  John :  if  therefore  it  be  applied  to  the  infpira- 
tion  of  his  wridngs,  it  muft  imply,  if  not  an  exclufive, 
at  leaft  a  more  complete  infpiration  than  St.  Marthew 
and  St.  John  were  to  expe6l.  Of  the  twelve  Apofties, 
to  whom  the  difcourfe  was  direded,  St.  Peter  contri- 
buted in  the  moft  eminent  manner  to  the  foundation 
of  the  Chriftian  religion :  he  was  therefore  aar  s^oxri* 
the  rock  on  which  the  church  was  built,  and  it  is  un- 
necefTary./'in  order  to  fnew  its  ftability,  to  have  re- 
courfe  with  our  author  to  the  Vyritings  of  this  Apoftle, 
fmce  the  beneficial  effe6ls  of  the  zeal,  which  he  exerted 
in  the  firft  century,  would  have  been  felt  in  every  fub- 
fequent  age,  even  had  he  left  not  behind  him  a  fingic 
record. 

15.  From  the  paflage  which  our  author  has  quoted 
from  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel,  it  may  be  inferred  that 
the  Apofties  had  a  divine  commilTion,  but  it  does  not 
appear  to  have  any  reference  to  the  infpiration  of  their 
writings. 

PAGE  83. 

16.  The  v.'ord  ufed  in  the  original  is  Erinnerer,  which, 
as  well  as  the  word  adopted  for  the  tranftation,  is  to  be 
found  in  no  dictionary. 

17.  It  is  unnecelTary  here  to  examine  the  difference 
between  ordinary  and  extraordinary  gifts  as  they  are 
termed  by  the  dogmatifts ;  the  only  queftion  is,  whe- 

B  b  ther 


386  NOTES    TO    CHAP.   III.    SECT.  11. 

ther  the  effufion  of  the  Ts-i/fu/jta  ayjoi-  on  the  day  of  Pen- 
tccoft  was  extended  to  the  Apoftles  during  the  a6t 
of  writing  their  Gofpels  and  Epiftles.  See  Griefbach's 
fecond  Programma  de  theopneuftia  librorum  facrorum, 
Jena:^  17S5. 

PAGE    84. 

18.  For  that  very  reafon  Grotius  concluded  that  an 
infpiration  of  the  hiftorical  books  was  unncceflary. 

PAGE    85. 

19.  The  airexaXuvl/ic,  which  St.  Paul  means  in  this 
palTage,  is  recorded  A  As  ix.  3 — 6. 

20.  Whether  this  paflage  relates  to  divine  infpiration, 
depends  on  the  mode  in  which  it  is  interpreted.  Thole 
who  underlland  it  in  a  fenfe  different  from  our  author, 
contend  that  the  fupernatural  intervention  of  the  Deity 
was  unneceflary  to  inform  St.  Paul  of  a  fact,  which  was 
already  known  to  every  Chriftian. 

21.  I  have  here  ufed  the  words  of  the  Englifh  ver- 
fion,  but  our  author  tran dates  the  paflage  in  the  fol- 
lowing manner.  '  We  deliver  doftrines  in  words  taught 
by  the  Holy  Ghoft,  explaining  infpired  things  with  in- 
fpired  words.'  It  feems  then  that  he  underftands  a  ver- 
bal infpiration,  agreeably  to  the  fentiments  of  many  an- 
cient fathers,  and  many  modern  divines,  who  have  con- 
fidered  the  Apoftles  and  Evangelifts  merely  as  paflive 
inftruments.  It  is  true  that  this  hypothefis  renders  it 
difficult  to  account  for  the  great  variety  of  ftyle  obferv- 
able  in  the  Greek  Teftament :  on  the  other  hand,  feveral 
writers,  efpecially  Ernefti,  contend  that  it  is  difficult 
to  abftrad  an  infpiration  of  ideas  from  an  inipiration  of 
words. 

PAGE   86. 

22.  It  does  not  appear  that  St.  Paul,  In  thefe  paf- 
fages,  contends  either  for  or  againft  infpiration.  i  Cor. 
vii.  10,  II.  he  delivers  certain  doftrines,  which  had  been 
taught  by  Chrift,  and  are  recorded  Matth.  v.  32.  xix.  9, 
Markx.  11,  12.  Luke  xvi.  18.    Here  then  he  had  the 

command- 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.   III.    SECT.  III.  387 

commandment  of  the  Lord.  But  in  the  12th.  verfe  he 
gives  a  precept  which  had  not  been  delivered  by  Chrift, 
or  at  lead  is  no  where  on  record:  in  this  cafe  then, 
having  no  commandment  of  the  Lord,  he  fays  tyu  Xiyu), 
HX  0  Kuf  jof.  The  diftindion  therefore  made  by  St.  Paul, 
is  not  between  infpiration  and  non-inlpiration,  but 
between  thofe  commandments,  which  had  been  actually 
given,  and  thofe  which  had  not  been  given  by  Chrift. 

SECT.      III. 

PAGE    90. 

1.  Eufebius  even  contradifts  himfelf  on  the  fubiect 
of  St.  Luke's  infpiration,  for  in  the  fentence  immedi- 
ately following  that,  in  which  he  affirms  that  the  two 
books  were  infpired,  (Hifl.  Ecclef.  Lib.  III.  4.)  he 
grounds  the  credibility  of  St  Luke's  Gofpel  on  the  cir- 
cumftance  that  the  "author  had  taken  his  accounts  from 
eye-witnefTes,  and  that  of  the  Afts  of  the  Apoftles  on 
the  circumftance  that  the  author  had  been  himfelf  an 
eye-witnefs  to  the  fa6ls  which  he  relates.  Now  a  work 
that  is  divinely  infpired  needs  no  further  proof  of  cre- 
dibility. 

2.  The  account  of  Irensus  is  not  fo  manifeftly  erro- 
neous, as  our  author  afferts.  It  is  true  that  the  Ads  of 
the  Apoftles  are  continued  no  further  than  the  end  of  the 
laft  year  of  St.  Paul's  imprifonment  in  Rome,  whence 
our  author  determines  the  date  of  the  compofition  itfelf. 
See  ch.  ii.  fed.  i.  of  this  Introdudion.  But  this  in- 
ference feems  to  be  ungrounded,  for  it  is  by  no  means 
a  necellary  confequence  that  an  hiftorian  wrote  his  hif- 
tory  in  the  very  fame  year,  with  which  he  clofes  his  ac- 
counts. Should  it  be  objeded,  that  the  friend  and  com- 
panion of  St.  Paul  would  have  continued  his  narrative, 
had  he  written  at  a  later  period,  it  may  be  replied,  that 
the  difcontinuance  of  his  hiftory  may  be  explained  on 
other  principles.  St.  Luke  and  St.  Paul  might  have 
parted  after  the  latter  was  releafed  from  imprifonment, 

B  b  2  which 


388  NOTES    TO    CHAP.  III.    SECT.   HI. 

which  is  really  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Lardner,  (Vol.  VI. 
p.  138.)  in  which  cafe  St.  Luke  might  have  written  his 
hiftory  many  years  after  that  event,  with  which  he  would 
have  finifhed  his  relation  through  want  of  further  ma- 
terials. This  circumftance  alone  therefore  decides  no- 
thing. 

3.  Our  author  has  not  mentioned  in  what  part  of 
Dr.  Lardner's  Works,  but  it  is  Vol.  II.  p.  258. 

4^  When  the  ancient  fathers,  in  order  to  fhew  that 
the  writings  of  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke  are  divine,  refer 
thofe  of  the  former  to  St.  Peter,  and  thofe  of  the  latter 
to  St.  Paul,  it  is  natural  to  fuppofe  that  they  at  lead 
doubted  whether  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke  were  them- 
felves  infpired,  for  an  author  who  is  himfelf  infpired 
needs  no  other  fourcc  of  infalUbility. 

5.  TertulHanus  adv.  Marcionem,  Lib.  IV.  cap.  ii. 

6.  This  tradition  is  firft  recorded  by  Eufebius,  Hift. 
Ecclef.  Lib.  II.  c.  xv.  who  has  mentioned  it  merely  as 
fuch,  without  vouching  for  its  truth.  Befides,  it  is  di- 
reftly  contradidory  to  the  account  given  by  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  who  in  his  vTroTvirucsi;  relates  that,  when 
St.  Peter  was  informed  that  St.  Mark  intended  to  write 
a  Gofpel,  he  neither  prevented  nor  promoted  it,  otte^ 

iirtyvovToc,    rov   Tlirpov   "orp  or  purr  mug   (Ji.v\Ti    ku)Xv(TXi   f/.r,Ti  zrpo- 

T/3£'ia(rS-*».     Vid.  Eufebii  Hift.  Ecclef.  Lib.  VI.  c.  xiv. 

PAGE    91. 

7.  Eufebius  has  taken  nearly  the  fame  fbep  in  his 
Hift.  Ecclef.  Lib.  II.  c.  xv.  where  he  relates  that  St. 
Peter  alludes  in  his  firft  epiftle  to  the  Gofpel  of  St. 
Mark,  but  here  again  he  ufes  the  fufpicious  word  cpxe-i. 

8.  It  is  the  general  opinion  that  St.  Mark  wrote  his 
Gofpel  at  Rome,  under  the  diredion  of  St.  Peter, 
though  contrary  to  the  exprefs  teftimony  of  Clement  of 
Alexandria.  Befides,  Scaliger,  Salmafius,  Spanheim, 
Bower,  and  Semler,  have  either  doubted  or  denied  that 
St.  Peter  ever  was  in  Rome,  notwithftanding  fubfequent 
ages  have  formally  converted  him  into  a  Roman  biihop, 
and  placed  him  a:  the  head  of  the  catalogue  of  Popes. 

Ver/ 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.   III.    SECT.   III.  389 

Very  weighty  reafons  may  be  urged  in  favour  of  their 
opinion,  efpecially  againft  the  relation  of  Eufebius,  who 
in  his  Hid.  Ecclef.  Lib.  If.  c.  xiv.  places  St.  Peter's 
journey  in  the  time  of  Claudius,  and  in  his  Chronicon, 
p.  160.  ed.  Lugdun.  (if  it  be  genuine)  relates  that  he 
fpent  five  and  twenty  years  there  ;  accounts  that  arc 
hardly  to  be  reconciled  either  with  the  A6ls  of  the 
Apoftks,  or  the  epiftles  of  St.  Paul.  But  the  further 
confideration  of  this  fubje^l  mull  be  deferred  to  the  par- 
ticular introduftion  to  St.  Mark's  Gofpel. 

9.  In  this  fenfe  Dr.  Benfon  underftands  the  infplra- 
tlon  of  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke :  *  Though  therefore 
that  alone  hath  been  commonly  called  infpircd  fcrip- 
turc  which  was  written  by  infpiration,  yet  we  here  ex- 
tend that  phrafe  to  fuch  books,  as  were  reviewed  and  ap- 
proved, as  well  as  to  thofe  which  were  written  by  in- 
ipiration.'     See  Bp.  Watfon's  Trads,  Vol.  IV.  p.  471. 

PAGE  92. 

10.  Our  author  might  have  faid  almofl:  three  hun- 
dred years  after  the  event,  for  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
and  Irenseus  make  no  mention  of  this  particular  circum- 
ftancc  i  and  even  Eufebius,  who  is  the  firft  perfon  that 
has  related  it,  gives  it  as  an  uncertain  tradition.  Eufebii 
Hift.  Ecclef.  Lib.  II.  c.  xv. 

PAGE    95. 

11.  Dr.  Benfon  fays,  *  That  St.  Luke  wrote  not  by 
immediate  infpiration  appeareth  from  what  he  himfelf 
faith  in  his  Introduftion.' 

See  Bp.  Watfon's  Trads,  Vol.  IV.  p.  473. 

PAGE    97. 

12.  The  latter  part  of  this  feftion  may  be  compared 
with  Jenyn's  View  of  the  Internal  Evidence  of  the 
Clyiftian  Religion,  p.  122 — 132. 


B  b  3  CHAP- 


390  NOTES    TO    CHAP.  IV.    SECT.  IT. 

CHAPTER      IV. 

LANGUAGE     OF    THE     NEW    TESTAMENT. 

SECT.      I. 

PAGE    97. 

T.  Our  author  difplays  in  this  chapter  profound  eru- 
dition, a  long  and  intimate  acquaintance  with  the  fa- 
cred  writings,  and  principles  founded  on  true  criticifm, 
though  their  application  to  particular  cafes  is  iometimes 
attended  with  inaccuracy,  as  will  be  noticed  in  the 
courfe  of  thefe  remarks. 

PACE   98. 

2.  This  is  to  be  underitood  of  the  public  le<5]:ures  in 
Germany. 

PAGE     JOI. 

3.  Greek  was  fpoken  in  the  cities  of  Galatia,  though 
It  was  not  the  language  of  the  country. 

4.  It  muft  be  obferved,  that  in  this  and  the  follow- 
ing fedions,  our  author  underilands  by  the  word  He- 
brew, not  the  language  fpoken  before  the  Babylonifh 
captivity,  and  in  which  the  books  of  the  Old  Teftamcnt 
were  written,  but  the  common  dialeft  ufed  at  that  time 
in  Jerufalem,  which  many  writers  term  the  Syro-Chaldee. 

PAGE   102. 

5.  The  Greek  Bible  was  fometimes  ufed  even  in  the 
fynagogucs  of  Judaea,  though  probably  only  by  Jews, 
who  were  not  natives  of  that  country.  See  Buxtorf's 
Lexicon  Chad.  Talm.  Rabb.  p.  104. 

SECT.      11. 

PAGE     103. 

T.  This  dream  of  Hardouin  hardly  deferves  a  place 
in  this  Introdudion,  and  were  it  not  accompanied  by 

the 


NOTES    TO    CHAP,    IV.    SECT.    III.  39I 

the  learn(d  and  jiidicioiis  remarks  of  our  author,  the 
tranflator  would  have  been  juftified  in  omitting  it. 

SECT.       III. 

PAGE     III. 

1.  The  term  '  Seventy'  has  been  appropriated  by 
long  ufage  to  exprefs  the  writers  of  the  Greek  verfion; 
it  is  ufed  therefore  by  our  author  agreeably  to  the  com- 
mon pracStice,  though  no  one  can  fuppofe  that  he  gives 
credit  to  the  celebrated  ftory,  which  was  believed  during 
fo  many  centuries. 

2.  Alexandrinus  refers  to  the  city  Alexandria,  Alex- 
andrianus  to  Alexander. 

PAGE   112. 

3.  See  Dr.  Owen's  hiftorical  and  critical  account  of 
the  Septuagint  verfion,  fed.  i. 

PAGE   113. 

4.  This  fhort  but  excellent  elTay  is  written  in  Ger- 
man, and  entided  Michaelis  Programma  worin  er  von 
feinen  Collegiis  ilber  die  70  Dollmcifcher  Nachricht 
giebt,  Gottingen  1767.  In  the  page,  to  which  our 
author  refers,  he  delivers  the  fame  fentiments,  as  in  the 
paflage  of  his  Introduction,  but,  as  he  gives  no  exam- 
ples, an  extra(5t  is  unnecefTary. 

PAGE    114. 

5.  Our  author,  in  his  excellent  treatife  on  the  Syrlac 
language,  written  in  German,  the  fecond  edition  of 
which  was  publifhed  at  Gotdngen  in  1786,  ufes  the 
word  Aramaean  as  a  nomen  genericum,  of  which  the 
Chaldee  and  Syriac  are  fpecies.  The  former  is  called 
the  Eafl-,  the  latter  the  Wefb  Aramsean,  and  he  fliews 
in  the  fecond  fedion,  that  thefe  are  in  fa6l  one  and  the 
fame  language,  or  that  their  difference  confifts  in  the 
difference  of  the  charaders,  and  the  difference  of  pro- 
nunciation. 

B  b  4  PACK 


39^  NOTES    TO    CHAP.    IV.    SECT.    IV, 

PAGE     115. 

6.  An  abflrail  of  that  part  of  our  author's  Programma, 
to  which  he  here  refers,  will  be  given  In  the  Notes  to 
that  fe6lion. 

7.  See  Buxtorf's  Thefaurus  Linguas  Hebras^,  p.  639 

SECT.      IV. 

PAGE     116. 

1.  Yet  this  do6lrine  was  maintained  by  Erafmus, 
Luther,  Melancthon,  Camerarius,  Beza,  Drufius,  Ca- 
faubon,  Glaffius,  Gataker,  Solanus,  Olearius,  and  Vor- 
ilius,  though  denied  by  Pfochenius,  Stolberg,  Schmidj 
Georgi,  and  Blackwall.  See  Ernefti  Inftitutio  Inter- 
pretis  N.T.  p.  41.  ed.  3""*.  Lipfias  1775. 

2.  The  modern  advocates  for  the  purity  of  the  lan- 
guage, in  which  the  Greek  Teflament  is  written,  have 
been  ignorant  perhaps  that  Origen  and  Chryfoftom,  who 
of  all  the  ancient  fathers  were  beft  able  to  diftinguifh 
clafTic  from  unclaffic  Greek,  were  directly  of  a  contrary 
opinion.  See  Simon  Hiftoire  critique  du  Texte  du  N.T, 
ch.  26.  and  Wetitenii  Libelli  ad  crifm  atque  interpreta^ 
tionem  N.  T.  Halce  1766,  p.  48 — 60, 

PAGE    121, 

3.  A  particular  account  of  the  writings  of  thofe  au- 
thors, who  have  engaged  in  this  controverfy,  may  be 
feen  in  Walchii  Bibliotheca  Theologica,  Tom.  IV. 
p.  276 — 289.  See  alfo  Fabricii  Bibliotheca  Grreca, 
Tom.  IV.  p.  224 — 227.  To  the  authors  enumerated 
by  Walch,  and  Fabriciiis,  may  be  added  Dr.  Camp- 
bell, who  in  the  firft  part  of  his  Firft  Preliminary  Dif- 
fertation  has  an  excellent  effay  on  the  language  of  the 
New  Teftament. 

PAGE  122. 

4.  In  thefe  cafes  therefore  no  Hebraifm  can  take 
pUcet     I'he  whole  fentcnce  in  the  original  is  very  ob- 

Icure, 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.    IV.    SECT.    V.  393 

fcure,  and  I  have  not  been  able  to  render  it  more  clear 
in  the  tranflation. 

SECT.       V. 

PAGE     123. 

1.  Thefe  are  explained  in  every  Lexicon  on  the  New 
Teftament,    of    which  the   moil    valuable   is   that  o(A 
Schleufner,  publifhed  at  Leipzig  in  1 792,  in  two  vols.  8vo.  ■      \ 

PAGE  124. 

2.  This  very  excellent  Grammar,  which  is  written  in 
German,  was  publifhed  at  Gottingen  in  1781.  In  the 
place  to  which  our  author  refers,  he  takes  notice  of  the 
frequent  repetition  of  the  Vau  pr^fixum  in  Arabic,  as 
well  as  in  Hebrew. 

3.  See  GlalTii  Philologia  facra,  Tom.  I.  p.  394 — 396, 
cd.  Dathe. 

4.  Becaufe  there  is  no  fuch  verb  in  Hebrew. 

5.  The  German  phrafe  ufed  by  our  author  to  exprefs 
literally  TlJin  HiH  is  '  der  Mann  da,'  which  rendered 
word  for  word  is,  ^  that  man  there ;'  an  expreflion  which 
favours  at  prefent  of  vulgarifm,  yet  exa6tly  correfponds 
to  the  Hebrew. 

PAGE     125. 

7.  See  GlafTii  Philologia  facra,  Tom.  I.  p.  67 — 79. 
ed.  Dathe, 

pag£  126. 
7.  The  ufe  of  the  two  pronouns  «  and  auVa  feems  not 
to  be  perfedlly  parallel  in  this  example  to  the  ufe  of  lli^ii 
with  the  fuffix  of  the  following  word,  for  the  two  Greek 
pronouns  belong  to  two  different  fubllantives,  whereas 
the  fmgular  conftruftion  of  1ti*{<  confifls  in  its  being  ap- 
plied to  the  very  fame  word  which  has  likewife  a  fuffix. 
See  Buxtorf's  Thefaurus,  p.  395.  To  render  the  phrafe 
a  Hebraifm,  it  muft  be  written  ov  to  s^lvov  aura  tv  t«  x^'f » 


394  NOTES    TO    CHAP.   IV.     SECT.  V. 

fiiuT« :  and  Jiiftin  Martyr,  in  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho, 
quotes  precifely  in  this  manner.  Our  author  in  order  to 
iiluflrate  the  Hebraifm,  has  added  11*2  ")::^^?,  but  it  may 
be  afked  whether  "W^i^^  when  ufed  plecnaftically,  is  ever 
followed  by  a  prefix.  In  the  other  examples,  which 
our  author  has  taken  from  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel, 
ch.  viii.  1,5,  23,  28.  the  Angularity  of  the  conftruftion 
confifts  in  the  repetition  of  aurw,  but  it  does  not  appear 
in  what  manner  this  is  connedled  with  the  Hebrew  pro- 
noun relative. 

8.  See  Note  3.  to  chap.  i. 

9.  Whoever  reads  this  fentence  will  naturally  fuppofe 
that  the  Seventy  have  ufually  tranQated  Hii  by  &»/co?,  it  is 
therefore  neceffary  to  obferve,  that  though  nVi  is  ufed 
forty-five  times  in  the  Hebrew  Bible,  the  Seventy  have 
rendered  it  only  in  feven  inftances  by  uxo?,  namely  2  Sam. 
li.  26.  Jerem.  iii.  5.  Amos  i.  11.  viii.  7.  Job  xxxvi.  7.- 
Lam.  iii.  18.  v.  20.  In  one  inftance,  i  Chron.  xxix.  11. 
it  is  rendered  vixn,  in  other  cafes  it  is  tranflated  aiwv,  rtAor, 
iz-oAvg  x^°^°'^>  ai/u.a,  paraphrafed  by  Krx^^y  ^c.  as  thofe  will 
find  who  take  the  fame  pains  to  compare  with  the  Sep- 
tuagint  the  examples  of  flif  J  which  are  given  in  BuxtorPs 
Concordance.  Now  the  objeft  of  the  prefent  inquiry  is 
not  to  difcover  what  new  fenfes  may  be  invented  for  uxo; 
hy  the  aid  of  foreign  literature,  but  to  afcertain  the 
meaning,  which  the  Seventy  defigned  to  exprefs  by  it, 
and  this  comparifon  renders  it  at  leaft  doubtful  whether 
they  intended  to  afcribe  to  uxo?  the  fame  extent  of  mean- 
ing, as  n^'j  admits  in  the  Hebrew  j  for  in  that  cafe  there 
could  have  been  no  neceffity  for  ufing  different  Greek 
words,  according  to  the  different  fenfes  of  the  Hebrew 
original.  BieJ,  in  his  Lexicon  ad  LXX  Interpretes,  Tom. 
ii.  p.  387.  fays,  that  Aquila  has  rendered  r\y:y7  by  tj?  uxor, 
in  one  or  two  inftances,  where  the  Seventy  have  ufed  ui 
TfAOf.  But  this  is  no  proof  that  vixc<;  and  tiAo?  are  fyno- 
nymous,  and  fhews  only  that  different  tranllators  have 
differently  underftood  the  original  Hebrew  :  for.  on  fuch 
principles  we  might  conclude  that  the  words  '  vi6lory* 
and  '  eternity'  are  fynonymousj  becaufe  the  fame  Greek 

word 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.   IV.    SECT.  V.  39^ 

word  which  Luther  has  rendered  by  the  former,  Michaelis 
has  tranflated  by  the  latter. 

It  does  not  appear  then  from  the  authority  of  the  Sep- 
tuagint,  and  certainly  not  from  the  authority  of  any  claffic 
author,  that  we  have  any  reafon  to  afcribe  to  vixog  the 
fenfe  of  either  *  truth'  or  *  eternity.'  With  refped:  to  the 
former,  we  may  venture  to  go  a  Hep  further,  and  doubt 
whether  the  Hebrew  word  itfelf  is  capable  of  that  mean- 
ing. It  is  true  that  we  find  in  Simonis's  Hebrew  Lexi- 
con, among  other  explanations  of  n':^Jl  that  of  Veritas ; 
and  in  fupport  of  this  meaning  appeal  is  made  to  the 
four  following  pafTages,  Job  xxxiv.  36.  Habbakuk  i.  4. 
Lament,  iii.  1 8.  Prov.  xxi.  28.  But,  what  is  an  extraor- 
dinary circumftance,  the  Seventy  have  not  rendered  it  in 
one  of  thefe  examples  by  aXn^nu,  or  by  any  other  word 
cxprefiive  of  truth  -,  and,  what  is  ftill  more  extraordinary, 
in  not  a  fingle  inftance  in  the  whole  Bible.  The  authors 
therefore  of  the  Alexandrine  verfion,  who  muft  be  fup- 
pofed  to  have  underflood  Hebrew,  have  never  afcribed 
to  nV2  the  fenfe  of  truth ;  and  the  Syriac  tranflator  of 
the  Old  Teftament,  if  we  except,  the  laft  example,  has 
iifed  no  word  that  even  borders  on  that  meaning.  Hab. 
i.  4-  nVib  is  rendered  \L<:i^\^.  Job  xxxiv.  36.  ni*3  *TJ^  is 
rendered  fsjoio  j.1^.  Lament,  iii.  18.  n'.^^  is  tranflated  JJ^^. 
and  Prov.  xxi.  28.  where  r\)i^b  is  rendered  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint  <pvX(x<r<ro[ji.iuig,  we  find  in  the  Syriac  verfion  -^-fr-;^, 
which  is  derived  from  ^;^  refta  contendit.  The  evidence 
of  the  Vulgate  is  equally  unfavourable  with  that  of  the 
Septuagint,  nor  does  it  appear  that  any  Lexicographer  or 
tranflator  has  rendered  n)S}  by  Veritas,  before  the  time  of 
the  celebrated  Albrecht  Schultens,  for  neither  Buxtorf 
nor  Caflel  have  taken  it  in  this  fenfe.  It  may  be  afked 
then  by  what  means  the  learned  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury have  made  this  difcovery,  a  queflion  to  which  pro- 
bably no  other  anfwer  can  be  given,  than  that  the  Arabic 
verb  ^Aa3,  which  in  the  firft  conj.  fignifies  monuit,  is  ex- 
plained in  the  third  conj.  vere  refteque  fe  habuit.  Now 
not  to  mention  that  the  Hebrew  and  Arabic  verbs  in  this 
inftance,  though  fimilar  in  form,  are  difcordant  in  fenfe, 

nothing 


J96  NOTES    TO    CHAP.  IV.    SECT.  V. 

nothing  can  be  more  uncertain  than  an  attempt  to  ex- 
plain the  meaning  of  a  word  on  principles  of  etymology. 
In  proof  of  this,  we  need  only  to  have  recourfe  to  the 
Englifh  word  *  virtue,'  which  is  at  lead  as  nearly  allied  to 
the  Latin  virtus  and  the  Italian  virtu,  as  the  Hebrew  pTifJ 
to  the  Arabic  ^vasj.  But  if  a  learned  philologer,  who 
lived  in  fome  diftant  country,  and  was  unacquainted 
with  the  aftual  ufage  of  the  Englifh  language,  fhould 
invefligate  the  meaning  of  the  word  *  virtue'  by  help  of 
the  Latin,  he  would  afcribe  to  it  the  fenfc  of  *  valour,*  if 
by  the  help  of  the  Italian  that  of  *  a  tafte  for  the  fine 
arts.'  Future  critics  will  have  recourfe  perhaps  to  the 
^thiopic,  like  Schultens  to  the  Arabic,  and  difcover 
with  the  fame  eafc  that  ni»J  has  the  fenfe  of  innocence 
and  chaftity. 

10.  It  does  not  appear  what  connexion  this  pafTage  in 
Ifaiah  has  with  an  explanation  of  hko?  by  means  of  nif^ 
for  HD}^  not  n^'i  is  there  ufed. 

PAGE    127. 

11.  The  Seventy  have  here,  as  ufual,  tranflated  Dt2i^ 
literally  and  properly  by  «x>i3-£ia.  -  There  feems  no  room 
for  the  admiiTion  of  a  Hebraifm,  and  had  they  ufed  uxo? 
on  this  occafion,  it  would  have  been  the  only  inftance  in 
the  whole  Septuagint. 

12.  This  conjedure  was  made  by  Ludovicus  Cap- 
pellus,  but  it  is  Supported  by  the  authority  of  no  manu- 
fcript,  and  no  verfion.  Befides  n^^J^  Hab.  i.  4.  is  tranf-, 
lated  in  the  Septuagint  ek  nXog. 

13.  If  we  admit  that  he  thought  in  Hebrew  when  he 
wrote  ng  vixof,  does  it  follow  that  he  thought  on  ni»Jj  if 
he  had  DDi^  before  his  eyes  ? 

14.  That  Hxo?  here  fignifies  *  truth,'  depends  on  the 
two  following  conditions,  i.  That  n^i  has  that  fenfe. 
2.  That  the  Greek  word  is  ufed  in  the  fame  latitude  as 
the  Hebrew.  The  firft  condition  is  improbable,  the 
fecond  almoft  impofiible,  as  appears  from  note  9.  But 
even  if  we  allow  that  the  Hebrew  word  admits  that  fenfe, 

m 


NOTES    TO   CHAP.   IV.    SECT.  V.  29"] 

no  inference  can  be  deduced  with  refpeft  to  the  Greek, 
for  nVJ  fignifies  hkewife  '  viflory,'  and  that  this  is  the 
Icnfe  which  the  Seventy  intend  to  exprefs,  when  they  ren- 
der it  by  Hxo?,  or  at  leaft  not  that  of  truth,  appears  from 
the  circumftance,  that  they  have  never  ufed  it  for  ^ID^^  or 
any  other  Hebrew  word,  whofc  literal  and  proper  fenfe  is 
Veritas.  The  Syriac  tranflator  hkewife  has  taken  kko?, 
Matth.  xii.  20.  in  the  fenfe  of  *  vidlory,'  for  he  has  tranf- 
lated  it  by  1-^1,  though  n.trN'b  Ifaiah  xlii.  3.  is  rendered 
j^aoo.  'whether  the  Greek  text,  as  it  ftands  at  pre- 
fent,  Matth.  xii.  18,  19,  20,  21,  which  is  certainly  not 
taken  from  the  Septuagint,  be  an  accurate  tranflation  of 
the  Hebrew,  Ifaiah  xlii.  i,  2,  3,  is  another  inquiry.  Mr. 
Bowyer  propofes  to  alter  vmo;  to  uaoc. 

15.  That  uxo?  here  fignifies  '  eternity'  depends  again 
on  the  fuppofition  that  it  may  be  ufed  in  the  fame  la- 
titude as  n'i'i,  which  the  above-mentioned  comparifon 
renders  highly  improbable.  It  is  true  that  fmce  the 
time  of  Glaflius,  who  adopted  this  explanation  in  his 
Philologia  facta,  it  has  been  fafhionable  for  above  a  cen- 
tury to  explain  uxog  in  this  paflage  by  '  eternity,'  and 
thofe  have  been  accufed  of  ignorance  who  have  not 
known  that  this  was  its  meaning.  Becaufe  nVi  is 
fometimes  tranflated  wx.o?,  and  admits  the  fenfe  of  eter- 
nity, it  has  been  concluded  that  wxoj  has  the  fame  mean- 
ing, without  examining  the  paffages,  or  comparing  the 
Hebrew  with  the  Greek. 

The  queftion  may  be  determined  with  ftill  greater 
certainty  by  comparing  the  ancient  verfions.  i  Cor  xv. 
54.  xccTiTTodn  S-ataroj  n;  nKOf  is  rendered  in  the  Syriac  ver- 
fion  of  the  N.  T.  JZ.gou:>  \L^  v\:ioa).,,  and  in  the  Vulgate 
abforpta  eft  mors  in  vicloria.  The  paflage  itfelf  is  taken 
from  Ifaiah  xxv.  8.  n-^^^  m*jn  vbx  which  in  the 
Septuagint  is  rendered  Kan-miv  0  ^xvaTog  i(Tyy<Ta,q,  and  in 
the  Syriac  verfion  Rc^io  jZ-oic  vi^i^Zu.  Here  are  feveral 
circumftances  that  are  worthy  of  notice,  i.  The  Seventy 
imderftood  not  nVjb  in  this  paflage  in  the  fenfe  of  in 
sternum  j  for  in  that  cafe  they  would  not  have  ufed 
icynj(TCKi;j  but  £»f  nXo^i  OX  £»?  «»cckx,  -as  m.ay  be  feen  on 

comparing 


JpS  NOTES    TO    CHAP.    IV.    SECT.    V. 

comparing  the  paflages  produced  by  Buxtorf.  l.  The 
Syriac  tranflator  of  the,  O.  T.  has  ufed  |Z.a:jv^,  cum  vic- 
toria. 3.  The  Syriac  tranflator  of  the  N.  T.  has  rendered 
►/xof,  I  Cor.  XV.  54.  by  the  very  fame  word.  4.  Jerom 
has  tranflated  it  by  victoria.      5.  St.  Paul  immediately 

after  the  CXprefllon  ej?  vi-ao-  adds  wa  o-a,  S'avarf,  to  Kfurpov  ; 

TO-a  (r«,  a.hi  to  uxo?  ;  Now  no  writer  whatfoever  can  ufc 
the  lame  word,  on  one  and  the  fame  fubjed,  and  almoft 
in  the  fame  line  in  fenfes  fo  different  as  viftory  and  eter- 
nity, without  expofing  himfclf  in  a  very  high  degree  to 
the  charge  of  obfcurity.  Having  examined  the  evidence 
in  favour  of  the  tranflation  '■  viftory,'  impartiality  re- 
quires that  we  fliould  produce  fuch  evidence  as  can  be 
brought  againft  it.  In  the  Vulgate  X^*i^,  Ifai.  xxv.  8. 
is  rendered  in  fempiternum ;  the  fame  is  exprelTed  in  the 
Chaldee  paraphrafe,  and  the  Syriac  tranflator  of  the  Old 
Tefl:ament  immediately  after  |Z.covo  has  added  ^iaX:x\, 
as  if  he  doubted  in  which  of  the  two  fenfes  he  fhould 
take  TO^,  and  therefore  exprefled  both.  But  this  affedls 
the  Hebrew  only,  and  not  the  Greek,  which  alone  is  the 
obje(ft  of  the  prefent  inquiry ;  and  fmce  this  addition 
was  rejedled  by  the  Syriac  tranflator  of  the  N.  T.  it  ra- 
ther augments  than  diminiflies  the  force  of  thefe  argu- 
ments, as  far  as  relates  to  i/dco?. 

Inftead  therefore  of  feeking  for  an  Hebraifm  in  uxo?, 
may  we  not  apply  it  to  xotTSTroh  ?  The  verb  ufed  in  the 
Hebrew  is  yb'£>  and  in  the  Syriac  verfion  as  well  i  Cor. 
XV.  54.  as  Ifaiah  xlii.  3.  we  find  v^^o.  Thefe  are  one 
and  the  fame  verb  fignifying  literally  abforpfit,  and  figu- 
ratively vicit.  On  this  principle  the  paflTage  in  queftion 
would  be  tranflated,  *  Death  is  overcome  with  triumph.* 
It  is  at  Icaft  an  accurate  tranflation  of  the  Syriac  text, 
to  which  more  deference  is  due,  than  to  a  commentator 
of  the  eighteenth  century. 

16.  2^0  fignifies  literally  jacuit,  coivit,  and  niDtJ^', 
cubatio,  coitus.  That  the  Seventy  have  taken  HlUti^  in 
this  fenfe  appears  from  the  very  tranflation  koitvi  ;  for  to 
apply  a  word  which  fignifies  cubile,  to  exprefs  efilifio,  is 
a  metaphor  fo  forced  and  unnatural,  that  it  is  hardly  to 

be 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.   IV.    SECT.  V.  309 

be  fuppofed  in  any  writer  whatfoever.  It  is  our  author's 
intention  to  Iliew  that  noirt]  admits  the  fenfe  of  femen; 
but  neither  the  Greek  nor  the  Hebrew  word  is  capable 
of  that  fenfe,  where  the  one  is  followed  by  <nrEp[jt,ocTog,  the 
other  by  Vll  With  refpeft  to  Rom.  ix.  lo.  which  thefe 
pafiages  in  the  Septuagint  are  defigned  to  illuflrate, 
though  more  difficult  themfclves  than  the  pafTage  in 
queftion,  the  cleareft  and  earlieft  explanaticyn  is  that  o-iven 
by  Dr.  Rofenmiiller,  in  his  Scholia  in  N.  T.  Kojt»i  re- 
fpondens  hebr.  2:ilJ^D  et  nnDt:^  primo  fenfii  eft  cubile, 
dcinde  per  metonymiam  adjundi  a-fjaj/w?  fic  exprimitur 
concubitus  :  deinde  per  longius  euntem  figuram  con- 
ceptio,  quod  inde  patet,  quia  additur  t^  £vo?,  et  concipere 
ex  ahquo  dicitur. 

17.  The  reafon  affigned  by  Eve  for  calling  her  firft 
born  fon  \^p  is  c^»{<c  »n*3p. 

PAGE     laS. 

18.  It  is  true  that  n"im  p  is  tranflated  Exod.  x.  29. 
by  a^y,iiac,  but  the  Hebrew  as  well  as  the  Greek  verb  in 
this  inftance  is  rather  expreffive  of  command,  than  of 
affirmation  or  approbation,  and  \p  may  be  more  properly 
tranflated  '  thus'  than  either  '  rightly'  or  *  well,'  which 
lail  is  ufed  in  the  Enghffi  verfion,  for  though  Mofes 
complied,  he  approved  not  the  conduft  of  Pharaoh. 
The  king  of  Egypt  had  ordered  Mofes  to  depart  from 
his  prefence,  and  had  threatened  him  with  death  if  he 
again  ventured  to  approach  him  i  to  which  Mofes  re- 
plied, '  Thou  haft  thus  commanded,  I  will  fee  thy  face 
no  more. 

19.  Even  in  Attic  Greek  fimilar  expreflions  were  ufed 
to  denote  affirmation.  UkXiu  0  Kvpog  n^uTW  Ouk«v  vftpov, 
ug  xvTog  <rv  cy.oXoyiig,  a<J'  utt'  £^a  a^nnsfxivog,  UTrofocg  eig  Mucraf 
HAnug  £7ro»£»f  TJii/  f^nv  ^oopav,  0  ri  ihvta    E(f»  o  O/)0^T»)?. 

Xenophont.  Exp.  Cyr.  min.  Lib.  I.  c.  6.  p.  55. 
ed.  Zeune. 

20.  In  the  following  literal  tranflation  the  order  of 
the  Arabic  words  is  retained,  tu  dixifti,  et  contra  fpiri^ 
turn  tuum  teftatus  es. 

ar.  Of 


400  NOTES    TO    CHAP.   IV.    SECT.   V. 

21.  Of  this  fingular  people,  who  live  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  Mount  Lebanon,  are  governed  by  their  own 
Emir,  who  is  independent  of  the  Turks,  and  have  a  re- 
ligion peculiar  to  themfelves,  a  full  and  accurate  defcrip- 
tion  may  be  feen  in  Eichhorn's  Repertorium,  Vol.  XII. 
p.  io8 — 224.  Thofe  who  are  unacquainted  with  Ger- 
man literature  will  find  the  beft  account  in  Adler's 
Mufeum  Cuficum  Borgianum,  Romse  1782.  Likewife 
Arvieux  and  Niebuhr  have  defcribed  them  in  their 
Travels. 

22.  Becaufe  no  one  would  corre6t  XxX^vroq  to  T^rXn^^vrogy 
whereas  the  other  correflion  is  natural  and  obvious. 

23.  Our  author  refers  here  to  his  Note  on  i  Mace. 
iv.  19.  and  he  there  refers  to  this  part  of  his  Introduc- 
tion ;  but  in  both  places  is  given  the  fame  explanation 
of  xsXnfouy  and  nearly  in  the  fame  words. 

PAGE      129. 

24.  Our  author's  conjedlure  that  ^b^  was  ufed  i  Mace, 
iv.  19.  in  the  original  language  in  which  that  book  was 
written,  is  highly  probable,  as  the  Syriac  tranflator  has 
^\^,  and  Jofephus  SixXiyoixai.  Nor  is  it  improbable  that 
the  Greek  tranflator  either  miftook  \h^i  locutus  eft, 
for  K^rj,  implevit,  or  in  the  copy  from  which  he  tranf- 
lated  found  the  latter  falfely  written  for  the  former.  He 
tranflated  therefore  literally  by  xs-ah^ow  the  word  which 
either  was  in  his  copy,  or  which  he  fuppofed  to  be  there  : 
but  it  is  neither  a  neceffary  nor  a  probable  confequence, 
that  TC-Ar^ow  through  this  miftake  acquired  the  fenfe  of 
the  verb,  which  ought  to  have  been  tranflated. 

Our  author  goes  even  a  (tep  further,  and  on  the  fup- 
pofition  that  vrx-n^ou  admits  the  fenfe  of  loquor,  makes  a 
rranfition  to  that  of  doceo,  which  he  applies  to  Matth. 
v.  17.  Luke  vii.  i.  Rom.  xv.  19.  This  is  to  invent  a 
fenfe  for  which  there  is  no  authority  j  but  even  if  srA»)^ow 
were  capable  of  that  meaning,  we  fhould  be  no  gainers 
by  its  application  to  thefe  three  paflages,  which  are  per- 
fectly intelligible,  according  to  their  literal  tranflation. 
With  refpecl  to  the  firll.  Match,  v.  17.  sx  rihhv  x«T«xuo-a» 

(fci!; 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.  IV.    SECT.  V.  401 

(rcil.  i/OjEAov  xoti  zs^o(pt]Tx^)y  ocXXoi  zTXripu(rixi,  it  feems  to  be 
our  author's  inteniion  to  obviate  an  ancient  objedion 
to  this  pafTage,  '  that  Chrift  abolifhed  the  Mofaic  law^ 
and  therefore  cannot  be  faid   to  have  fulfilled  it.'     But 
it  may  be  replied  to  this  new  explanation,  that  if  Chrift 
taught  the  Mofaic  law,  he  cannot  be  faid  to  have  abo- 
lifhed it.     Dr.  Campbell  has  rendered  the  pafTage,  '  I 
am  not  come  to  deflroy,  but  to  ratify  ;'  and  in  different 
commentaries  we  find  different  explanations,  all  of  which 
are  grounded  on   the  fuppofition  that  Chrift  had  for- 
mally abolifhed  the  law  of  Mofes.     But  where  does  this 
appear  from  any  one  fmgle  fpeech  or  aflion  of  our  Sa- 
Tiiour  ?    He   was  circumcifed,  educated  as  a  Jew,  fre- 
quented the  fynagogue,    fupported  the  honour  of  the 
temple,  and  fandlioned  by  his  prefence  the  celebration 
of  the  Jewifh  feafls.     He  cenfured  the  hypocrify  of  the 
Pharifees,  and  the  falfe  gloffes  of  the  Rabbins ;  but  he 
refpeded  the  honour  of  their  lawgiver,  and  fhewed  in 
his  general  conduft  a  deference  to  the  rules  prefcribed 
by  the  Pentateuch.     His  declaration  to  the  woman  of 
Samaria,  that  the  rime  fhould  come  when  they  fhould 
neither  worfhip  on  mount  Gerizim  nor  in  Jerufalem, 
relates  only  to  the  holinefs  of  the  place  of  worfhip  ;  and 
implies  by  no  means  an  abolirion  of  the  forms,  that  were 
then  in  ufe  in  the  fynagogue  of  Jud^a,  which  are  prac- 
tifed  by  the  Jews  at  this  very  day  in  every  quarter  of 
the  globe,  as  far  as  circumftances  permit.     It  is  true 
that  Chrift  propofed  in  one  or  two  inftances  an  amend- 
ment of  the  Mofaic  laws,  for  inftance  in  that  reladve  to 
divorces.     But  an  amendment  of  a  fingle,  or  even^  of 
feveral  laws  cannot  be  conftrued  into  a  formal  abolition 
of  the  whole  conftitution :  and  this  laft-menuoned  ex- 
ample in   parricular   affefts   not  our   prefent  queftion, 
which  relates  not  to  the  civil  polity  of  the  Jews,  but  to 
their  religious  rites  and  ceremonies.     If  Chrift  had  com- 
manded his  difciples  to  rejed  the  Mofaic  inftitutions, 
would  the  Apoftles  affembled  at  Jerufalem,  feme  time 
after  his  death,    have  commanded,  in  the   inftrudions 
which  they  fent  to  the  converts  at  Anuoch,  an  abftinence 
C  c  ^rof" 


4G2  NOTES    TO    CHAP.   IV.    SECT.  W 

from  meats  offered  to  idols,  from  blood,  and  from  things 
ftrangled,  in  the  fame  fentence,  and  in  the  fame  pofitive 
manntr,  as  they  commanded  an  abftinence  from  forni- 
cation ^  ?  Would  St.  Peter,  before  he  had  the  vifion  in 
the  houfe  of  Cornelius,  have  made  adiftindlion  between 
the  Jew  and  the  Gentile''?  And  when  in  confequence 
of  the  vifion  he  preached  to  the  uncircumcifed,  would 
his  behaviour  have  excited  aftonifhment  among  the  elders 
and  brethren  in  Jerufalem "  ?  It  is  a  known  fa6l  that  the 
primitive  Chriftians  in  Jerufalem,  till  the  capture  of  that 
city  by  the  Romans,  dill  adhered  to  the  Levitical  law, 
and  had  not  the  fevere  penalties  inflitled  by  Hadrian  on 
the  Jews  deterred  the  Chriftians  in  i£lia  Capitohna  from 
exercifing  the  rites  of  the  fynagogue,  it  is  probable  that 
in  the  countries  adjacent  to  Paleftine,  the  example  of  the 
Nazarcnes  would  have  been  more  generally  followed,  and 
the  law  of  Mofes  united  v/ith  the  faith  of  Chrift.  The  out- 
ward forms  of  the  Jewifh  religion,  objefts  unworthy  the 
attention  of  our  Saviour,  he  permitted  to  take  their  na- 
tural courfe;  he  delivered  doftrines  and  precepts  for  the 
belief  and  condu6t  of  his  followers,  but  h(t  it  undeter- 
mined, whether  the  edifice  in  which  they  affembled 
fhould  be  called  a  fynagogue  or  a  church.  Inftead 
therefore  of  taking  refuge  in  forced  explanations  to  refcue 
the  pafTage  from  contradi6lion,  where  no  contradiftion 
exifts,  we  may  reply  to  the  objedion,  that  its  premifes 
are  falfe. 

25.  It  is  probable  that  the  ancient  Hebrew  or  South 
Canaanitic  became  extind  as  a  living  language  during 
the  captivity  ;  the  Jewifh  children,  who  were  born  in  Ba- 
bylon, having  learnt  Chaldee,  in  the  fame  manner  as  the 
children  of  the  French  refugees  have  learnt  Englifn  ; 
who  would  be  unable,  fliould  they  return  to  their  origi- 
nal country,  to  fpeak  the  language  of  their  anceftors. 

PAGE  J31. 

26.  This  quotation  from  the  Talmud  has  little  fimi- 
larity  to  Rom.  ii.  i  — 11.  vv'hich,  as  our  author  himfelf 

fays, 

"Aftsxv.  29.  b  Aas  X.  14.  28.  cAasxi.  1— 3. 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.    IV.     SECT.    V.  403 

fays,  it  Is  defigned  to  illuftrate ;  and  even  the  fingle 
Rabbinical  expreflions,  if  we  except  one  inftance,  vary 
materially  from  thofc,  which  are  fuppofcd  to  correfpond 
to  them  in  the  Greek.  In  the  palTage  of  Hofea,  to 
which  reference  is  made  at  the  end  of  the  quotation,  no 
allufion  is  made  to  judicium  vcritatis. 

27.  Publiihed  by  Dr.  Frank,  at  Halle,  In  1742.  In 
the  page  to  which  our  author  refers,  the  Indian  proverb 
itfelf  is  quoted,  Yaney  oritudti  nurheigra-pole,  ac  fi 
elephantus  per  oftiolum  intrare  geftiret. 

PAGE   133. 

28.  But  if  the  fubjefl  were  not  in  fome  refpecls  new, 
how  could  Nicodemus  anfwer,  ver.  9.  zjux;  c^uKxrat  t«u7» 
yivitr^xi;  The  regeneration  defcribed  John  ii.  3 — 10. 
is  not  purely  Rabbinical,  for  the  Rabbins  afcribed  it  to 
baptifm  and  circumcifion,  whereas  it  is  here  afcribed  to 
baptifm  and  the  fpirit.  See  Meufchen's  Nov*.  Tcft.  ex 
Talmude  illuftratum,  p.  301. 

29.  I  muft  afk  pardon  of  our  author  for  having  fub- 
Hituted  this  fentence  in  place  of  a  long  confutation  of 
abfurd  opinions,  from  which  the  Englifh  reader  would 
-derive  neither  entertainment  nor  infbruftion. 

30.  This  work,  which  is  written  in  German,  was  pub- 
lifhed  at  Gottingen  in  1784,  but  it  is  not  one  of  the  belt 
of  his  produ6tions.  In  the  feclion  to  which  he  refers,  he 
gives  precifely  the  fame  explanation  as  in  this  Intro- 
du6lion. 

31.  The  examples  produced  by  Buxtorf,  in  the  place 
to  which  reference  is  here  made,  are  rathc^r  a  confirma- 
tion of  the  common  explanation,  than  of  that  g'vcn  by 
our  author:  at  leaft  Buxcoif  explains  CD'^ti^  CDlt^^  by 
propter  Deum,  which  correfponds  to  tne  coiTiinon  ex- 
planation of  £1/  o^o^oPn  X^^^s  by  propter  Chriftum. 

PAGE    134.   . 

32.  ]^!2^:nb  '^■t^N\n>*3J,  judges  xix.  14. 

22'  Dr.  Rofenmiillcr,  in  his  Noce   to  this  paflage, 

makes  the  following  very  ju(t  remark  on  this  explanation 

c  c  2  ^  of 


404  NOTES    TO    CHAP.  IV.    SECT.  V. 

of  our  author,  Prasferenda  elTet  fine  dubio  base  expllcatlo, 
fi  Marcus  addidiffet  verbum  ysy^aTrTai,  vel  Atya  r  7f««p*J, 
lit  Rom.  xi.  2. 

PAGE     135. 

34.  See  Note  4.  to  fed.  3''.  of  this  chapter.  But  be- 
fide  the  two  principal  divifions  into  Eaft  and  Weft  Ara- 
mcean,  or  Chaldee  and  Syriac,  a  branch  of  this  language 
has  been  difcovcred  by  ProfefTor  Adkr,  which  differs  in 
fome  refpefls  from  both,  and  is  defcribed  in  the  third 
part  of  the  Novi  Teftamenti  Verfiones  Syriacse,  Simplex, 
Philoxeniana,  et  Hierofolymitana,  denuo  examinatse,  et 
ad  fidem  Codd.  MSS.  Bibl.  Vaticanse,  Angelicse,  AfTe- 
manianas,  Medicfca?,  Regiae,  aliarumque,  novis  obf.atque 
tabulis  asneis  illuftratae  a  J.  G.  Adler,  Hafniae  1789,  4*^ 

^S.  Livy,  (Lib.  XXVIII.  c.  xxxviii.)  fpeaking  of 
the  chief  magiftrates  of  Carthage,  names  them  not  Con- 
fules,  but,  according  to  the  Phoenician  language,  Suf- 
fetes,  a  word  which  correfponds  to  the  Heb.  D^Dflltt^. 
The  fingle  Chaldee  words  here  mentioned  by  our  author 
are  explained  in  the  Lexicons  to  the  New  Teftament. 

26.  As  this  treatife  is  written  in  German,  it  is  necef- 
fary  to  give  an  abftraft  of  our  author's  explanation  of 
thefe  three  pafTages.  The  expreflion  T/Euo-so-S-aj  ^avara, 
John  viii.  52.  Heb.  ii.  9.  he  illuftrates  by  two  Syriac 
paflages  from  the  works  of  Ephraem.  The  firft  is  taken 
from  Aflemani  Bibl.  Orient.  Tom.  I.  51.  Z\-JPio:oHw 
:a:^.^j»  ^.Ns,  which,  tranflated  word  for  word,  is  '  one 
death  is  over  us  which  we  (hall  tafte.'  The  other  ex- 
ample, taken  from  Ephraem's  Commentary  on  Genefis, 
Tom.  I.  p.  46.  explains  at  the  fame  time  the  reafon  of 
the  metaphor,  the  exprelTion  being  ufed  *  to  tafte  the 
cup  of  death,'  \Lq^]  jiio.  To  obviate  the  objedion  that 
might  be  made  to  this  Syriafm,  that  the  exprefiion  was 
made  by  a  Syrian  Chriftian,  who  might  have  adopted  it 
from  the  New  Teftament,  he  produces  a  quotation  from 
an  Arabic  Heathen  poet,  who  ufes  the  fame  phrafc, '  to 
drink  the  cup  of  death,  or  deftrudion,'    ^Jcii^  (jmI.^. 

2  Cor.  xii.  7.   i^i^v  [J.01  (DCoAo^j/   Tij  (xx^yA  ocyyiXoi  Sai- 


TOiV, 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.   IV.    SECT.   V.  405 

rocvy  ii/ot  jus  xoXoc(pi^Yi.  Our  author,  having  previoufly 
obferved  that  it  was  ufual  among  the  Jews  to  afcribe  all 
difeafes  to  the  influence  of  evil  fpirits,  who  were  con- 
fidered  as  emifTaries  of  Satan,  produces  the  following 
fimilar  expreflion  of  a  Syriac  writer,  ( AfTemani  Bib.  Or. 
Tom.  I.  p.  215.)  who,  fpeaking  of  a  diforder  with  which 
he  had  been  afflicted,  fays,  that  he  was  *  fmitten  on  the 
cheek  on  account  of  his  fins,'  |oi^*/  ^  A-ooi  ww2U5iD  ^. 

The  third  example  o-xa^^aAi^w  he  illuftrates  from  the 
ufe  of  the  Syriac  verb  \W3.  It  is  generally  faid  that 
<rxa>^aA<^£(rS-aj  tv  rivi  is  an  Hebraifm,  becaule  the  com- 
mon Greek  expreflion  is  ■u!fo<TKOTi\nv  th/»,  or  nq  t*,  and  it 
is  explained  as  fuch  in  Vorftii  Comment,  de  Hebraifmis 
N.  T.  cap.  xxiv.  §  lo.  where  recourfe  is  had  to  the 
Hebrew  word  blJ^D.  Now  as  the  Hebrew  and  Syriac 
verbs  are  in  this  inftance  precifely  the  fame,  it  feems  at 
firft  fight  a  matter  of  indifference  whether  we  ufe  the 
term  Hebraifm  or  Syriafm  j  but  as  the  Syriac  tranflator 
of  the  N.  T.  renders  a-xai/^aXi^w  by  Wao,  and  the  Heb. 
7li^D  is  tranflated  a-xau^xXi^u  in  only  one  inftance  of  the 
Septuagint,  viz.  Dan.  xi.  41.  and  even  this  inftance 
was  unknown  when  our  author  firft  publilhed  his  treatife 
on  the  Syriac  language,  the  Codex  Chigianus  being 
jprinted  in  1772,  he  was  certainly  juftified  in  referring 
it  to  the  clafs  of  Syriafms. 

37.  This  fenfe  is  afcribed  to  it  neither  in  Caftelli 
Lexicon  Heptaglotton,  nor  in  Buxtorfs  Lexicon,  Chald, 
Talm.  Rabbinicum,  though  the  elder  Buxtorf  devoted 
his  whole  life  to  the  ftudy  of  Rabbinical  writings. 

38.  The  literal  tranflation  of  the  original  is  *  inhabi- 
tation of  the  Holy  Spirit.'  Our  author,  to  fhew  that 
bb^,  which  fignifies  in  Pael  texit,  obumbravit,  is  ap- 
plied to  exprefs  the  inhabitation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  re- 
fers to  2  Chron.  ii.  55.  but  that  chapter  has  only  eighteen 
verfes,  and  relates  to  a  totally  different  fubjea.  Buxtorf 
has  quoted  near  twenty  palTages  where  bb'\D  is  ufed  in 
the  Chaldee  paraphrafe,  but  he  has  explained  none  of 
them  in  that  particular  fenfe  which  is  here  adopted  by 
our  author.     And  even  if  we  admit  that  b'b'CO  is  capable 

c  c  3  of 


406  NOTES    TO    CHAP.    IV.     SECT.    V. 

of  this  meaning,  it  does  not  appear  what  inference  can 
be  deduced  with  refpecl  to  fTrjc-itja^w,  which  is  ufed  in 
the  Septuagint  for  \J^  habitavit,  and  "jJD  texit. 

pag£   136. 

39.  Here  it  is  extremely  difficult  to  comprehend  the 
force  of  our  author's  reafoning,  even  if  we  add  a  circum- 
fTance  wliich  he  has  omitted,  though  abfolutely  necef- 
fary  in  order  to  enforce  his  argument,  viz.  that  ettjo-ki- 
«^w,  Luke  i.  15.  is  tranflated  in  the  Syriac  verfion  by 
^^j  texit.  Hence  is  derived  jjoj.^ thalamus,  probably 
from  the  hangings  with  which  it  was  ornamented,  but 
no  inference  can  be  deduced  from  a  derivative  to  its  pri- 
mitive, and  the  acceflbry  idea  which  takes  place  in  the 
fubftantive,  forms  no  part  of  the  notion  exprelTed  by  the 
verb.  If  then  the  notion  of  a  nuptial  bed  is  incapable 
of  being  transferred  from  the  Syriac  noun  to  the  Syriac 
verb,  ftill  lefs  can  it  be  transferred  to  the  Greek  verb, 
for  which  it  is  ufed.     See  Caftelli  Lexicon  Hept.  p.  346. 

577- 
PAGE     137. 

40.  This  work  of  our  author  is  written  in  German, 
and  was  publiflied  at  Halle  in  1783.  In  the  part  to 
which  he  refers,  he  gives  the  fame  explanation  of  ua^x- 
<rx£uyi  as  in  this  Introduction,  and  likewife  illuftrates  its 
ufe  from  palTages  of  the  Greek  fathers. 

41.  As  our  author  explains  sTrKputTnoo,  Matth.  xxviii.  i. 
Luke  xxiii.  54.  as  a  Syriafm,  and  has  recourfe  to  the 
verb  ;cnj  it  is  natural  to  fuppofe  that  it  is  the  verb  which 
is  ufed  by  the  Syriac  tranflator  for  in-KpooaKu,  but  he  has 
rendered  it  in  both  places  by  ci^. 

4a.  I  have  been  obliged  to  retain  this  term,  with  the 
alteration  only  of  its  termination,  becaufe  it  has  acquired 
in  German  the  force  of  a  proper  name.  Every  reader 
will  know  that  it  is  derived  from  p^p*iro|Oia3-fja,  which  fig- 
nifies  loci  optimi  et  delecli  e  fcriptore.  The  Germans 
then  ufe  the  expreffion  Syrifche  Chreftomathie  to  ex- 
prefs  what  \ve  fhould  entitle  Selecla  e  fcriptoribus  Syris. 

43.  The 


NOTES    TO    GHAP.    IV.    SECT.  V.  407 

43.  The  quotation  which  our  author  here  produces 
from  AfTcmani  Bib.  Or.  Tom.  I.  p.  212.  differs  from 
the  text  of  the  original,  in  refped  to  the  very  word  for 
which  the  quotation  is  made,  for  ;ou  is  not  ufed  in  tliat 
palfage.  The  text  in  Affeman  is  jouto  ^  woi^.  This 
example  therefore  is  of  no  ufe  on  the  prefent  occafion : 
the  fame  may  be  faid  of  the  fecond  example  from  Af- 
feman, where  =^^  is  likewife  ufed. 

44.  The  bald  manner,  in  which  our  author  has  tranf- 
lated  the  Syriac,  has  unavoidably  occafioned  the  fame 
bald  tranflation  in  the  Englifh,  it  being  the  duty  of  a 
tranfilator  to  reprefent  fiithfully  the  ideas  of  the  v/riter, 
whole  works  he  delivers  to  the  public,  and  to  attend  not 
only  to  the  meaning  of  a  quotation,  as  it  is  generally 
underftood,  but  as  it  is  underflood  in  particular  by  his 
author.  This  will  ferve  as  an  apology  for  the  uie  of  the 
extraordinary  and  unclaflical  expreflion  *^  to  light  in.' 
The  German  word  is  hereinleuchten,  which  is  an  a6live 
verb,  and  fignifies  to  '  introduce  with  lights,'  and  has 
a  very  different  meaning  from  the  neuter  verb  lucefco, 
the  ufual  tranflation  of  ;aij,  and  which  is  adopted  by 
Jofeph  Sim.on  Affeman,  a  Syrian  by  birth.  Sec  Afle- 
mani  Bibl.  Orient.  Tom.  IL  p.  257.  It  is  allowable  to 
fay  that  the  day  is  introduced  by  the  night,  but  the  no- 
tion of  the  day  being  lighted  in  by  the  night  involves 
fo  manifeft  a  contradiftion,  that  neither  the  affiflance 
of  a  metaphor,  nor  cf  any  other  figure  of  rhetoric,  is 
fufRcient  to  defend  it. 

45.  In  the  Arabic  Chreflomathy,  or  Seledla  e  fcripto- 
ribus  Arabicis,  p.  97.  is  ufed  the  verb  gj,  to  which 
our  author  refers  as  an  inllance  where  the  Arabic  verb 
fignifies  apcruit,  and  this  is  alleged  as  a  proof  that  the 
Syriac  jou  admits  the  fame  meaning.  Now  fetting  afide 
the  inconclufivenefs  of  this  etymological  argument,  .5 
fignifies  literally  and  properly  fodit,  and  is  particula.ly 
applied  to  the  bed  of  a  river,  correfponding  to  the  He- 
brew "IHJ.  See  Caftelli  Lexicon  Heptaglotton,  p.  2236. 
where  likewife  the  meaning  of  the  verb  ;ou  may  be  fecn, 

c  c  4  which. 


408  NOTES    TO    CHAP,   IV.    SECT.  V. 

which,  as  well  us  the  Chaldee  verb  "iriij  is  explained 
by  no  word  expreflive  of  aperuit. 

PAGE  138. 

46.  But  if  the  Chaldee  'inj,  and  the  Syriac  ;au,  fig- 
nlfy  literally  and  properly  illuxit,  what  neceffity  is  there 
for  having  recourfe  to  an  unwarranted  literal  fenfe,  in 
order  to  have  the  trouble  of  returning  to  a  fenfe  which 
is  here  called  figurative,  though  really  literal.  No  one 
will  deny  that  the  Eaflern  nations  united  the  idea  of  an 
opening  with  that  of  the  break  of  day ;  "TntJS  aurora, 
is  nearly  connected  with  ^  fidit,  and  HpH  diJuculum, 
with  'ij  fidit.  The  connexion  is  natural  between  the 
dawn  of  day  and  rays  of  light  breaking  through  the 
clouds,  but  if  ;ou  is  applied  to  exprefs  the  commence- 
ment of  the  Jewilh  day,  which  began  at  fun-fet,  all 
connexion  is  deftroyed  between  this  literal  fenfe  of  the 
verb,  provided  this  fenfe  exifts,  and  the  rifmg  of  the  fun. 

47.  Namely  the  two  firfl  Syriac  pafTages,  for  our  au- 
thor makes  no  ufe  of  the  third,  becaufe  ;ou  is  not  ufed 
there.  But  we  mufh  not  forget  that  though  ;oij  is  found 
in  the  fecond  example  in  our  author's  text,  it  is  not  in 
that  of  AfTeraan:  we  have  therefore  no  other  concern 
than  with  the  firft  example. 

48.  Here  our  author's  argument  proves  againfl:  him- 
felf,  for  if  we  fay  '■  the  night  of  Tuefday  opens  the  great 
faft  day',  which  can  have  no  other  meaning  than  '  the 
night  of  Tuefday  introduces  the  great  fafl  day,'  it  is  a 
contradiftion  to  fay  that  the  great  faft  day  began  the 
evening  before.  To  fet  this  matter  in  a  clear  light,  we 
muft  recoiled  that  the  word  Day  is  ufed  in  a  two-fold 
fenfe,  either  in  oppofition  to  darknefs  or  night,  or  ex- 
prefTive  of  a  period  of  four  and  twenty  hours,  which 
among  the  Jews  began  at  fun-fet.  Now  when  ;aij  is 
immediately  preceded  by  ^2:^,  nox,  as  in  this  example, 
there  can  be  no  doubt,  even  if  we  admit  the  fenfe  afcribed 
to  it  by  our  author,  that  it  refers  to  the  natural,  not  the 
civil  day. 

49-  If 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.   IV.    SECT.  V.  4O9 

49.  If  '  Saturday  afternoon  at  five  o'clock'  were  ex- 
preflTed  in  the  original  Syriac,  and  ;ou  ufed  on  that  oc- 
cafion,  there  would  be  fome  reafon  for  admitting  the 
fenfe  afcribed  by  our  author  to  the  Syriac  verb.  But  in 
Affemani  Bib.  Or.  Tom.  I.  p.  212.  whence  our  author 
quotes  the  pafiage  in  part,  and  gives  a  tranflation  of  the 
reft,  no  mention  is  made  of  Saturday  afternoon  at  five 
o'clock,  but  on  the  contrary  V-^^i  ,-.1^  a::^Ao,  tertia 
hora  no6lis. 

50.  But  if  the  arguments,  which  have  been  ufed  to 
prove  this  extent  of  meaning,  appear  infufficient,  its  ap- 
plication to  i-TKpbsTiico  is  of  courfe  inadmifllble. 

51.  But  die  dominica  inlucefcente,  immediately  pre- 
ceded by  medium  noftis,  muft  neceflarily  relate  to  the 
morning,  and  Adler  has  quoted  thefe  words  with  that 
very  view.  He  has  likewife  produced  a  pafiage  from 
Epiphanius,  where  iTntpua-xu  is  applied  to  the  morning, 
but  the  difficulty  is  to  find  a  pafiage  where  it  is  applied 
to  the  evening.  If  sTnfwtr^w,  Matth.  xxviii.  i.  Luke 
xxiii.  54.  be  explained  as  a  Syriafm,  the  verb  moft  fuit- 
able  to  the  occafion  is  undoubtedly  cn^.  This  is  ufed 
in  both  pafiages  by  the  Syriac  tranflator  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament ;  we  have  here  therefore  an  evident  connexion 
between  the  Syriac  and  the  Greek  verb  eftablifhed  by 
aftual  ufage ;  and  as  the  writers  of  the  Greek  Teftament 
were  more  accuftomed  to  the  Syriac  than  the  Greek,  it 
was  by  no  means  improbable  that  they  fliould  take  in 
an  equal  latitude  two  words,  that  were  reciprocally  tranf- 
lated  the  one  by  the  other.  In  Caftelli  Lex.  Hept.  01^ 
is  explained  illuxit,  but  it  is  added,  dicitur  etiam  de 
luce  nodturna,  and  the  noun  oi^  is  explained  vefpera. 
Now  it  is  true  that  no  inference  can  be  deduced  from  a 
derivative  to  a  primitive,  but  there  is  an  inftance  in 
the  Syriac  verfion  where  the  verb  itfelf,  or,  which  is 
the  fame  thing,  the  participle,  feems  applied  to  the 
evening.     John  xix.  31.    the  Greek  text  Ot  sv  Is^xioi, 

ti/a   j!x»    [Miivn    tTTi   T8   fOiV^'^i   rx  <ruy.oi.rot,  £i/  tw  (toc^Qoctw,   nrii 
TsrocooKTXivn  viv,    (^Yiv  yoc^  [AiyoiKn  n   viy.i^x  i-AHvn   ra    a-xh^ocraj 

ripMTr\70iv,  x.T.A.  is  thus  exprefled  in  the  Syriac  verfion, 

Judsei 


4IO  NOTES    TO    CHAP.    IV.    SECT.    V. 

Jiidei  aiitem  quia  parafceve  erat  dixerunt,  Non  per- 
no6tabunt  corpora  hac  in  cruce,  quia  fabbatum  ir^ 
lucefcebat,  (l^i^  JAoat).  It  is  an  extraordinary  cir- 
cumftance  that  this  exprefTion  is  here  ufed  in  the  Sy- 
riac,  though  wanting  in  our  prefent  Greek  text,  but 
the  verb  <^<5!  is  appHed  to  the  labbath  itfelf,  exaftly  in 
the  fame  manner  as  Luke  xxiii.  54.  and  to  the  day  fol- 
lowing the  fabbath,  Matth.  xxviii.  i.  Now  whoever 
compares  the  verfe  above  quoted,  viz.  John  xix.  31. 
with  the  events  recorded  in  the  preceding  and  following 
verfes,  will  be  convinced  that  the  fubjedt  relates  not  to 
the  morning,  but  to  the  evening.  By  thefe  means 
therefore  the  conclufion  of  our  author  may  be  eflablifli- 
ed,  though  by  premifes  different  from  his  own.  The 
preceding  explanation  is  given  merely  on  the  fuppa- 
iition,  that  our  author  is  right  in  endeavouring  to  pro- 
cure for  £7ri(pu(T-/.u  a  new  fenfe  in  Matth.  xxviii  i.  But 
in  fa6t  the  context  at  Matth.  xxviii.  i.  o^s  ^s  croi^Qxrui/y 
T/i  eTri^ojcTKHcrYi  ii;  [jt-iocv  (Toc^^xTuvj  neither  requires,  nor  ad- 
mits, any  other  fenfe  for  £TKpw(r/.c<;,  than  the  ufual  one. 
OtJ/c  o-abeJKTwv  does  not  fignify  "  in  the  evening  of  the 
fabbath,"  but  "  on  the  clofe  of  the  fabbath,"  or  "  when 
the  fabbath  was  ended :"  for  ovls,  when  ufed  as  a  pre- 
pofirion  before  a  genitive  cafe,  fignifies  "  at  the  clofe," 
or   '^   at  the  end."     See   Schleufner's   Lexicon,    f.  v. 

Confequently  tvi  iTrnpua-n'^a-^  (fcil.  ri[j.s^x)  ng  iJ,nx,v  (rocQQxTccvj 
can  have  no  other  m.eaning  than  "  the  day  dawning  to- 
v/ard  the  firft  of  the  week,"  or  the  "  twilight  on  funday 
morning  having  juft  commenced."  Our  author  Jiimfelf, 
about  two  years  after  he  had  publilhed  the  lad  edition 
of  his  Introduftion,  adopted  this  explanation  -,  for  in  his 
German  verfion  of  the  New  Teftament,  printed  in 
1790,  he  tranflated  Matth.  xxviii.  i.  thus;  "  In  der 
Dammerung  nach  dem  Sabbath,  als  der  erile  Tag  der 
woche  antrach."  This  tranflation  manifeftly  fhews  that 
he  had  ihen  abandoned  the  explanation  of  £7ri<?w(r>iw  as 
Matth.  xxviii.  i.  which  he  gave  in  his  Introdudion. 
liven  Luke  xxiii.  54.  he  has  rendered  by  "  Der  Tag,  da 
dies  gefchah  war  ein  Freytag,    gleich  vor  antrach  des 

SabbathSi'^ 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.    IV.    SECT.   V.  41 1 

Sabbaths,"  which  fhews   that  he  there  alfo  underftooc^ 
zTriipwtTxui  as  applying  to  the  morning  Hght. 

52.  c_5;*;  fignifies  properly  brevis  et  compreffus; 
why  our'author  has  ufed  this  word  in  the  fcemiaine  I 
am  unable  to  explain.  With  refpeft  to  the  derivation 
of  ^jv.1  from  this  Arabic  word,  it  is  attended  with  the 
following  inconvenience.  Though  in  the  formation  of 
Chaldee  and  Syriac  nouns  fubllantive,  it  does  appear  to 
be  ufual  to  add  to  the  radicals  of  the  word,  from  which 
they  are  derived,  the  termination  K2,  yet  the  Nun  in 
\i\^'\  feems  to  be  a  radical,  and  Nun  is  wanting  in  the 
Arabic  word,  from  which  our  author  derives  the  Syriac. 
Neither  Schaaf  or  Caftcl  have  derived  it  from  any  Syriac 
radix,  but  the  latter  has  placed  it  in  the  fame  clafs  with 
the  Hebrew  word  VU  fera. 

53.  It  is  true  that  they  are  diftinft  words,  but  all 
three  have  a  common  meaning,  and  all  three  perhaps  a 
common  origin,  for  Sajin,  Nun,  and  a  quiefcent,  feems 
to  be  the  radical  part  of  each,  Buxtorf  derives  ]'Jlt 
from  K^T  fcortari,  confiJcring  tares  as  a  kind  of  fpuri- 
ous  corn ;  why  therefore  may  not  the  Syriac  noun  be 
derived  from  jji,  which  correfponds  to  the  Chaldee  {«^;jt, 
^nd  the  Arabic  ^  ^^'.  But  here  again  the  repetition  of 
the  firft  radical  creates  a  difficulty,  and  after  all,  the 
word  in  queftion  is  perhaps  an  moy.ocT07rs7roin[xi)/ou,  in 
which  cafe  all  attempts  to  difcover  a  radix  muft  be 
fruitlefs. 

54.  The  word  here  ufed  in  the  German  is  Mittagf- 
mahlzeit,  which  fignifies  properly  noon-meal :  I  have 
been  obliged  to  render  it  by  dinner,  though  it  is  not 
^n  accurate  tranflation,  becaufe  the  word  dinner,  in 
confcquence  of  an  alteration  in  the  time  of  eating  in 
England  has  altered  its  meaning,  and  no  longer  corre- 
fponds to  prandium,  but  to  ccena.  With  refped  to  the 
time  when  the  Greeks  partook  of  their  meal  which  they 
called  oioifouy  fee  Potter's  Greek  Antiquities,  Vol.  IL 
p.  IV.  ch.  16.  and  Kypke  Obf.  facr^Cj  Tom.  I.  p.  414. 

PAGE 


412  NOTES    TO    CHAP.    IV.    SECT.    V. 

PAGE     139. 

55.  i^^SDl'^Di  xpao-TTE^oi/,  ora,  fimbria,  limbus,  Bux- 
torf 's  Lex.  Ch.  Talm.  Rabb.  p.  1097.  I  know  not 
why  our  author  has  written  it  in  the  plural,  unlefs  it  is, 
to  render  its  fimilarity  ilill  greater  to  the  Greek  fingular.- 

56.  Our  author  probably  concludes  that  K1DDT1D 
fignifies  a  tafTel,  as  well  as  the  border  of  a  garment,  be- 
caufe  this  word  in  the  Chaldce  paraphrafe.  Numb.  xv. 
38.  is  immediately  followed  by  J^DiD,  which  in  the 
Latin  tranflation  of  the  Chaldee  paraphrafe  is  rendered 
angulus.  Like  wife  the  Hebrew  t]3D  is  rendered  in  the 
fame  paffage  t^Tf/Juyjov  by  the  Seventy,  and  angulus  by 
Jerom. 

57.  As  pearls  are  the  produce  of  the  Eaft,  it  is  more 
reafonable  to  fuppofe  that  the  Greeks  borrowed  the 
name  from  the  Orientalifts.  In  Arabic  and  Perfian 
/..^L>j^  fignifies  a  pearl,  whence  the  Greeks  derived 
tHeir  jtAapyapoy,  nor  is  it  necefiiary  to  have  recourfe  to 
the  termination  of  (^»pyoipiTn;y  becaufe  ^^^l  is  a  very 
common  termination  of  nouns  fubftantive,  both  in  Sy- 
riac  and  Chaldee. 

58.  j^y^  fignifies  both  lapis  pretiofus,  and  margarita, 
and  the  Arabic  tranflator  of  the  New  Teftament  has 
ufed  this  word  for  jotapyaptrti?  in  the  three  paflages 
quoted  by  our  author,  viz.  Matth.  vii.  6.  xiii.  46. 
Rev.  xxi.  21. 

59.  Our  author  refers  to  the  four  pafTages,  Rev.  ii, 
24.  Gal.  vi.  2.  5.  and  Rom.  xv.  i.  as  inflances  where 
the  Arabic  proverb  is  ufed.     In  the  firft  we  find  fimply 

it  (3aXw  i(p  vfA-uq  uX^^o  )3a^of,  in  the  fecond  uKXnXuv  ra,  |3apj3 
(ixfCer^iTij  in  the  third  SKxrog  to  i^iov  (pofliov  (Saraera,  in 
the  fourth  ra,  o<.a-^iUv\[Ji,aToc  twi/    a^vvKlui  ^ocfoc^uv.       Now  it 

does  not  appear  that  the  imputation  of  guilt  to  an  in- 
nocent perfon,  inftead  of  the  culprit,  is  a  notion  appli- 
cable to  any  one  of  thefe  paflfages.  Befides,  the  Arabic 
proverb  is  fo  natural,  and  fo  common  in  all  languages, 
that  inftead  of  an  Arabifm,  it  might  be  rather  termed 
an  univerfalifm. 

60.  ^ 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.   IV.    SECT.   V.  4I3 

60.  Ac  J^M  fignifies  literally  *  to  pray  upon/  which 
implies"an  'impofition  of  hands,  and  therefore  a  blefling. 
This  expreflion  is  ufed  for  zy^otyiv^ofAc/A  in  the  Arabic 
verfion,  Matth.  xix.  13. 

6r.  The  Seventy  have  here  ufed  aotlavu^ig,  and  that 
they  did  not  intend  to  exprefs  the  notion  of  remorfe, 
appears  from  its  being  the  tranflation  of  a  word  which 
fignifies  fleep :  and  that  St.  Paul  underftood  it  in  a  fimi- 
lar  fenfe,  appears  from  the  addition  of  the  words  otp^oiX[jt.n? 
Til  fxn  (iXiTTsiv,  y.ai  cola,  ra  ^v  axBEiv.  This  cfFeft  is  produced 
by  flumber,  but  not  by  remorfe. 

PAGE   140. 

62.  The  paffage  to  which  our  author  alludes  in  his 
Supplementa  ad  Lexica  Hebraica  is  the  following; 
*  Alto  fopore  oculos  gravante  vel  invitis  claudente,  Ara- 
bes  fingunt  eum  oculos  tanquam  acu  confuere,  vide 
phrafin  in  Chreft.  Arab.  p.  66.  confuit  oculos  punftio 
Ibmni.'  Now  admitting  it  to  be  a  proverbial  expreflion 
in  Arabic,  *  Sleep  fews  his  eyes  together,*  it  does  not 
appear  in  what  manner  it  can  be  applied  to  explain 
xoiTccvvlig.  If  the  Seventy  were  acquainted  with  the  pro- 
verb, and  had  intended  to  exprefs  the  metaphor,  they 
would  have  rather  ufed  KtxTappxTTTu  than  xalai-uo-o-u.  Our 
author  feems  to  have  been  led  to  this  method  of  ex- 
plaining why  Kulauv^iq  fignifies  fleep,  by  the  flmilarity 
of  the  ideas  exprefl^ed  by  the  words  pungo  and  confuo, 
qui  enim  confuit,  is  etiam  pungit ;  but  this  concatena- 
tion probably  never  occurred  to  the  authors  of  the 
Alexandrine  verfion.  Befides,  not  only  nJD"Tin>  fopor, 
is  tranflated  xalauv^n;,  but  DD"T,  filuit,  is  tranflated  Kala- 
vv(r(roiJi,ui.  Tlie  analogy  between  filence  and  fleep  is  ob- 
vious ;  but  whatever  flmilarity  the  imagination  can  dif- 
cover  between  fleep  and  fewing  the  eyes  together,  there 
is  no  immediate  connexion  between  this  metaphor  and 
filence.  It  feems  therefore  a  more  probable  conje<5lure, 
as  >ca]avvr«Cw  fignifies  dormio  in  the  claiTic  authors,  that 
in  the  common  dialed  of  Alexandria,  where  the  authors 

of 


414  NOTES    TO    CHAP.  IV.    SECT.  V, 

of  the  Greek  verfion  refided,  the  two  verbs  were  con- 
founded ;  and  this  is  the  more  credible,  as  xolai/ura^w 
is  no  where  ufed  in  the  Septuagint,  nor  xalapuo-o-w  in 
any  claffic  author.  Compare  Trommii  Concord.  Tom.  I. 
p.  854.  with  Stcphani  Thefaurus,  Tom.  11.  p.  1107. 
Should  this  fuppofition  be  admitted,  the  example  would 
belong  to  a  following  fection. 

6 J.  3J2L  is  an  adje6live  fignifying  vanus,  but  admit- 
ting that  when  ufed  as  a  fubftantive  with  the  article  pre- 
fixed, as  our  author  has  v/ritten  it,  it  fignities  mendacium, 
is  it  a  neceffary  confequence  that  fr,?.a,  a^yovy  Matth.  xii. 
36.  fignifies  likewife  mendacium  ?  The  Arabic  tranflator 
has  rendered  pn^xx  apyou  literally  by  jiUsL  XJls>  and  the 
Syriac  tranflator  has  ufed  the  fame  adjeftive;  both  tranf- 
lators  therefore  underftood  a^yo;  in  the  fenfe,  in  which  it 
is  ufually  taken.  Our  author  adds,  that  the  Chaldee 
word  \^bl22  fignifies  mendacia :  now  this  is  the  plural  of 
the  part.  Ecnoni,  from  btOl  cefiavit.  Perhaps  it  fhould 
be  written  either  ]^/;*01  or  ^^'^'DH,  but  Buxtorf  has  af- 
cribed  to  neither  of  thefe  words,  nor  to  any  one  of  the 
derivations  of  ^701  the  fenfe  of  mendacium.  See  Vorftius 
de  Hebraifmis  Nov.  Teft.  cap.  iii.  §  6.  and  Fifcheri 
Prolufiones  de  vitiis  Lexicorum  Nov.  Teft.  Lipfise  1791. 
p.  566— 571. 

64.  Matth.  xxi.  32.  iv  oSooJiy.xio(rvvni  is  rendered  literally 
in  the  Arabic  verfion  y\^\  Jb^k^-  The  Arabic  tranf- 
lator then  has  ufed  ui^Js  in  the  fenfe  of  via,  and  not  in 
that  of  religio,  nor  is  this  fenfe  afcribed  to  it  either  by 
Golius  or  Caftel.  *  To  walk  in  the  religion  of  righteouf- 
nefs'  is  much  more  harfli  than  '  to  walk  in  the  path  of 
righteoufnefs.'  Of  this  our  author  is  fenfible,  and  there- 
fore explains  nxS-i  -a-^o?  u/xaj  by  attuht :  with  what  juftice 
the  learned  muft  determine. 

6^.  If  the  word  ufed  for  o$og  be  underftood  in  the 
fenfe  of'  high  road,'  our  author  is  certainly  right  in  ob- 
iecling  to  the  common  tranflation;  but  as  the  whole 
exprefiion  is  figurative,  there  can  be  no  impropriety  in 
faying,  *  John  came  to  you  walking  in  the  path  of  righ- 
teoufnefs/ 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.  IV.    SECT.   V.  41^ 

t-eomnefs.*  The  metaphor  is  accurate,  the  fenie  clear, 
and  very  frequently  ufed  in  the  book  of  Pfalms  ;  but  the 
interpretation  of  our  author  feems  at  leaft  to  do  violence 
to  every  part  cf  the  fentence. 

66.  In  the  paflage  of  the  Koran,  to  which  our  author 
alludes,  the  word  y  is  ufed,  which  fignifies  lartus  fuit, 
and  alfo  protervus  fuit.  Now  admitting  that  ^^i  in 
this  pafiage  of  the  Koran  conveys  the  idea  of  infuit  or 
ridicule,  it  is  no  neceffary  confequence  that  cyaAAtao^uat, 
John  v.  2S-  ^^s  ^^^  ^^"^^  meaning,  efpecially  as  the 
Arabic  tranflator  of  the  N.  T.  has  ufed  a  totally  differ- 
ent verb,  having  rendered  a^aAAjao^aai  by  j,^  exultavit, 
pr^E  Istitia  exclamavit. 

6'].  jj^j  nuntiavit,  in  the  fecond  conj.  ^^j  evangeli- 
zavit,  annuntiavit.  It  is  ufed  in  the  Arabic  verfion, 
Afts  xiv.  15.  But  as  the  Arabic  is  a  tranflation  of  the 
Greek,  and  not  the  Greek  of  the  Arabic,  may  not  this 
ufe  of  ivyJyiXi^u  be  rather  referred  to  ^\\^2  enuntiavir, 
as  St.  Luke  was  much  better  acquainted  with  Chaldee 
than  Arabic.  It  may  be  obferved  in  general  that  an 
explanation  of  pafTages  in  the  New  Teftament,  that 
deviate  from  claffic  pui-ity,  by  help  of  the  Arabic  fhould 
be  admitted  with  great  caution,  as  this  language  is  con- 
necled  with  that  of  the  Greek  Teftament  in  thole  cafes 
only,  where  its  turns  of  expreflion  coincide  with  the 
Syriac.  The  French,  Italian,  and  Spanifh  are  fo  nearly 
allied,  that  they  are  termed  in  general  diale6ls  of  the 
Latin,  yet  in  an  Englifh  compofition  written  by  a 
Frenchman,  no  one  would  explain  the  deviations  from 
clafilc  purity  as  Italicifms,  or  Hifpanifms,  but  would 
naturally  refer  them  to  the  clafs  of  Gallicifms.  In  the 
fame  manner  the  peculiarities  obfervable  in  the  ftyle  of 
the  Greek  Teftament  muft  be  neceflarily  afcribed  to  the 
native  lan^uag-e  of  the  facred  writers. 

Among  other  peculiarities  in  the  language  of  the 
Greek  Teftament,  it  is  well  known  that  the  dual  num- 
ber is  not  ufed  j  but  I  recolleft  no  inftance  of  any  attempt 

that 


4l6  NOTES    TO    CHAP.  IV,    SECT.  V, 

that  has  been  made  to  account  for  its  omifTion.  Per- 
haps it  may  be  explained  as  a  Syriafm,  for  the  dual  was 
not  ufed  in  Syriac,  except  in  the  three  words  expreffive 
of  duo,  ducenti,  and  ^gyptus  utraque  inferior  et  fupe- 
rior.  The  facrcd  writers  therefore  neglefted  the  dual 
in  writing  a  foreign  language,  becaufe  they  were  not  ac- 
cuftomed  to  it  in  their  own.  Likewife  in  the  Hebrew 
the  ufe  of  the  dual  was  ufually  confined  to  fuch  objects, 
as  exifted  in  pairs,  fuch  as  ^»  the  hand :  and  it  is  pofTible 
that  the  diftin6lion  between  dual  and  plural  even  in 
fuch  cafes  was  a  refinement  of  later  ages,  as  the  dif- 
ference is  marked  only  by  the  points,  whereas  in  the 
Arabic  it  is  denoted  by  the  letters  themfelves.  In  our 
prefent  Maforetic  text  T  is  very  frequently  ufed  in  the 
dual,  but  though  x^^P  occurs  in  above  a  thoufand  in- 
ftances  in  the  Septuagint,  it  is  conftantly  ufed  either  in 
the  fingular  or  in  the  plural.  Whether  this  circumftance 
juftifies  the  preceding  fuppofition  with  refped  to  the 
Hebrew,  or  is  rather  to  be  afcribed  to  the  dialed  of 
Alexandria,  I  leave  the  learned  to  determine.  But 
whether  this  diftindion  between  the  two  numbers  exifted 
before  the  time  of  Chrift  or  not,  is  a  matter  of  little 
confequence,  becaufe  the  facred  writers  were  more  ac- 
cuftomed  to  the  Greek  verfion  than  the  Hebrew  origi- 
nal, and  as  this  was  probably  the  only  Greek  book  that 
was  an  objed  of  their  ftudy,  they  were  as  little  accuf- 
tomed  to  the  dual  in  the  Greek  as  in  the  Syriac. 


SECT.       VI. 


PAGE      141. 

I.  The  Hebrew  word  for  feed  is  V'ltj  which  fignifies 
figuratively  foboles,  pofteri,  and  this  is  the  ufual  figura- 
tive fenfe  of  crrt^i/.a,.  See  Gen.  iv.  25.  Lev.  xviii.  21. 
Num.  xiv.  24.  Deut.  i.  8,  &c.,  where  yit  is  taken  in 
this  fenfe,  and  tranflated  in  the  Septuagint  (r7r£f|W«. 

The 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.   rv.     SECT.  VIT.  417 

1.  The  German  word  iifed  by  our  author  is  entflo- 
hener,  which  fignifies  literally  one  who  has  made  his 
efcape  or  a  refugee  :  but  the  meaning  afcribed  to  "intJ^ 
in  every  Lexicon  is  fuperftes,  reliquus,  and  if  we  depart 
from  this  meaning  all  connexion  between  "THJi^  and 
a-n-s^lJLcc  m  the  fenfe  of  *  remnant'  is  deftroyed. 

3.  Thefe  are  the  only  two  inftances  in  the  whole 
Septuagint,  but  <nri^fji,a  is  ufed  for  J/'lt  in  189  examples. 
The  figurative  fenfe  then,  which  the  Seventy  ufually 
afcribe  to  (nre^f^a,  is  that  of  '  progeny,'  nor  is  this  fenfe 
irreconcileable  with  "inti^  fuperftesj  as  in  general  chil- 
dren furvivc  their  parents. 

PAGE   142. 

4.  Wetftein  has  produced  one  paflage  from  Plato, 
and  two  from  Jofephus,  but  it  does  not  appear  that  the 
notion  of  reliquiae  is  any  otherwife  applicable  to  a-Tn^y-x 
in  thefe  examples,  than  as  it  is  applicable  to  progeny  in 
general.  Wetftein  is  totally  filent  as  to  his  own  opinion, 
for  he  has  quoted  the  example  without  adding  a  fingle 
remark,  or  explaining  the  purpofe  for  which  they  arc 
alleged, 

SECT.       VII. 

PAGE      143. 

1.  It  is  printed  in  the  48'\  volume  of  the  Philofophi- 
cal  Tranfa6lions. 

2.  The  full  title  of  this  book  is.  Reflexions  fur  I'Al- 
phabet,  et  fur  la  Langue  donton  fe  fervoit  autrefois  a  Pal- 
myre,  par  P Abbe  Barthelemy,  avec  fig.  Paris  1755.  fol. 

3.  Wetftein,  in  the  paflage  to  which  our  author  re- 
fers, fays  of  •5r^o(p>iT*)?,  vox  7Egyptiis  primum  ufurpata. 
Jablonflci  in  Prol.  §  39.  gives  a  defcription  of  the  feveral 
orders  of  the  /Egyptian  priefts.  Now  our  author  feems 
to  have  confounded  two  queftions  that  muft  be  carefully 
diftinguifhed,  i.  Whether  the  notion  exprefled  by  the 

D  d  word 


4l8  t^OTES    TO    CHAP.  IV.    SECT.  Vtl. 

■word  prophet  was  firft  received  in  Egypt.  2.  Whether 
the  Greek  word  ■sT^o<pr)Tr}g,  ufed  to  exprefs  that  notion,  was 
firft  adopted  by  the  Alexandrine  writers.  The  latter  is 
the  only  objedt  of  our  prefent  inquiry  ;  but  the  place,  to 
•which  he  refers  in  Jablonfki,  is  totally  unconnefted  with 
this  queftion.  Wetftein  has  exprefled  himfelf  in  a  du- 
bious manner ;  but  whoever  examines  the  paflages  which 
he  had  produced  from  Diogenes  Laertius,  Lucian,  Plu- 
tarch, and  Paufanias,  Will  be  convinced  that  they  relate 
merely  to  the  notion  exprefled  by  ■srpo(pr\Tn?,  and  not  to 
the  word  itfelf.  Stephanus,  in  his  explanation  of  vypo^pn- 
Ttif,  quotes  from  Plato,  who  lived  before  Alexandria  ex- 
ifttd,  and  Potter,  in  his  Greek  Antiquities,  Vol.  I.  B.  II. 
ch.  9.  has  produced  the  two  following  verfes  of  an  an- 
cient Delphian  poetefs. 

nXr\u  S^',    0?  <y£i/£TO  zTpooTOi;  $okSoio  zirpo^arx? 

But  if  our  author  really  defigns  to  be  underftood  of  the 
idea  alone,  there  is  no  necefTity  for  having  recourfe  to 
Egypt  in  particular,  fince  in  every  nation  there  have  ex- 
iftcd  perfons,  who  have  made  pretcnfions  to  the  power  of 
foretelling  future  events, 

PAGE   144. 

4.  The  difference  between  the  clafllcal  and  biblical 
fenfe  of  ocfyo.oi  is,  that  according  to  the  former  it  fignifies 
a  mefiTenger  in  general,  according  to  the  latter  a  meflen- 
ger  of  the  Deity  in  particular.  Whether  the  latter  ap- 
plication of  it  is  to  be  afcribed  to  the  Egyptians  is  a 
matter  of  great  doubt,  for  it  does  not  appear  that  this 
notion  ever  entered  into  the  fyftem  of  Egyptian  my- 
thology. 

5.  ©igjp,  or  as  it  is  written  by  Trommius  and  Blel  SriQn, 
is  found  only  in  Exod.  ii.  3.  5.  and  is  there  ufed  for  the 
vehicle  in  which  Mofes  when  a  child  floated  on  the  river, 
and  in  which  he  was  found  by  the  daughter  of  Pharaoh. 
The  learned  are  divided  in  their  opinion  whether  ^i^n  is 

originally 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.   IV.    SECT.  VII.  419 

originally  Egyptian  or  not.  Didymus,  in  his  Gram- 
matica  Coptica,  p.  68.  refufes  it  a  place  among  pure 
Coptic  words,  yet  no  inftance  has  been  produced  of  it 
from  a  Greek  writer,  except  Athenasus,  who  lived  fo  late 
as  the  third  century.  Now  the  word  is  at  lead  as  an- 
cient as  the  time  of  Mofes,  for  it  is  ufed  in  the  Hebrew, 
Exod.  ii.  3.  5.  and  written  n^H ;  and  as  this  word  has 
no  radix  in  the  Hebrew,  and  the  vefTel  itfelf  was  Egyp- 
tian, it  is  reafonable  to  fuppofe  that  the  name  is  like- 
wife  Egyptian.  The  beft  defcription  of  it  may  be  Ctcn 
in  Forfter's  Liber  fingularis  de  byflb  antiquorum,  p.  113. 
Londini  1776.  See  alfo  La  Croze  Lexicon  ^gyptiaco- 
Latinum,  ed.  Woide,  Oxon.  1775.  ^^^'  ©^BI. 

6.  It  is  confirmed  by  the  teflimony  of  Jerom,  '  Audivi 
ab  iEgyptiis  hoc  nomine  (fc.  A^i)  lingua  eorum  omne, 
quod  in  palude  virens  nafcicur  appellari.'  Hieronym.  ad 
Efaiam  xix.  7.  This  Egyptian  word  was  likewife  adopted 
by  Mofes,  and  written  ins^,  (perhaps  originally  ^IX",  and 
the  »  lengthened  into  ")  by  miftake  in  copying)  Gen.  xli. 
2.  where  ap^n  is  ufed  in  the  Greek  verfion ;  but  in  the 
paflage  of  Ifaiah,  on  which  Jerom  makes  the  above- 
mentioned  remark,  though  a^'  ^^  ^^^^  i"  ^^"'^  Sep- 
tuagint,  Ifaiah,  as  might  be  expelled  from  a  writer  un- 
connected with  Egypt,  has  ufed  a  word  that  is  purely 
Hebrew.  This  circumftance  is  not  wholly  undeferving 
our  attention,  becaufe  the  ufe  of  3-»fti,  Exod.  ii.  3.  5. 
and  of  api^ei.  Gen.  xli.  2.  may  be  afcribed  to  the  imme- 
diate influence  of  the  Hebrew,  but  the  tranflation  of 
mij^  by  Axh  Ifai.  xix.  7.  is  a  proof  that  the  word  had 
been  adopted  in  the  Greek  dialed  of  Alexandria. 

To  the  Coptifms  which  have  been  produced  by  our 
author,  may  be  added  perhaps  the  following,  as  an  at- 
tempt to  account  for  the  infcrtion  of  the  vowel  u  in  Mwu- 
<r*i?,  though  no  trace  of  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  Hebrew 
nt!^,*2.  The  name  given  to  Mofes  by  the  daughter  of 
Pharaoh  was  Mo  ufhe,  which  in  the  Coptic  fignifies  aqua 
extra6lus,  and  is  imperfedly  exprefied  by  r\^D  exrra- 
hens.  Jofephus  likewife,  Antiq.  Lib.  II.  c.  9.  §  6.  af- 
D  d  2  figns 


420  NOTES    TO    CHAP.   IV.    SECT.  Vll. 

figns  the  fame  reafon,  to  ya^  v^u^  (au  oi  AiyvnTioi  >cisj?>a(ri, 

vcrriq  $i  T8?  £^  vS'a.Tog  crwGsvra.?. 

7.  The  peculiarities  of  the  Alexandrine  dialed  muft 
be  divided  into  two  feparate  clalTes.  1.  Such  as  were 
derived  from  the  Macedonic  diale6l  fpoken  by  the  con- 
querors of  Egypt.  2.  Such  as  are  to  be  afcribed  to  the 
Egyptian,  the  language  of  the  conquered.  Of  the  for- 
mer a  very  learned  and  critical  account  may  be  feen  in 
Fifcheri  Prolufiones  de  vitiis  Lex.  Nov.  Teft.  Lipfise 
1 791,  p.  659 — 727.  With  refpe6l  to  the  latter,  the 
reader  will  find  a  very  curious  colledion  of  Egyptian 
words,  ufed  not  only  in  the  Septuagint,  but  in  the  He- 
brew and  Greek  writers  in  general,  in  Scholtz  Expofitio 
vocabulorum  Copticorum  in  fcriptoribus  Hebraicis  ac 
Gra^cis  obviorum,  printed  in  the  13'^.  vol.  of  Eichhorn's 
Repertorium. 

ProfelTor  Sturz,  at  Gera  in  Saxony,  has  written  feve- 
ral  dilfertations  entided,  De  dialefto  Alexandrina,  ra- 
tione  fimul  habita  verfionis  librorum  V.  I.  gr^ecorum. 

8.  See  Kypke  Obf.  facrre,  Tom.  I.  p.  174.  But  Kypke 
has  not  quoted  Jamblichus  as  an  Alexandrine  author, 
nor  is  he  to  be  confidered  as  fuch  j  for  though  he  is  faid 
to  have  died  at  Alexandria,  he  was  a  native  of  Chalcis 
in  Ccelefyria,  and  2.  fchoiar  of  Porphyry, 

9.  It  appears  from  Strabo's  defcription  of  the  z7T£^x  of 
the  Egyptian  temples,  (p.  1 159.  of  Almeloveen's  edition, 
which  ought  to  have  been  noted)  that  they  were  nothing 
more  than  two  high  walls  which  formed  a  kind  of  in- 
clofure  or  court  before  the  temple  itfclf:  its  importance 
therefore  on  the  prefent  occafion  feems  not  to  be  fo  great 
as  our  author  defcribes  it.  Befides,  the  difficulty  coniifls 
not  in  -sTTipov^  but  in  -ajTipvyioi/,  for  Wetftein  in  his  Note 
to  Matth.  iv.  5.  has  produced  a  very  fufficient  number 
of  examples,  where  wtj^ov  and  nrre^v^  are  applied  to  a 
building ;  but  if  we  except  the  example  from  Eufebius, 
which  had  been  borrowed  from  the  Greek  Teftament, 
no  inftance  has  been  found  where  the  diminutive  sm^v- 
yiov  is  applied  to  a  building.  Julius  Pollux  applies  it  to 
tcfKVij  i/wTOf,  piVj  Eo-S-r,;^  vc'.v?  and  sc,  but  to  no  word  expref- 

five 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.   IV.    SECT.  VII.  42I 

five  of  an  edifice,  nor  Is  it  ufed  in  this  manner  even  by 
the  Seventy,  who  are  undoubtedly  to  be  confidered  as 
Alexandrine  authors.  Till  an  inftance  therefore  can  be 
produced  from  a  Greek  writer  in  which  -ss-Ti^vyiov  itfelf  is 
ufed  as  a  part  of  a  building,  and  its  fenfe  determined, 
(for  an  appeal  to  zjTipou  or  zmpv^  is  of  no  ufe),  it  muft 
remain  mere  conjefture,  whether  the  Evangelifts  intend- 
ed to  exprefs  a  wing  of  the  temple,  or  only  a  point  or 
prominence.  The  Syriac  tranflator  has  rendered  it  by 
2)13,  ala  J  but  as  this  word  fignifies  likewife  extremitas, 
it  is  as  difficult  to  determine  the  fenfe  of  the  Syriac  ver- 
fion,  as  of  the  Greek  original.  Jerom  decides  for  pinna- 
culum,  the  Arabic  tranflator  for  ala,  unlefs  we  render 
-iJo.  by  a  word,  that  is  unfuitable  to  its  derivation, 
merely  out  of  compliment  to  the  Vulgate. 

10.  In  his  Exercitationes  facras  in  S.  Pauli  ep.  ad  He- 
br^os,  ex  Philone  Alexandrino.  Helmftadii  1750.  The 
pafTage  to  which  our  author  alludes  is  p.  140. 

PAGE   145. 

1 1 .  The  argument  therefore  is  not  dubious,  but  po- 
fitive. 

1 2.  The  feftival  of  the  Jews,  defcribed  in  the  cf^.  ch. 
ofEfther,  was  in  confequence  of  Efther's  marriage  with 
Ahafuerus  ;  it  does  not  appear  therefore  that  no  allufion 
can  pofTibly  be  made  to  a  wedding.  But  there  is  ano- 
ther pafiage  in  the  book  of  Efther,  ch.  ii.  18.  where 
yxi^o?  is  ufed,  which  our  author  has  omitted,  and  which 
clearly  decides  iii  favour  of  the  notion  of  wedding ;  for 
the  marriage  feaft  of  Ahafuerus  and  Efther  is  there  par- 
ticularly defcribed. 

The  following  ftatement  will  fet  the  matter  in  a  clear 
light,  and  determine  at  once  what  fenfe  the  Seventy  in- 
tended to  afcribe  to  yajwo?.  The  Hebrew  word  riDTOj 
which  fignifies  convivium  in  general,  though  it  is  fome- 
times  applied  in  the  fenfe  of  convivium  nuptiale  in  par- 
ticular, occurs  forty-eight  times  in  the  Hebrew  Bible. 
In  the  Septuagint  it  is  rendered  ^ox*"*  i^'P§°'^^^^y  xwQwv, 
•5ro<ri?,,-croTo?,  (ru/ATrco'jei',  and  in  three  inftances  only  by  ya,- 
D  d  3  H'O'^i 


422  NOTES    TO    CHAP.    IV.    SECT.    VII. 

[xog,  viz.  Gen.  xxix.  22.  Efther  ii.  18.  ix.  22.  In  the 
two  firft  inftances  a  marriage  feaft  is  particularly  de- 
fcribed,  and  in  the  third  is  given  a  defcription  of  a  feaft 
which  was  held  in  confequence  of  a  marriage. 

13.  rcx,[j.s  is  the  reading  of  the  Codex  Vaticanus,  ztoth 
of  the  Cod.  Alcxandrinus,  but  it  is  extraordinary  that 
no  word  is  here  ufed  in  the  Hebrew  which  corresponds 
to  either ;  nn^i2  is  ufed  at  the  end  of  the  verfe,  and 
there  tranflated  to-otoj. 

PAGE    146. 

14.  Compare  Note  12  with  Kypke's  Obf.  facrse, 
Tom.  I.  p.  108. 

15.  Our  author  here  reviews  Dr.  Teller's  German 
tranflation  of  the  Pfalms,  and  cenfures  the  learned  and 
ingenious  tranflator  for  having  rendered  yt^l  in  the  firft 
Pfalm  by  a  word  expreflive  of  ungodly.  But  ytJ^T  is 
explained  in  every  Lexicon  improbus,  is  rendered  in 
this  pafTage  ao-f^r?  by  the  Seventy,  and,  I  believe,  in  a 
fimilar  manner  in  every  other  verfion,  except  that  of  our 
author.  The  queftion  whether  y^'\  is  to  be  tranflated 
in  all  cafes  '  unjuft'  and  in  no  cafe  '  ungodly,'  can  be 
determined  only  by  a  proper  definition  of  the  words,  and 
an  appeal  to  the  palTages,  where  Vt^l  is  ufed.  Now  the 
difference  between  injuftice  and  ungodlinefs,  is  this,  that 
the  former  is  a  violation  of  the  duty,  which  we  owe  to 
other  men,  the  latter  a  violation  of  the  duty,  which  we 
owe  to  the  Supreme  Being.  This  diftindion  being  ad- 
mitted, the  latter  tranflation  is  in  many  inftances  not 
only  admifllble,  but  necefl^iry. 

16.  And  perhaps  in  many  other  cafes  with  equal  pro- 
priety by  ao-£?'/if,  aa-iQua,  occnQm. 

PAGE     147. 

17.  But  the  two  queftions  are  totally  diftind.  i.  Whe- 
ther yi^")  can  in  no  cafe  fignify  *  ungodly.'  2.  Whether 
ocTi^ng  may  not  in  fome  cafes  fignify  *  unjuft.'  The  truth 
of  the  former  is  no  necelTary  confequence  of  a  concefllon 
of  the  latter.     Now  it  is  true  that  the  notion  of  injuftice 

is 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.    IV.    SECT.    VII.  41^3 

is  applicable  to  the  paffages  which  our  author  has  pro- 
duced from  the  Pentateuch,  and  to  many,  though  not 
all  of  thofe  which  he  has  alleged  from  the  prophets.  But 
as  the  authors  of  the  Alexandrine  verfion  were  Jews,  to 
whom  the  idea  of  the  divine  prefence  was  more  famiHar 
than  to  other  nations,  who  will  undertake  to  determine, 
that  in  the  ufe  of  a  word  derived  from  (nQofAxi,  the  notion 
of  an  offence  againft  the  Deity  did  not  unite  itfelf  with 
that  of  an  offence  againil  mankind  ? 

18.  But  the  notion  expreffed  by  the  words  pHV,  \>1)S, 
T^pl'i,  though  they  are  explained  juftus,  and  juftitia,  is 
by  no  means  confined  to  the  relation  between  man  and 
man :  on  the  contrary,  they  are  frequently  ufed  in  cafes 
where  the  relation  of  man  to  the  Deity  alone  is  intended 
to  be  expreffed,  and  where  the  notion  of  juftice  is  in- 
admiffible,  for  inftance  Gen.  xv.  6.  Deut.  xxxiii.  19. 
Pfalm  iv.  6,  &c. 

19.  It  is  true  that  the  Arabic  verfion  of  Ifaiah,  with 
that  of  moft  other  books  of  the  Old  Teftament,  was 
made  immediately  from  the  Greek.  But  does  it  follow, 
becaufe  the  Arabic  tranflator  has  rendered  £U(r£?>i?  by 
oujv/^j  that  he  meant  to  confine  its  fenfe  to  pietas  erga 
homines,  without  any  intermixture  of  the  notion  ex- 
preffed by  pietas  erga  Deum  ?  We  have  feen  that  the 
Hebrew  word  is  fometimes  confined  to  the  latter  fenfe 
alone :  why  then  may  not  the  Arabic  word  at  lead:  in- 
clude that  notion  ?  It  may  be  obferved  in  general,  as  it 
is  more  eafy  to  unite  than  to  abftrafb  ideas,  that  when 
two  notions  are  fo  nearly  allied  as  thofe  of  pietas  erga 
Deum,  and  pietas  erga  homines,  the  line  of  feparation 
is  often  fo  difficult  to  be  difcovered,  that  conclufions 
drawn  from  a  tranflation  are  in  moft  cafes  vague  and  in- 
decifive. 

20.  This  argument  is  unfavourable  to  our  author's 
hypothefis,  for  the  notions  of  alms  and  godlinefs,  are 
much  more  nearly  aUied  than  thofe  of  alms  and  juftice. 
A  man  may  rehgioufly  abide  by  the  laws  of  his  country, 
without  difplaying  generofity  to  the  poor  j  whereas  the 
^uty  which  we  owe  to  our  Maker  is  very  imperfe6lly 

p  d  4  fulfilled 


424  NOTES    TO    CHAP.    IV.    SECT.    VII. 

fulfilled  without  charity  to  our  neighbour.  Befides, 
local  circumftances  contribute  to  unite  the  tv/o  former 
ideas,  the  place  of  public  worfliip  having  been  devoted, 
btjth  in  ancient  and  modern  times,  to  the  exercife  of 
this  duty :  and  the  Arabic  Hjva^j  which  corresponds 
to  the  Syriac  and  Chaldee,  fignifies,  i.  Qiiicquid  Deo 
dicatur;  2.  Eleemofyn^e. 

21.  The  erudition  difplayed  by  our  author  in  the 
two  laft  pages  is  a  prelude  to  the  explanation  of  the 
two  pafTages  in  the  N.  T.  Rom.  iv.  5.  etti  rov  ^lyia^svTOi 
Tov  aa-iCn.  and  Rom.  v.  6.  ;^f»ro?  .  .  .  vtts^  acn^m  cK-m^xvik 
But  furely  no  one  will  doubt  that  in  thefe  examples, 
efpecially  in  the  lall,  the  only  notion  intended  to  be  ex- 
prefled  is  that  of  our  relation  to  the  Supreme  Being.  The 
ufual  tranflanon  then  of  '  ungodly,'  or  '  finner,'  feems 
by  no  means  improper,  and  unlefs  we  abide  by  the 
above-mentioned  definition,  the  whole  is  a  difpute  about 
words. 

22.  For  that  very  reafon  the  notion  of  *  pity'  is  per- 
fectly applicable  to  Luke  i.  50.  for  Elizabeth  was  grown 
old  without  having  had  children,  which  among  the  Jews 
was  confidered  as  a  very  great  misfortune. 

PAGE  148. 

23.  It  is  certain  that  the  word  Pity,  though  every 
monarch  in  Europe  would  deign  to  ufe  it  on  a  fimilar 
occafion,  is  unfuitable  to  the  manners  of  the  Eafl,  and 
the  age  of  the  Patriarchs.  But  the  notion  expreifed  by 
so^yn  is  wholly  inapplicable,  becaufe  neither  confan- 
guinity  nor  affinity  fubfiiled  at  that  time  between  Ifaac 
and  Rebecca. 

24.  In  the  Greek  verfion  of  Daniel  which  is  printed 
in  all  the  editions  of  th^  Septuagint,  jnnTtsn  is  ren- 
dered am^  sTTjS-u/xtwi/,  but  £X££n/oj  Is  ufcd  in  this  paflage 
in  Daniel  fecundum  LXX  ex  Tetraplis  Origenis,  print- 
ed at  Rome  in  1772.  This  ought  to  have  been  noticed 
by  our  author,  as  every  one  underftands  by  the  Greek 
Bible  the  common  printed  text» 

25.  Yet 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.    IV.    SECT.    VII.  ^>ir 

25.  Yet  "ton  is  explained  in  every  Lexicon  miferi- 
cordia,  and  whoever  examines  the  pafiliges  produced  in 
Buxtorf 's  Concordance,  will  find  that  it  is  often  applied 
to  perfons  who  were  really  in  misfortune,  for  inllance 
Num.  xiv.  19.  and  this  is  agreeable  to  the  notion  ex- 
preffed  by  the  word  Pity.  But  as  on  the  other  hand  it 
is  fometimes  applied  even  to  objedls  of  envy,  it  feems 
to  have  the  extenfive  fignification  of  kindnefs  in  ge- 
neral, the  nature  of  which  can  be  determined  only 
by  its  mode  of  application.  If  then  the  Seventy,  in 
tranflating  the  Old  Teftament,  ufed  bXso;  in  the  fame 
latitude,  it  feems  not  unreafonable  to  afcribe  it  to  the 
influence  of  the  Hebrew.  The  queftion  can  be  deter- 
mined with  certainty  by  no  other  means,  than  by  pro- 
ducing an  inftance  from  fome  Alexandrine  writer,  who 
was  unacquainted  with  that  language,  or  at  lead  did 
not  tranflate  from  it.  Our  author  argues  here,  with  re- 
fped  to  ^Dn,  as  he  argued  above  with  refpedl  to  VtJ^l, 
and  in  the  explanation  of  words  that  admit  of  a  two- 
fold application,  having  obferved  in  many  inftances  that 
they  are  applied  in  one  manner,  he  feems  too  haftily  to 
conclude  that  they  are  inapplicable  in  the  other. 

26.  This  circumftance  alone  proves  nothing,  for  hl^D, 
among  other  fenfes,  has  that  of  debilis  fuit.  But  if 
aa-^sveu  fignifies  cado  in  the  Septuagint,  how  fhall  we 
explain  the  following  pafTages,  Pfalm  xxvi.  4.  ocvtoi  r,(r~ 

S'£t/T;o-«i/  xxi  iTri(TO]/.  Cviil.  23.  roe.  yova-Ta  y-a  r)(r^iun<Tae.Vy 
Dan.  xi.  19.  ua-^n/na-Si  xat  sTia-iiTOii.  Nahum  iii.  3.  aa-Bs- 
vna-^a-ii/  IV  roig  (ruy.uTn>  avruv.  The  utmoft  therefore  that 
can  be  allowed  to  ao-S-ei/Ew  in  certain  cafes  is  that  of  ti- 
tubo ;  for  if  we  go  a  ftep  further,  and  render  it  cado, 
we  have  in  two  of  thefe  examples  a  manifefl  tautology. 

27.  Here  then  ao-Gsptw  acquires  the  laft  fenfe  in  the 
progreflion,  impingo,    titubo,  cado,  jaceo. 

28.  How  can  this  be  fubverfive  of  St.  Paul's  defign? 
He  defcribes  the  death  of  Chrift  as  an  expiatory  facri- 
fice,  which  implies  inability  and  weaknefs  on  the  part  of 
thofe  for  whom  the  facrifice  was  made.  The  common 
tranflation  therefore  of  ^(rhuuu  ovruv  r,if.Wj  '  while  we  were 

without 


426  NOTES    TO    CHAP.    IV.    SECT.    VIII. 

without  ftrength,'  or  which  is  the  fame  thing,  *  we  be- 
ing unable  to  help  ourfelves,'  feems  perfedly  well  adapt- 
ed to  the  tenor  of  the  whole  epiftle. 

PAGE   149. 

29.  No  other  reafon  can  be  affigned  for  afcribing  to 
ao-3-£i/£w,  in  this  paffage,  the  fenfe  of  jaceo,  or  even  that 
of  cado,  than  that  the  three  verbs  form  a  climax,  and 
our  author  feems  really  to  argue  from  their  pofition. 
But  the  fimilar  fenfes  of  zrpoc-noTTru  and  a-aavSoiXi^Uy  with 
the  ufe  of  the  disjunftive  particle,  are  circumflances  un^ 
favourable  to  that  figure  of  rhetoric. 

30.  The  fourth  verfe  is  not  only  unconnefted  with 
the  twenty-firil,  but  relates  to  a  totally  different  fubjeft. 

To  the  peculiarities  of  the  Alexandrine  diale<5t  enu- 
merated by  our  author,  may  be  added  the  ufe  of  the 
termination  oaxu  for  ov,  in  the  3**.  pi.  of  the  2^.  aorift. 
For  inftance,  Deut.  i.  25.  iKx^otra,)^  for  tXaQovj  Pfal.  Ixix. 
I.  nTr\X^o(Tav  for  eia-TixSrov.  In  the  fame  manner,  2  Theff. 
iii.  6.  the  Cod.  Alexandrinus  has  z^a^sXoc^ojocvy  and  the 
Codex  Claromontanus  iXocQoa-av  a  prima  manu,  though 
zra^iXx^ov  e-x  emendatione.  Griefbach  has  taken  wx^z- 
Xa,Qo(r<zv  into  the  text  of  his  edition.  The  preceding 
obfervation  however  is  not  to  be  underftood  as  if  the 
termination  oo-ai-  were  wholly  confined  to  the  dialedt  of 
Alexandria. 


SECT.       VIII. 


PAGE    149. 

I.  In  this  fenfe  alone  it  is  given  in  Kiihn's  Note  to 
the  paffage  in  Julius  Pollux,  but  the  learned  Greek 
writer  himfclf  is  filent  with  refpecl  to  its  meaning,  though 
not  in  refpeft  to  its  derivation.  After  having  enume- 
rated a  lift  of  adjeclives  and  fubftantives,  among  which 
vve  find  xcyo;  and  otcyix,  he  adds  a  lift  of  verbs  which 

cor- 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.  IV.    SECT.    VIII.  427 

correfpond  to  them,  among  which  we  find  a^yiu  and 
HXTOi^yioo.  But  as  derivations  have  very  frequently  ac- 
ceflary  ideas,  we  are  not  juftified  in  concluding  that  Ju- 
Jius  Pollux  intended  to  confine  KOiToc^yna  to  the  fenfe  of 
the  primitive.  Stephanus  quotes  from  Diofcorides  ^ap- 
fj,ocKx  xoiTxpyii[xs])x  medicamenta  purgatoria. 

2.  This  muft  be  an  overfight  in  our  author,  for 
though  befide  the  Latin,  there  are  two  Greek  indexes 
in  Reitz's  Lucian,  yet  the  one  relates  only  to  the  Scho- 
lia and  the  various  readings,  the  other,  which  relates  to 
the  text,  contains  thofe  words  alone  on  which  notes  are 
written. 

3.  Our  author  has  here  quoted  the  page  without  men- 
tioning the  edition,  a  fault  of  which  he  is  feldom  guilty. 
I  have  confulted  both  the  Benedidine  and  Thirlby's  edi- 
tion, but  it  is  in  neither  p.  25.  The  paflfage  however 
may  be  feen  p.  45.  of  the  Paris  edition  of  16 15. 

4.  Thofe  who  would  examine  thefe  twenty-fix  paf- 
fages  will  find  them  enumerated  in  Schmidii  Tameion, 
and  Williams's  Greek  Concordance.  See  alfo  Stephani 
Thefaur.  Append,  p.  11 62. 

PAGE   150. 

5.  See  Fifcheri  Prolufiones  de  vitiis  Lex.  Nov.  Tefl:. 
Lipfiae  1791,  p.  331. 

6.  It  is  ufed  in  this  fenfe  by  Plutarch.  See  Stephani 
Thefaurus,  Tom.  I.  p.  86. 

7.  For  that  reafon  Wefleling  conjectures  that  it  is  an 
erratum  for  Ts-poxyuyn.  See  his  edition  of  Diodorus  Si- 
culus,  Tom.  II.  p.  293.  Note  90. 

8.  Yet  Stephanus  has  produced  examples  from  Plu- 
tarch, Polybius,  Thucydides,  and  Lucian.  It  is  like- 
wife  found  in  JuHus  Pollux,  Lib.  IX.  fedt.  142. 

9.  See  Wciftein's  Note  to  Luke  xviii.  i. 

10.  Jerom  has  taken  this  example  from  i  Cor.  iv.  3. 

11.  It  is  extraordinary  that  Jerom  has  a  naTsvoipx^tya, 
vfxxg  as  quoted  from  St.  Paul,  whereas  we  find  2  Cor. 
xii.  13.  8  v.»ri]>xpy.r\<Tot  u^uwi/.  This  verb  is  only  ufed  in 
the  2".  ep.  to  the  Corinthians,  there  only  three  times, 

but 


428  NOTES    TO    CHAP.   IV.    SECT.   VIII. 

but  in  each  cafe  followed  by  a  genitive.  Wetftein,  in 
his  note  to  2  Cor.  xi.  8.  has  quoted  the  fame  pafTage 
from  Jerom,  but  we  there  find  in  Jerom's  text  «  xocrs- 
vapma-oi  vf^wv.  On  what  authority  Wetftein  wrote  it  in 
the  genitive  I  know  not,  for  in  Martianay's  edition, 
which  is  the  beft,  we  find  u/aoj?,  as  written  by  our  au- 
thor. 

PAGE     151. 

12.  Bravium  was  probably  coined  by  Jerom  to  ex- 
prefs  (S/jaCEJoi/,  for  the  Latin  v  correfponds  to  the  Greek 
^,  or  to  fpeak  more  properly,  the  Greek  /3  has  acquired 
that  found  before  the  time  of  Jerom,  it  being  probable 
that  the  moft  ancient  Greeks  pronounced  it  otherwife. 
The  modern  Greeks  pronounce  it  conftantly  like  the 
Latin  v. 

13.  When  the  Romans  faid  dicere  diem,  obire  diem, 
they  exprefled  indeed  the  day  appointed  for  trial,  but  it 
does  not  appear  that  they  ever  ufed  dies  in  the  fenfe  of 
judicium,  which  is  the  meaning  exprefled  by  St.  Paul. 
It  would  be  likewife  difficult  to  find  an  example  where 
the  Hebrew  word  CDV  is  taken  in  that  fenfe.  The  cx- 
preflion  uv^pcowivn  n^Aifioc  feems  to  have  fome  analogy  to 
nvpia.  ny-spdy  a  judicial  phrafe  in  ufe  at  Athens.  See  Pot- 
ter's Greek  Antiquities,  Vol.  I.  B.  I.  ch.  xxi. 

14.  See  Wetftein's  Note  to  Col.  ii.  18. 

15.  It  is  extraordinary  that  this  word  is  written  by 
our  author,  and  in  the  Lexicons  and  Concordances  to 
the  Greek  Teftament,  xcclocvapKiu}  inftead  of  Kcclavapxccu., 
The  two  tenfes  ufed  by  St.  Paul  may  be  derived  indeed 
from  the  one  as  well  as  from  the  other,  but  the  fimple 
verb  is  va^naw,  and  aTroixxpawa-i  is  ufed  by  Plutarch,  which 
puts  the  matter  out  of  doubt.  See  Wetftein's  Note  to 
2  Cor.  xi.  8. 

16.  But  this  is  inapplicable  to  ■x.xra.^poi.^ivw  in  St.  Paul's 
cpiftles,  for  it  occurs  only  once,  viz.  Col.  ii.  18. 

♦  '  PAGE 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.   IV,    SECT.  VIII.  429 

PAGE    153. 

17.  Aratus,  Callimachus,  and  Menander.  Sec  Pritii 
Introduclio  in  kaionem  Novi  Teftamenti,  cap.  xviu 
p.  250.  ed.  Hoffmann.  Lipfia^  1764. 

PAGE  155. 

18.  npo(ra,7rov  rn?  -yn?  is  a  tranOation  of  p^e^  ^ifi,  which 
is  rendered  in  this  manner  in  the  Septuagint,  Gen.  xi.  4. 
and  in  many  other  places.  _  ,  .  nr  u 

1 9.  The  Hebraifm  confifts  not  in  the  word  itlelt,  but 
in  its  appHcation  to  the  Deity,  in  imitation  of  ^JltC, 
which  is  ufually  rendered  in  the  Septuagint  by  Hupn?. 

20.  Kpmiv  iv  SiKcao(7vvyi  correfponds  to  p1)S2  tODti^'> 
which  is  rendered  in  this  manner  Pfal.  ix.  8.  (ver.  9.  m 
the  Hebrew)  and  in  many  other  places. 

21.  The  fingular  ufe  of  iMyii^oc^vn  in  this  and  other 
pafla^es  of  the  New  Teftament  confifts  in  its  being  ap- 
plied'^to  denote  '  alms,'  for  in  the  claffic  authors  it  figni- 
fies  mifericordia  in  general,  nor  is  it  ever  ufed  in  the  Sep- 
tuacrint  in  the  fenfe  of '  contributions  for  the  poor.'  That 
thelathers  have  ufed  it  in  this  fenfe  is  of  no  importance 
at  prefent,  becaufe  they  have  taken  it  from  the  Greek 
Teftament.  The  origin  of  this  fenfe  our  author  afcribes 
to  the  influence  of  the  Hebrew,  but  what  Hebrew  word 
Ihall  we  adopt  for  this  purpofe  ?  The  Syriac  tranQator 
has  rendered  £A£>if*o(ruv«.,  in  the  paflage  in  queftion,  by 
i^on,  which  correfponds  to  the  Hebrew  npTf  ^°^  ^^ 
is  true  that  this  word  is  rendered  nine  times  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint by  sx^ni^o^rvvv,  but  in  not  one  of  thofe  inftances 
does  s-Air,y.ocv,v  fignify  '  alms.'  This  fenfe  therefore,  of 
which  the  firft  traces  are  vifible  in  the  Greek  Teftament, 
ought  rather  to  be  afcribed  to  the  Syriac.  It  occurs 
fourteen  times  in  the  N.  T.  and  is  in  every  example 
rendered  in  the  Syriac  by  l^i)  j  a  clofe  connexion  there- 
fore between  the  two  words  had  been  eftabliftied  by  ac- 
tual ufage,  and  hence  the  facred  writers  have  afcribed 
to  iXs-^ixocvvn  a  fenfe  unknown  to  the  clafllc  authors,  and 
to  the  Seventy,  becaufe  this  fenfe  was  fometimes  applied 


430  '      NOTES    TO    CHAP.  IV.    SECT.   VIII. 

to  the  word,  which  correfponds  to  it  in  their  native  lan- 
guage. 

But  this  ufe  of  f XE>i]tAO(ruv»)  is  rather  to  be  attributed  to 
St.  Luke  than  to  St.  Paul,  for  though  it  is  taken  from 
a  fpeech  that  was  made  by  the  Apoftle,  it  is  probably 
the  Greek  tranflation  of  the  facred  hiftorian.  The  fpeech, 
which  St.  Paul  had  made  at  Jerufalem  a  few  days  be- 
fore, is  exprefsly  faid,  A6ts  xxii.  2.  to  have  been  fpoken 
in  the  dialed  of  the  country,  and  as  this  was  likewife 
made  before  the  Jewifli  Sanhedrim,  the  Apoftle  undoubt- 
edly delivered  it  in  the  fame  language.  Nor  has  St. 
Paul  ufed  iXtr^iAoirvvn  in  this  or  any  other  fenfe  in  any  part 
of  his  writings :  and  that  which  St.  Matthew  and  St. 
Luke  underftand  by  EAsnpoo-ui/a?  zxoni]/,  he  expreffes  by 
aoivmiav  ztokiv.      See  Rom.  XV.   26. 

22.  The  moft  certain  criterion  for  eftablifhing  a  He- 
braifm  in  an  unclaftic  phrafe  of  the  Greek  Tcftament 
feems  to  be  the  following:  *  That  a  fimilar  phrafe  be 
found  in  the  Septuagint,  which  is  a  literal  tranflation  of 
the  Hebrew.'  For  though  the  native  language  of  the 
facred  writers  had  immediate  influence  on  their  Greek 
ftyle,  yet  the  Hebrew,  at  that  time  a  dead  language, 
operated  rather  through  the  medium  of  the  Greek  ver- 
fion.  Now  the  laft  example  produced  by  our  author, 
<pocg  xarayyiXXiiVj  is  ufed  in  not  a  fmgle  inftance  in  the 
whole  Septuagint,  though  (pug  occurs  above  an  hundred 
times.  The  Syriac  tranflator  of  the  New  Teftament  has 
rendered  it  by  j;cna- i;o,  lucem  prasdicare^  but  whether 
this  idiom  is  originally  Syriac,  or  only  a  bald  tranflation 
of  the  Greek,  can  be  determined  only  by  the  difcovery 
of  a  fimilar  phrafe  in  an  original  Syriac  author:  though 
even  this  difcovery  would  be  attended  with  no  abfolute 
certainty,  fince  the  Syriac,  as  well  as  the  Greek  fathers, 
have  borrowed  their  modes  of  exprelTion  from  the  New 
Teftament,  and  the  works  of  no  Syriac  writer,  who  lived 
before  the  age  of  Chriftianity,  are  now  extant. 

The  prefent  example  affcDrds  an  opportunity  of  making 
a.  remariv  with  refpe6t  to  various  phrafcs  peculiar  to  the 

New 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.  IV.    SECT.   VIII.  431 

New  Teftamcnt,  which  feem  as  much  entitled  to  a  fe- 
parate  clafs,  as  thofe  which  are  referred  to  that  of  He- 
braifms  and  Syriafms,  After  all  the  learning,  which  has 
been  employed  in  arranging  the  remarkable  phrafes  of 
the  Greek  Teftament  under  their  refpective  heads,  there 
remains  a  great  number,  of  which  no' trace  is  to  be  found 
either  in  a  claffic  or  an  Oriental  writer,  unlefs  we  con- 
vert the  fhadow  of  fimilarity  into  fubftance.  Nor  can 
this  afford  juft  matter  of  furprife,  for  as  every  expreflion, 
in  whatever  language  it  be  ufed,  muft  have  had  a  be- 
ginning, it  is  not  unreafonable  to  afcribe  the  origin  of 
many  to  the  New  Teftament  itfelf  A  new  religion  of 
courfe  produces  new  ideas,  and  new  ideas  are  unavoid- 
ably followed  by  new  modes  of  expreffion,  which  it  is 
ufelefs  to  feek  in  the  writings  of  authors,  who  were  ftran- 
gers  to  the  ideas  themfelves. 

PAGE  157. 

23.  This  fcene  is  reprefented  by  Dr.  Harwood  in  a 
very  lively  and  elegant  manner,  in  his  Introdudlion  to 
the  New  Teftament,  Vol.  I.  p.  200. 

PAGE  158. 

24.  trnefti  Inftitutio  Interpretis  Novi  Tcftamenti,  ed. 
tertia,  Lipfise  1775.  As  our  author  quotes  from  this 
work  (which  is  held  in  high  efteem  in  Germany,  though 
he  is  himfelf  unfavourable  to  that  celebrated  critic)  with- 
out mentioning  either  chapter  or  page,  it  is  difficult  to 
difcover  to  what  part  he  alludes.  It  is  natural  to  feek 
this  obfervation  of  Ernefti  in  the  chapter  relating  to  the 
language  of  the  New  Teftament,  p.  40 — 57.  but  though 
he  prefers  the  Greek  purity  in  Philo  and  Jofephus  to 
the  Hebrew-Greek  of  St.  Paul,  confidered  merely  as 
language,  no  mention  is  made  of  the  Apoftle's  inability 
to  comprehend  the  writings  of  either. 


SECT. 


432  ^JOTES    TO    CHAP.  IV.    SECT.  IX, 


SECT.     IX. 

PAGE     159. 

I.  j^J^5  P^'gio-  See  Caftelll  et  Golii  Lexicon  Per- 
Jficiim,  p.  244.  Meninfky  Lexicon  Perf.  Arab.  Turc. 
Tom.  I.  p.  1950.  of  the  ed.  of  1680,  or  Richardfon's 
Perfian  and  Arabic  Diflionary,  Vol.  I.  p.  803.  Hefy- 
chius  obferves  that  ayyoi.^o(;  is  a  Perfian  word.  See  Al- 
berti's  Note,  Vol.  I.  p.  37.  of  his  edition  of  Hefychius^ 

1.  Stephanus  has  produced  examples  from  the  Greek 
clafllcs,  in  which  ayya^tuw,  yicf^a,  and  /tAayof  are  ufed ; 
but  of  fxiyifavii  he  fays,  apud  clafTicos  fcriptores  nomen 
hoc  me  kgere  non  memini :  yet  it  is  ufed  very  frequently 
in  the  Septuagint  and  Apocrypha,  and  was  adopted  even 
by  the  Romans,  as  appears  from  Wetftein's  Note,  to 
which  our  author  refers. 

PAGE   160. 

3.  Our  author  here  compares  with  Matth.  vi.  7.  a 
paflage  not  in  a  Perfian,  but  in  a  Turkilh  ode,  takeri 
from  Jones's  Comraentarii  Poefeos  Afiaticse,  p.  157., 
He  probably  means  Matth.  vi.  3.  for  the  paiTage  which 
he  produces  from  the  Turkifh  ode  is,  *  Let  not  the  left: 
ear  hear  the  found  of  the  gold  and  filvcr  drops  which  fall 
from  the  fource  of  the  right  hand.' 

4.,Sciunt  viri  dodli  vivere  in  Perfia  et  India  ingentemt 
hominum  ccetum,  et  late  fufum,  qui  fe  ipfi  Mendai 
Ijahi,  difcipulos  Johannis,  nominant,  vulgo  vcro  Chrifli- 
ani  S.  Johannis  ab  Europsis  vocantur,  quialevi  quadam 
et  exigua  Chrifti  cognitione  tincti  funts  ab  Orientalibus 
Sabbi  vel  Sabiim. 

Mofheim  de  rebus  Chriftian.  ante  Conftantlum  M. 
p.  43.  More  information  may  be  had  on  this  fubje6l  in 
the  3''.  and  4**'.  volumes  of  the  Commentationes  fociet. 
reg.  fcient.     Goettingenfis. 

5.  The  opinion,  that  St.  John  wrote  againfl  the  Gnof- 
tics,  has  been  called  in  queftion  by  Tittmann,  in  his 

treatife 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.  IV.    SECT.   IX.  433 

treatlfe  De  veftigiis  Gnofticorum  in  Novo  Teftamento 
fruftra  qujefitis,  Lipfi^  1773.  But  the  further  confide- 
ration  of  this  fubjedt  muft  be  deferred  to  the  particular 
Introdu6lion  to  St.  John's  Gofpel. 

PAGE  161. 
6.  Zend-Avefta,  ouvrage  de  Zoroaftre  traduit  en 
Francois  fur  I'original  Zend  avec  des  remarques  par  M. 
Anquetil  du  Perron,  3  tomes,  4^°.  Paris  1771.  Sir 
WilHam  Jones,  the  celebrated  Orientalift,  immediately 
difcovered  that  the  work  was  fpurious,  and  by  no  means 
to.be  attributed  to  Zoroafter,  in  confcquence  of  which 

he  publifhed  in  the  fame  year,  Lettre  a  M.  A du 

P dans  laquelle  eft  compris  I'Examen  de  fa  traduc- 
tion des  livres  attribues  a  Zoroaftre.  In  Germany  this 
verfion  of  Anquetil  has  met  with  more  fuccefs,  for  it 
has  not  only  been  tranflated  into  German,  but  applied 
to  the  purpofes  of  explaining  the  New  Teftament.  Com- 
mentaries and  paraphrafes  have  appeared,  in  which  the 
pretended  philofophy  of  Zoroafter  has  been  confidered 
as  a  mean  of  explaining  the  writings  of  thofe  who  firft 
propagated  the  Chriftian  religion.  But  as  a  paffion  for 
critical  and  philofophical  difcovery  has  diftinguiftied  the 
prefent  age,  inftead  of  being  furprifed  at  the  application, 
we  have  rather  realbn  to  wonder  that  no  one  has  ex- 
plored for  the  fame  purpofe,  either  the  trcafures  of  the 
Vedam,  or  the  myfteries  of  the  Chouking. 

7.  The  remarks  therefore  which  might  be  made  on 
this  fubjedl  in  general,  muft  be  deferred  to  the  fame 
place. 

PAGE  162. 

8.  The  diflertations  of  Profeflbr  Meiners,  relating  to 
the  Zend-Avefta,  are  printed  in  the  8'^  vol.  of  the  Novi 
Commentarii  Soc.  Reg.  Gottingenfis,  and  in  the  1'*.  and 
3'*.  vol.  of  the  Commentationes.  It  is  well  known,  that 
Mr.  Richard fon  is  of  the  fame  opinion  with  Profcffor 
Meiners. 


SECT. 


434  NOTES    TO    CHAP.  IV.    SECT.  X. 


SECT.       X; 

PAGE   162. 

I.  Ic  was  fpokenand  printed  at  Leipzig  in  1726,  and 
reprinted  in  Georgii  Hierocriticon. 

PAGE  163. 

1.  But  the  word  Xtyim,  in  the  New  Teftament,  de- 
notes no  part  either  of  a  Greek  or  a  Roman  army,  and 
fignifies  only  a  great,  though  indeterminate  number  ill 
general,  as  in  Matt.  xxvi.  53.  It  does  not  appear  then, 
that  a  word  of  Grecian  origin  would  have  been  lefs 
proper  than  Xiyimy  efpecially  as  this  Latin  word  is  ufed 
in  the  Greek  Teftament  in  a  fenfe  unknown  to  a  Latin 
author.  On  the  ufe  of  Af-ytwi/,  Mark  v.  9.  15.  Luke 
viii.30.  fee  Buxtorf  Lex.Talm.  p.  1 123.  f.  v.  p'Jl^,  where 
it  appears,  that  this  word  was  adopted  by  the  Rabbins, 
and  ufed  by  them,  to  fignify  one  perfon,  who  had  many 
under  his  command.  This  ienfe  is  well  adapted  to  Xiyiuvi 
as  ufed  Mark  v.  g.  15.  Luke  viii.  30. 

3.  When  our  author  fays  that  (/.acxiXXov  is  found  in 
no  Greek  author,  he  exprelles  himfelf  inaccurately,  be- 
caufe  it  occurs  in  Plutarch.  See  Kypke  Obferv.  facra?j 
Tom.  II.  p.  219.  But  as  Plutarch  thought  it  neceffary 
to  explain  it  by  x^ewttwAjoi/,  it  is  probable  that  the  word 
was  of  Latin  origin. 

PAGE  164. 

4.  The  word  ufed  in  the  Syriac  verfion  is  |;ja^aio, 
which  is  evidently  formed  from  the  Latin  word  quseftio- 
narius,  and  has  little  refemblance  to  cuftodia.  It  feems 
probable,  therefore,  that  it  was  originally  written  in  this 
manner,  and  that  its  fimilarity  to  quasftionarius  is  not 
ov/ing  to  the  error  of  a  tranfcriber.  Though  the  Latin 
v/ord  fignifies  properly  an  executioner,  yet  when  adopted 
in  the  Syriac,  it  was  ufed,  perhaps,  to  denote  officers  of 
juflice  in  general. 

5.  As 


NOTES   TO    CHAP.  IV.    SECT.  X.  435 

5.  As  St.  Llike  was  not  a  civilian,  but  a  phyfician, 
and  St.  Paul  had  been  educated,  not  in  the  forum,  but 
at  the  feet  of  Gamaliel,  it  may  feem  unreafonable  to 
exped-  in  their  writings  the  technical  terms  of  the  Ro- 
man law.     But  as  thefe  had  influence  on  the  language 
of  common  life,  and  both  St.  Luke  and  St.  Paul  were 
frequently  in  circumflances,  that  required  the  mention 
of  juridical  expreflions,  it  is  not  extraordinary  that  they 
fometimes  occur.     Whether  all  the  phrafes  which  our 
author  has  produced,  are  to  be  afcribed  to  this  caufe,  is 
at  lead  a  matter  of  doubt:  the  fimilarity  of  remittere  ad 
alium  judicem  to  avsTTE/A^/*  Ujwa?  zrpoq  avToi/y  Luke  xxiii. 
15.  is  owing,  perhaps,  rather  to  accident  than  defign,  and 
that  So)n(^a^ui  is  applied  by  St.  Luke  to  the  fame  fubjedt, 
as  Cicero  has  applied  probo,  affords  no  more  an  argu- 
ment for  a  Latinifm  in  the  former,  than  a  Grecifm  in 
the  latter,  becaufe  the  two  words  have  a  Hteral  corre- 
fpondence.     With  refped  to  u7roT»S-£i/ai  rov  ri><xxn?^0Vi  if  it 
be  explained  as  a  Latinifm,  our  author's  tranflation  of 
it  is  inadmiffible,  for  dare  jugulum  fignifies  to  expofe 
one's  Hfe,  and  not  one's  fortune  to  danger.     See  Cicero's 
Oratio  pro  Milone,  Cap.  xi.  Tom.  II.  P.  II.  p.  1357. 
ed.  Ernefti.     Our  author,  in  fupport  of  his  new  tranfla- 
tion, appeals  to  the  oration  pro  Quintio,  in  which  he 
fays  jugulum  is  very  frequendy  ufed  in  the  fenfe  which 
he  here  afcribes  to  it :  yet  I  have  read  the  whole  oration 
without  difcovering  jugulum  in  a  fingle  infliance,  which 
would  be  hardly  polTible,  if  it  occurred  fo  frequently  as 
he  relates. 

6.  For  infl:ance  Xivnov,  John  xiii.  4,  5.  a-s^apiov,  John 
xi.  44.  ^rivocpioi/y  Luke  vii.  41.  o-rrfxaXaTwp,  Mark  vi.  27. 
(xifx^pxyx,  1  Tim.  iv.  13.  Tx^ip\/Ytj  A6tsxxviii.  15.  (xiXiov, 
Matth.  V.  41.  xo(?pavT»!?,  Matth.  v.  26.  oitra-apiov)  Matth. 
X.  29. 

PAGE   165. 

7.  The  erroneous  quotations  (whether  they  are  mif- 
takes  of  the  writer  or  of  the  printer  I  will  not  determine) 
in  the  preceding  part  of  this  work  I  have  carefully  cor- 

E  E  2  reeled. 


43^  NOTES    TO    CHAP.  iV.    SECT.  X. 

re6led,  except  in  one  or  two  inftanccs  which  I  have 
noted.  I  have  Hkewife  here  corre6led  a  wrong  quota- 
tion from  Jofcphus,  but  I  am  unable  to  re6lify  all  thofe 
tha-.  are  here  taken  from  Philo.  Of  the  ten  references 
to  that  author^  not  lefs  than  feven  are  inaccurate.  For 
the  firft  and  fifth  examples  in  Note  (y)  belong  pro- 
perly to  Note  (z),  and  the  fixth  is  totally  falfe.  In 
Note  (z),  which  relates  ^^hc  ufe  of  i'kiyx'^^i  and  ra 
cvvn§oroq  i>-iyx°'^  ^n  ^^^^  ij^t  of  confcience,  is  no  ex- 
ample which  Ihews  the  ufe  of  the  latter ;  in  the  two 
liril  examples  of  this  Note  tMyy^oq  is  ufed,  but  they 
prove  the  contrary  of  our  author's  explanation,  becaufe 
iuyX°'^  is  ufed  as  a  predicate  of  to  (rwnhq,  and  therefore 
cannot  itfelf  fignify  confcience :  the  third  example  is  to- 
tally falfe.  In  Note  (a)  the  reference  is  likewife  erro- 
neous, for  vzq  is  not  once  ufed  in  the  whole  page.  It  is 
to  be  obferved  that  our  author,  in  quoting  from  the 
works  of  Philo,  underflands  the  edition  of  Mangey, 
■which  he  has  noted  on  a  former  occafion. 

8.  But  if  cvTjutiv,(n<;  is  ufed  not  only  in  the  book  of 
Wifdom,  but  likewife  in  the  Greek  verfion  of  Eccle- 
fiaftes,  it  was  introduced  long  before  the  Latin  language 
could  have  had  the  leaft  influence  on  the  Greek.  That 
it  is  ufed  only  in  a  fingle  example  is  of  no  importance, 
for  this  alone  is  fufficient  to  deftroy  the  whole  hypothefis. 
It  is  even  a  matter  of  doubt  whether  the  particular  fenfe 
of  <r\i)/iih7iqj  as  expreffive  of  confcience,  is  to  be  afcribed 
to  the  Latin,  for  as  it  is  ufed  in  that  manner  in  the  book 
of  Wifdom,  which  was  probably  written  before  Egypt 
had  been  reduced  to  a  Roman  province,  it  is  more  na- 
tural to  feek  its  origin  in  the  idiom  of  Alexandria,  than 
in  the  idiom  of  Rome.  Befides,  confcientia  in  the  Latin 
claffics,  like  to  o-uveJo?  in  the  Greek,  denoted  rather  the 
confcioufnefs  of  a  good  or  evil  aftion,  whereas  cvvii" 
hTig,  in  the  New  Teftament,  which  alone  is  the  objedt 
of  our  prefent  inquiry,  denotes  the  principle  of  percep- 
tion, as  well  as  the  perception  itfelf.  The  Romans  faid  in 
general,  confcientia  fcelerum,  confcientia  animi,  whereas 

Sc, 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.  IV.    SECT.  XI.  437 

St.  Paul  has  not  only  <rvv(i^r,(riq  oi.^ocDriwVf  but  (Axi>Tvoio])  rn( 

g.  Tom.  I.  p.  309.  ed.  Wefleling. 

10.  The  paffage  from  Poly bi us  is  quoted  by  Raphel, 
in  his  Annotationes  PhilologiccE  ex  Arriano  et  Poly  bio, 

p.  153-  ,      . 

11.  The  pafTage  from  Appian  is  quoted  by  Kypke,  in 
his  Obf.  facrre,  Tom.  I.  197.  He  has  likewife  pro- 
duced a  paffage  from  Arrian,  where  the  phrafe  is  ufed 
paffively,  »xa^ov  tTronsfxi^a.,  which  cannot  be  a  Latinihn, 
becaufe  the  Latin  language  admits  not  that  turn  of  ex- 
preffion.  But  there  is  a  paffage  in  the  Septuagint  hither- 
to overlooked,  which  puts  the  matter  out  of  doubt,  fince 
no  one  will  afcribe  the  phraies  of  the  Alexandrine  verfion 
to  the  influence  of  the  Latin;  xi'x^i  ro  i^xvov  avrui  s^  stwj 
(TTOiwev  i  Jeremiah  xlviii.  30. 

PAGE   166. 

12.  The  anfwer  as  given  in  the  original  language  Is 
no  where  on  record,  and  the  only  mean  of  forming  a 
probable  conjeflure  is  the  Syriac  verfion,  but  here  we 
find  a  totally  different  expreffion  ^  ^f-  ^^j|- 

S     E     C     T.      XI 

PAGE    167. 

I.  That  f^8o-ta,  I  Cor.  xi.  10.  fignifies  a  veil  is  admit- 
ted  by  moft  critics,  but  they  are  not  unanimous  in  the 
mode  of  accounting  for  it.  Hardy  lays,  ^  Velamen  efh 
fignum  imperii  quod  in  uxorem  habet  maritus,'  which 
is  the  interpretation  of  the  Greek  fathers.  But  if  the 
emblem  of  power  was  worn  by  the  woman,  it  is  rather  a 
token  of  fubjedlion  on  the  part  of  the  man,  and  if  E^Jo-ia 
relates  to  the  authority  of  the  man,  it  is  very  improperly 
applied  to  the  drefs  of  the  woman :  on  the  other  hand, 
if  a  veil  is  a  token  of  fubmiffion,  the  ufc  of  s^^o-kx.  in  thac 
fenfe  involves  a  contradi6lion.  Vorftius  explains  it  as  a 
flebraifm,  and  has  recourfe  to  nni,  but  as  this  word 
admits  not  the  fenfe  of  poteftas,  and  £^a5-j«  is  never  ufe4 

jE  E  3  ia. 


43^  NOTIS    TO    CHAP.  IV.    SECT.  XI. 

in  the  fenfe  of  nn*l,  the  two  v/ords  are  wholly  uncon- 
ne6led.     In  Schoettgen's  Lexicon,  appeal  is  made  t13^D 
't^kSn,  poteftas  capitis  mei,  Pf.  Ix.  9.  but  here  the  notion 
of  a  veil  is  wanting,  the  expreflion  is  ufcd  as  proceeding 
from  the  Deity,  is  rendered  in  the  LXX  Kparaicco-if  mc 
xKpccXv;  fj^>i,  and  there  is  no  reference  whatfoever  to  a 
covering  for  the  head.     Nothing  is  more  eafy  than  the 
invention  of  an  Hebraifm,  provided  we  can  fatisfy  our- 
felves  with  the  fhadow  inftead  of  the  fubftance  :  but  un- 
kfs  plain  reafon  be  banifhed  from  philological  inquiries, 
no  man  can  be  fatisfied  with  the  principle  of  an  Hebraifm 
on  the  prefent  occafion  till  an  Hebrew  word  be  produced 
which  denotes  both  poteftas,  and  velum.     The  foregoing 
explanations  therefore  are  very  properly  rejefted  by  our 
author,  but  the  folution  which  he  has  given  is  attended 
with  no  inconfiderable  difficulty.     The  palTage  in  quef- 
tion  relates  not  to  the  fofhions  of  the  Corinthian  ladies, 
but  to  the  doclrines  of  the  Rabbins,  and  the  two  exam- 
ples  produced  by   our  author   by  way   of  illuftration 
(which  I  have  referved  for  thefe  notes)  that  the  word 
Confideration  has  been  ufed  in  fome  provinces  of  Ger- 
many to  denote  a  petticoat,  and  that  a  pair  of  Excellen- 
cies fignified  formerly  at  Hanover  a  pair  of  gouty  (hoes, 
becauie  worn  frequently  by  gentlemen  who  had  that 
title,  muft  naturally  excite  a  fmile.     A  cant  expreflion 
of  this  nature  is  unfuitable  to  the  gravity  of  St.  Paul's 
epiftles,  and  as  the  Apoftle  has  ufed  i^acrix  in  not  lefs 
than  ten  examples  in  the  fame  epiftle,  an  extraordinary 
ufe  of  it  in  this  inftance  alone  muft  unavoidably  have 
perplexed  the  Corinthians  themfelves.    The  palTage  may 
be  moft  eafily  explained  if  we  take  fgao-ia  in  the  fenfe  of 
prsfidium,  a  notion  very  nearly  allied  to  that  of  poteftas 
and  imperium.     It  is  true,  that  no  inftance  has  been 
produced  from  a  claflic  author,  in  which  s^ao-ia  has  this 
meaning :  but  f^ao-ja  and  i^s<riu^u}  are  frequently  ufed  in 
the  Greek  verfion  of  the  book  of  Daniel  for  fome  deriva- 
tive of  the  Chaldee  verb  *Cibl^,  or  for  the  verb  itfelf. 
Now  the  fubftantive  ^7^  fignifies  an  inftrument  of  pro- 
tedionjorafbield.  BuxtorliiLex.  Chald.  Rabb.  p.  141 6. 

On 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.  IV.    SECT.  XI.  439 

On  this  principle  the  words  in  queflion  J»a  mro  oipiiXtt  n 
yvuv  t^aa-ian  ix^^y  tiri  ty,;  mpxXrigy  vvould  be  tran Hated  *  for 
this  reafon  the  woman  ought  to  have  a  protection  on  her 
head.'  This  proteftion  was  her  veil.  Should  this  ex- 
planation be  thought  unfatisfaftory,  more  information 
may  be  had  in  Wolfii  Cura;  Philologies  et  Criticae,  in 
quatuor  priores  S.  Pauli  epiftolas,  p.  474 — 478.  ed.  2''\ 

PAGE  168. 

2.  In  his  Obfervationes  Philologico-criticas,  p.  368. 

3.  If  x«S-w?  is  the  corredlion  of  a  tranfcriber,  the 
corre6lion  mufl  have  been  made  in  a  very  early  age,  for 
this  reading  is  exprefled  in  the  Syriac  verfion.  Likewife 
in  the  three  capital  manufcripts  Cod.  Alexandrinus,  Cy- 
prius,  and  Regius  2243,  inftead  of  the  common  reading 
KAinn  (as  written  in  the  ancient  MSS.  without  inter- 
vals) w  find  KA0X1  .  Now  the  latter  feems  to  have 
been  the   original  reading   for   the   following  reafons. 

1.  Though  zTug  occurs  fourteen  times  in  St.  Mark's 
Gofpel,  he  has  no  where  ufed  it  as  equivalent  to  xaS'wf. 

2.  According  to  the  common  reading  the  conj.  xxi  forms 
a  new  claufe,  in  which  is  an  oblique  conflrudlion  with- 
out any  principal  verb,  an  imperfection  which  muft  be 
felt  by  the  very  worft  writer.  3.  If  the  upper  and  lower 
ftrokes  of  the  0  were  effaced  in  an  ancient  MS.  from 
which  copies  were  taken,  tranfcribers,  who  were  not  al- 
ways the  befl  fcholars,  might  eafily  imagine  that  the  left 
hand  ftroke  was  an  I,  and  that  on  the  right  hand  with 
the  dot  in  the  middle  the  remnant  of  a  II,  whereas  III 
could  not  be  fo  eafily  miftaken  for  Q. 

4.  In  his  Obf.  Sacrse,  Tom.  I.  p.  174. 

PAGE  169. 

5.  This  paflFage  from  Thomas  Magiller  is  quoted  in 
Wetftein's  Note  to  Rom,  ix,  4,  where  ^loc^nyMi  is  ex- 
plained as  the  Covenant  made  with  Abraham,  Ifaac,  and 
Jacob.  But  notwithftanding  the  authority  of  two  fuch 
eminent  critics  as  Wetftein,  and  Michaelis,  we  may  ven- 
ture to  doubt,  whether  St.  Paul  underftood  «»  Smhaon  as 

E  E  4  an 


440  NOTES    TO    CHAP.  IV.    SECT.  XI. 

an  Attlcifm  in  the  fenfe  of  the  fingular,  for  the  following 
reafons.  i.  St.  Paul  has  ufed  in  not  lefs  than  twenty- 
fix  examples,  where  he  intends  to  exprefs  a  fingle  cove- 
nant, Jj«9jik)i  in  the  fingular.  2.  In  all  his  epiftles  (JjaG'/ixai 
in  the  plural  occurs  in  only  two  inftances,  Rom.  ix.  4. 
which  is  the  palTage  in  queflion,  and  Gal.  iv.  24.  In 
the  latter  inftance  we  find  at  Svo  J*a6»iJtaj,  the  two  cove- 
nants ;  he  makes  therefore  an  evident  diftinclion  between 
the  fingular  and  the  plural,  for  the  ufe  of  J'uo  wholly  ex- 
cludes an  Atticifm.  Is  it  not  then  reafonable  to  fuppofe 
that  in  the  remaining  example,  Rom.  ix.  4.  he  intended 
to  exprefs  the  New  as  well  as  the  Old  Covenant  ?  3.  In- 
dependent of  the  foregoing  circumftances  the  context 
itfelf  pleads  for  a  plural  fenfe,  for  immediately  after  «* 

Siot^nxoct^    St.  Paul  adds  ?i  vofji-oha-ix,   kixi    r\   Xocr^ii.ix.i   Hxi    on 

frrafyF.Xixi^  where  vo^oh(Tix  and  Xocx^hx  refer  to  the  Old 
Covenant,  iTralyiXioci  to  the  New,  it  being  the  defign  of 
the  Apoftle  to  convince  the  Jews  that  they  were  not  only 
partakers  of  the  former,  but  heirs  of  the  latter. 

PAGE  170. 

6.  *  Per  S-^E^-i/xaTa  hoc  loco  familiam  feu  domefticos 
Jacobi  intelligo.  Haud  rara  eft  hac  notione  vox  ^^sfxixx 
profanisj  quae,  quum  a  T/3£(pw  defcendat,  alumnos  proprie 
notat.'  He  then  produces  examples  from  Libanius  and 
the  Arundel  marbles. 

See  Kypke  Obf.  facnT,  Tom.  I.  p.  361. 
The  word  '  cattle,'  ufed  in  the  Englilh  verfion  is  ftill 
retained  in  the  late  tranflation  of  Dr.  Campbell,  and  is 
accompanied  with  no  remark :  a  circumflance  which 
fnews  that  foreign  literature  is  lefs  noticed  in  England 
than  it  deferves. 

7.  See  Pococke's  Infcriptiones  antiquse,  p.  24. 

PAGE  171. 

8.  See  alfo  Pococke  s  Infcriptiones  antique?,  p.  54. 

9.  If  (saa-tXixo?  were  a  proper  name,  St.  John  would 
rather  have  written  ng  oio[j.a.ri  (^ocaiXiKcg.  See  Luke  i.  5. 
A6ls  V.  I.  xviii.  24.  and  other  examples,  where  tj?  when 
placed  before  a  proper  name  is  followed  by  o^o^xn. 

PAGE 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.  IV.    SECT.  XI.  441 

PACE   172. 

10.  Neither  Wetftein  nor  Griefbach  have  quoted  a 
various  reading  to  this  pafTage,  either  from  a  MS.  or  a 
verfion  in  which  Nazarenus  is  uled  in  the  vocative. 
Now  whether  thefe  eminent  critics  have  been  guilty  of 
negled,  or  whether  the  adjeftive  agrees  with  Ua-sg  in  the 
Syriac,  as  well  as  in  the  Greek,  can  be  determined  only 
by  examining  the  paflage  itfelf.  The  words  of  the  Syriac 
verfion  are  U-f  A-ooi  \ia^  va:^  Ajj  o^\o^  which  Schaaf  has 
rendered  '  et  tu  quoque  cum  Jefu  eras  Nazareno,'  which 
leems  to  be  a  very  accurate  tranflation,  for  had  the  au- 
thor of  the  Syriac  verfion  intended  to  exprefs  l^lxl^ccpnvs, 
he  would  have  ufed  \^;^  Ajj  not  ^;^j  alone. 

11.  Our  author  here  produces  a  paflage  from  a  Ger- 
man book,  written  by  S.  Schultz,  and  entitled,  *  Guid- 
ance of  God,  in  a  Courfe  of  Travels  through  Europe, 
Afia,  and  Africa.'  The  writer  of  this  work,  who  vifited 
Nazareth  in  1754,  relates  thatEnduNufrani,  that  is,  thou 
art  a  Nazarene,  is  at  prefent  a  common  term  of  reproach. 
But  we  mull  not  forget  that  Nazarene  is  the  univerfal 
appellation  of  the  Chriftians  of  the  Eaft,  who  are  fo  called 
from  the  place  where  the  founder  of  our  religion  refided. 
See  Adls  xxiv.  5.  Epiphanius  Hsref.  29.  c.  6.  and  Hot- 
tinger's  Hill.  Orientalis,  p.  332.  It  feems  then,  accord- 
ing to  its  general  ufe,  to  be  a  term  of  contempt,  becaufe 
the  Mohammedans  confider  the  Chriftians  as  a  fet  of 
Beings  inferior  to  themfelves,  and  it  exprefles  nearly  the 
fame  difrefped  as  the  word  Pagan  in  the  mouth  of  a 
Chriftian  at  the  time  of  the  Crufades. 

PAGE  173. 

12.  By  moft  commentators,  and  in  moft  tranflations, 
among  which  the  Syriac  may  be  reckoned,  is  underftood 
not  ufxi,  eo,  but  £i{xi,  fum.  In  the  Vulgate,  as  well  as 
in  our  common  Enghfh  verfion,  it  is  literally  rendered 
by  the  prefent  tenfe,  but  Beza  has  tranflated  it  by  the 
future,  and  in  this  he  is  followed  by  Dr.  Campbell. 
Wetftein  has  quoted  the  Cod.  Cant,  for  EiyA,  eoi  but 

this 


442  NOTES    TO    CHAP.    IV.    SECT.    XII. 

this  fenfe  can  depend  only  on  the  authority  of  the  Latin 
tranflation,  this  MS.  being  written  without  accents. 
Griefbach  prefers  the  fenfe  of  eo,  and  quotes  for  that 
purpofe  the  ^Ethiopic  and  Armenian  verfions,  Nonnus, 
Theophylaft,  and  three  celebrated  Latin  MSS. 


SECT.      XIL 

PAGE     173. 

1.  Our  author  here  introduces  a  rule  from  a  Greek 
Grammar,  written  in  German,  and  called  die  Markifche 
Grammatik,  which  I  have  been  obliged  to  omit,  becaufe 
the  rule  is  illuftrated  by  feveral  German  particles,  and  in 
a  tranflation  would  not  be  fo  intelligible,  as  in  the  origi- 
nal. But  it  amounts  to  nothing  more  than  this,  that  the 
genitive  is  the  ufual  cafe  abfolute  in  Greek,  but  that  in 
the  Attic  dialeft  the  nominative  was  fometimes  ufed  ab- 
folute. Now  it  cannot  be  denied  that  a  nominative  ab- 
folute fometimes  occurs  in  the  Attic  writers,  efpecially 
the  poets,  of  which  the  following  is  an  example,  taken 
from  the  Antigone,  1.  266. 

But  even  if  the  nominative  were  as  frequently  ufed 
abfolute  as  the  genitive,  it  would  be  of  no  ufe  in  ex- 
plaining thofe  paflages  of  the  Septuagint  to  which  our 
author  refers,  becaufe  their  conftruftion  is  totally  dif- 
ferent from  that,  which  is  generally  underftood  by  a  cafe 
abfolute,  as  will  appear  from  the  following  note. 

2.  If  the  paflages  here  produced  from  the  Septuagint 
are  to  be  explained  on  the  principle  of  an  Attic  nomi- 
native abfolute,  we  have  a  lift  of  Atticifms,  in  many  of 
which  the  conftruftion  is  fo  extraordinary,  that  an  Athe- 
nian might  perhaps  have  found  it  difficult  to  compre- 
hend them.  Befides,  a  cafe  abfolute  neceflTarily  implies 
a  noun  or  a  pronoun  which  agrees  with  the  participle ; 

but 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.    IV.    SECT.    XII.  443 

but  in  all  thefe  examples  we  find  the  participle  alone, 
which  (if  we  except  Gen.  xvi.  5.  where  we  find  jJ'ao-a, 
that  evidently  refers  to  yiTi[jt.oi<T%]f)  is  invariably  xeym  or 
Tisyoung.  It  is  nothing  more  than  a  tranllation  of 
the  Hebrew  Gerund  ^^tDKb",  which  the  Seventy  have 
rendered,  even  barbaroufly  in  many  cafes,  by  the  parti- 
ciple. For  inftance,  Gen.  xv.  i.  hi^  nm*  "IHI  HM 
Kl^")  bx  "IQ^b  nrn,::n  Diat^  is  tran dated  lyeu^n^  pvi^x 

xvpm  Trpo?  Aj3p«|W.  iv  o^x^uri,   Xiym    ^yj  (popa.       Again,    i^V^ 

is  rendered  in  the  Septuagint  iytviro  ^e  f^iTsc  ra,  ^Yi[xa.Toe, 

rxvTotf    xoti  OL))V[yyikr\  tw  k^^a.a.^.^   Xiyovrig  jJ*8  t£to>££  MfAp^a. 

The  ufe  therefore  of  Xiym  and  Af-yoi/TE?  in  thefe  ex- 
amples is  to  be  afcribed  rather  to  the  influence  of  the 
Hebrew,  than  to  the  poliflied  diale6l  of  Athens  :  it  is  a 
Judaifm  not  an  Atticifm,  not  Attic  but  Jev^iih  Greek. 

3.  To  judge  of  this  example,  it  is  neceflary  to  ex- 
amine not  only  the  words  in  queflion,  but  thofe  with 
which  they  are  connected.     Rom.   ix.  9,   10.  Erat  t»i 

Hxpooi,  Uioj'  «  fxoi/ov  Sb,  ocXXx  xai  PiQiKKcc  i^  mog  xoirnv  i^na-oc. 

Now  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  conflrudion  is  ob- 
icure ;  but  it  feems  more  reafonable  to  fuppofe  that  era* 
is  underftood  after  tx^a-ay  as  it  immediately  precedes  in 
the  fame  fentence,  though  it  is  feparated  by  the  modern 
divifion  into  verfes,  than  to  have  recourfe  to  a  cafe  ab- 
folute :  for  on  this  principle  we  have  a  claufe  commenc- 
ing with  aAA«  x«j,  and  containing  no  verb  either  ex- 
prefled  or  underftood,  which  unavoidably  leaves  the  fenfe 
imperfedt. 

PAGE   174. 

4.  Mark  xv.  36.  A^a^uv  ^i  fj?  >t«t  yif^itrxg  <nro[yov  o^ag 
■arf^iOfi?  T£  v.aXa^w  iiroTii^iv  avrovj  Xiyooi/,  a(piri  i^uy^m  n  SP^^- 

rxi  HXixg  xx^iKHv  xvtov.  Here  Xiyuv  evidently  agrees  with 
fK,  and  to  explain  it  as  a  nom.  abf.  is  to  do  a  double 
violence  to  the  fentence,  i.  to  tear  it  from  the  noun  with 
which  it  is  connedled,  2.  to  underftand  the  pronoun  tk. 
The  apparent  contradidion  between  the  two  Evangehfts, 
which  our  author  has  mentioned,  may  be  removed  in  a 

much 


444  NOTES    TO    CHAP.    IV.    SECT.    XIII. 

much  eafier  manner,  by  taking  a^injui  in  the  fenfe  of 
permitto,  inftead  of  the  ufual  tranflation  omitto. 

5.  See  Fifcheri  Prolufiones  de  vitiis  Lexicon  N.  T. 
p.  250.  Lipfice  1 79 1. 


SECT.       XIII. 

PAGE     176. 

1.  Raphel  in  his  Annotat.  philolog.  in  N.  T.  ex.  Po- 
iybio  et  Arriano,  p.  360 — 375.  has  given  a  great  num- 
ber of  examples  in  which  zxiftg  is  ufed  in  the  fenfe  of 
Proof,  or  Ground  of  BcHef,  but  neither  Stephanus,  Ra- 
phel, Wetftcin,  nor  Kypke,  have  produced  an  inftance 
from  a  clafTic  author,  where  the  abftrad  ?i  zrifig  is  ufed 
for  the  concrete  to  zysrrifsvfxivoK  If  our  author  has  dif- 
covered  an  example,  it  would  have  been  a  fatisfaftion 
to  his  readers  if  he  had  mentioned  it,  efpecially  as  this 
fenfe  is  well  fuited  to  the  paflage, 

PAGE    177. 

2.  Yet  our  author,  in  the  place  to  which  he  refers, 
fays  himfelf,  p.  13.  that  the  examples  muft  be  referved 
for  his  public  ledlures.  It  is  true  that  he  explains, 
p.  20 — 23.  the  meaning  of  o-xavtTjeXj^Eo-S-aj,  a-vunS-na-i^f  and 
Mi^o^iUy  but  for  the  laft  example  alone  he  refers  to. the 
Septuagint,  viz.  Exod.  xvii.  2.  7.  Num.  xx.  3.  13.  Deur, 
xxxiii.  8.  There  is  an  excellent  chapter  on  this  fubjedt 
in  Ernefti  Inft.  Interpr.  Nov.  Teft.  p,  160 — 173.  3''.  ed. 

3.  Our  author  here  obferves  that  ^wrifw  is  frequently 
ufed  in  the  Septuagint  for  rn^T^y  hiph.  a  H"!',  which  in 
that  conj.  fignifies  docuit.  The  examples  may  be  (ten 
in  Biel  and  Trommius. 

4.  In  our  author's  Note  to  Heb.  xi.  5.  is  given  the 
following  reafon  why  ivn^ifvixivon  0£w  is  improperly  ren- 
dered in  the  common  tranflation,  viz.  that  Gen.  v.  24. 
tDTlbxH  im  "llin  "l^I^^'l  ^^  ambulavit  Henoch  cum, 
Deo  is  rendered  in  the  LXX  hki  ivn^is-v<rsu  Euu^^'^V  ®^Vi 
on  which  he  obferves  that  the  notion  of  walking  with 

God 


NOTES    TO    CHAI*.    IV.    SECT.   XII.'  445 

God  is  more  nearly  conne6led  with  that  of  ferving,  than 
that  of  pleafing  God. 

5.  As  the  plural  rnbriD  is  not  ufed  in  the  pafTage  of 
Ifaiah  to  which  our  author  refers,  nor  in  the  two  other 
inftances  produced  by  Biel,  viz.  If.  xlii.  8.  12.  a  more 
convenient  example  may  be  taken  from  If  xliii.  7.  where 
we  find  nin*  mbnn  in  the  Hebrew,  and  a^sron  Ku^ jh  in 
the  Septuagint.  This  remark  is  made  on  the  fuppofition 
that  the  pi.  number  occafions  the  difficulty,  for  x^ityi  in 
the  fing.  was  ufed  in  the  fenfe  of  honour  or  glory  as  long 
ago  as  the  days  of  Homer. 

Iliad.  XX.  242. 
PAGE   178. 

6.  The  Concordance  of  Trommius  was  publiilicd  in 
1 718,  the  Codex  Chigianus  in  1772. 

7.  I  have  likewife  found  many  inaccuracies  in  the  re- 
ferences to  the  quoted  texts,  an  imperfedion  which  can- 
not with  any  juftice  be  laid  to  the  charge,  of  the  learned 
and  induftrious  compiler,  fince  in  a  work  con  filling  of 
two  folio  volumes,  every  page  of  which  contains  nearly 
four  hundred  figures,  errata  were  unavoidable.  But  it 
Ihould  ferve  as  a  caution  to  all  authors,  not  to  depend 
on  this  or  any  other  concordance,  without  referring  to 
the  paflages  themfelves ;  and  I  could  produce  examples 
where  this  negledl  has  occafioned  miftakes,  not  only  in 
this  Introduftion,  but  in  Biel's  Lexicon  ad  LXX  Inter- 
pretes.  To  mention  one  only  in  particular.  Num.  iv,  21. 
is  quoted  in  Trommius  for  E^aTrtva,  it  ought  to  be  Num. 
iv.  20.  but  this  erratum  has  been  copied  by  Biel, 
Tom.  I.  p.  554.  and  by  our  author,  Vol.  I.  p.  154.  4'\ 
cd.  of  Ms  Introdu6lion. 

8.  To  Biel's  Lexicon  in  LXX  Interpretes,  which  was 
publifhed  at  the  Hague  in  1779  and  17 So,  in  3  vols.  8''% 
may  be  added  Lexici  in  interpretes  Gnecos  V.  T. 
maxime  fcriptores  apocryphos  Spicilegium,  pofr  Bielium 
congefiit  et  edidit  J.  F.  Schleufner,  L.lpux  1784,  8"°. 
Specimen  IL  ib,  ]'j't!,6. 

9.  Our 


44^  NOTES    TO    CHAP.    IV.    SECT.    XlV. 

9.  Our  author  recommends  in  this  part  of  his  Pro- 
gramma  a  diligent  fludy  of  Ecclefiaftes,  and  the  book 
of  Wifdom ;  not  only  as  they  are  excellent  fyftems  of 
morality,  but  with  a  view  of  determining  more  precifely, 
whether  allufions  are  made  to  them  in  the  New  Tefta- 
ment,  in  the  fame  manner  as  to  the  Proverbs. 

10.  Our  author's  commentary  on  the  firft  book  of 
the  Maccabees,  entitled  Ueberfetzung  des  erften  Buchs 
der  Maccabiier,  was  publilhed  in  1778,  ten  years  before 
the  prefent  edition  of  his  Introduction  appeared.  The 
pafTage  has  remained  unaltered,  as  it  flood  in  the  third 
edition :  at  that  time  he  was  unable  to  determine  the 
pages,  where  examples  of  this  nature  would  be  given, 
and  as  he  has  not  done  it  in  this  laft  edition,  I  am  un- 
able to  quote  them  in  thefe  notes. 

PACE   179. 

11.  This  is  a  refinement  which  feems  to  have  no 
foundation,  fince  a  requeft  from  an  Apoftle  is  equivalent 
to  a  command.  It  implies  alfo  that  Tropvux  has  a  parti- 
cular meaning  in  this  pafiage,  which  our  author  endea- 
vours to  eftablifh  in  the  following  fedtion  j  but  it  will 
appear  from  the  remark  on  his  explanation,  that  it  is 
fupported  by  no  authority. 

12.  In  his  Obf.  facrae,  Tom.  II.  p.  i6r. 

SECT.      XIV. 

PAGE     182. 

I.  The  beft  treatife  on  the  Hebraifms  of  the  New 
Teftament  is  Johannis  Vorftii  de  Hebraifmis  Novi  Ted. 
Commentarius,  ed.  Fifcher,  Lipfiae  1778.  The  learned 
editor  is  likewife  preparing  a  fupplement  to  this  work, 
the  firft  and  fecond  fpecimens  of  which  have  been  lately 
publiOied  under  the  title  of  Supplementorum  Commen- 
tarii  J.  Vorftii  fpecimen  primum,  ab  J.  F.  Fifchero, 
Lipfias  1791.  Specimen  fecundum  ib.  Fifcher's  edi- 
tion of  "  Leufdenii  de  dialeftis  N.  T.  fmgulatim  de 

ejus 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.    IV.    SECT.    XIV.  447 

ejus  Hebraifmis,  libellus  fingularis,"  publiihed  at  Leipzig 
in  1792,  is  likewife  a  valuable  work. 

2.  In  our  author's  edition  of  this  celebrated  work, 
which  has  been  twice  printed  at  Gottingen.  His  pre- 
face and  notes  were  again  publifhed  by  Bifhop  Lowth 
himfelf,  under  the  following  title:  J.  D.  MichaeHs  in 
Roberti  Lowth  prselediones  de  Sacra  Poefi  Hebrseorum 
Notas  et  Epimetra,  Oxon.  1763. 

3.  Lightfooti  Horte  Hebraicse  et  Talmudic^e,  4". 
which,  befide  the  original  edition,  has  been  twice  printed 
at  Leipzig  in  1679  and  1684.  This  work  includes 
only  the  four  Gofpels. 

Chriftiani  Schoettgenii  Horse  Hebraicae  et  Talmudicas 
in  univerfum  N.  T.  4'°.  Tom.  I.  Drefd^  1733.  Tom. 
II.  ib.  1742. 

To  thefe  may  be  added  Novum  Teftamentum  ex 
Talmude  et  antiquitatibus  Ebrseorum  illuftratum,  ed. 
Meufchen,  Lipfi^e  1736,  4'°. 

4.  The  Milhnah  has  been  tranflated  into  German  by 
Rabe,  and  publifhed  at  Onolzbach  in  1760 — 1763,  in 
6  vols.  4*°.  He  likewife  began  the  tranflation  of  the 
Gemara.  This  work  is  highly  efteemed,  and  faid  to  be 
much  more  accurate  than  the  Latin  tranflation  of  Su- 
renhufius,  publifhed  at  Amfterdam  1698 — 17 13,  infix 
parts  or  volumes,  folio. 

PAGE  183. 

5.  Yet  of  all  the  Oriental  languages,  the  Syriac  feems 
to  be  the  moll  neceflary  for  an  interpreter  of  the  New 
Teftament,  as  being  the  native  language  of  the  facred 
writers. 

PAGE     184. 

6.  Annotationes  philologies  in  N.  T.  ex  Xenophonte 
coUedlas  a  Georgio  Raphelio,  Hamburgi  1709,  8"°.  ed. 
1^^.  ib.  1720.  Annotationes  philologicas  ex  Polybio  et 
Arriano  a  G.  Raphelio,  Hamburgi  1715,  S''".  Anno- 
tationes in  facram  fcripturam,  hilloricii;  in  Vetus,  phi- 
lolooicec  in  Novum  Tcltamcntum  ex  Herodoto  colleftne 

aG. 


44^  NOTES    TO    CHAP.    IV.    SECT.    XIV. 

a  G.  Raphelio,  S"".  Liineburgi  1731.  A  complete  edi- 
tion of  all  Raphel's  annotations  was  publifhed  at  Leyden 
in  1747,  in  two  vols.  8''^ 

7.  Jacobi  Elfneri  Obf.  facrae  in  Novi  Foederis  libros, 
Tom.  I.  Trajed.  ad  Rhen.  1720,  Tom.  2'"".  ib.  1728, 
8"°. 

J.  Alberti  Obf.  phil.  in  facros  Ncvi  Foederis  libros, 
Lugduni  Bat.  1725,  8''°. 

8.  Publifhed  at  Brellau  in  1775,  in  2  vols.  %"". 

PAGE     185. 

9.  Benedifti  Carpzovii  exercitationes  in  Pauli  epifto- 
lam  ad  Hebroeos,  ex  Philone  Alexandrino,  Helmftad. 
1750,  8- 

Benedifti  Carpzovii  flrifliiroe  in  epiflolam  Pauli  ad 
Romanos,  afperfi  fubinde  funt  fiores  ex  Philone  Alex- 
andrino,  Helmftad.  1758,  ed.  2''^  8"°. 

Jo.  Tobi^  Krebfii  Obf.  in  Nov.  Tcft.  e  Fl.  Jofepho, 
Lipfi2E  1755,  8"°. 

PAGE     186. 

10.  To  the  writers  mentioned  by  our  author,  who 
have  attempted  to  illuftrate  the  N.  T.  by  means  of  the 
claffic  authors,  may  be  added  the  following : 

Loefneri  Obferv.  ad  Nov.  Tell,  e  Philone  Alexan- 
drino,  8"^°.  Lipfife   1777. 

Kiihnii  Spicilegium  Loefneri  Obferv.  in  Nov.  Teft. 
e  Philone,  8'°.  Lipfiae  1785. 

Liixdorfiana  e  Platone.  Partlcula  prima,  Hafniae 
1790.  But  this  publication  from  the  papers  of  the  late 
learned  Luxdorf  is  rather  philofophical  than  philolo- 
gical. 

Mr.  Wakefield  llkewife,  in  the  fecond  volume  of  his 
Silva  critica,  publilhed  at  Cambridge  in  1790,  has  ex- 
plained with  great  learning  and  ingenuity  many  difficult 
paflages  in  the  Gofpels,  and  the  Ads,  from  the  claffic 
authors.  The  third  volume  has  been  lately  publifhed 
in  1792,  and  contains  philological  remarks  on  the  epif- 
tles  of  St.  Paul. 

PAGE 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.    IV.    SECT.    XIV.  449 

Many  other  authors  might  be  mentioned,  who  have 
illuftrated  the  language  of  the  New  Teftament :  but  it 
is  unnccefTary,  as  Schleufner's  Lexicon  contains  every 
thing  which  is  valuable  in  them. 

PAGE   187. 

11.  All  the  pains  which  I  have  taken  to  render  this 
fentence  intelligible  have  been  fruitlefs,  and  it  is  pro- 
bable that  the  tranflation  will  appear  as  extraordinary 
to  the  reader,  as  the  original  to  the  tranflator.  The 
purport  of  it  is  to  affign  a  reafon  why  paffages  in  the 
N.  T.  may  be  often  explained  from  the  claffic  authors ; 
but  if  it  conveys  any  reafon,  it  feems  rather  to  prove  the 
contrary. 

1 2.  To  do  juftice  to  Ernefti  it  is  neceflary  to  quote 
his  own  words,  efpccially  as  they  are  more  intelligible 
than  our  author's  ftatement.  Chriftum,  ut  hoc  utar, 
effe  viftimam  pro  peccatis  noftris  veriiTimum  ell :  fed 
non  propterea  in  ifto  Paiilli  ov  zcrpos^iro  iXoifvpiov  viftima 
Chriflus  dicitur.  Nifi  rationibus  grammaticis  id  vincas, 
hoc  eft,  nifi  doceas  non  modo  iXccfvpiov  confuetudinem 
loquendi,  non  quamcunque,  fed  Hebraizantium  de 
viftima  expiatoria  dixifle,  fed  etiam  verbum  ro-poTtS-EO-S-a* 
dici  de  viflimis,  nihil  illud,  quamvis  verum,  efFecerit. 

13.  Kypke,  in  his  Obf.  facrse,  Tom.  I.  p.  i6i.  has 
produced  the  following  pafTage  from  the  Iphigenia  in 
Aulis,  V.  1592. 

OpxTi  TYiv^s  S'ucrtoiV  riv  n  3"£0? 
np89n;c£  j3w^»«t/  iXa^ov  opu^^o^ov. 

14.  This  is  in  fa6t  Ernefti's  only  demand  with  re- 
fpedb  to  iXa^npiov,  for  he  fays  non  quamcunque  fed  He- 
braizantium. That  this  demand  is  fo  unreafonable  as 
our  author  defcribes,  is  by  no  means  evident,  fmce  the 
Greek  verfion  is  the  place,  to  which  we  may  naturally 
have  recourfe  for  the  meaning  of  a  term,  that  is  applied 
to  an  objed  peculiar  to  the  Jewifh  nation.  It  does  not 
appear  that  iXudTnpiou  was  ever  ufed  by  an  ancient  Greek, 
but  according  to  its  termination,  its  literal  and  proper 

F  f  meaning 


45<3  NOTES    TO    CHAP.  fV.    SECT.  XtV. 

meaning  muft  be  '  a  place  of  propitiation/  in  the  ratne 
manner  as  Jixao-rr^io^  flgnifies  a  place  where  juftice  is 
adminiilercd,  and  xoiy-'nrr,^iot>  a  place  of  repole.  It  may 
be  moft  properly  applied  therefore  to  fignify  an  altar,  on 
which  facriiiccs  were  made,  as  this  is  literally  a  place  of 
propitiation,  and  in  this  fcnfe  it  is  iifed  Ezek.  xliii.  15. 
where  it  is  fynonymous  Co  %Tnza-r-/tf>iou :  but  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch it  denotes  the  lid  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant- 
The  former  application  is  accurate ;  buf  as  the  lid  of  the 
ark  of  the  covenant  is  wholly  unconn-eded  .with  atone- 
ment, neither  tlie  lid  nor  the  ark  being  ufed  in  facrifices, 
though  it  was  itfelf  confecrated  by  the  fprinkling  of 
blood  J  the  latter  application  feems  10  be  the  tffcd:  of  a 
Jewifh  glofs,  and  to  have  no  foundation  in  the  Hebrew. 
The  firft  inftance  in  which  it  occurs  is  Exod.  xxv.  17. 
where  the  original  is  fimply  "llHD  IHT  rT^DD  D^Wy,  fa- 
des operculum  ex  auro  puro,  ■^oirnTug  nr^^iy-a.   X^vam  xa- 

S-«^a.  But  the  Seventy,  (unlcfs  tAary-piov  is  a,  lafer  in- 
terpolation, which  is  not  improbable)  not  fatisfied  with 
this  literal  tranflation,  interpolated  a  word,  that  is  not 
warranted  by  die  original*,  and  wrote  ■sromirjij  iXaaT/ipiov 

tin^iy.cc    P(;,pi;C-»a    HCi-S-apa.       In    the    Vulgate    tAao-T'/ipjoi/    is 

franflated,  but  i7ri^iiJ.Xy  and  of  courfe  ri"°iDD  is  unno- 
ticed, in  confequence  of  which  error  the  paflage  has 
acquired  a  myflical  meaning,  which  probably  never  oc- 
curred to  Mofcs.  The  modern  tranflations,  which  arc 
much  more  frequendy  copies  of  the  Latin  than  of  the 
Hebrew,  have  likewife  lAao-rnpso!/,  but  no  fTnS-E^aa,  and 
hence  a  fimple  plate  of  gold  has  been  converted  into  a 
mercy-feat.  The  Seventy  having  once  inferted  jA^c-tji- 
(lov  as  fynonymous  to,  or  rather  as  a  myfllcal  explana- 
tion of  ini^ifj^x  and  n*i£)D,  have  in  the  following  ex- 
amples  of   the    Pentateuch    tranflated    D'^DJ^    which 

flgnifies 

*  "13II  Signifies  litcially  *  to  cover,''  /T13J  *  a  covering,'  or  «  Jid.' 
Now,  though  ")3D  'S  Ibrnetjnws  nfed  in  a  fignrative  fenfe,  figi'ifylng  *  to 
<over  fins,'  that  is,  to  do  away  fins,  or  make  atonement ;  yet  this  figu- 
Fative  fenfe  cannot  he  applied  to  J113D,  as  ufed  for  the  lid  of  the  ark,  be- 
caufe  it  was  a  coveiing  lor  that,  which  neither  wanted,  nor  was  capable  ©f 
atonement. 


NOTES    TO   CHAP.    IV.    SECT.   XIV.  45I 

fionifies  fimply  a  lid,  by  .Xacrrrp.ov  alone,  of  which 
the  unavoidable  confequence  was  thar  lAao-Tuptov,  in 
Jewifh  Greek,  acquired  a  fcnfe  that  is  by  no  means 
analogous  to  its  derivation.  In  the  Greek  Tcflament  it 
occurs  only  twice,  Rom.  iii.  25.  which  is  the  paflage  in 
queftion,  and  Heb.  ix.  5.  In  the  latter  inflance  ic 
fignifies  fimoly  operculum  area?,  as  appears  from  the 
words  vTTioavu  h  xvrr^  x'P^'^'f*'  To  the  former  indance 
the  literal' tranOadon  of  operculum  arcjE  is  certainly  in- 
applicable ;  but  the  queftion  is,  whether  St.  Paul,_  in 
the  ficrurative  application  of  iXao-rvi^ioi/,  had  not  in  view 
the  notion  which  is  exprefied  by  it  in  the  Septuagint. 
The  Greek  verfion,  to  which  the  word  feems  almoft 
peculiar,  was  an  objed  of  his  daily  ftudy,  and  from 
this  verfion,  not  only  the  Greek  fathers,  but  Jofephus 
himfelf,  muft  have  borrowed  the  exprelTion ;  for  had 
he  written  pure  and  claffic  Greek,  in  the  paflage  which 
is  quoted  by  our  author,  he  would  have  ufed  nor,  .Aao-- 
rnoiovy  but  jXao-juo,'.  Now  the  point  to  be  examined,  is 
not  whether  iXoca-rr,^iov  may  admit  the  fenfe  of  yiftima, 
but  whether  St.  Paul  did  not  allude  to  an  objeft,  to 
which  alone  the  word  is  applied  in  the  Pentateuch, 
whence  he  had  borrowed  the  term,  and  to  which  he 
himfelf  applies  it  in  the  other  example.  Ernefti  has  an 
excellent  obfervation  on  this  fubjecl,  which  deferves  to 
be  tranfcribed.  Ex  quibus  efficitur,  ut  Veritas  fenfus 
nuUo  modo  inteUigatur  neceffario,  ac  definiacur  veritate 
rei :  pr^efertim  cum  rerum  verit^d  confentanearum  in- 
finitus  fit  numerus,  et  fi  a  veritate  rei  concludere  liceret 
ad  veritatem  fenlus,  qusevis  verba  queiTivis  fenfum  ha- 
bere poiTent:  quod  eflet  plus  quam  fcepticum.  Through 
want  of  attention  to  this  very  jufl:  rule,  the  Apoftles  and 
Evangelifts  have  on  other  occafions,  but  not  on  the  pre- 
fent,  been  made  to  argue  like  modern  philofophers# 


15.  Our  author  has  here  altered  the  text  of  Symma- 

chus  from  lAao-Tr^tw  to  lAaTEi?  iAao-ryj^iov.    It  is  well  known 

that  the  whole  verfion  of  Symmachus  is  no  longer  extant, 

f  f  2  and 


45'i  NOTES    TO    CHAP.  IV.    SECT.  XlV. 

and  that  the  only  remnants  of  it  are  thofe  detached  read- 
ings, which  are  preferved  in  Origen's  Hexapla.  Now  the 
tranflations  of  "iQDa  JTIDDI,  Gen.  vi.  14.  are  ftated  as 
follows,  Tom.  I.  p.  23.  ed.  Montfaucon. 


Heb.  Bituminabis  bitu- 
mine  A.  linies  linimento.  S. 
propitiatione.  LXX.  bitu- 
minabis. Vulg.  bitumine 
linies. 

The  infertion  therefore  of  iXaa-ng  is  not  only  without 
authority,  but  even  contrary  to  the  rules  of  probability  j 
for  if  this  verb  had  been  ufed  by  Symmachus,  Origen 
would  have  undoubtedly  quoted  it,  as  he  has  quoted 
the  verbs  ufed  by  Aqulla  and  the  Seventy.  Unlefs  there- 
fore we  have  recourle  to  fidion,  we  have  no  means  of 
determining  what  fenfe  Aqiiila  intended  to  afcribe  to 
this  paflage :  whether  he  underftood  by  ^Xa(^T»lp^o^,  the 
covering  or  roof  of  Noah's  ark,  in  the  fame  manner  as 
it  fignifies  the  covering  of  the  facred  ark,  or  whether  he 
intended  to  exprefs  a  remote  and  myftical  meaning. 
Oursauthor  conjedlures  the  latter,  for  he  has  explained 
lAao-  If  iX(x.(TTr;^iov  (an  explanauon  which  I  have  omitted 
in  the  tranflation)  *  thou  fhalt  make  an  offering  of  atone- 
ment by  building  the  ark,'  but  whatever  ladtude  be 
given  to  typical  theology,  the  converfion  of  Noah's  ark 
into  an  emblem  of  propitiation,  muft  appear  extraordi- 
nary even  to  thofe,  who  have  made  the  deepeft  refearches 
in  that  branch  of  learning. 

16.  This  is  really  an  uncandid  flatement  of  Ernefti's 
argument.  Our  author  has  not  mendoned  in  what  part 
of  Ernefti's  works  this  example  is  given,  but  it  is  con- 
tained in  his  Opufcula  Philologico-critica,  p.  214.  Now 
it  muft  appear  inconceivable,  how  a  critic  hke  Ernefti, 
whofe  cool  and  impardal  mode  of  reafoning  was  never 
doubted,  could  unite  two  fuch  heterogeneous  principles, 
as  a  Greek  derivation  and  a  Flebraifm.  Nor  is  the  af- 
iertion  founded  on  faft;  for  diough  Ernefti  relates, 
p.  214.  that  the  Greek  fathers  explained  Tr^.cxKXr^rc;  by 

means 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.   IV.    SECT.  XIV.  453 

means  of  ux^axaXiu),  yet,  p.   215.  where  he  gives  his 
own  opinion,  he  has  recourle  to  a  Hebraifm  alone. 

PAGE   189. 

17.  As  ftated  by  our  author,  but  not  as  ftated  by 
Ernefti.  That  the  Chaldee  word  D^'^pli)  has  no  other 
meaning  than  that  of  advocatus,  is  ungrounded ;  for  in 
the  very  palTage  of  Buxtorf,  to  which  our  author  appeals 
in  proof  of  this  aflcrtion,  it  is  explained  iikewife  inter- 
pres,  and  this  is  the  fcr.Ce  which  Ernefti  afcribes  to 
zTxpxuXnTogy  for  he  explains  it  divin^e  veritatis  ad  Apof- 
tolos  interpres. 

18.  We  have  the  choice  then  of  three  interpretations 
of  ■srapxKXnTog.  I.  That  of  advocate,  its  claffical  fenfe, 
and  adopted  by  the  Greek  fathers.  2.  That  of  inter- 
pres, given  by  Ernefti,  and  grounded  on  the  authority 
of  the  Chaldee  word  LD'bp"\D,  which  admits  that  fenfe, 
and  was  probably  ufed  by  Chrift  himfelf  3.  That  of 
monitor,  adopted  by  our  author,  on  the  authority  of  a 
paflage  in  Philo. 

PAGE    190. 

19.  The  meaning  of  zropvuovy  in  the  paflage  of  Julius 
Pollux,  on  which  our  author  grounds  his  new  interpre- 
tation of  zjopuiixy  can  be  determined  only  by  the  expla- 
nation, which  the  learned  Greek  writer  himfelf  has  given. 
He  explains  it  as  fynonymous  to  oixn[j.Xy  which  not  only 
admits  not  the  fenfe  of  a  cook's  fhop,  but  was  ufed  in 
particular  to  denote  a  houfe  of  debauchery.  The  fol- 
lowing paflage  in  Stephani  Thefaurus,  Tom.  II.  p.  1221, 
puts  the  matter  out  of  doubt.  Peculiariter  autem  At- 
ticis  o»>t75jU,a  dicebatur  domus  in  qua  meretrices  fe  expo- 
nebant,  lupanar,  to  zropniov,  tefte  Hefychio  et  Polluce 
forfan  tJi'  iv(pvy.i<TiJ.ov.      Athen.   Lib.   XIII.   ex  Philem. 

zxpuTog  SoAwi/    J'la    rriu    tooi/    veocu    ocMixriv   i<nr,(7i\/  iiri  oiAnixxTtav 

yjvxix  TjpixfAivog.  He  produces  Iikewife  a  pafl^age  from 
Suidas  to  the  fame  purpole.  Our  author's  explanation 
therefore  of  -zuopvuov  is  contrary  to  the  teftimony  of  the 
Greeks  themfclvcs.  Befides,  if  Julius  Pollux  had  un- 
F  f  3  derftood 


454'  NOTES    TO    CHAP.    IV.    SECT.   XIV. 

derftood  zropvt^ov  in  the  fenfe  of  a  cook's  Ihop,  he  could 
have  been  induced  by  no  motive  to  add  a.  nai  oixt[^xtx 
av  Tif  utroiy  but  as  Toon  as  we  underftand  it  in  its  ufual 
fenfe,  the  motive  is  obvious,  for  the  learned  and  elegant 
preceptor  of  Commodus  recommended  the  ufe  of  a 
term  which,  though  fimilar  in  fenfe,  is  lefs  indelicate 
according  to  its  derivation.  The  appeal  to  the  Etymo- 
logicum  magnum,  though  it  favours  of  learning,  is  to- 
tally ufelefs,  for  by  the  very  fame  argument  that  a  de- 
rivative is  made  to  fignify  meat  fold  in  a  market,  be- 
caufe  the  primitive  fignifies  to  fell,  it  might  be  applied 
to  every  article  of  merchandife  whatfoever.  That  mo^-.uoc 
is  the  feminine  of  an  adje6live,  is  an  alTertion  fupported 
by  no  authority,  and  the  fenfe  afcribed  to  it  by  a  mo- 
dern Greek,  can  have  no  influence  on  the  Greek  idiom 
of  the  firil  century,  efpecially  as  the  pafiage  quoted  by 
Du  Frefne  is  written  in  the  language  not  medias,  but 
infimas  Gr^citatis.  The  premifes  therefore  being  un- 
grounded, the  inference  muft  be  equally  invalid:  but 
even  had  the  premifes  been  true,  no  inference  could  be 
drawn  from  vo^vuo)/  to  tto^vhch,  for  they  are  totally  diftind 
words.  The  former  occurs  very  frequently  in  the  clafllc 
authors,  the  latter  in  not  a  fingle  inftance.  The  firft 
traces  of  it  are  found  in  the  Septuagint,  where  it  is  ufed 
in  forty-fix  examples,  and  is  invariably  the  tranflation  of 
fome  derivative  of  n^T-  The  Apoilles  and  Evangelifts, 
■who  borrowed  it  from  the  Greek  verfion,  afcribed  to  it 
of  courfe  the  fame  meaning  with  the  Seventy,  and  as 
they  have  ufed  it  in  twenty-fix  examples,  there  feems 
no  reafon  for  making  an  exception  to  this  inftance  in 
particular. 

The  difficulty  of  the  paflage,  which  our  author  has 
attempted  to  explain  by  the  difcovery  of  a  new  meaning 
for  woavEja,  confifts  in  the  feeming  impropriety  of  for- 
bidding in  the  fame  fentence  fornication,  and  the  eating 
of  things  ftrangled,  with  meats  offered  to  idols.  But  is 
no  inftance  to  be  found  of  moral  and  pofitive  precepts 
enumerated  in  the  fame  catalogue  ?  The  celebration  of 
the  fabbath  is  affuredly  a  pofttive  command  j  for  though 

the 


NOTES    TO    CH.VP.   IV.    SECT.  XIV.  /[CC 

the  will  of  the  Deity,  whether  made  known  by  revela- 
tion, or  the  light  of  nature,  is  equally  binding,  yet  no 
one  would  refer  an  abftinence  from  labour  every  feventh 
day  to  the  dafs  of  moral  obligations.  If  we  appeal  then 
to  the  facred  decalogue,  we  find  the  moral  command  to 
abftain  from  adultery,  united  with  the  pofitive  command 
to  celebrate  the  fabbath.  By  the  law  of  Mofes  it  was  as 
ftriclly  forbidden  to  partake  of  the  flefh  of  itrangled 
animals,  as  it  was  ftriclly  commanded  to  reft:  on  the 
feventh  day :  and  fmce  it  appears  from  the  A6ls  of  the 
Apoftles  and  the  epiftles  of  St.  Paul,  that  the  precepts 
of  the  Pentateuch  were  abrogated  only  by  degrees,  it 
feem.s  by  no  means  extraordinary  that  the  decree  of  the 
council  in  Jerufakm  fiiould  contain  a  mixture  of  moral 
and  pofitive  com.mands. 

PAGE  19:. 
20.  Our  author  has  here  a  vaft  difplay  of  learning  to 
prove  what  no  one  ever  doubted,  viz.  that  v7roxi>iuoy.ai, 
among  other  fenfes,  has  that  of  refpondeo,  and  he  would 
have  afforded  equal  fatisfaftlon,  both  to  himfelf  and  his 
readers,  by  a  fimple  appeal  to  Stephani  Thefaurus,  Tom, 
II.  p.  438.  But  he  has  produced  not  a  fingle  inftance 
of  woxpio-t?  in  the  fenfe  of  refponfum,  which  alone  is  the 
objeft  of  our  prefent  inquiry:  he  fays  indeed  that  this 
is  Its  claftical  meaning,  but  this  aflertion  lie  fupports  by 
no  authority.  That  the  verb,  from  which  it  is  derived, 
admits  the  fenfe  of  refpondeo,  is  a  very  infufficient  ar- 
gument, for  when  a  primitive  has  feveral  fenfes,  ufage 
only  can  determine  which  of  them  in  particular  is  com- 
municated to  the  derivative.  Befides,  it  is  probable 
that  tig  uTTOKpjo-n/,  James  v.  12.  for  which  our  author 
has  attempted  to  difcover  a  new  fenfe,  is  a  fpurious 
reading.  In  the  Cod.  Alex,  the  text  is  INAMHTno 
KPIIINnESHTE,  ne  in  judicium  incidatis,  and  this 
fenfe  is  exprefted  in  the  Syriac,  Arabic  of  Erpenius, 
Coptic,  7Ethiopic,  and  Vulgate :  but  later  tranfcribers 
miftaking  v-n-o  xpia-iu  for  vTroy-piariu  (the  words  being  writ- 
ten in  ancient  MSS.  without  intervals)  infertcd  sn  to 
F  f  4  fiU 


456  NOTES    TO    CHAP.  IV.    SECT.  XIV. 

fill  up  the  fenfe.  This  erratum  has  been  copied  in  the 
early  printed  editions  of  the  Greek  Teftament,  but  later 
editors  have  reftored  the  original  reading. 

21.  The  word  ufed  by  our  author  for  the  tranflation 
of  uTTOKpiTJi?  is  *  wetterdeuter,'  which  correfponds  to  the 
Englifh  phrafe  *  weather-wife.'  Now  as  vnoyt^iTvi;  ovupuv 
fignifies  an  interpreter  of  dreams,  it  Is  pofTible  that 
uTTox^ilv]?  Kcci^cov  might  fignlfy  an  interpreter  of  the  wea- 
ther ;  but  as  the  genitive,  which  determines  the  meaning 
of  uTTOKjotl*]?,  Is  wanting,  Matth.  xv  3.  Luke  xii.  56.  its 
application  feems  to  reft  on  a  very  precarious  founda- 
tion. And  fince  the  charadter  of  hypocrify  is  fo  fre- 
quently and  fo  juftly  afcribed  to  the  Pharifees  in  the 
New  Teftament,  and  they  are  very  frequently  addreffed 
under  the  title  pf  v7roxp»T«t,  where  no  reference  can  be 
had  to  the  weather,  there  is  no  reafon  for  making  an 
exception  to  this  example,  even  though  a  part  of  the 
difcourfe  related  to  the  times  and  feafons. 

22.  It  feems  extraordinary  that  any  difficulty  fhould 
ever  have  been  found  in  this  paflage,  for  as  the  literal 
meaning  of  Ip  is  chorda,  from  ^\^p  tetendit,  the  tran- 
fition  from  the  firing  to  the  found,  which  it  pro- 
duces, is  as  natural  in  the  Hebrew,  as  that  rovog  in  the 
Greek,  which  fignifies  literally  tenfio,  Ihould  fignify  fi- 
guratively a  found. 

23.  This  aflertion  is  either  too  general,  or  not  accu- 
rately expreffed.  It  is  true  that  an  Hebrew  quiefcent  in 
He  cannot  correfpond  to  an  Arabic  quiefcent  in  He, 
becaufe  that  letter  never  quiefces  in  Arabic;  but  who 
wall  undertake  to  determine  that  a  Hebrew  quiefcent 
cannoc  poffibly  correfpond  to  an  Arabic  non-quiefcent? 
In  Caftelli  Lexicon  Heptaglotton  are  many  examples  of 
this  kind,  for  inftance  r\b}y  and  ^;  and  as  there  is 
no  c_5^^  at  lead  not  in  that  fenfe*,  it  necefiarily  fol- 
lows, if  we  rejecfl  this  principle,  that  the  fcanty  Hebrew 
has  words,  to  which  none  correfpond  in  the  copious 
Arabic. 

PAGE 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.  IV.    SECT.  XIV.  457 

PAGE     192. 

24:  This  mode  of  grammatical  reafoning  feems  to 
be  an  inverfion  of  natural  order.  The  tranfition  from 
the  firing  to  the  found,  which  it  produces,  is  a  progref- 
five  motion,  and  therefore  natural;  but  that  from  the 
found  to  the  firing,  which  produces  if,  is  retrograde,  and 
therefore  unnatural. 

25.  Admitting  that  the  Nabla,  or,  as  written  in  He- 
brew, Nebcl,  had  twelve  chords  or  firings,  is  it  a  necef- 
fary  confequence,  becaufe  Jofephus  afcribes  to  it  SuiSma. 
(p^oyyoty  that  (p^oyyoq  and  x°P«^*i  ^re  fynonymous  ?  Jo- 
fephus has  here  fludied  variety,  and  to  avoid  the  repe- 
tition of  the  fame  word,  defcribes  the  caufe  in  the  for- 
mer inftance,  the  efFeft  in  the  latter;  but  caufe,  and 
effed,  thougli  nearly  allied,  are  not  the  fame.  We  may 
fay  with  equal  propriety  of  the  French  harp,  that  it  has 
thirty-four  chords,  or  thirty-four  demi-tones,  but  no 
man  would  therefore  conclude  that  the  words  chord  and 
demi-tone  have  the  fame  import. 

26.  But  fince  he  has  certainly  borrowed  it  from  Jo- 
fephus, this  palTage  from  Theodore t  affords  no  addi- 
tional evidence. 

27.  In  the  pafTage  of  Lucian,  to  which  our  author 
refers,  we  find  the  exprefTion  rovoi  (p^oyyuvy  by  which 
he  underflands  the  tones  of  mufical  firings ;  but  Gefner, 
in  his  Note  to  (p^oyyo?,  makes  the  following  quotation 

from  Arrian,  koiw  tj?  axori  XiyoiT  uu  -a  y-ovou  <pmuv  SnnK^iTmn^ 
r\  §1  Twv  (p^oyym  susri  >ion>n,  aKKa  nx^mn.  In  mufic  there- 
fore (pui^n  was  applied  to  the  tones  of  a  rude  and  uncul- 
tivated voice,  (p^oyyog  to  thofe  modulated  by  art,  and 
this  diftinftion  makes  the  whole  palTage  in  Lucian  per- 
fectly clear,  without  having  recourfe  to  an  explanation 
of  (pSroyyo?,  which  feems  to  be  ungrounded. 

28.  Lefl  the  reader  fhould  have  forgotten  in  the 
midft  of  thefe  literary  inquiries,  to  what  text  of  the  New 
Teflament  they  have  reference,  it  may  not  be  improper 
to  remind  him  that  it  is  Rom.  x.  i8.  ng  ma^xv  rrw  ynu 

t^viX^iv  0  (pd'oyyog  ocvtuv, 

PAGE 


4S^  NOTES    TO    CHAP.    IV.    SECT.    XIV. 

PAGE     194. 

29.    Our   author   here    appeals   to  the   authority   of 
Suidas,  Jdlus  Pollux,  Thucydides,  and  Herodotus,  to 
fhew  that  cTixaiow  admits  the  fenfe  of  punio,  which  is  not 
only  given  in  every  Lexicon,  but  is  perfectly  analogous 
to  its  derivation.     He  would  have  fived  therefore  both 
himfelf  and  his  readers  a  great  deal  of  trouble,  had  he 
confined  his  inquiries  to  J'iKajwjwa  alone,  which  does  not 
appear  to  have  been  ever  ufed  in  the  fenfe  of  poena.     It 
is  true  that  he  refers  his  readers  to  Suidas  for  that  pur- 
pofe,  but  he  has  not  attended  to  the  diftindlion  which 
the  Greek  Lexicographer  makes  between  (^ixajw^a  in  the 
fingular,  and  J^jxajw^-ara  in  the  plural.     Suidas  illuftrates 
the  former  by  the  following  example,  HfJtv  t^iKaiwiua  ruv 
ottXuv  KT^^^oTi^ovy  nullum  jus   eft  armis  potentius,  but 
gives  no  inftance  of  the  fenfe  of  poena.     The  latter, 
which  is  contained  in  a  feparate  article,  he  explains  by 
t/o/Ao?,  fi/ToAat,  K^ifj^zTXy  and  adds  at  the  end  of  the  para- 
graph J'txaiojotara  $i   nai  ai  xxTXx^Krug.      But  even  COuld 
an  inftance  be  found  where  (?i>caico/x«  in  the  fingular  fig- 
nifies  poena,  what  fhould  we  gain  by  the  difcovery,  and 
to  what  purpofe  are  we  informed  of  the  fubtleties  of 
dogmatifts,  in  regard  to  a6tive  and  paffive  obedience, 
or  the  difputes  between  Grotius  and  Hammond,  whe- 
ther ^iKxicc>xaTx  included  the  whole,  or  only  a  part  of  the 
Levitical  precepts  ?  Let  us  appeal  to  the  pafi"ages  them- 
felves,  where  we  fliall  find  that  the  application  of  the 
fenfe  of  poena,  or  condemnatio,  is  produ6live  of  more 
abfurdities  than  our  author  imagines.     In  the  firft  ex- 
ample, Rom.  V.  18.  SiyMiwixa.  is   ufed  in  oppofition  to 
■3r«^a7rTw/!Aa,  if  therefore  it  fignifies  poena,  a  word  ex- 
preflive  of  puniftiment  is  put  in  oppofition  to  a  v/ord 
exprefllve  of  a  crime,  though  the  two  ideas  are  con- 
nefled  by  the  near  relation  of  caufe  and  effedt.     In  the 
verfe  almoft  immediately  preceding,  viz.  ver.  16.  which 
relates  to  the  fame  fubjeft,    we  find  to  Si  ^a,oKT[ji.x  ix 

TToXXuv  oja.P0i.7rTU[xa.rcav  sig   (Jijiajw^a,   whence,   if  the  WOrd 

in  queftion  be  tranflated  poena,   it  neceflarily  follows 
that  the  favour  of  God  leads  to  condemnation.     The 

other 


APPENDIX    TO    SECT.  XIV>  450 

Other  example  is  Rom.  viii.  4.  i]>x  ro  Smxiuixst.  th  vofAn 

7rA»^w3'>j    iv  -Kf/Ai/  t6»?   [J1.V1  xara  (roc^KOc  iri^nrotTac-i  aXXoc  xxtcc 

7rv£V[A.xy  from  which  it  follows,  on  the  fame  principle, 
that  punifhment  will  be  the  lot  of  thofe  who  walk,  not 
xocTx  <T'x^y.oc^  but  xccrx  Tri/su/xa.  With  refpe<fl  to  our  au- 
thor's appeal  to  the  intended  reform  of  Ariftotle,  it  is 
difficult  to  comprehend  with  what  defign  he  has  made 
it,  for  if  this  reform  was  rejeded  by  the  Greeks,  as  he 
himfelf  relates,  it  is  a  circumftance  unfavourable  to  his 
own  hypothefis. 


APPENDIX  TO  SECT.  XIV. 

PAGE    195. 

30.  The  following  catalogue  of  queries,  which  form 
an  Appendix  to  this  feftion,  is  intended  by  our  author 
as  a  kind  of  exercife  in  facred  criticifm ;  but  as  fome  of 
them  are  either  not  flated  with  fufficient  accuracy,  or 
imply  a  difficulty  in  fome  particular  word  of  a  text  in 
fcripture,  where  the  difficulty  appears  to  confift  in  ano- 
ther word  of  the  fame  paflage,  the  reader  will  excufe  any 
digreffion  of  the  tranflator,  even  though  it  may  feem 
foreign  to  the  query  itfelf 

31.  The  fenfe  of  inteftinum  redum  is  afcribed  to 
a^i^^uv  in  no  Lexicon  antient  or  modern.  It  is  ufually 
explained  cloaca,  but  Suidas  fays  that  it  fignifies  alfo  to 
/iA£po?  Tx  o-w/xKTo?  TO  isTifi  TTtv  i^o^ov,  which  Stcphanus  very 
properly  interprets  fedes,  and  the  fenfe  of  inteftinum 
redlum,  which  has  no  other  foundation  than  this  paflage 
of  Suidas,  is  a  falfe  interpretation  of  the  words  ufed  by 
the  Greek  lexicographer.  A(p  sJ'pwv,  utto  tuv  i^puv.  E^pai. 
yap  Afyoi/rat  on  o"£AAa»,  (n'KXa.pia^  c-uiTnpiot'  tfi  ^e  xai  tuofia 
0  a.<pe^pci3Vy  xat  a-y\(ji.oni/Si  to  y-ipoq  to  -crfjst  ty,u  i^oSoVj  on  o  0i(pi^pu3V 

xoci  xnTpuv  ^xp^ocpx.    Tom.  I.  p.  392.  ed.  Kiilter.     Here 
ivhix  evidently  denotes  a-fifi*  to-Two-i?,  ^afus  redus,  and 

could 


460  APPENDIX    TO   SECT.    XIV. 

could  not  polTibly  agree  with  0  atpi^^uvy  even  if  this  word 
fignified  inteftinum,  which  is  however  contrary  to  the 
explanation  of  Siiidas  himfelf.  In  another  paffage,  viz. 
Tom.  I.  p.  289.  he  ufes  it  as  fignifying  cloaca.  AnoTraTov 

32.  This  charge  is  really  ungrounded.  The  words 
quoted  by  Wetflein  are  oiTroiroiTov  K«i  KOTrpuva,  kiyna-i'  0 
S'  ucpsS^uv  xat  Aar^wv  |3apSa^«.  The  words  which  Wet- 
ftein  has  not  quoted,  and  which  our  author  probably 
means,  are  thofe  mentioned  at  the  beginning  of  the  pre- 
ceding Note.  Suidas  then  afcribes  to  atpiS^m  two  fenfes, 
the  latter  of  which  our  author  prefers,  and  gives  it  an 
improper  explanation  ;  but  as  it  does  not  appear  to  have 
been  adopted  by  Wetftein,  the  omiflion  of  the  laft  quo- 
tation is  no  argument  that  the  learned  critic  has  fhewn 
the  contrary  of  what  he  intended  to  demonftrate.  Be- 
fides,  the  accufation  is  founded  on  a  glaring  miilake ; 
for  Wetflein  has  quoted  from  p.  289.  and  has  given  the 
quotation  complete,  whereas  our  author  fuppofes  that 
he  has  quoted  from  p.  392.  becaufe  the  two  paflages 
end  with  the  fame  claufe. 

2^.  It  mull  not  be  fought  in  the  writings  of  Hippo- 
crates and  other  pure  Greek  writers,  for  a,<pi^^m  is  called 
by  Suidas  ^-a^x  ^x^^cc^ov. 

PAGE    196. 

34.  This  objedion,  though  our  author  defcribes  it  as 
very  ancient,  is  grounded  on  a  falfe  explanation  of  the 
word  in  queflion.  It  is  wholly  inapplicabe  to  the  paf- 
fage  in  St.  Matthew,  and  can  affect  that  of  St.  Mark 
only  on  the  two  following  fuppofitions  :  i.  That  a(pi$puv 
fignifies  in  that  pafTage  inteflinum  recflum,  which  is  ab- 
folutely  impofTible,  becaufe  £»?  toi>  apiSpunx  £y.7ropivBTa.i  is 
oppofed  to  iig  nyw  M\Xixy  BunropiviTOii.  2.  That  the  neuter 
participle  )^aSaf»fo^  refers  to  the  mafc.  noun  tov  a(piipuyo(, 
which,  if  iix^(x^iC,ou  be  the  true  reading,  (and  our  author 
has  propofed  no  alteration)  is  wholly  inadmifTible. 

2S'  This  is  explained  both  in  Caftelli  Lexicon  Hep- 
taglotton,  and  Schaaf's  Lex.  Syriacum  by  latrina,  and, 

is 


APPENDIX   TO    SECT.  XIV.  46 1 

IS  never  applied  to  any  one  of  the  inteftines.  The  read- 
ing therefore  of  the  Syriac  verfion  confirms  the  generally 
received  meaning  of  a^^^pwy,  and  our  author's  query  ap- 
pears to  be  as  ufelefs,  as  the  objeaion,  which  he  relates, 
is  ungrounded.     In  the  Cod.  Cant,  inftead  of  uft^^m  is 

cxiroq. 

But  there  is  a  material  difficulty  in  one  of  the  texts  in 
queftion,  though  foreign  to  the  prefent  inquiry,  which 
relates  merely  to  the  confirmation  of  paflages  from  the 
claflic  authors.     The  words  of  our  prefent  Greek  text, 
Mark  vii.  19.  are  £k  toi/  ^(piS^uvot.  £>c7ro^£U£Vt  xa9«^»^ov  waul* 
rot,  |3f wpara.     Now  whoever  impartially  confiders  ^  the 
forced  and  unnatural  explication,  which  is  ufually  given 
of  this  pafTage  in  referring  xaOa^i^o^  to  -crav  (in  the  pre- 
ceding fentence)  with  which  it  is  wholly  unconne6ted, 
and  at  the  fame  time  examines  the  ftrudure  of  the  whole 
period,  will  be  convinced  that  the  words,  as  they  ftand  at 
prefent,  proceeded  not  from  the  pen  of  the  facred  writer. 
Tranfcribers  themfelves  have  felt  the  difficulty  which  at- 
tends the  ufual  reading,  for  they  have  altered  >ta9a^»^ov, 
as  appears  from  different  MSS.  to  jtaSa^t^wi/,  )t«9«pj^£j  and 
K«eaf*^fjv.     But  the  mofl  probable  conjedlure  is  that  of 
Markland,  who  fuppofed  it  to  have  been  written  ori- 
ginally x«ea^ifoi/Ta,  which,  though  the  learned  and  inge- 
nious critic  has  himfelf  fupported  by  no  authority,  de- 
rives great  force  from  the  evidence  of  the  Syriac  verfion, 
where  we  find  j/3:ico|io  ai::.:^  i^oAi:  jA^iAo  \\^m^o  ejicitur 
in  fecelTum,  qui  purgat  omnem  efcam.     It  is  true  that 
no  MS.  now  extant,  or  to  fpeak  more  properly  hitherto 
called,  has  xaGa^.^o^ra,  yet  the  laft  fyllable  once  omit- 
ted by  miftake  in  an  ancient  MS.  might  produce  an 
error  in  many  hundred  fubfequent  copies.     In  the  pre- 
fent inftance  the  omillion  is  cafy  to  be  explained,  as  not 
only  xa9«pt^o^T«,  but  likewife  the  three  following  words 
end  with  the  fame  fyllable  t«  ;  and  if  the  writer  of  the 
Codex  Cantabrigienfis  could  add  ra  to  >ta]aSa»i/ov,  Matth. 
iii.  16.  and  thereby  produce  a  flilfe  concord,  it  is  equally 
polTible  that  a  tranfcriber  of  St.   Mark's  Gofpel  might 
be  guilty  of  the  lame  fl^ult  through  an  omiffion. 

36.  Tills 


462  APPENDIX    TO    SECT.    XIV. 

^6.  This  difference  makes  the  two  examples  wholly 
diffimilar,  for  in  the  Hexapla  it  is  ufed  as  an  aflive 
verb,  according  to  its  common  application,  where- 
as St.  Mark  has  ufed  it  as  a  neuter,  which  is  hitherto 
without  example.  This  remark  is  made  on  the  fuppo- 
fition  that  the  Greek  text  of  this  paffage  is  genuine,  and 
that  the  omiffion  of  an  accufative  is  to  be  afcribcd  not 
to  a  tranfcriber,  but  to  the  writer  himfelf,  which  at  lead 
admits  a  doubt,  fince  TrapaJ^K^w^i  is  ufed  in  121  examples 
of  the  N.  T.  and,  except  in  this  inftance,  invariably  as  an 
aftive. 

37.  In  fa6l  they  are  wholly  unfatisfa6i:ory  in  the  pre- 
fent  inquiry,  which  relates  to  k^dtttyi  ufed  as  a  fubftan- 
tive,  and  every  one  is  acquainted  with  its  ufe  as  an  ad- 
jedive,  without  having  recourfe  either  to  Strabo  or  Jofe- 
phus.  In  the  quotation  from  the  former,  p.  377.  refers 
to  the  edition  of  Almeloveen. 

PAGE  197. 

38.  Kypke  in  his  Obfervationes  facts,  Tom.  I.  p. 302. 
has  produced  not  lefs  than  three  examples  of  cra^a1>i^»)(n?, 
viz.  from  Plutarch,  Antoninus  and  Longinus.  It  is  ex- 
traordinary that  thefe  fhould  have  been  unknown  to  our 
author,  as  they  are  contained  in  a  work,  which  he  ftrongly 
recommends.  To  the  examples  difcovered  by  Kypke 
may  be  added  a  fourth.  See  Arriani  Epi6tetus,  Lib.  III. 
Cap.  16.  Tom.  I.  p.  425.  ed.  Upton. 

29.  This  is  explained  by  Suidas  ^ixjr, ^710-111;. 

40.  Kypke  in  his  Obferv.  facrse,  Tom.  II.  p.  89.  has 
produced  the  following  inftance  from  the  lo  of  Euripi- 
des,   V.  693.    ccX?.uv  T^a<pii<;  cc(p   ai^alwy.      NoW   it   IS  true 

that  St.  John  has  oppofed  ix.  ©eb  to  e^  aijualwv,  whereas 
there  is  no  oppofition  of  that  kind  in  Euripides  :  but  a(p' 
aifA-xluv  In  the  latter,  as  well  as  t^  a,ii/.oi]w  in  the  former, 
refers  to  human  origin. 

41.  Thefe  two  examples  are  in  Gale's  Opufcula  my- 
thologica,  p.  6;^S.  638. 

42.  Our  author  fhould  have  determined  in  what  the 
difficulty  of  this  pafTage  confifcs.     The  common  and  ob- 
vious 


APPENDIX    TO    SECT.   XIV.  463 

vious  explanation  is  '  one  favour  inftead  of  another/ 
which  St.  John  himfelf  explains  in  the  following  verfe,  by 
oppofing  0  vQixog  Mwo-fw?  to  n  x«f'f>  >'*'  "^  aAnOtta  X^jj-a.  The 
phrafe  therefore  is  fimilar  to  TO-^oa»f£»o-0aj  ^avalou  avh  Pj«,  or 
§iov  «i/li  ^ocvxh,  which  is  a  very  common  mode  of  expreffion. 
As  it  does  not  appear  neceffary,  in  order  to  juftify  the 
propriety  of  the  phrafe,  to  difcover  an  example  where 
precifely  the  fame  word  is  ufed  before  and  after  ai/1.,  the 
following  may  be  mentioned  as  at  lead  fimilar,  x<^^'^  «'''^» 
T»i?  svscytciocg,  quoted  by  Stephanus,  Tom.IV.  p.  349.  from 
the  Cyropcedia.  If  our  author  means  that  the  difficulty 
confiftsin  x*?'?'  which  in  the  N.  T.  is  ufualiy  tranflated 
'  grace,'  but  here  fignifies '  benefit'  or '  fervice,'  Stephanus, 
in  his  Thefaur.  Tom.  IV.  p.  35 1, 35^>  '^as  producedmany 
examples  in  which  xH^^  t^^'^'"  ^^^  XP'i^^  ^ihm^  figmfy 
beneficium  conferre. 

43.  The  fragm.ents  of  the  Pythagorean  writers  are 
publifhed  in  Gale's  Opufcula  mythologica,  printed  at 
Cambrido;ein  1 671,  and  reprinted  at  Amfterdam  in  1688. 
The  latte7  is  the  edition  quoted  in  thefe  notes. 

44.  There  cannot  be  a  ftronger  proof  that  the  expref- 
fion  is  not  pure  Syriac,  than  that  the  Jews  themfelves 
mifunderftood  our  Saviour  when  he  faid  auo-«t£  tov  v«ov 
Taro^,  and  had  not  the  leaft  conception  that  he  referred 
to  his  body.  The  palTage  to  which  our  author  alludes 
in  his  Sele'ifla  e  Script.  Syris,  is  taken  from  the  writings 
of  Simeon  Bilhop  of  Beth  Arfama,  and  it  may  be  itz^ 
in  AfTemani  Bibliotheca  Orientalis,  Tom,  I.  p.  348.  but 
as  the  Syrian  Bifhop  had  borrowed  it  from  the  N.  T.  k 
is  of  little  value  on  the  prefent  occafion.  _  The  paffage  in 
Philo  is  «H  oiKia  ^^xy\%  ro  (TU3iJ.a. :  and  that  in  Scipio's  dream 
is  mens  cujufque  is  eft  quifque,  non  ea  figura  qu^-e  digito 
demonftrari  poteft,  &c.  To  the  examples  mentioned  by 
our  author  may  be  added  the  following  from  Tim?eus 
(Gale's  Opufcula  mythologica,  p.  557.)  «;  t'  «xA«^£^£a 

rug  4^ux«^  *•*'  '^'^  o-WiUal^J  virv^iluv  tsIw,  xu^oc-jn^  vtt"  au]w  tw 

(Ty.civ'c^  «7rai.l0',  wheie  the  body  is  called  the  o-kxv^  or  ta- 
bernacle of  the  foul.     In  the  following  palTage  from  Lu- 
cretius, 


464  APPENDIX    TO    SECT.    XIV. 

cretius,  Lib.  V.  v.   104.    the  word  templum  itfelf  is 
ufed. 

humanum  in  peflus,  templaque  mentis. 


45.  In  Stephani  Thefauriis,  Tom.  I.  p.  1130.  is  the 
following  example  from  Plato,  u[ji.i  rr\g  woAew?  T^o-tTf,  which 
Stephaniis  explains  je  fuis  de  cette  ville.  It  may  be  ufed 
then  with  equal  propriety,  whether  the  perfon  is  aftually 
prefent  in  the  city  of  which  he  is  an  inhabitant,  or  not. 

46.  This  query  is  not  clearly  and  fully  exprefled,  for  the 
fulfilling  of  the  proverbial  faying  is  denoted  by  the  whole 
phrafe  lu  Ta7w  ifin  0  aA>j9(vo?,  in  eo  verum  reperitur. 

47.  The  fingle  word  ^loclxyn  will  probably  defeat  this 
requell,  for  it  does  not  appear  to  have  been  ever  ufed  by 
the  clafiic  authors.  Stephanus  fays,  that  in  this  fenfe  they 
have  conflantly  ufed  J^ioja^if,  nor  is  Sioclocyn  ufed  more 
than  once  in  the  Septuagint,  and  only  twice  in  the  New 
Teflament. 

48.  This  is  a  very  indeterminate  query,  as  St.  Paul 
has  ufed  y.cclacysu  in  a  great  variety  of  fenfes. 

PAGE   198. 

49.  Stephanus,  after  producing  an  example  from  Plu- 
tarch, where  7rpo(ra,yocyr\  is  ufed  in  the  {enk  of  acceffus 
or  aditus,  adds  Item  Trpoo-aywyr)  acceffus  et  aditus  ad 
principes,  qui  datur  per  illorum  emiffarios,  hinc  Tr^oa-xyu- 
yiot-;  di6los,  quafi  admiflionales,  ut  loquitur  Lampridius. 
See  alfo  Hefychii  Lexicon,  Tom.  II.  p.  1040.  ed.  Albert, 
where  ir^oa-txyocyv  is  explained  Trpoo-sAfuo-K. 

50.  It  is  really  to  be  lamented,  tliat  our  author  is  fo 
extremely  inaccurate  in  his  quotations,  as  it  is  impoffi- 
ble  to  form  an  adequate  judgment,  without  having  re- 
courfe  to  the  quoted  originals.  A  former  erroneous  quo- 
tation from  Diodorus  Siculus  I  have  been  able  to  reftify, 
but  this  quotation,  though  equally  falfe,  I  am  obliged 
to  leave  in  the  tranflacion  as  it  ftands  in  the  original. 

51.  Namely,  where  ;>/apt?  is  the  antecedent :  our  au- 
thor requires  therefore  an  inftance  from  a  claffic  author 
of  IV  p^afilt  ifwsi'ix.i.     But  this  query  is  indeterminate. 

If 


APPENDIX    TO    SECT.    XIV.  465 

If  our  author,  like  Beza,  confiders  p^^a^K  in  this  paflagc 
as  the  means  of  ftipport,  the  phrafe  is  fimilar  to  that  in 
Livy,  Lib.  v.  c.  44.  refpublica  ftetit  vi6loria  tua  If  he  un- 
derftands  fimply  in  gratia,  he  requires  an  inftance  where 
51/  ;)^jcf »Ti  ifnxivon  is  ufed  for  iu  x«P*^^  ^"'^'j  i"  gratia  efle. 

52.  This  chara6ler  is  given  it  by  Stephanus,  who  had 
never  met  with  ^oy.ifxn  as  a  fubftantive  in  any  claffic  au- 
thor. It  is  not  ufed  in  a  fingle  inftance  in  the  whole 
Septuagint,  and  by  no  other  Apoftle  or  Evangelifl:  than 
St.  Paul.  But  an  example  may  be  produced  from  Sym- 
machus,  who  has  tranflated  IDD'^^nn,  Pfalm  Ixvili.  31. 
w?  (Tojctjwnv  ocpyvpiy.  Symmachus  therefore  underftood  it 
in  the  fenfe  of  probatio.  See  Originis  Hexapla,  Tom.  I. 
p.  570.  ed  Montfaucon.  To  prevent  miftakes,  it  is  ne~ 
cefTary  to  obferve  that  the  Pfalm  which  is  the  68"'.  in 
the  Hebrew,  is  the  67^''.  in  the  Hexapla. 

53.  It  is  not  to  be  expeded  from  the  nature  of  the 
fubjedb,  that  a  whole  fentence  fhould  be  found  in  a  pro- 
fane writer  parallel  to  the  fentence  here  propofed.  Our 
author  fliould  therefore  have  determined  what  particular 
phrafe  he  wiflies  to  have  ratified  by  clafiical  authority, 
and  whether  the  difficulty  confifts  in  the  grammatical 
conftru6lion,  or  in  the  notion  exprefied. 

54.  There  is  a  two-fold  difficulty  attending  Rom.  vi. 
17.  when  we  attempt  to  vindicate  its  claffical  purity. 
I.  To  produce  examples  where  vTrxK^u  governs  an  ace. 
with  the  prasp.  £»?.  2.  Where  zra^ct^Jui^i  is  conftrued  in 
the  fame  manner.  With  refped  to  the  firft,  Kypke  in 
his  Obf.  facra?,  Tom.  II.  p.  167,  has  produced  two  ex- 
amples from  Appian,  and  as  many  from  Jofephus,  where 
vTTx^isu}  is  followed  by  u;,  but  the  learned  critic  feems  to 
have  confounded  the  government  of  a  cafe  with  its  pofi- 
tion  in  the  fentence.  The  firft  example  from  Appian, 
iyiiXi\j(riu  uq  -sruvTot,  U7ra)tȣl^,  is  a  proof  of  this  afiTcrtion ; 
for  tig  xravTa  fignifies  in  omnibus  rebus,  and  exprefles 
not  the  perfons  or  objeds,  to  which  obedience  was  to  be 
paid.  An  example  parallel  to  the  paffage  in  qucftion 
would  be  uTraxBEii'  ft?  Toi/  voMVy  or  £1?  Tuv  oiSaynfiv^  inftead 
pf  ^o/xu  and  ^'^xx-j^  but  fuch  a  cafe  will  hardly  be  found 

G  g  in 


466  APPENDIX    TO    SECT.    XIV. 

in  a  clalTic  writer.  The  fecond  diiTiculty,  which  alone  is 
mentioned  by  our  author,  on  the  fuppofition  that  Kypke 
had  removed  the  firft,  is  equally  great,  as  it  is  contrary 
to  the  practice  of  the  clafllc  authors  to  fay  zsraf atJJovat  ng 
TJva  inftead  of  nn.  To  vindicate  therefore  the  purity 
of  St.  Paul's  Greek,  Kypke  propofed  to  read  0?  zroc^iMn 

Vy-H/    for    Et?    OV    ZJXpz$O^YlTt. 

55.  Our  author  feems  here  to  have  had  in  view  the 
celebrated  allegory  of  Satan,  Sin  and  Death  :  but  it  does 
not  appear  that  St.  Paul,  like  Milton,  has  here  perfonified 
Sin ;  indeed  it  cannot  poflibly  have  been  his  intention, 

becaufe  he  ufes  not  a/ua^Tj«,    but  -zc-aGji/xaTa  tidv  u^x^t^'jov, 

Befides,  in  the  propoied  tranflanon,  the  parts  of  the  alle- 
gory are  wholly  inconfiftent  with  themfelves :  it  is  like- 
wife  incomplete,  for  if  we  allegorife  a  part  we  mull  alle- 
gorife  the  whole ;  and  St.  Paul  has  ufed  on  this  occafion 
(ra^^,  «jt/.«fT»at  in  the  pi.  \>oiAoq^  and  ^avocToq.  Philo,  in 
the  place  to  which  our  author  refers,  comments  on  Gen. 
vi.  4.  but  he  has  nothing  whicli  has  the  leaft  analogy  to 
the  palTage  in  queftion.  The  fame  may  be  faid  not  only 
of  the  43**.  fentence,  but  of  all  the  fentences  of  Demo- 
philus.  They  are  contained  in  Gale's  Opufcula  Mytho- 
logica,  p.  613—625. 

^6.  It  may  be  afl<:ed  whether  oirXa  (purog  is  not  a  He- 
braifm,  and  whether  it  docs  not  correfpond  to  IW  nii, 
for  we  find  p^'"\  r\y^,  Pfalm  v.  13.  which  is  rendered  in 

the  Septuagint  on-Xov  ev^oxiag. 

57.  Dr.  Rofenmiiller,  in  his  Note  to  this  pafTage,  has 
produced  the  following  inftance  from  2  Kings  xxii.  4. 

c(pj>xyi(Tov  TO  a-pyvpiov  ro  iKTii/i^^ii/  eu  oik'j>  Kvpiis.     Now  napTroq 

in  the  paflage  in  queilion  denotes  figuratively  apyjpiovy 
for  it  fignifies  the  contributions  of  the  Achsean  and  Ma- 
cedonian Chriftiansj  but  the  difficulty  is  to  find  an  in- 
ftance in  a  clafllc  author  of  the  difcordant  metaphor  ex- 
preffed  by  the  union  of  (^(ppxyil'^u  and  y-ocprroq. 

58.  If  our  author  requires  an  example  where  rnptfw 
is  f:)lIowed  by  the  praep.  xara,  the  following  from  the 
Theognis  of  Hefiod  may  be  given,  which  is  found  both 
in  Stephanus  and  Scapula.  , 


APPENDIX    TO    SECT.  XIV.  467 

Tov  (?f  Zeu?  fvpi^B  Kxrot,  y^o\foq  (vpvoSnv?. 

59.  The  difference  between  (Ta.py.ivoq  and  o-apjttxo?  is 
delcribed  by  Stephanus  in  die  following  manner  :  Exifti- 
matur  hoc  adjeftivum  (fc.  o-«p>c»xof)  qualitatem  potius 
indicare,  ut  illud  materiam.  The  former  reading  diere- 
fore,  though  fupported  in  this  inftance  by  great  autho- 
rides,  feems  lefs  fuitable  to  the  defign  of  the  Apoftle  than 
the  latter  -,  he  has  conftantly  ufed  o-ap)tixo?  whenever  he 
intended  to  exprefs  the  oppofite  to  73-i/£un/.aTJxo? :  it  is  there- 
fore improbable  that  he  deviated  from  his  ufual  pradtice 
in  this  inftance  alone.  Befides,  if  o-«pKn/oj  is  the  true 
reading,  it  is  the  only  inftance  where  it  occurs  in  the 
Greek  Teftament,  whereas  the  latter  occurs  in  a  great 
number  of  examples.  Our  audior's  requeft  for  an  in- 
ftance of  c-apxn/of,  according  to  St.  Paul's  general  accep- 
tation of  o-a^KJxof,  is  attended  with  no  inconfiderable  dif- 
ficulty, becaufe  the  proper  meaning  of  tra^yavoq  is  car- 
neus,  e  carne  conftans,  in  the  fame  manner  as  ^uA^^o?  fig- 
nifies  e  ligno  conftans.  But  there  is  a  paffage  in  Julius 
Pollux,  where  the  meaning  feems  to  be  at  leaft  dubious, 
which  is  as  much  as  can  be  expedied  on  the  prefent 
OCCafton.      A^iro^a^Ji?  Si  n^vmiv.      X2?  d-^  £ti^ou  anSox  arcc^- 

Pollucis  Oriomaft.  Lib.  II.  Segm.  233. 

PAGE  199. 

60.  Bos  in  his  Ellipfes  Gr^cjE  (art.  zr^ocyf^a)  has  pro- 
duced the  following  example  from  Artemidorus,  O*  ya^ 
£v  ToiHToiq  yivofxivoij  fcil.  -sTpoiyfjiixa-i,  which  is  an  anfwer  to 
our  author's  query.  It  is  however  a  matter  of  doubt, 
whether  St.  Paul  in  the  paffage  in  queftion  intended  to 
exprefs  this  meaning,  though  it  is  ufually  tranffated  in 
this  manner;  for  the  fubjed;  relates  not  to  things,  but 
to  perfons.  The  Apoftle  having  delivered  rules  for  the 
conduifl  of  Chriftian  wives  toward  heathen  huff^ands, 
and  Chriftian  huff^ands  toward  heathen  wives,  adds  ft  h 

0   otirifog  ^upil^iTcci,  ;^wp»^£(r3'co*    «   SiSuXtvTUi   o  ccSeXfog  -n  'n 

e(.§iX(pn  Bv  Toif  Totarct?,  '  but  if  an  heathen  huff^and  or  wife 
G  G  2  chufes 


468  APPENDIX    TO    SECT.  XIV. 

chufes  not  to  continue  in  the  marriage  flate,  let  him 
(or  her)  depart:  a  fifter  or  a  brother  (that  is,  the  Chrif- 
tian  wife  or  huihand)  is  no  longer  bound  by  fuch  per- 
fons.  This  ufe  of  the  prsp.  £i/  is  very  frequent  in  the 
N.  T.  though  not  in  the  claffic  authors,  the  Apoftles 
and  Evangelifts  having  borrowed  it  from  the  Septua- 
gint,  in  which  the  prefix  2  is  tranflated  iVy  even  where 
it  den(jtes  the  caufe,  inilrument,  or  means.  See  for  in- 
ftance  2  Kings  vi.  22.  Pfalm  xviii.  30.  See  alfo  Matth. 
v.  13.  xi.  6.  xii.  27,  &c.  An  objedion  may  be  made  to 
this  tranflation,  drawn  from  the  ufe  of  the  fingularj  for 
as  the  pronoun  refers  to  ams-ocj  it  would  have  been  more 
accurate  if  it  had  been  written  tw  toijjtw,  but  as  St.  Paul 
is  not  a  claffic  writer,  the  learned  will  determine  whether 
the  objeftion  is  of  weight. 

61.  The  fix  manufcripts  that  have  iyy.ocx-diJ.iv,  arc  thofe 
which  Wetftein  has  noted  in  the  fecond  Part  of  his 
Greek  Teftament  by  A.  D.  F.  37.  39.  46.  Dr.Grieibach 
has  omitted  this  reading,  perhaps  becaufe  he  thought  it 
an  erratum.  Dr.  Harwood,  on  the  authority  of  the 
Codex  Claromontanus,  has  taken  it  into  the  text  of  his 
edition. 

62.  To  thefe  three  examples,  mentioned  by  our  au- 
thor, may  be  added  Ifaiah  vii.  16.  where  Symmachus  has 
again  ufed  tyKccxcu.  See  Origenis  Hexapla,  Tom.  II. 
p.  100.  ed.  Montfaucon.  Symmachus  has  ufed  like  wife 
•the  noun  iyy.xy.ri(rig,  ^falm  cxviii.  (cxix  in  the  Heb.) 
V.  143.  In  thefe  examples  iyxaxiu  is  the  tranflation  of 
nVp  or  pp,  t^edio  affici.  Wetilein,  in  his  Note  to  Luke 
xviii.  I.  quotes  a  paflage  from  Polybius,  in  which  inxx- 
xnrxv  is  ufed ;  but  this  muft  be  an  erratum,  for  in  Poly- 
bius himfelf  it  is  i^fsiXY.n(Ta,v.  Hefychius  has  lyY.uv.Hf^iv. 
But  the  word,  which  is  there  ufed  to  explain  it,  is  a  mani- 
feft  erratum.  See  Hefychii  Lexicon,  Tom.  I.  p.  1067. 
ed.  Alberti,  Note  10. 

62-  It  does  not  appear  that  the  antithefis  is  fo  difficult 
to  be  difcovered,  fince  fortitude  and  perfeverance  are 
the  furell  means  of  overcoming  every  kind  of  evil,  and 
St.  Paul  in  particular  was  in  a  fituation  that  required  the 
moil  ftrenuous  exertions. 

64.  That 


APPENDIX    TO    SECT.  XIV.  469 

64.  That  iyy.a.y.iu  fhoiild  ever  fignify  to  fall  into  evil, 
or  as  our  author  exprelTes  it,  to  be  borne  away  by  evil, 
is  not  analogous  to  its  derivation,  becaule  it  is  derived 
from  jtaxvi,  ignavia,  timor,  and  the  other  compounds, 
with  a  prcepofition  ct7r0y.xy.iUy  iKaay-iu,  are  not  expreflive 
of  improbity,  but  of  indolence  or  cowardice.  Nor  would 
the  former  meaning  be  of  any  advantage  to  the  fentence 
itfelf  i  two  fimilar  affcrtions  would  be  then  connected  by 
a  particle  that  denotes  oppofition,  whereas  at  prefent  it 
very  properly  connects  the  negation  of  a  caufe  with  the 
affirmation  of  an  oppofite  effedt. 

6^.  Stephanus  explains  ai/«y-£(pa^«»ow,  capitulatim  et 
fummatim  repeto,  and  produces  the  following  example 
from  Ariflotle,  rx  avayKuix  ».vuiis(pxXxi!iy.suoi.  Now  the 
literal  and  proper  meaning  of  this  verb  feems  to  be  not 
unfuitable  to  the  paflage  in  queftion,  avxy.stpxXxiua-atj-^oit 
Tx  la-avTa  iu  Tw  Xpirw,  that  all  things  be  fummed  up  (that 
is  confummated)  in  Chrift.  Nor  can  this  be  faid  to  be 
a  figurative  application  of  the  word ;  for  as  it  fignifies 
literally  to  bring  fcattered  materials  into  one  head  or 
mafs,  fo  it  was  the  literal  meaning  of  the  Apoftle,  that 
the  fcattered  predidions  of  the  antient  prophets  were 
united  in  that  feries  of  events,  which  compofed  the  life 
and  death  of  Chrift. 

66.  In  the  German  original  this  fedion  is  followed  by 
another,  which  relates  to  the  mode  of  education  in  the 
grammar  fchools  of  that  country.  It  contains  very  fen- 
fible  and  judicious  remarks,  efpecially  in  regard  to  the 
pernicious  praftice  of  learning  Greek  from  the  Greek 
Teftament ;  but  as  the  reform,  which  our  author  pro- 
pofes,  is  either  inapplicable  or  unnecelTary  in  the  Englifh 
fchools,  and  relates  to  local  circumilances,  which  are  un- 
interefting,  and  perhaps  unintelligible,  to  an  Englilh 
reader,  I  have  taken  the  liberty  to  omit  it^  a  liberty 
which  will  be  the  more  eafily  pardoned,  as  the  treatife, 
though  valuable  in  itfelf,  forms  no  part  of  an  Introduc- 
tion to  the  New  Teftament. 


c  G  3  CHAP- 


47^  NOTES    TO    CHAP.  V.    SECT.  I. 


C  H  A  P  T  E  R    V. 

OF    THE    QUOTATIONS    FROM    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 
IN    THE    NEW. 


SECT.      I. 

PAGE   20I.' 

I.  P»/*a  is  the  tranOation  of  "l^'^,  Gen.  xviii.  14.  which 
fignifies  verbum  and  res,  but  never  promiffum,  nor  have 
the  Seventy  in  any  one  inftance  ufed  pnfAcc  for  a  Hebrew 
word  expreflive  of  the  latter  meaning.  Profeflbr  Dathe 
tranflates  Gen.  xviii.  14.  Num  quidquam  Jov^e  nimis 
arduum  elTe  potcft. 

PAGE  204. 

1.  Origen  appears  to  have  been  the  firft,  who  ufed  in 
this  manner  the  term  oiy.ovoij.iy.,  in  his  reply  to  Celfus,  who 
had  objeifled  that  many  pafTages  of  the  Old  Teftament 
were  applied  to  ChrilT:,  which  properly  related  to  other 
fubjefts.  (Origenis  Opera,  Tom.  I.  p.  514.  ed.  Bene- 
di6l.)  Chryfoftom  likewife  in  his  treatife  zn^i  n^ooa-vyngy 
Lib.  I.  cap.  5.  writes  as  follows,  UoXXn  ya^  n  rvg  cc7rocTr\g 
icryvc,  fjt-ovov  ju'<i  ju«t«  ^oXipocq  uTpoxyic^u  rrjq  ZTpoonpicnujg. 
MaAXoi/  $s  aSc  ocTvoLrrw  to  toihto  Sii  Y.a,KiiVy  aXX'  o»xovO|aia:/  rn/a 

nxi  o-o^iaf.  The  fame  dodrine  was  likewife  deUvered 
by  Athanafius,  and  moft  of  the  other  Greek  fathers.  To 
this  CEconomia  Patrum  our  author  very  properly  objefts, 
as,  according  to  their  owi:i  confeffion,  it  was  nothing  bet- 
ter than  a  pious  fraud.  With  refpeft  to  the  term  dif- 
penfatio,  ufed  by  the  Latin  fathers,  fee  Du  Cange  Glof- 
farium  mediie  et  infimtu  Latinitatis,  Tom.  11.  p.  1545, 
cd.  Parifienfis,  1733. 

3.  I  know  not  in  what  part  of  Dr.  Semler's  works  the 
terms  ccconom.ia  and  difpcnfatio  are  ufed ;  on  the  con- 
trary, he  adopts  the  dodlrine  of  accommodation.     Ple- 

rumque 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.    V.     SECT.   I.  A  J I 

rumque  eft  accommodatio,  non  propric  di6la  allegatio 
teftimonii  de  eadem  re  liiculenci. 

S^mleri  Apparatus  ad  libcralem  N.  T.  interpreta- 
tionem,  p.  96. 

PAGE  205. 

4.  ti^ll^D  ■  fignifies  inqulfitio,  expofitio,  from  "^Tl, 
qua3rivit  (Buxtorf's  Lex.  Talm.  Rabb.  p.  584).  Various 
inftanccs  of  Jewilh  Medralliim,  or  allegorical  glofles, 
may  be  feen  in  Tychfciis  Tentamen  de  variis  codicum 
hebraicorum  Vet.  Teft.  MSS.  generibus,  p.  197 — 211. 
See  alfo  Simon  Hiftoire  critique  du  textc  du  Vieux  Tef- 
tamcnt,  Liv.  III.  ch.  5,  6.  and  particularly  Schoettgenii 
Hone  Hebraicie  et  TalmudicLi?,  Tom.  II.  p.  794. 

PAGE  206. 

5.  Our  author  feems  not  to  be  aware  that  St.  Paul 
himfelf,  Heb.  vii.  i,  2.  gives  the  very  fame  explanation 
of  pTiO^D  as  Profeffor  Eberhard.     O  MiXx^a-i^^-K 

6.  Our  author  here  alludes  to  his  German  tranflation 
of  the  Pfalms  with  Notes,  the  fecond  edition  of  which 
was  publilhed  at  Gottingen  in  1782.  In  the  243**.  page, 
to  which  he  refers,  he  ftates  the  objedtions  which  have 
been  made  to  the  application  of  P'falm  cix.  8.  to  Ads 
i.  20.  and  conjeftures  that  St.  Peter  was  miftakenj  a 
circumftance  arifing,  as  he  fays,  from  the  application 
being  made  before  the  communication  of  the  gifts  of 
the  Holy  Ghoft  on  the  day  of  Pentecoft.  It  is  unnecef- 
fary  to  give  here  a  tranflation  of  his  objeftions,  as  they 
are  ft-ated  by  Dr.  Sykes,  in  the  j**.  feftion  of  his  Intro- 
du6lion  to  the  Epiftle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  his  Truth 
of  the  Chriftian  Religion,  ch.  xv. 

PAGE  207. 

7.  Our  author  here  refers  to  a  work  which  he  pub- 
lilhed at  Halle  in  17^3,  under  the  following  title,  Er- 
klarung  der  Begrabnifs-und  Auferftehungsgefchichte 
Chrifti  nach  den  vier  Evangeliftcn.     The  place  to  which 

G  g  4  he 


47  2  NOTES    TO    CP4AP.   V.     SECT,    I. 

he  alludes  is  p.  25 — 34.  where  he  explains  John  xix. 

36,  37*  ^'yiViTO  yoco  TOcvTXy  »i/a  »)  ypa<p»)  -syXnou^'/i,  ofHv  «  (Tui/- 
rpiQncTiTan  ocvtx.      K«»  ■nraAjv  £T£^a  y^aipyj  Xiynj  o^^ovroa  ei?  01* 

t^£>t£i/TviTav.  In  the  former  of  thefe  verfes  St.  John  is 
fiippofed  to  allude  to  Exodus  xii.  46.  in  the  latter  to 
Zechariah  xii.  10.  and  many  commentators  contend  that 
he  defigns  only  to  accommodate  thofe  paflages  to  the 
fubjed  in  queftion,  though  iifhered  in  by  the  formule 
iyiviTo  TavTo.  n/a  ■»  yp<x(pyt  TffXrpoo^v:.  Our  author  on  the 
contrary  maintains  thatExod.  xii.  46.  and  Zech.  xii.  10. 
are  prophecies  which  immediately  and  literally  relate  to 
the  circumftances  of  Chrifl's  crucifixion ;  and  agreeably 
to  the  principles  which  he  delivers  in  his  Introduction, 
allows  no  medium  between  this  hypothefis,  and  the  fup- 
pofition  that  St.  John  had  made  an  improper  application 
of  the  above-mentioned  pafTagcs. 

8.  Leil  thofe  readers  who  are  unacquainted  with  the 
merits  of  Profeflbr  Eberhard,  one  of  the  firft  philofo- 
phers  in  Germany,  fliould  receive  a  falfe  imprefTion  with 
refpecfl  to  the  nature  and  chara6ter  of  his  writings,  it  is 
neceiTary  to  obferve  that  his  objc6l,  in  the  place  to  which 
our  author  alludes,  is  to  reconcile  two  feemingly  contra- 
dictory paflages  in  the  New  Tcftament.  Chrift  aflerts, 
Matth.  xvii.  10 — 13.  that  John  the  Baptifl  was  the  Elias 
whom  the  Jews  expetled,  whereas  John  the  Baptiil  him- 
felf  (John  i.  21.)  declares  that  he  is  not  Elias.  In  order 
to  reconcile  the  feeming  contradi<5lion,  Profeflbr  Eber- 
hard obferves  that  the  prophecy  of  Malachi  (ch.  iv.  5.) 
could  not  literally  and  immediately  relate  to  the  perfon 
of  John  tiie  Baptift,  becaufe  in  that  cafe  there  would  be 
an  evident  difagreement  between  two  paflTages  of  fcrip- 
ture ;  but  that  the  term  EUas  was  adopted  by  Malachi 
as  a  general  name  of  faithful  and  patriotic  Ifraelites, 
which  our  Saviour  applies  by  way  of  accommodation  to 
John  the  Baptifl:  in  particular,  though  this  application  of 
an  indeterminate  prophecy  is  not  made  by  the  Baptifl: 
him  felf.  It  may  be  hkewife  remarked  that  it  is  of  no 
importance  to  the  FrofelTor's  argument,  whether  Malachi 
lived  before,  or  after  the  captivity. 

PAGE 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.  V.    SECT.  II.  473 

PAGE   209. 

9.  According  to  the  Maforetic  punduation  ^Di^  Is 
here  a  noun  fubftantive. 


SECT.      11. 

PAGE   209. 

1.  Our  author  rejc6ls  therefore  all  typical  explanations 
of  the  paflages  of  the  Old  Teftament  quoted  as  proofs 
in  the  New,  and,  which  is  nearly  the  fame  thing,  denies 
the  doftrine  of  a  double  completion,  which,  as  Dr.  Sykes 
very  properly  obferves,  would  defeat  the  end  of  all  pro- 
phecy. See  the  Truth  of  the  Chriftian  Religion,  p.  213. 
241.  of  the  2'^.  edition,  and  Dr.  Benfon's  *  Effay  con- 
cerning the  Unity  of  fenfe,  to  (hew  that  no  text  of  fcrip- 
ture  has  more  than  one  fingle  fenfe,'  which  is  prefixed  to 
his  Paraphrafe  on  St.  Paul's  Epiftles.  Jortin,  in  his 
Remarks  on  Ecclefiaftical  Hiflory,  Vol.  I.  p.  1 24.  2^ 
edition,  maintains  the  contrary  opinion. 

PAGE  210. 

2.  In  the  fecond  Gottingen  edition,  printed  In  1770, 
p.  200. 

3.  The  only  queftion  to  be  examined  is  what  the  pro- 
phet Jeremiah  himfelf  intended  to  exprefs,  ch.  xxxi.  15 
— 17.  jiot  what  application  later  Jews  made  of  this  paf- 
fage.  Now  whoever  impartially  reads  the  whole  period, 
muft  be  convinced  that  Jeremiah  had  no  other  objed  in 
view,  than  the  misfortunes  inflicted  on  the  Jews  by  the 
kings  of  Babylon.  There  are  two  circumftances  which 
confine  the  words  of  the  prophet  to  thofe  misfortunes 
alone,  i.  The  weeping  was  heard  at  Rama:  this  was 
the  place  where  Nebuzaradan,  the  Chaldeean  general, 
difpofed  of  his  prifoners  after  their  capital  was  taken  j 
but  the  place  where  Herod  exercifed  his  cruelty  on  the 
infants  was  not  in  Rama,  but  in  Bethlehem.  2.  It  is 
faid,  V.  16.  *  they  fhall  come  again  from  the  land  of  the 

enemy,' 


474  NOTES    TO    CHAP.   V.    SECT.   If. 

enemy,'  and,  v.  17.  '  thy  children  fhall  come  again  to  their 
own  border :'  thefe  words  are  wholly  inapplicable  to  the 
mafTacre  of  the  infants,  and  if  applied  to  the  misfortunes 
of  the  Jews  under  the  Roman  emperors,  they  militate 
againft  hiftoric^l  truth ;  for  when  Mlh  Capitolina  was 
built  by  Adrian  on  the  ruins  of  Jerufalem,  the  Jews  were 
forbidden  to  approach  the  city,  under  pain  of  death. 

PAGE  211. 

4.  I  know  not  on  what  authority  our  author  has  here 
nundinatus  fit,  for  in  Martianay's  edition.  Vol.  III.  p.  679. 
we  find  venundatus  fit,  which  is  much  more  fuitable  to 
the  context. 

5.  The  title  of  this  work  is  Orientalifche  Reifebe- 
fchreibung  von  Troilo,  Drefden  1676.  In  the  page,  to 
■which  our  author  refers,  an  account  is  given  of  a  church 
on  Mount  Horeb  dedicated  to  the  Virgin  Mary,  but 
there  is  no  allufion  whatfoever  to  the  fubjecl  in  queftion. 
Perhaps  he  means  p.  293,  where  Troilo  fpeaks  of  a  Te- 
rebinthus  or  Turpentine  tree,  under  which,  according  to 
a  Chriftian  legend,  the  Virgin  Mary  is  faid  to  have  refted, 
when  file  carried  Chrifl:  as  an  infant  from  Bethlehem  to 
Jerufalem. 

PAGE    212. 

6.  See  C.  F.  Rofenmiilleri  Scholia  In  Vaticinia  Je- 
faise,  p.  170.  and  Sykes's  Truth  of  the  Chriftian  Religion, 
p.  21 1 — 214.   2^.  edition. 

7.  But  if  Deut.  xviii.  15.  cannot  pofiibly  relate  to 
Chrifl:,  there  feems  to  be  an  impropriety  in  its  applica- 
tion, AcSts  iii.  22.  for  St.  Peter  having  faid,  xoci  a-no^aXy) 
rov  ■s-coxiKripvy[/.tvo]/  v[j.i]/  IncrHv  Xpifovy  immediately  adds 
MutTVi?  yxp  sypog  th;  zjocTipixg  sittei/,  oxt  ■sxpo(pr^riv  m^av  ai/ar^nrfi 

Kupto?,  )t.  T.  A.  where  the  conjun6iion  yap  clearly  fiiews 
that  St.  Peter  quotes  the  paflage  in  Deuteronomy  as 
having  reference  to  Chrifl:.  It  necefl!arily  follows  there- 
fore, either  that  Deut.  xviii.  15.  according  to  its  literal 
meaning  refers  to  Chrifl:,  or  that  befide  the  literal,  it  has 
a  myfl:ical  meaning,  or  that  St.  Peter  has  improperly  ap- 
plied 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.   V.     SECT,   II.  4*7^ 

plied  the  pafTage  in  queftion.  The  latter  hypothefis 
being  inconfiltent  with  the  infallibility  of  a  divine  Apoftle, 
we  have  the  choice  only  of  the  two  former.  But  the 
firft  is  abfolutely  denied  by  our  author,  and  the  fecond 
is  likewife  inadmifTible  according  to  his  principles,  for  he 
reje6ls  the  notion  that  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Tefta- 
ment  had  a  double  fenfe,  and  have  received  a  double 
accomplifhment.  ProfefTor  Dathe,  in  his  Note  to  Deut. 
xviii.  15  afTumcs  the  fecond  hypothefis;  Dr.  Eckermann, 
in  the  fecond  volume  of  his  Theologifche  Beytriige,  p. 
126.  rejects  with  our  author  the  two  former,  and  ex- 
plains the  application  by  St.  Peter  as  a  mere  accommo- 
dation. See  alfo  Sykes's  Truth  of  the  Chriftian  Religion, 
p.  283—292. 

PAGE     213. 

8.  The  115*''  fe6lion  of  Michaelis's  Dogmatic  Theo- 
logy relates  to  future  punifhments,  and  has  no  reference 
to  any  palTage  quoted  from  the  Old  Teft.  in  the  New. 

9.  In  the  palTage  in  queftion,  Rom.  x.  6.  or  rather  5. 
St.  Paul  is  fuppofcd  to  allude  to  Levit.  xviii.  5.  but  in 
this  palTage  no  mention  is  made  of  '  faith,'  or,  as  our 
author  fays,  '  circumcifion  of  the  heart.' 

10.  See  Pococke's  Appendix  Notarum  mifcellanea, 
p.  14.  which  is  annexed  to  his  Maimonidis  Porta  Mofis, 
OxoniiE  1655. 

11.  This  would  be  written  in  Hebrew  ''31^?:^.  See 
Gen.  xxxvi.  15.  Exod.  xv.  15.  i  Chron.  i.  51.  where  it  is 
written  in  this  manner,  and  rendered  in  the  Septuagint 
nyEixoi/s? :  but  in  the  paiTage  of  Micah  there  is  no  Vau. 

12.  This  remark  is  by  no  means  new,  hicce  enim  locus 
tam  veteres  quam  hodiernos  theologos  adeo  vexavit,  ut 
ad  defperationem  redafli  Judieorum  Pharifa;os  et  Scribas 
perverfa3  tranflationis  accufarint,  ut  Matthasum  ab  omni 
errore  liberarent.  Surenhufii  B^Qxog  >i.ocTOiXAa.yng,  p.  176. 
But  Surenhufius,  p.  180.  rejeds  this  excufe,  which  was 
firft  made  by  Jerom,  and  has  a  great  difplay  of  learning 
in  order  to  defend  the  palTage. 

13.  See 


47^  NOTES    TO    CHAP.    V.    SECT.    II. 

13.  See  Owen's  Modes  of  quotation  ufed  by  the  Evan- 
gelical writers,  p.  16,  17.  Sykes's  Truthof  the  Chriftian 
Religion,  p.  223,  224.  2''.  edition,  and  Blair's  Ledures 
on  the  Canon  of  Scripture,  p.  147 — 154. 

PAGE  214. 

14.  See  Sykes's  Truth  of  the  Chriftian  Religion,  p. 
241,  242. 

15.  This  palTage  from  the  Chronicle  of  EdefTa,  which 
our  author  has  printed  in  his  Syriac  Chreftomathy  or  Sc- 
lera e  fcriptoribus  Syris,  is  taken  from  AfTemani  Biblio- 
theca  Orientalis,  Tom.  I.  p.  413.  I  have  preferved  in 
the  tranflation  the  three  Syriac  words  which  he  has  in- 
ferted  in  a  parenthefis,  though  I  know  not  for  what  pur- 
pofe  they  are  introduced,  as  their  literal  fignificatipn  is 
nothing  more  than  exponens  civitati  de  eo.  It  is  like- 
wife  difficult  to  comprehend  the  obje6t  of  the  quotation 
itfelf,  as  the  comparifon  of  Afclepius  with  Noah  has  no 
reference  whatfoever  to  the  accommodation  of  a  paffage 
in  the  Old  Teftament  to  an  event  recorded  in  the  New. 

PAGE  215. 

16.  The  principle  of  accommodation  was  adopted  fo 
early  as  the  time  of  Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  main- 
tains it  under  the  name  of  (TuixTn^Kpo^x.  See  his  Stro- 
mata,  Lib.  VIII.  p.  863.  ed.  Potter.  It  has  been  revived 
in  later  ages  by  Kidder  in  his  Demonftration  of  the 
MefTias,  Part  II.  p.  215.  by  Nicholls  in  his  Conference 
with  a  Theift,  Part  III.  p.  10.  and  by  Sykes,  not  only 
in  the  work  to  which  our  author  alludes,  but  more  at 
large  in  his  Truth  of  the  Chriftian  Religion,  Chap,  xiii, 
xiv,  XV.     Dr.  Eckermann,  ProfefTor  of  Divinity  in  the 

"Univerfity  of  Kiel,  extends  the  do6lrine  of  accommoda- 
tion to  every  quotation  in  the  New  Teftament  without 
exception,  proceeding  on  the  hypothefis  that  the  Old 
Teftament  contains  no  prophecy,  which  literally  and 
immediately  relates  to  the  perfon  of  Jefus  Chrift.  The 
title  of  this  work  is  Theologifche  Beytrage,  printed  at 
Altona  in  1790  and  1791,  in  three  parts,  which  compofe 

the 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.    V.    SECT.    11.  477 

the  firft  volume,  and  contain  a  critical  examination  of 
all  the  quotations  in  the  Gofpels,  A6ls,  and  Epiftle  to  the 
Romans.  The  fecond  volume  will  contain  the  qupta- 
tions  in  the  remaining  part  of  the  New  Teftament.  Dr. 
Owen  on  the  contrary,  in  his  Modes  of  quotation,  fed. 
5.  entirely  rejefts  the  principle  of  accommodation,  to 
whofe  opinion  our  author  is  in  moll  cafes  inclined  to 
accede,  though  with  this  material  difference,  that  Dr. 
Owen  admits  a  typical,  our  author  only  a  grammatical 
and  literal  meaning. 

As  this  dodrine  therefore  has  not  only  fuch  able  ad- 
vocates, but  fuch  able  adverfaries,  it  is  difficult  to  de- 
termine, which  fide  of  the  queftion  we  fiiould  adopt.  It 
feems  however  to  be  at  leaft  a  matter  of  doubt,  whe- 
ther the  principle  of  accommodation  can  be  admitted 
where  the  ftrong  expreffions  are  ufed,  '  This  was  done 
that  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  fpoken  by  the  pro- 
phet,' &c.  A  formule  of  this  kind  is  never  ufed  in 
quoting  from  a  claffic  author ;  it  is  therefore  no  argu- 
ment in  favour  of  accommodation  in  thefe  cafes,  when 
Dr.  Nicholls,  P.  III.  p.  1 1.  fays  that  no  one  would  ob- 
jed  to  a  writer  who  Ihould  addrefs  the  Apoftles  in  the 
words  of  Virgil's  invocadon  of  the  Sun  and  Moon, 

Vos  o  clariffima  mundi 

Lumina. 
Every  one  muft  perceive  that  the  cafes  are  wholly 
diffimilar,  and  an  impartial  reader  of  the  New  Tefta- 
ment muft  furely  be  perfuaded,   that  when  the  Apoftles 
and  Evangelifts  introduce  paffages  from  the  Old  Tefta- 
ment with  the  above-mentioned   formule,    they    were 
themfelves  perfuaded  that  thofe  paflages  had  in  fome 
fcnfe  a  reference  to  the  events  which  they  recorded,  and 
that  the  application  is  not  grounded  on  a  parity  of  cir- 
cumftances  alone.     Dr.  Sykes,  p.  214.  replies,  '  The 
difficulty,  or  objedion  againft  this  interpretation  arifes 
wholly  from  our  unacquaintednefs  with  the  Jewiffi  phra- 
feology.     The  Evangelifts  were  Hebrews,  and  wrote  as 
other  Hebrew  writers  did.     They  did  not  make  a  lan- 
guage of  their  own,  nor  ufe  a  phrafeology  peculiar  to 

them- 


47^  NOTES    TO    CHAP.    V.    SECT.    11. 

themfelves,  but  did  as  other  Hebrew  writers  did,  and 
followed  their  method.  To  underftand  them  therefore, 
we  are  not  to  judge  of  the  fenfe  and  meaning  of  the 
Evangelifls  from  the  common  and  ordinary  founds  of 
words  among  ourfelves ;  but  we  mufl  enter  into  the 
Jewifh  phrafeology,  and  fee  what  the  Jews  meant  by 
fuch  and  fuch  expreflions,  and  upon  what  principles 
they  reafoned.  Their  ways  of  fpeaking,  and  of  quoting, 
which  can  be  learnt  from  Jewifli  writers  only,  mufl  be 
looked  into  j  and  how  unnatural  foever  they  may  feem 
to  us,  yet  we  muft  be  determined  by  them,  and  only 
by  them.  Now  it  is  evident  from  numberlefs  examples 
that  the  Jewifh  way  of  writing  is  exaftly  agreeable  to 
that  of  the  Evangelifls ;  and  the  maftcrs  of  the  fyna- 
gogue  applied  paiTages  of  the  Old  Teftament  in  fenfes 
very  remote  from  that  of  the  original  author.  Every 
page  of  every  Rabbi  almofl  will  fupply  us  v^^ith  inflances 
of  this  kind.  And  as  for  the  particular  term  "  fulfilled," 
they  very  often  meant  no  more  by  that,  than  the  hap- 
pening of  a  fnnilar  event,  or  an  exad  agreement  in  par- 
ticular circumflances  of  latter  things  with  former.' 

But  this  learned  and  fenfible  writer  has  produced  no 
examples  from  the  Talmud,  or  from  any  Jewifh  com- 
mentator, where  fimilar  exprefTions  are  ufed  in  cafes  of 
mere  accommodation ;  and  no  affertion  can  be  admit- 
ted without  authority.  This  omifTion  is  the  more  in- 
excufable  on  the  prefent  occafion,  as  the  very  principle, 
which  he  in  other  refpeds  fo  ably  defends,  refts  entirely 
on  the  dccifion  of  the  quefcion,  Did  the  Jewifii  Rab- 
bins, in  quoting  paffliges  from  the  Old  Tcflament  with 
a  formule  of  this  kind,  ^  In  this  the  fcripture  was  ful- 
filled,' confider  thofe  pafTages  as  having  themfelves  re- 
ference to  the  event,  to  which  they  applied  them,  or 
did  they  ground  the  quotation  on  a  mere  parity  of  cir- 
cumflances ?  No  one  has  examined  this  queflion  with 
more  attention  than  Surenhufius,  whofe  Ej?ao?  xaraA- 
Aay?i?,  printed  at  Amflerdam  in  17 13,  and  his  edition 
of  the  text  of  the  Talmud  prefent  us  with  the  beffc 
means  of  determining  on  this  matter.     In  his  third  thefis 

De 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.    V.    SECT.    III.  479 

De  formulis  allegandi,  he  compares  the  expreflion  iirXYi- 
^w^n  n  y^occpn  with  the  Rabbuiical  formules  HD  D'^p  Ht 
:nnD:J^>  hoc  confirmat  id  quod  fcriptum  eft,^  and 
2)r\Dti/  n*D  D^^pb  ad  confirmandiim  id  quod  fcriptum 
eft.  He  then  refers  to  the  Tanchuma,  fol.  39.  col.  3. 
where  Deut.  xvii.  7.  is  quoted  with  the  latter  formule, 
and  obferves,  ex  cujus  loci  applicatione  patet  illarn  for- 
mulam  allegandi  *  ad  confirmandum  id  quod  fcriptuni 
eft'  non  folum  alludendi,  verum  etiam  demonftrandi 
vim  habere,  quare  ita  et  non  altier  res  fieri  debeat. 

17.  The  words  of  John  xvii.  12.  which  our  author 
fuppofes  to  be  taken  from  Ifaiah  viii.  18.  and  where  he 
fays  the  very  exprefiion  is  ufed,  are  a?  ^iSuKa?  y.01  £?)uXc,^«, 
but  the  words  of  the  Septuagint  in  that  paffage  of  Ifaiah 
are  l§^  fyw  xai  -uTxi^io,  a  y.01  £(Jwh£i/  0  0?o?,  and  in  the  He- 
brew niH'  'b'\n:  nji^j^  onb^m  o^:^^  n^n,  where  the 

ufe  of  the  verb  Uxi^i  conftitutes  the  whole  fimilanty. 
The  paffage  in  Zechariah  has  not  even  a  ftiadow  of  re- 
femblance. 

SECT.      III. 

PAGE    215. 

1.  An  account  of  the  authors,  who  have  engaged  in 
the  controverfy,  whether  the  quotations  in  the  New  Tef- 
tament  were  taken  from  the  Hebrew  or  from  the  Greek, 
and  who  have  \yritten  on  this  fubjeft  in  general,  may 
be  feen  in  Walchii  Bibliotheca  Theologica,  Tom.  IV, 

p.  914 919.     Thofe  v/ho  are  acquainted  with  German 

literature  will  find  a  ftiort,  but  excellent  treatife,  in 
which  this  queftion  is  examined,  and  the  feveral  quo-_ 
tations  in  the  Gofpels  and  Ads  ftated  with  a  view  of 
determining  this  difputed  point,  in  Eichhorn's  Allge- 
mcine  Bibliothek,  Vol.  II.  p.  947 — 1019. 

PAGE   216. 

2.  Our  author  here  anfwers  an  objeflion  which  he 
fays  might  be  made  to  the  application  of  Pfalm  ex.  i. 

to 


480  NOTES    TO    CHAP.  V.    SECT.  III. 

to  Chrift,  becaufe  Chrift:  himfelf  fays,  Matth.  xxii.  44. 
uTTiv  0  Kv^ioq  Tw  Kuftw  j(x»,  to  which  he  replies  that  tm 
Ku^iu  may  ftill  relate  to  the  MefTiah,  who  fpeaks  in  the 
words  of  the  Pfalmift. 

3.  Namely  the  letter  >,  the  reading  of  Matth.  ix.  ij. 
being  tXtovj  that  of  Hofea  vi.  6.  from  which  the  pafTage 
is  taken,  £>£o?,  according  to  the  common  printed  text, 
but  the  Pachomian  manufcript  has  tXiouj  as  in  St.  Mat- 
thew.    See  Owen's  Modes  of  Quotation,  p.  32. 

PAGE  218. 

4.  See  Owen's  Modes  of  Quotation,  fefl.  ii.  and 
Blair's  LecStures  on  the  Canon  of  the  Scripture,  p.  80. 

PAGE  219. 

5.  Our  author  here  refers  to  Ifaiah  xl.  14.  becaufe  in 
the  editions  of  the  Bible  with  marginal  notes  no  refe- 
rence is  made  Rom.  xi.  25-  to  this  paflage  of  Ifaiah, 
nor  does  it  appear  that  the  commentators  have  been 
guilty  of  negled,  as  the  two  texts  have  little  fimilarity. 

PAGE  220. 

6.  Our  author  has  here  tranQated  ttn»  by  the  Ger- 
man word  bezwingen,  which  fignifies  *  to  force,'  but 
the  ufual  meaning  of  ti^y  is  occupavit,  hseres  fuit,  and 
this  is  the  fenfe  expreffed  in  the  verfions. 

7.  The  text  of  the  Codex  Alexandrinus  in  this  paf- 
fage  of  Amos  agrees  with  Adls  xv.  17.  but  in  the  Co- 
dex Vaticanus  roy  Kvpiov  is  omitted. 

8.  Our  author  has  not  exprefled  himfelf  accurately 
in  faying  that  the  genuine  text  may  be  reftored  by  put- 
ting together  the  Maforetic  and  Greek  texts,  confidered 
as  two  fragments,  for  according  to  the  propofed  altera- 
tion he  retains  the  words  of  the  Hebrew  text,  changing 
only  1  into  "T,  and  omitting  V 

PAGE  221. 

9.  The  literal  tranflation  of  the  Hebrew  text,  ac- 
cording to  our  author's  alteration,  is  not  as  he  has  given 

it> 


KOTES    TO    CHAP.   V.    SECT.  III.  48 1 

it,  but,  '  and  to  put  an  end  to  the  tranrgrefTion  in  Ja- 
cob,' for  r\^2wh  is  the  gerund  of  Hiphil.  With  rcfpedl 
to  the  alteration  which  he  has  propokd  in  the  note,  his 
tranflation  is  again  inaccurate,  for  2ti^  is  not  the  infi- 
nitive, but  the  aftive  participle,  and  the  paflage  muft 
be  tranflated,  '  and  to  one  who  turns  away  iniquity  in 
Jacob,'  a  reading  which  by  no  means  approaches  to 
that  of  the  Septuagint  and  of  St.  Paul.  According  to 
the  firft  alteration,  the  fenfe  of  the  Hebrew  comes  very 
near  to  that  of  the  Greek,  the  verb  aTrorpt^w,  though 
much  more  frequently  the  tranflation  of  mjr,  is  put 
however  feven  times  in  the  Septuagint  for  PHt^  in  Hi- 
phil, and  the  only  circumftance  which  makes  the  con- 
jedlure  improbable  is  the  conjunclion  Vau,  by  which 
the  conftruction  is  rendered  harfli  and  unufual. 

10.  The  tide  of  the  work,  to  which  our  author  alludes 
in  this  fentence,  is  Michaelis  cricifches  Collegium  iiber 
die  drey  wichtigften  Pfalmen  von  Chrifto,  den  i6.  40. 
no.  publiflied  in  1759.  ^he  place  in  which  he  ex- 
amines whether  the  common  reading  "]n'Dn,  Pfal.  xvi. 
10.  be  genuine  or  not  is  p.  204 — 218.  His  principal 
arguments  for  rejecting  the  plural,  and  reading  "jl'Dn 
in  the  fingular,  are  the  following,  i.  According  to  the 
Maforetic  punftuation,  the  word  is  pointed  as  if  it  were 
a  fingular,  and  the  Maforets  have  noted  in  the  margin 
"]V  *n^nS  i.  e.  Jod  is  fuperfluous.  2.  Of  twenty  ma- 
nufcripts  examined  by  Kennicott  in  Oxford  and  Cam- 
bridge, fixtcen  omit  the  Jod,  alio  the  Caffel  manufcript, 
and  four  which  were  confulted  by  Houbigant.  3.  An- 
cient verfions,  made  before  the  introduftion  of  the  Ma- 
foretic points,  exprefs  the  fingular,  namely,  the  Greek, 
the  Syriac,  the  Latin,  and  Jerom's  Breviarium  in  Pfal- 
mos.  4.  The  ancient  Jews,  in  quodng  this  pafiTage, 
write  the  word  in  quellion  in  the  fingular,  and  refer  it 
to  David.  5.  St.  Peter,  A6ls  ii.  27 — 31.  and  St.  Paul, 
Afts  xiii.  35 — 37.  both  exprefs  the  fingular.  See  alfo 
Profeflc)r  bathe's  Note  to  Pfalm  xvi.  10.  in  his  Latin 
tranflation  of  the  Pfalms,  publifhed  at  Halle  in  1787.^ 
Oil  the  other  fide  of  the  qucfuon,  fee  the  remarks  of 
H  h  Pro- 


482  NOTES    TO    CHAP.  V.    SECT.    III. 

ProfelTor  Bmns,  p.  23.  of  his  edition  of  Kennicott's 
Diflfertatio  generalis  in  Vetus  Teftamentum,  reprinted 
at  Brunfwick  in  1783.  It  is  to  be  obferved,  that  when 
our  author  publifhed  his  Critifches  Collegium,  Kenni- 
cott's firft  diiTertation  only  relative  to  the  date  of  the 
Hebrew  text  had  appeared.  His  edition  of  the  Hebrew 
Bible,  which  was  printed  in  1776,  1780,  and  De  RolTi's 
various  readings  contain  the  authorities  to  which  our 
author  alludes. 

11.  Namely  A6ls  vii.  14.  is  E^SoiAmovToc,  wei/te,  and 
alfo  in  the  Septuagint,  Gen.  xlvi.  27.  but  in  the  He- 
brew tD''V2^  feptuaginta. 

12.  What  our  author  means  by  Stephen's  having 
preferred  the  Samaritan  reading,  I  am  unable  to  com- 
prehend. There  is  no  quotation  whatfoever  A6ls  vii.  4. 
for  Stephen  mentions  concifely  in  that  verfe,  what  is  re- 
lated more  at  large  Gen.  xi.  31,  32.  xii.  i — 6.  a  rela- 
tion in  which  the  Hebrew,  Samaritan,  and  Greek  texts 
all  agree.  EeCdes,  where  they  are  different,  it  is  ex- 
tremely improbable  that  a  native  Jew  would  prefer  the 
Samaritan  to  the  Hebrew  reading,  confidering  the  per- 
petual enmity  that  fubfifted  between  the  two  nations, 

PAGE  222. 

13.  Tom.  IV.  P.  I.  p.  392.  ed.  Martianay. 

14.  Our  author  here  examines  the  evidence  for  and 
^•gainfl  the  reading  CDHOt^  after  Tm,  Gen.  ii.  24.  It 
h  omitted,  namely,  i.  In  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  mo- 
dern Jews.  2.  By  Onkelos.  3.  In  the  Arabic  verfion 
printed  in  the  Polyglot.  4.  In  the  Arabic  verfion  pub- 
iifhed  by  Erpenius.  But  the  following  are  in  favour  of 
this  reading,  i.  The  Hebrew  text  of  the  Samaritans. 
2.  The  Samaritan  verfion.  3.  The  Septuagint.  4.  Thofe 
pafiages  of  the  Nev/  Teflament  in  which  this  text  is 
quoted,  though  thefe  being  taken  from  the  Septuagint 
cannot  properly  be  confidered  as  additional  evidence. 
5.  The  Vulgate,  as  corrected  by  Jerom.  6.  The  Sy- 
riac  verfion.  7.  The  Targum  of  Jerufalem.  8.  The 
Targum  of  Jonathan. 

15.  That 


NOTES     TO    CHAP.   V.    SECT.   III.  483 

15.  That  is,  according  to  the  text  of  the  Vatican 
manufcript. 

PAGE  223. 

16.  Vid.  Hieronymi  Opera,  Tom.  IV.  P.  I.  p.  392. 
ed  Martianay. 

17.  The  following  is  the  true  ftatement  of  the  diffe- 
rence in  the  readings  Gen.  ii.  24.  The  Codex  Alex- 
andriniis  and  Jerom  have  aul»  after  both  T3-a]£^a  and 
H*»7£f«,  the  Vaticanus  after  sTxlt^x  alone,  St.  Matthew 
and  Philo  after  neither  froili^x  nor  [Ann^x. 

18.  Philo  has  not  rvi  yvuxiKi  au|»,  but  'TT^o?  rviv  yvvxixtx 
avjisy  and  agrees  not  with  the  Alexandrine  manufcript, 
as  our  author  fays,  but  with  the  Vatican. 

1 9.  Likewife  according  to  Marcion  and  Tertullian. 
See  Griefbach  in  loco. 

20.  This  muft  be  an  overfight  in  our  author,  for  the 
common  printed  text,  Ephef.  v.  31.  agrees  indeed  in 
thefe  words  with  the  Septuagint,  according  to  Bos's  edi- 
tion, which  he  quotes,  but  not  with  St.  Matthew.  The 
three  texts,  Gen.  ii.  24.  Matth.  xix.  5.  Ephef.  v.  31. 
agree  in  the  Codex  Alexandrinus  alone,  which  has  in  all 
three  paflages  7r^o(rKo?<Xn^n<j'il»i  rjj  ywoum  «u7», 

PAGE  224. 

21.  Our  author  here  compares  the  Hebrew  text, 
Ifaiah  viii.  14,  15.  with  the  Greek,  and  points  out  the 
alterations,  which  were  made  by  the  Seventy.  For  an 
account  of  the  motives  which  induced  them  to  make  the 
alterations,  he  refers  to  his  treatife  De  indiciis  philo- 
fophise  gnofticas  tempore  LXX  interpretum,  which  is 
printed  in  the  fecond  volume  of  his  Syntagma  commen- 
tationum. 

22.  If  we  except  xn^u^ai,  which  St.  Luke  has  for 
xaAto-ai,  the  only  difference  in  the  v/hoie  paffage  between 
the  text  of  the  Evangelift,  and  the  Greek  text  of  Ifaiah, 
ch.  Ixi.  I,  2.  is  the  infertion  of  a.7rofsiXon  Ti^^ava-fjLimq  iv 
a<pi'7iiy  which  is  wanting  in  the  Septuagint.  Here  is  a 
remarkable  circumftance,    which  our  author   has   not 

H  h  2  noticed 


4^14  NOTES   TO    CHAP.    V.    SECT.    lit. 

noticed,  namely,  that  for  the  words  TU(pAoK  ocvxtxv^tv^ 
which  immediately  precede  this  claufe,  and  are  likewife 
in  the  LXX  at  the  end  of  ver.  i.  there  is  no  expreflion 
which  correfponds  in  the  Hebrew,  where  we  find 
T\'^r>'V\\>^  D^1D^^'7  vin6lis  compedum  folutionem,  which 
anfwers  to  the  claufe  infcrted  by  St.  Luke. 

23.  Some  of  the  manufcripts  of  the  Septuagint  have 
cy  i^(Kiv]y\<Txvj  and  alfo  Theodotion,  with  fome  of  the 
Greek  fathers.    See  Owen's  Modes  of  Quotation,  p.  66, 

67. 

24.  The  Seventy,  Deut.  xxx.  13.  have  rn  $ioi7npai(yu 

PAGE     225. 

^25.  This  conjedlure  feems  unfuitable  to  the  context. 

26.  This  conjedture  is  improbable,  becaufe  22^  go- 
verns not  a  dative,  but  an  accufative.  See  Deuteron. 
xxxiii.  3.  The  common  text  in  this  paflage  of  Ifaiah 
is  "|S  nDnJI^b.  Now  it  is  true  that  r\3r\  fignifies  ex- 
pe6lavit :  but  *  to  wait  for  the  Lord,'  is  the  fame  as  *  to 
truft  in  the  Lord,'  and  this  is  precifely  what  St,  Paul 
means  by  loving  the  Lord. 

27.  See  Dathe's  Latin  tranflation  of  Ifaiah.  Note  f. 
p.  91.  of  the  2^  ed.  publifhed  at  Halle  in  17S5. 

28.  Atoi^nnny  k  the  reading  of  the  Codex  Alexandria 
nus,  which  our  author  fhould  have  noted,  as  he  ufually 
quotes  from  the  edition  of  Bos,  which  follows  the  text 
of  the  Vaticanus.  This  lafl-mentioned  MS.  has  ^vktu 
-rnv  (ryiYivnu  {jt-a  iv  y/x»v,  which  is  an  accurate  tranflation  of 
the  Hebrew,  and  exadlly  the  fame  as  svodiviitco  iv  v[jt.iv.  It 
is  to  be  obferved  however,  that  St.  Paul  has  not  v;mv, 
but  aulotj. 

PAGE    226. 

29.  Our  author  here  alludes  to  Ads  vii.  16.  ETfS-no-a? 
$1/  Tu  (xvniAccli  0  uy/i<roo\o  AC^aa/*  Tijxng  apyupm.  The  martyr 
Stephen  therefore  fpeaks  of  a  fepulchre  which  was  pur- 
chafed  by  Abraham,  and  he  had  probably  in  view  Gen. 
xxiii.  16 — 20.  though  the  circumilances  of  the  relation 

arc 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.  V.    SECT.  IV.  4S5 

are  there  fomewhat  different.  But  our  author*s  remark 
prefuppofes  that  the  field  was  purchafed  by  Jacob,  though 
Stephen  exprefsly  mentions  Abraham.  He  muft  con- 
jeflure  therefore  that  reference  was  made  not  to  Gen. 
xxiii.  16.  but  xxxiii.  19.  where  mention  is  made  of  a 
field  purchafed  by  Jacob  for  HD^tl^p  HNX:,  which  the 
Seventy  have  rendered  by  moclov  ai/.vm.  But  the  con- 
jecture appears  to  be  devoid  of  probability.  In  the  pal^ 
fage  to  which  Stephen  probably  alluded,  the  price  of 
the  field  purchafed  by  Abraham  is  exprefsly  faid  to  have 

been  Ttl^axocrja  SiS^x'^i^.x  a^yu^ja  ^oxjjwa. 

30.  The  violence  done  to  the  Hebrew  text,  in  order 
to  make  it  cbrrefpond  with  the  Greek,  affedls  only  the 
Maforetic  punctuation,  for  if  |Dti>n  be  pointed  P^I^* 
we  have  literally  nrx-x})v^v[.  See  Capelli  critica  facra, 
Tom.  III.  §  47.  p.  212.  ed.  Scharfenberg,  Hal^  1786. 
But  whether  the  Seventy  really  underilood  it  in  Hophal, 
and  meant  to  give  a  faithful  tranflation,  or-fuppofing  it 
to  be  the  imperative  of  Hiphil,  made  an  alteration  by 
defign,  is  at  prefent  difficult  to  determine, 

PAGE  227. 

31.  Our  author  means  the  edition  of  Martianay, 


SECT.      IV. 


PAGE    230. 

1.  T»j?  ■xsTOiy.vnz  is  in  this  quotation,  as  given  by  St; 
Matthew,  ch.  xxvi.  31, 

2.  Dr.  Owen,  in  his  modes  of  Quotation,  p.  55. 
quotes  the  two  following  manufcripts  of  the  Septuagint 
which  have  zsrola^w,  viz.  MStus  N.  4.  Bibliothecce  Sandi 
Marci  Venetiis,  et  MStus  N.  4.  Bibliothecar  San.  Ger- 
manenfis.     Alfo  Barnabat;  Epifiola  §  5. 

3.  This  objeftion  will  be  wholly  removed  by  the  edi- 
tion to  be  pubhfhed  at  Oxford  by  Dr.  Holmes. 

H  h  3  PAGE 


486  NOTES    TO    CHAP.  V.     SECT.  IV. 

PAGE    231. 

4.  Tables  of  a  fimilar  kind  were  drawn  up  by  Dr. 
Randolph,  and  publifhed  in  1782,  under  the  following 
tide,  The  Texts  cited  in  the  New  Teftament,  com- 
pared with  the  Hebrew  and  with  the  Septuagint. 

PAGE  232. 

5.  It  is  true  that  an^ng  correlponds  to  the  Hebrew, 
where  we  find  r)''bVy  but  it  cannot  be  faid  to  have  been 
altered  to  uviQvi  becaufe  it  was  not  ufed  by  the  Seventy, 
who,  as  well  as  St.  Paul,  Ephef.  iv.  8.  have  the  parti- 
ciple avocQccc.  The  3^  perfon  ai/£C»  is  ver.  9.  and  can 
afford  no  ground  for  an  alteration  in  the  quotation  it- 
felf.  It  is  to  be  obferved  that  our  author,  though  fpeak- 
ing  of  the  Greek,  quotes  Pfalm  Ixviii.  19.  according 
to  the  Hebrew. 

6.  What  our  author  means  by  a  Maronitic  Syriac 
verfion,  made  from  the  Septuagint,  I  am  unable  to 
comprehend.  It  is  true  that  Syriac  verfions  were  made 
from  the  Greek,  of  which  the  Codex  Ambrofianus  is  an 
example.  See  De  Roffi  Specimen  Hexaplaris  verfionis 
Syriac^,  Parm^  1778.  Now  it  is  poffible  that  this 
manufcript  has  the  interpolation  in  queftion,  but  this 
verfion  is  not  ufed  by  the  Maronites,  for  they  make  ufe 
of  the  Pefhito,  a  tranflation  of  the  Hebrew.  See  Hot- 
tinger's  Thefaurus  Philologicus,  p.  242.  The  Pefhito, 
which  is  printed  in  the  Polyglots,  has  not  the  interpo- 
lation. Perhaps  our  author  means  the  Maronitic  Ara- 
bic verfion. 

PAGE  233. 

7.  Ernefli  fays  only,  exempla  tw  0  fubinde  ad  Novi 
Teftamend  le6lionem  conformata,  which  is  admitted 
by  the  bell  critics,  our  author  himfelf  not  excepted. 
Even  fo  early  as  the  third  century  the  text  of  the  Sep- 
tuagint had  been  miferably  munlated,  of  which  Origen 
loudly  complains,  and  by  which  he  was  induced  to 
compofe  the  Hexapla. 

9.  Whether 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.    V.    SECT.    IV.  487 

8.  Whether  Chriftian  tranfcribers  have  altered  the 
readings  of  the  Septuagint,  fo  as  to  make  them  more 
conformable  to  the  quotations  in  the  New  Teflament, 
an  opinion  which  has  been  entertained  by  men  of  the 
deepeft  learning,  will  be  beft  determined  when  the  col- 
lation is  finifhed  that  is  now  making  of  the  manufcripts 
of  the  Septuagint.  It  is  well  known  that  the  readings  of 
the  Greek  verfion,  according  to  the  Codex  Alexandri- 
nus,  approach  nearer  to  thofe  of  the  Greek  Teftament, 
than  according  to  the  Codex  Vaticanus.  Now  our  au- 
thor, in  conjunftion  with  many  eminent  critics,  admits 
that  the  Vatican  manufcript  is  more  ancient  than  the 
Alexandrine;  it  is  likewife  admitted  that  the  former 
contains  more  of  the  antehexaplarian  text  than  the  latter. 
If  then  this  progreflion  be  found  to  continue,  and  the 
conformity  between  the  Septuagint  and  the  Greek  Tef- 
tament increafes  in  proportion  as  the  antiquity  of  the 
MSS.  decreafes,  no  doubt  can  be  entertained  that  the 
fufpicion  is  grounded. 

9.  I  have  here  preferved  the  words  of  the  Englifli 
verfion,  as  they  are  a  correft  tranflation  of  the  original, 
but  our  author  renders  the  paffage  as  follows,  « In  that 
day  a  root,  which  remained  in  Jeffe,  Ihall  become  a  tree, 
which  fhall  ferve  as  a  fign  to  the  tribes  of  Ifrael :  the 
Gentiles  fhall  have  recourfe  to  it,  as  to  an  oracle.'  This 
laft  phrafe  he  explains  as  if  the  prophet  had  in  view  a 
facred  tree,  under  which  oracles  were  given. 

10.  If  the  Seventy  had  i^^'mb  in  their  Hebrew  Bible, 
as  our  author  fuppofes,  it  would  have  been  ftill  inaccu- 
rate to  have  rendered  the  word  by  apx^^v,  as  the  literal 
tranflation  is  app^oi^'j  l^^JJ^J  fignifying  princeps.  If  D^^ 
be  the  genuine  reading,  they  were  probably  led  to  the 
tranflation  by  the  circumftance,  that  a  military  enfign  is 
a  token  of  authority. 

11.  The  tranflation  of  W*^1^  by  £A7r»«(ri  does  not  ap- 
pear to  be  totally  erroneous,  for  if  I  have  recourfe  to 
any  one  for  afliftance,  it  implies  that  I  have  confidence 
in  him; 

H  h   4  PAGE 


488  NOTES    TO    CHAP.  V.    SECT.   IV. 

PAGE    234. 

12.  The  truth  of  this  concliifion  depends  on  the  fup- 
pofition  that  our  author  himfelf  is  not  miftaken,  either 
in  the  tranflation  from  the  Hebrew,  or  in  the  ftatement 
of  Ernefti's  hypothecs. 

13.  This  is  a  refinement,  which  feems  to  be  wholly 
ungrounded.     No  one  in  reading  Rom.  xv.  11.  u^niTi 

TOV   KupiOl/  ZTOC,i>TOC  TOi  i^UVIy   ZOti  £VXiVB(rOlTi  OiVTOV  T!TX]/Tig  01  Xaoj, 

can  fuppofe  that  Trocvn?  oi  Xxoi  has  reference  to  the  twelve 
tribes  of  Ifrael  alone :  nor  is  it  probable  that  Ifaiah  in- 
tended to  confine  D'DV  to  the  Jews  only.  This  at  leaft 
is  certain,  that  the  word  is  very  frequently  applied  to 
other  nations  than  the  Ifraelites ;  tDJ^  is  rendered  by  i^vo^ 
in  above  an  hundred  inftances  in  the  Septuagint,  and 
on  the  contrary  nJl  is  in  feveral  places  rendered  by  Xocog. 

14.  The  Codex  Laudanus  3.  is  not  the  only  manu- 
fcript,  in  which  thefe  words  are  found,  though  the  others 
are  not  fufficient  to  warrant  their  authenticity. 

PAGE  235. 

15.  Our  author  here  gives  an  account  of  the  princi- 
pal editions  of  the  Septuagint,  and  of  the  two  cele- 
brated manufcripts,  the  Alexandrinus  and  Vaticaniis, 
from  which  moft  of  them  have  been  taken.  He  cen- 
fures  both  of  thefe  manufcripts  as  having  been  altered 
from  the  Latin ;  but  the  former  has  been  fufficiently 
vindicated  by  Woide,  in  his  preface  to  the  Codex  Alex- 
andrinus, and  fome  future  Woide  will  probably  refcue 
the  honour  of  the  Codex  Vaticanus.  It  is  extraordi- 
nary that  our  author  fhould  refer  to  this  part  of  his 
Orient.  Bib,,  as  he  has  entirely  altered  his  fentiments 
on  this  fubjefV,  as  will  appear  in  the  chapter  relative  to 
the  manufcripts  of  the  Greek  Tellament. 


SECT. 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.  V.    SECT.  V.  489 


SECT.      V. 

PACE    12^, 

1.  Tom.  IV.  P.  I.  p.  392,  ed.  Martianay. 

2.  Notwithftanding  our  author  fubfcribes  to  the  opi- 
nion of  Jerom,'  yet  whoevercqmpares  i  Cor.  ii.  9,  with 
Ifaiah  Ixiv.  3.  will  find  that  the  two  pafTages  have  very 
little  fimilarity.  Thofe  who  wifh  to  be  perfuaded  of 
the  contrary,  may  confult  Drufius  in  parallela  facra^ 
Tom.  VIII.  p.  13 12.  of  the  Cridci  facri. 

3.  See  Fabricii  Codex  Pfeudepigraphus  Veteris  Tef- 
tamenti,  Tom.  I.  p.  1072.  ed.  2''^ 

4.  Tom.  III.  p.  473.  ed.  Martianay. 

PAGE  238. 

5.  See  Buxtorf's  Lexicon  Chal.  Talmud.  Rabbini- 
cum,  p.  945,  946.  Meufchen's  Novum  Teftamentum 
ex  Talmude  illuilratum,  p.  212.  and  Fabricii  Codex 
Pfeudepigraphus  Veteris  Teftamenti,  Tom.  I,  p.  813. 
ed.  2''^ 

6.  Thefe  have  been  collected  and  publlllied  by  Fa- 
bricius,  in  the  work  mentioned  in  the  preceding  Note, 
the  fecond  edidon  of  which  was  publifhed  at  Hamburg 
in  2  vols.  8"°.  in  17 19  and  1743. 

7.  See  Simon  Hiltoire  Critique  du  Texte  du  Vieux 
Teftament.  Liv.  I.  ch.  xix.  Waltoni  Prolegomenon 
VII.  and  Hotdnger's  Thefaurus  Philologicus,  p.  135. 
where  the  Jews  are  refcued  from  the  charge  of  having 
wilfully  corrupted  the  Hebrew  Bible.  Their  profound, 
and  even  fuperltitious  veneration  for  every  letter  in  the 
facred  writings  makes  the  accufation  highly  improbable ; 
the  charge  was  confined  by  the  fathers  themfelves  to 
the  Septuagint  alone,  and  an  alteration  in  the  Hebrew 
would  have  been  without  effeft  in  the  controverfy  be- 
tween the  Chriflians  and  the  Jews,  as  the  former  were 
for  the  aioft  part  ignorant  of  that  language. 

PAGE 


490  NOTES   TO   CHAP.    V.    SECT.   V. 

PAGE    239, 

8.  This  appears  to  be  a  miftakc  in  our  author.  See 
Note  10.  to  ch.  iv.  fedl.  ir. 

9.  This  conjedlure  is  without  authority. 

PAGE  240. 

10.  The  Arabic  verb^^^  fignifies  pulcher  fuit,  and 
benedixit,  but  neither  it,  nor  any  of  its  derivatives,  is 
applied  in  the  Lexicon  Heptaglotton  in  the  manner 
which  our  author  relates.  The  Hebrew  IVi  is  lb  far 
from  exprefling  any  opprobrious  or  difguftful  idea,  that 
it  fignifies  fervavit,  and  hence  many  critics  have  ex- 
plained the  word  Nazarene,  as  equivalent  to  Saviour. 

1 1 .  The  iubftantive  *nVi  fignifies  furculus,  nor  does 
it  in  itfelf,  or  without  the  addition  of  an  epithet,  convey 
the  leaft  notion  of  uncleannefs. 

12.  See  Note  11.  to  chap.  iv.  fe6t.  11. 

13.  The  fame  explanation  is  given  by  Dr.  Sykes,  in 
his  Truth  of  the  Chriftian  Religion,  p.  225. 

14.  If  a  Chaldee  paraphrafe  had  the  term  Nazarene, 
Ifaiah  liii.  12.  it  mufl  have  been  one  that  is  no  longer  in 
exiftence.     The  conjecture  is  highly  improbable. 

PAGE    242. 

15.  The  words  of  Jerom  are,  Legi  nuper  in  quodam 
Hebraico  volumine,  quod  Nazarens  fedas  mihi  He- 
braeus  obtulit,  Hieremis  Apocryphum,  in  quo  hasc  ad 
verbum  fcripta  reperi.  Hieronymi  Comment,  in  Mat- 
thsEum,  Tom.  IV.  P.  I.  p.  134.  ed.  Martianay.  See 
alfo  Fabricii  Codex  Pfeudepigraphus,  Tom.  I.  p.  1102 
—1 116.  ed.  2^ 

16.  Our  author  gives  here  an  extrad  from  a  letter, 
which  he  had  received  from  the  learned  Woide,  dated 
Jan.  28'\  1773.  Woide  had  found  in  the  Bodleian 
library  a  Coptic  Le6tionarium,  in  which  the  two  leflbns, 
appointed  for  the  morning  fervice  on  the  Saturday 
in  Paflion  Week,  were  taken,  the  one  from  Jeremiah, 
the  other  from  Matthew  xxvii.  1 — 14.     The  firll  lefTon 

has 


NOTES   TO    CrfAP.  V.    SECT,  V.  49I 

has  the  following  paflage,  '  Jeremiah  fpake  again  to 
Pafhur,  ye  and  your  fathers  have  refifted  the  truth,  and 
your  fons,  which  Ihall  come  after  you,  will  commit  more 
grievous  fins  than  ye.  For  they  will  give  the  price  of 
him  that  is  valued,  and  do  injury  to  him  that  maketh 
the  fick  whole,  and  forgiveth  iniquity.  And  they  will 
take  thirty  pieces  of  filver,  the  price  which  the  children 
of  Ifrael  have  given.  They  have  given  them  for  the 
potter's  field,  as  the  Lord  hath  commanded.  And  thus 
fhall  be  fpoken.  The  fentence  of  eternal  punifhment 
fhall  fall  upon  them,  and  upon  their  children,  becaufe 
they  have  fhed  innocent  blood.' 

To  this  extradl  from  our  author's  Orient.  Bibl.  may 
be  added,  that  Woide  difcovered  the  fame  paflage, 
though  with  fome  trifling  varieties,  in  a  Coptic  MS. 
preferved  in  the  library  of  St.  Germain,  and  there 
marked  N^  51.  among  the  Oriental  MSS.  in  folio. 
The  account  is  given,  p.  14 — 19.  of  his  effay  on  the 
Egyptian  verfions  of  the  Bible,  printed  in  1778,  in  the 
third  volume  of  the  Kielifche  Beytrage.  He  obferves 
in  the  fame  place,  that  the  Oxford  MS.,  from  which 
he  tranflated  the  paflage  communicated  to  our  author, 
is  the  Codex  Huntingtonianus  5.  and  that  it  is  written, 
not  in  the  Coptic,  but  in  the  Sahidic  dialed.  He  adds, 
that  the  paflTage  mufl:  have  fl:ood  in  both  verfions  at  the 
beginning  of  Jeremiah  xx.  The  fame  paflage  is  like- 
wile  quoted  by  Tuki,  in  his  Rudimenta  Linguae  Cop- 
tics, p.  295.  as  taken  from  Jeremiah  xx.  4. 


SECT.       VI. 

PAGE     244. 

I .  Our  author  gives  here  an  account  of  a  manufcript 
of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  preferved  in  the  library  of  the 
Landgrave  of  HeflTe  CaflTel,  which  he  himfelf  collated 
for  Kennicott.  In  this  manufcript  the  firfl:  pfalm  is  not 
numbered,  but  is  placed  as  a  kind  of  preface  to  the 

book 


49^  NOTES    TO    CHAP.  V.    SECT.  IV. 

book  of  Pfalms,  and  that  which  is  ufually  noted  Pfalm  2. 
or  2,  is  here  marked  K- 

2.  Luke  XX.  37.  Mark  xii.  26.  tm  mq  |3aT2  fignifies 
'  in  the  feftion  relating  to  the  burning  bufh,'  which,  ac- 
cording to  the  modern  divifion,  is  the  third  chapter  of 
Exodus.  Rom.  xi.  1.  iv  Hxix  fignifies  *  in  the  fedlion 
in  which  the  a6lions  of  EHas  are  recorded,'  which  forms 
at  prefent  the  ly^"",  18"*,  and  19^''  chapter  of  the  firit 
book  of  Kings. 

PAGE  245. 

3.  I  know  not  why  our  author  has  written  ca^Kui 
auTwi/,  fince  i  Mace,  vii.- 17.  it  is  o-a^xaj  oo-iwp.     The 

whole  pafTage  is  ^«p>ta;  o(Tim  era  KOii  <Xi[MXTOc   a-vruv   i^i^sxv 

xukXw  l£p8(raA7i]oc,  and  is  taken  from  Pfalm  Ixxviii.  3. 
(Ixxix.  in  the  Hebrew),  with  exception  to  o-a/JKa?  oo-jw^, 
which  is  in  the  preceding  verfe,  and  is  governed  of  i^ivro. 
Now  our  author  muft  mean  that  the  conftru6tion  is  im- 
perfed,  becaufe  fS-svro  is  omitted :  but  it  is  evident  that 
the  author  of  the  book  of  Maccabees  intended  that  no 
verb  fhould  be  underftood,  and  that  he  referred  fH^x^*" 
to  o-apjta?,  as  well  as  to  «j/:xaTa,  which  is  indeed  an  im- 
propriety of  language,  but  no  defed  in  grammatical 
conftruftion. 

4.  In  thefe  pafTages,  where  St.  Paul  quotes  ax  £7ri9-u- 
(AVKyug  alone,  our  author  fuppofes  that  the  Apoftle  leaves 
his  readers  to  fupply  what  foUov/s,  Exod.  xx.  17.  hk 

v..  T.  A. 

5.  The  verb  Troutv,  which  is  exprefled  Deut.  xxx.' 

14.  whence  St.  Paul  has  taken  the  pafifage  in  queftion, 
belongs  to  rat?  x^f*^''  ^^"^  ^^  ^^  ^^  ^^^^  ^  matter  of  doubt, 
whether  it  can  with  propriety  be  referred  to  ro,M.aT;  and 
KaoSicy,.  In  the  Hebrew  it  is  evident  that  ^^\^V^  has  no 
immediate  reference  to  the  words  expreffive  of  '  mouth* 
and  '  heart,'  which  are  no  inilruments  of  adion. 

6.  In  the  note,  to  which  our  author  refers,  he  gives 
precifely  the  fame  explanadon  as  he  has  here  given. 

PAGB 


NOTES   TO    CHAP.  VI.   SECT.  I.  493 

PAGE    246. 

7.  It  is  true  that  aum  aurot?  zn-a^*  £jU8  Sia,%iir\  is  found 
Ifaiahlix.  21.  and  aurt,  »  <J»«ar,xii /xx,  Jeremiah  xxxi.  33. 
(in  the  Greek  xxxviii  )  but  the  claule  otocv  oi.(i>iXuixxi  rxq 
»fA.(x^Ticiq  oivruv  is  in  neither  of  thofe  paflages. 

8.  The  addition  of  in-ao-j  to»?  e^i/jo-j  to  nXri^triTui  by- 
no  means  determines  the  fenfe  of  omog  p«,  fo  as  to  con- 
fine it  to  that  of  *  Court  of  the  Gentiles.' 

9.  There  is  fo  little  fimilarity  between  Luke  i.  17. 
and  Malachi  iv.  6.  that  it  is  difficult  to  determine  what 
is  retained,  or  what  is  omitted. 

10.  Our  author  here  obferves  that  St.  Paul,  Heb.  11. 
13.  quotes  Ifaiah  viii.  18.  in  the  concife  Rabbinical 
method,  leaving  a  part  to  be  fupplied  by  his  readers. 


CHAPTER    VI. 


OF    THE    VARIOUS    READINGS    OF     THE     NEW   TESTA- 
MENT. 

SECT.      I. 

PAGE    14.6. 

1.  A  very  excellent  dilTertation  on  the  original  manu* 
fcripts  of  the  Greek  Teftament  may  be  feen  in  Grief- 
bach's  Hiftoria  Textus  Epiftolarum  Paulinarum,  fed.  li. 
p.  41—72.  publifhed  at  Jena  in  1777,  4*". 

PAGE  248. 

2.  The  title  of  this  work  is,  Ulphilae  verfionem  Go- 
thicam  nonnullorum  capitum  epiftohe  Pauli  ad  Roma- 
nos,  e  litura  codicis  cujufdam  MSti.  refcripd  in  Guel- 
phtrbytana  bibliotheca  adfervati  dat  foras  F.  A.  Knittcl, 
Brunfvigx  1763,  4'°. 


49-f  NOTES    TO    CHAP.    VI.    SECT.    r. 

3.  The  German  title  of  this  book  is,  Verfuch  einer 
Erlautening  einer  alten  Spur  der  Gothifchen  Ueberiet- 
zung. 

PAGE  249. 

4.  Our  author  is  miftaken  in  fuppofing  that  cc^^ociot, 
as  well  as  a^p^atoi?,  is  found  in  this  pafTage.  It  is  true 
that  in  Pearfon's  edition,  though  not  in  Le  Clerc's, 
a^^onoig  is  in  the  text,  a^j(^£tojf  a  marginal  reading ;  but 
for  «fp^£»«,  which  occurs  twice,  there  is  no  various  read- 
ing, and  for  that  reafon  a^;)^atoi?  was  not  admitted  into 
the  text  by  Cotelier.  In  the  latter  part  of  this  quotation 
from  Ignatius  our  author  follows  Pearfon's  text,  which 
difi'ers  from  Le  Clerc's. 

PAGE  250. 

5.  Tliis  quotation  is  taken  from  the  fifth  chapter  of 
the  epiftle  of  Ignatius  to  the  Philadelphians,  Vol.  II. 
p.  82.  ed.  Le  Clerc.  But  the  firft  part  of  that,  which 
immediately  follows,  muft  be  a  paraphrafe  of  our  author, 
for  if  we  except  the  words  ?-riX<xi  na-i  nxi  rxipoi  vm^uv,  itp 

c»i  ysyoizTrlxi   f/.ovoy    ovofj-oclz  vik^oov   avS'owTrwi',   which  are  in 

the  fixth  chapter  of  this  epiftle,  there  is  nothing  which 
correfponds  in  the  original. 

6.  The  diflertations  of  J.  E.  J.  Walch,  which  were 
firft  publifhed  feparately,  were  colleded  and  printed  in 
3  vols.  4'°.  at  Jena,  in  1756,  1759,  1761-  Lardner, 
in  his  Credibility  of  the  Gofpel  Hiftory,  Vol.  II.  p.  267. 
ed.  of  1788,  Simon,  in  his  Plift.  Crit.  du  Texte  du 
N.  T.  ch.  iv.  and  Grielbach,  in  his  Hiftoria  Textus 
Epiftolarum  Paulinarum,  kct,  ii.  §  5.  are  of  a  different 
opinion. 

PAGE  252. 

7.  Vid.  Semlefi  Commentarii  de  antique  Chriftiano- 
rum  ftatu,  §  22. 


S  E  C  T. 


NOTES   TO   CHAP.   VI.  SECT.    II.  495 

S    E     C    T.      11. 

PAGE    254. 

1.  But  is  it  not  poflible  that  the  aj^taS-Ej?  and  «r»)^»xToi, 
of  which  St.  Peter  fpeaks,  were  inhabitants  of  thofe 
cities,  to  which  the  refpe<5tive  epiftles  were  addrelTed  ?  If 
fo,  an  inference  to  the  contrary,  from  thefe  premifcs 
alonCj  is  ungrounded. 

PAGE  255. 

2.  Our  author  feems  here  to  confound  ancient  with 
modern  times,  in  which  the  learned,  as  a  recompenfe 
of  their  labours,  enjoy  the  exclufive  privilege  of  publifh- 
ing  their  own  works.  But  it  is  highly  improbable  that 
St.  Paul  was  in  this  fituation,  who  having  no  other  objedt 
in  view  than  to  propagate  the  Chriftian  religion,  inftead 
of  referving  to  himfelf  the  right  of  diftributing  copies, 
would  rather  have  promoted  their  diftribution  in  the 
higheft  poflible  degree.  See  Col.  iv.  i6.  Our  author 
ipeaks  likewife  of  the  publication  of  St.  Paul's  epiftles  as 
of  the  edition  of  a  modern  volume,  wliereas  it  is  moft 
reafonable  to  fuppofe,  that  they  were  gradually  commu- 
nicated from  fociety  to  fociety,  and  that  many  years 
elapfed,  before  they  formed  a  fingle  and  complete  col- 
leftion.  Nor  does  the  hypothefis  of  St.  Paul's  being 
his  own  editor  folve  the  difficulty,  which  arifes  from  the 
fuppofition  of  his  having  written  a  great  number  of  epif- 
tles, bcfide  thofe  which  are  now  extant;  fince  in  that 
cafe  no  reafon  can  be  afligned  why  the  Apoftle,  in  the 
publication  of  his  own  works,  fhould  have  confined  the 
number  to  thirteen  only. 

3.  Our  author's  conjedlure,  that  the  fpurious  epiftles, 
againft  which  St.  Paul  warns  the  ThelTalonians,  were 
not  addrefled  to  that  community,  becaufe  the  impofture 
would  have  been  too  glaring,  is  highly  probable.  But 
the  inference,  which  he  thence  deduces,  feems  by  no 
means  to  be  warranted  by  thefe  premifcs  alone.     The 

fpurious 


49^  NOTES    TO    CHAP.  VI.    SECT.  IT. 

fpurious  epiftles,  to  which  the  Apoftle  alludes,  were 
probably  addreffed  either  to  the  Chriftians  in  general, 
or  to  fome  community  at  a  diftance  from  Theffalonica, 
in  order  to  conceal  the  fraud :  and  the  mark  of  diftinc- 
tion,  which  is  given  iThefT.  iii.  17.  O  ao-Tracr/Ao?  t*?  £/aw 
p^£»^»  TlccvXd,  0  ifi  <r«jM.£ioi/  £1/  zcao-ij  iirtfoXry  was  intended,  as 
a  proof  of  authenticity  in  the  originals  themfelves.  That 
every  tranfcript,  which  was  communicated  from  fociety 
to  fociety  throughout  the  Chriftian  world,  was  figned 
by  St.  Paul,  in  the  fame  manner  as  modern  treatifes  are 
fometimes  figned  by  the  editor  or  bookfeller,  in  order 
to  prevent  an  illegitimate  edition,  is  not  only  impro- 
bable in  itfelf,  but  unwarranted  by  the  paflfage,  to  which 
our  author  refers. 

PAGE  256. 

4.  On  the  fuppofition  that  thefe  fmgle  copies  had  no 
errata,  but  this  our  author  himfelf  denies. 

5.  Griefbach,  in  his  Hiftoria  Textus  Epift.  Paulin, 
feft.  ii.  §  12.  is  of  opinion  that  the  colledion  of  epiftles, 
called  by  the  ancients,  0  airos-oXogy  and  to  aTroroAixoi/,  was 
not  made  till  after  the  time  of  Juflin  Martyr.  See  alfo 
Semleri  Hid.  Ecclef.  fele6la  capita,  Tom.  I.  p.  18,  19. 
and  Semleri  Commentarii  hiflorici  de  antiquo  Chriftia- 
norum  ftatu,  Tom.  I.  p.  ;^^ — 39.  On  the  other  fide 
of  the  queftion,  fee  Molheim  de  rebus  Chriftianorum 
ante  Conftantinum  M.  p.  87.  Mill,  in  his  Prolego- 
mena, §  cxcv.  fuppofes  it  to  have  been  made  in  the 
fecond  century,  though  earlier  than  Griefbach  con- 
jc6lures. 

6.  The  antiquity  of  the  old  Syriac  verfion  of  the  New 
Teftament  will  be  examined  in  the  following  chapter : 
but  the  opinion,  that  it  Vv'as  written  fo  early  as  the  firft 
century,  is  fupported  by  arguments,  that  are  rather  fpe- 
cious,  than  real. 


3  E  C  T, 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.  VI.    SECT.  V,  497 

SECT.      III. 

PAGE    257. 

1.  See  Bifhop  Watfon's  Trads,  Vol.  III.  p.  283— 
289. 

PAGE    260. 

2.  Even  the  learned  and  judicious  Whitby,  in  his 
Examen  variantium  le6tionum  N.  T.  Milliani,  exprcITes 
fome  anxiety  at  the  immenfe  number  of  various  read- 
ings, which  had  been  produced  by  Mill,  and  which  are 
faid  to  amount  to  thirty  thoufand.  But  the  neceflity  of 
criticifm  in  the  ftudy  of  the  Greek  Teftament  was  at 
that  time  not  fo  generally  admitted,  as  at  prefent. 

SECT      IV. 

PAGE    263. 

T.  Our  author  gives  here  an  account  of  the  two  ma- 
nufcripts  of  Cefar  de  MiiTy,  with  a  catalogue  of  their 
various  readings  i  but  a  tranflation  of  his  defcription  be- 
longs not  to  the  prefent  place,  but  to  the  chapter  rela- 
tive to  the  manufcripts  of  the  Greek  Teftament. 

SECT.      V, 

PAGE    16;^, 

1.  See  the  Remarks  on  a  late  Difcourfe  on  Free 
Thinking  by  Phileutherus  Lipfienfis,  (Bentley)  §  xxxii. 
p.  63 — 68.  ed.  5'\  London  17 16. 

PAGE  264. 

2.  But  our  author  himfelf  admits  that  no  MS.  of  the 
Hebrew  Bible  is  now  extant,  that  is  not  more  modern 
than  the  Mafora  :  and,  as  the  Jews  have  invariably  con- 
fidered  this  as  an  infallible  text,  no  doubt  can  be  made 
that  the  manufcripts,  which  are  now  in  our  pofielTion, 
were  regulated  by  th.^t  llandard.     Nor  have  Kennicott 

I  i  and 


49^  ftOTtS    TO    CHAP.  VI.    Slid".  V, 

and  De  RoiTi,   with  all  their  learned  labours,  been  able 
to  difcover  variations,  which  jiiftify  a  contrary  opinion. 

3.  The  charge  laid  to  the  Jews  by  the  ancient  fathers 
related  rather  to  the  Greek  verfion,  than  the  Hebrew 
original. 

PAGE   26^. 

4.  Our  author  here  reviews  Dr.  Kennicott's  edition 
of  the  Bible,  from  which  he  produces  a  variety  of  ex- 
tracts ;  but  as  the  original  is  acceffible  to  every  reader, 
an  abftrad  in  thele  notes  would  be  ufelefs. 

PAGE    266. 

5.  Tkefe  laws  have  been  given  by  Wetftein  with  great- 
clcarnefs  and  precifion,  in  his  Animadverfiones  et  Cau- 
tiones,  printed  at  the  end  of  his  Greek  Teftament,  Vol.  II. 
p.  859 — 874.  This,  with  fome  other  fmall  treatifes  of 
Wjetftein,  was  publifhed  at  Halle  in  1766,  with  Dr. 
Semler's  Notes  and  Additions,  under  the  title  Wetflenii 
Libelli  ad  crifin  atque  interpretationem  Novi  Tefta- 
menti.  It  is  a  publication  which  fhould  be  in  the  hands 
of  every  critic. 

6.  Our  author  here  reviews  Dr.  Semler's  Latin  para- 
phrafe  of  the  Gofpel  of  St.  John,  and  accedes  to  his  opi- 
nion that  John  v.  4.  is  Ipurious.  Griefbach,  in  nis 
Greek  Teftament,  expreffes  likewife  the  fame  opinion. 

7.  Our  author  is  not  accurate  in  faying  that  no  vari- 
ous reading  has  been  found  to  thofe  paffages ;  for  John 
i.  I.  inftead  of  ^so?  the  Cod.  Stephani  n,  and  Gregory  of 
NyiFa  have  0  ^iog:  on  the  other  hand,  Rom.  ix.  5.  fome 
of  the  fathers  have  quoted  without  ^iog.  See  Wetftein 
and  Griefbach  in  loco. 

PAGE  267. 

8.  A  diftinflion  has  likewife  been  made  between  zrxc-x 
y^(x.(pr\  and  Tsx(Tx  1]  y^xipn,  2  Tim.  iii.  16.  See  Simon 
Hift.  crit.  du  texte  du  N.  T.  ch.  23.  Again  in  the 
fame  paffage  the  omiflion  of  the  conjundion  x«j,  though 
trivial  in  itfclf,  makes  a  material  alteration  in  the  fenfe, 

as 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.    VI.    SECT.    VIII.  499 

as  in  that  cafe  S-£07rv£uro?  denotes  a  qualification  of  y^a(pny 
inftead  of  being  its  predicate. 

SECT.      VIII. 

PAGE    271. 

1.  This  fedion  confifts  of  two  in  the  German  origi- 
nal, which  I  have  thrown  into  one  for  the  fake  of  per- 
fpicuity,  in  order  that  a  fingle  and  feperate  feftion  might 
be  allotted  to  each  of  the  five  caufes  of  various  readings. 

2.  Particular  attention  muft  be  paid  to  the  claufe  '  to 
which  in  other  refpedls  no  objection  can  be  made ;'  fbr 
if  folid  objeftions  can  be  made  to  any  word,  its  omif- 
fion,  though  fupported  by  the  authority  of  only  a  fnigle 
manufcript,  is  worthy  of  notice,  efpecially  if  that  manu- 
fcript  be  ancient  and  corred. 

3.  In  this  cafe  the  right  to  a  place  among  the  various 
readings  increafes  in  proportion  as  the  manufcripts,  which 
agree  in  the  omifTion,  differ  in  age,  country,  clafs,  or,  as 
Bengel  expreffes  it,  family. 

PAGE    272. 

4.  Of  this  omifTion  no  notice  was,  or  could  be  taken 
by  Mill,  Wetftein,  or  Griefbach,  as  the  Fragmentum 
Borgianum  has  not  been  in  Europe  more  than  thirteen 
years.  ProfefTor  Hwiid  collated  it  in  Rome,  and  com- 
municated its  principal  readings  to  our  author. 

5.  Our  author  has  here  enumerated  the  twelve  ex- 
amples, which  Knittel  has  obferved  in  his  manufcript  of 
the  Revelation,  viz.  ch.  ii,  2.  vii.  6.  viii.  7.  ix.  i.  x.  6. 
xi.  9.  xviii.  22.  XX.  5.  xxi.  11.  12.  15.  xxii.  6. 

6.  Our  author  gives  here  a  catalogue  of  inftances,  in 
which  words  and  fentences  are  omitted,  propter  oy.o^oli- 
AeuIov  in  the  Caffel  manufcript  of  the  Hebrew  Bible. 
They  amount  to  not  lefs  than  eighty. 

PAGE   274. 

7.  For  that  very  reafon  it  is  a  matter  of  doubt,  whe- 
ther the  principle  of  an  o^uoioIjAeuIoi/  can  be  applied  to 

I  i  2  the 


500  NOTES    TO    CHAP.    VI.    SECT.    VIII. 

the  above-mentioned  paflage,  Match,  xxvii.  35.  which 
our  author  defends,  in  oppofition  to  Wctftein  and  Grief- 
bach.  For  the  manufcripts,  in  which  the  pafTage  is  omit- 
ted, are  not  only  by  far  the  mod  numerous,  but  the  moft 
ancient,  and  differ  in  age,  country,  and  charader ;  where- 
as the  twelve,  in  which  it  is  found,  are  of  a  much  inferior 
rank,  and  nearly  of  the  fame  clafs,  not  to  mention  that 
the  omiffion  is  fupported  by  the  authority  of  the  moft 
ancient  verfions.  That  an  interpolated  paflage  fhould 
end  with  the  fame  word,  as  the  fentence,  after  which  it 
is  inferted,  is  at  leaft  pofTiblc,  and  this  poflibility  alone 
is  fufficient  to  defeat  the  argument  for  its  authenticity  de- 
rived from  an  o^ojoIeA^oIov,  when  we  confider  the  great 
authorities  which  pronounce  againft  it.  That  the  for- 
mule,  with  which  the  quotation  from  the  Pfalms  is  intro- 
duced, Matth.  xxvii.  35.  is  different  from  that  ufed  by 
St.  John,  ch.  xix.  24.  may  be  explained  on  the  fuppofi- 
tion,  that  the  interpolator,  in  order  to  conceal  the  fraud, 
altered  the  formule  by  defign  agreeably  to  Matth.  xiii.  35. 
It  rnay  at  the  fame  time  be  obferved,  that  the  application 
of  the  title  zj^otpnl-^^  to  David  is  not  peculiar  to  St.  Mat- 
thew, for  when  the  ancient  Jews  fpake  of  the  Law  and 
the  Prophets,  they  included  the  book  of  Pfalms  under 
the  latter  title,  and  St.  Luke,  A6ls  ii.  30.  exprefsly  calls 
David  ■uT^o(pn]7i? :  nor  has  St.  Matthew  given  him  this 
title  more  than  once. 

8.  See  Bengcl's  Apparatus  Criticus,  p.  676.  2^  edit. 
But  the  principle  of  an  homoeoteleuton  is  wholly  inappli- 
cable to  I  John  V.  7.  independently  of  the  weight  of  evi- 
dence that  is  brought  againft  it.  For  if  the  original 
text  in  this  paffage  had  been  that  of  our  common  printed 
editions,  and  a  tranfcriber  in  the  hurry  of  copying  had 
been  guilty  of  an  omiffion,  propter  homoeoteleuton,  he 
would  have  left  out  the  fecond  j(xa^7uf«vl£?,  with  all  the 
words  which  lie  betweerfit  and  the  firft  jwa^lu^ai/lf?,  but 
would  have  retained  sv  tyj  y\iy  which  come  afier  the  {c- 
cond  [xccfv^isuli;.  The  text  therefore,  which  would  have 
arifen  from  an  omiffion,  propter  homoeoteleuton,  is  the 
following,   07t  T^£is  EKTiv  Oi  i^cz-fi-.p-d^iii;  m   tyi  yr,,   to  sii/evf/.Xy 

Hon 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.    VI.     SECT.    VIII.  ^OI 

x«»  TO  v^u^y  xa»  TO  xifjt,oi.  Now  as  this  reading  is  found 
in  no  manufcript  cither  ancient  or  modern,  or,  in  other 
words,  as  the  effeft,  which  muft:  have  been  produced  by 
an  omifTion,  propter  homoeoteleuton,  has  never  taken 
place,  it  follows  that  the  caufe  likevvifc  itfclf  did  never 
cxift. 

PAGE    275. 

9.  The  origin  of  this  reading  in  the  Fragmentum  Bor- 
gianum  may  be  explained  on  other  principles.  The 
Cod.  Cant,  has  OXAOTOTNAKOT2ANTES,  and  if  the 
Borgian  fragment  was  copied  from  a  MS.  which  had  this 
reading,  the  tranfcriber  omitted  the  N. 

10.  This  is  an  overfight :  our  author  means  the  Cla- 
romontanus,  and  the  miftake  arofe  from  the  circum- 
ftance  that  Wetftein  has  noted  both  manufcripts  by  the 
letter  D. 

PAGE    276. 

11.  As  that  for  inftance  John  vii.  40.  where  for  nroX- 

Ao»  av  £)C  T8  o)(Xii  otmsa-oivleg  the  Cod.  Cant,  has  zjroAAoi  sk  ra 
o^Xa  2V  a.x.HTanIsi;. 

12.  Our  author  has  here  printed  a  letter  which  he 
had  received  from  ProfefTor  Adler,  at  that  time  in  Rome. 
The  principal  part  of  the  letter  relates  to  the  Philoxe- 
nian  verfion  j  but  in  the  page,  to  which  reference  is  here 
made,  is  given  a  lift  of  orthographical  errors  in  the  cele- 
brated Codex  Vaticanus,  and  two  other  Vatican  manu- 
fcripts, N°.  354  and  1548,  which  had  been  communi- 
cated to  Adler  by  ProfefTor  Birch  of  Copenhagen,  who 
was  at  the  fame  time  in  Rome  collating  manufcripts  for 
his  edition  of  the  Greek  Teftament.  The  orthographical 
errors  in  the  Codex  Vaticanus,  arlfmg  from  what  is  called 
the  Itacifm,  amount  to  twenty-nine  in  the  eight  firft 
chapters  of  St.  Matthew,  of  which  only  a  collation  is 
here  given  -,  but  it  is  unneceflary  to  fpecify  them  at  pre- 
sent, as  they  may  be  {ecn  in  Birch's  Greek  Teftament, 
the  firft  volume  of  which  is  already  publifhed  under  the 
following  title,  Quatuor  Evangeha  Grrece,  cum  varian- 
tibus  a  cextu  lec'tionibus  Cod.  MSS.  Bibliothecas  Vati- 


502  NOTPS    TO    CHAP.  VI.    SECT.  VIII. 

canfEj  Barberin^,  Laurendan^e,  Vindobonenfis,  Efcuria- 
lenfis,  Havnienfis  regias,  quibus  accedunt  lediones  ver- 
fioni^m  Syrarum,  Vcteris,  Philoxenianas,  et  Hierofoly- 
mitartJE,  julTii  et  fumptibiis  regiis  edidit  Andreas  Birch. 
Having  1788,  fol.  et  4*°.  The  principal  excellence  of 
this  fplepdid  work  confifts  in  the  complete  extrafts, 
which  ar6  given  from  the  mod  important  manufcript  per- 
haps exilling,  which  before  the  time  of  this  learned 
editor  had  been  very  imperfedly  collated. 

13.  In  the  Orient.  Bibl.  Vol.  XVI.  p.  164.  our  author 
reviews  ProfelTor  White's  edition  of  the  Philoxenian  ver- 
fion  of  the  four  Gofpels,  publifhed  at  Oxford  in  1777, 
and  takes  notice  in  particular  of  feveral  orthographical 
errors  in  the  Greek  readings,  written  in  the  margin  of 
the  manufcript,  from  which  the  edition  was  printed. 
They  relate  chiefly  to  a  confufion  of  0  with  w  and  £»  with 
»),  but  it  is  unnecelTary  to  produce  particular  examples, 
as  the  edition  of  the  Philoxenian  verfion  is  acceflible  to 
every  reader.  Vol  XVIII.  p.  173.  our  author  has  print- 
ed a  fecond  letter  from  ProfelTor  Adler,  dated  Rome, 
Nov.  I,  178F,  in  which  he  gives  an  account  of  a  manu- 
fcript of  the  Philoxenian  verfion,  which  is  much  more 
correal  in  the  marginal  Greek  readings,  than  that  pre- 
fented  by  Mr.  Ridley  to  the  univerfity  of  Oxford,  and 
from  which  it  appears  that  the  errors  of  the  Oxford  ma- 
nufcript are  not  to  be  afcribed  to  the  editor,  Thomas  of 
Heraclca.  For  a  defcription  of  this  MS.  fee  Adler's 
Verfiones  Syriac^e,  p.  64,  6^. 

14.  The  Itacifm  confifts  in  pronouncing  v  like  1,  to 
both  of  which  letters  the  modern  Greeks  give  the  found 
of  the  Italian  i  or  the  Englifh  c. 

PAGE  277. 

15.  The  fubftitution  of  x^nrog  for  %firo?  maybe  alfo 
explained  on  the  principle  of  a  paronomafia ;  for  Clement 
of  Alexandria  (Stromat.  Lib.  II.  fed:.  4.)  fays,  avliKo.  01 

iig  ^pifov  uTiTnfSvyiOTig  p^f'^iro*  t?  skti  kxi  Xtyovroa.       It    muft 

be  acknowledged  however  that  this  very  paronomafia 
implies  a  fimilarity  of  the  founds  of  >5  and  i. 

16.  Though 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.  Vf.    SECT.  VIII.  503 

16.  Though  our  author  appears  to  differ  from  Woide 
in  his  manner  of  explaining  the  orthographical  errors  of 
the  Codex  Alexandrinus,  yet  in  fa6t  thcfe  eminent  critics 
both  agree.  Woide  fays,  in  the  paragraph  to  which  our 
author  alludes,  '  Jam  brevi  et  plana  demonflratione  pa- 
tebit  e  libris  JEgyptiacis,  qui  nobis  fuperfunt,  7£gyptios 
«<  uti  £,  et  £  uti  at  pronunciaiTe.'  Our  author  likewile 
accounts  for  thefe  errors  from  .a  want  of  proper  diftinc- 
tion  in  the  manner  of  pronouncing ;  but  inftead  of  call- 
ing it  Egyptian  pronunciation,  as  it  was  not  confined  to 
Egypt  alone,  the  fame  errors  being  found  in  manufcfipts 
not  written  in  that  country,  ufes  the  term  Itacifm,  taken 
in  the  moft  extenfive  fenfe  of  the  word. 

17.  It  is  well  known  that  after  the  time  of  the  Ptole- 
mies the  ancient  Egyptian  language  was  written  with 
Greek  letters,  the  inhabitants  of  that  country  adopting 
the  Greek  alphabet,  to  which  however  they  added  eight 
letters  of  their  own,  as  being  expreffive  of  founds  to 
which  none  exaftly  correfponded  in  the  Greek.  See 
Montfaucon's  Palsographia  Gr^eca,  Lib.  IV.  cap.  7.  or 
Didymi  Grammatica  Coptica,  p.  39 — 42. 

PAGE    278. 

18.  Others  again  ^i,  for  inftance  the  Claromontanus 
a  prima  manu,  though  Sn  ex  emendatione. 

19.  Wetftein  has  quoted  four  manufcripts  for  avrn- 
vag,  to  which  Grielbach  has  added  two  others,  but  of 
thefc  fix  the  Codex  Alex,  is  the  only  one  of  great  anti- 
quity. 

20.  Grielbach  has  taken  st  ^e,  Rom.  II.  17.  into  the 
text  of  his  edition. 

21.  The  Hebrew  text.  Job  xxxlv.  17.  differs  fo  ma^ 
terially  from  that  of  the  Septuagint,  that  it  is  difficult  to 
determine  whether  it  decides  for  »<?£  or  u  cTf.  Perhaps 
our  author  means  v.  16.  where  i^i  likewife  occurs,  which 
undoubtedly  ought  to  be  «»  <?5,  becaufe  the  Hebrew  is 

22.  Our  author  fhould  rather  have  faid  four  Codices 
Grxco-t-atini,  for  the  opprobrious  title  Codex  Latini- 

I  i  4  zans 


504  NOfES    TO    CHAP.    VI.    SECT.    VUU 

zans  has  been  lefs  frequently  applied  fince  the  da:ys  of 
Semler,  Griefbach,  and  Woide,  than  in  the  beginning 
and  middle  of  the  prefent  century,  Thefe  four  manu- 
Icripts  are  the  Claromontanus,  Sangermanenfis,  Augien- 
fis,  and  Boernerianus,  which  are  quoted  by  Wetflein  for* 
^10  uTTOTao-o-fo-S-E ;  but  that  learned  critic  is  miftaken,  at 
leaft  with  regard  to  the  Boernerianus,  which  has  $10  utto- 
Tao-o-Ecr^ai,  though  the  Latin  tranflation  written  over  the 
Greek  text  is  lubditi  eftote.  See  Matthai's  edition  of 
>the  Codex  Boernerianus,  fol.  17.  It  was  publifhed  at 
MeiiTen  in  Saxony  in  1791,  4*". 

PAGE  279, 
-''  23.  Our  author  muft  here  be  underflood  not  of  the 
Vulgate,  which  has  a  different  reading  from  that  which 
he  prefers,  but  of  the  Latin  verfion,  with  which  the  four 
above-mentioned  Codices  Grasco-Latini  are  accompa- 
nied^ 

24.  Seeatbove,  Note  12.  The  examples  of  orthogra- 
phical errors  produced  by  our  author,  in  which  0  and  w 
are^  confounded  in  the  celebrated  Codex  Vaticanus, 
amount  to  four  only  in  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew,  from 
which  alone  they  are  taken,  viz.  ch.  viii.  1  a.  ilun^ov. 
xiii.  15.  (a,(Toixai.  ^^.  ixxu^og.  xxiv.  i^.ifog.  But  the 
firfl;  and  third  examples,  if  they  are  not  errata  in  our 
author's  pubhccition,  differ  not  from  the  common  read- 
ing. The  inftances  of  a  fimilar  nature,  taken  from  the 
Codex  354,  are  confined  to  St.  Luke's  Gofpel,  and  are 
ch.  ii.  24.  T^u!yo^o^,  38.  ai/6o^oXoy£jTO.  ix.  45.  Eo-3-oi/T«»,where 
there  is  likewife  an  error  arifing  from  the  Itacifm,  x.  i^, 

iiioixi.  xi.    25.  £A0wv.  xiii.  3.  oiTTuXsa-^ixi.   xiv.  29.  a^^wvTai 
Xvi.  5.  ^^£0<pnX£T0Vj  31.    zxiKT^va-uyTUi.  xvii.   10.  o(psiXo[xsv. 

xviii.  5.  vTroTnoi^n.  xix.  3.  i^^ccfjLOii,     From  the  Codex 
1 548  only  two  examples  of  this  kind  are  given,  Lvike 

XV.  32.  airuXuiXoi;  xix.  ^3-  SiTrwv. 

25.  See  above.  Note  13. 

PAGE    280. 

26.  Here  is  an  erratum  which  I  have  not  been  able 
to  correct. 

27.  Our 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.  VI.    SECT.  Vtll.  505 

27.  Our  author  here  quotes  p.  155.  of  Ptolemy's  Geo- 
graphy, without  mentioning  the  edition,  but  he  means 
§iat  which  was  pubUfhed  by  P.  Montanus  in  1605. 

28.  Our  author  here  gives  extracts  from  Vekhufen's 
Obfervations  on  Various  Subjefts,  printed  in  London 
1773  :  but  as  the  original  is  acceflible  to  every  reader^ 
a  tranflation  of  the  extrads  is  unnecelTary. 

PAGE  281. 

29.  it  may  feem  extraordinary  that  our  author  fhoukl 
fpeak  of  a  tranflation  from  the  Hebrew  in  the   Greek 
apocryphal  book  of  Efdras  (that  is  in  the  firft  book  of 
Efdras  in  the  Apocrypha  of  the  Vulgate  and  the  modern 
verfions,  for  the  fecond  no  longer  exifts  either  in  the 
Hebrew  or  in  the  Greek)  as  this  book  is  generally  fup- 
pofed  not  to  have  exifted  in  a  Hebrew  original.     See 
Gray's  Key  to  the  Old  Teftament  and  Apocrypha,  p^ 
527.  But  in  Eichhorn's  Allgemeine  Bibliothek,  or  Uni- 
verfal  library  of  biblical  literature,  Vol.  I.  p.  178—232. 
there  is  a  very  excellent  elTay,  from  which  it  appears  that 
the  Greek  book  of  Efdras,  though  not  a  literal  tranfla- 
tion, includes  the  Hebrew  Ezra,   with  a  part  of  Nehe- 
miah,  and  a  few  chapters  of  the  Chronicles.     Now  with 
refped  to  p::^^  ^^X  which  our  author  fuppofes  to  have 
exifted  in  the  original  Efdras  v.  34.  it  is  at  the  utmoft  a 
probable  conje6ture,  as  it  can  be  fupported  by  no  evi- 
dence.    In  the  Syriac  verfion^  which  would  aflbrd  the 
beft  means  of  difcovering  the  truth,  there  is  unfortu- 
nately a  chafm  in  this  chapter  from  ver.  14.  to  vcr.  40. 
The  Cod.  Vat.  has  axxocfj,,  the  Al.   cc^Xccv,  Breitinger's 
edition  kXXuu,  the  Vulgate  Malmon.     If  the  lift  of  Jewifli 
families  enumerated  Efdras  v.  corresponds  to  that  given 
Ezra  ii.  the  thirty-fourth  verfe  of  the  former  muft  cor- 
refpond  to  the  fifty-feventh  verfe  of  the  latter,  but  here 
We  find  ^*J^^  »::i,  to  which  no  various  reading  is  given  by 
either  Kennicott  or  De  Rofli,   though  Ammon  is  a  mar- 
ginal reading  in  the  Englifli  verfion.     Yet  our  author's 
hypothefis   is  ingenious,    and  affords  a  folution  of  the 
ditferent  readings  in  a  paflTage,  where  a  proper  name  and 

not 


5o6  NOTES    TO    CHAP.  VI.    SECT.  IX. 

not  an   adjedive  was  undoubtedly  defigned  to  be  ex- 
preffed. 

30.  Our  author  has  here  inferted  a  letter  which  he 
had  received  from  Dr.  Lefs,  dated  Paris,  March  20,  1775. 
The  manufcript,  in  which  he  found  it  difficult  in  many 
cafes  to  diftinguifli  B  from  K,  and  H  from  N,  is  the 
Codex  Stephani  n. 

PAGE  282. 

31.  To  which  may  be  added  the  Codex  Cantabri- 
gienfis,  publifhed  by  Dr.  Kipling.  Various  fpecimens  of 
ancient  Greek  writing  may  be  alfo  feen  in  Pococke's 
Greek  Infcriptions,  Montfaucon's  Palaeographia  Gra&ca, 
and  Blanchini  Evangeliarium  quadruplex. 

32.  This  reading^  was  preferred  by  Wetftein :  and 
Griefbach  has  taken  It  into  the  text  of  his  edition. 

23.  This  manufcript  is  noted  by  Grielbach  in  the 
book  of  Revelation,  Codex  30. 

PAGE  283. 
34.  For  the  reading  bXhstoj  fee  Mill  and  Griefbach,  as 
Wetftein  has  quoted  only  the  Cod.  Alexandrinus, 
2S'  See  above  fe6t.  v.  Note  6. 

SECT.      IX. 

PAGE    284. 

1 .  SeeMontfaucon'sPalseographiaGrseca^Lib.  V.  cap. 5. 

2.  There  are  two  different  readings  sr^a^iv  and  zyis-iv, 
I  Mace.  xiv.  2^.  for  which  Grotius  accounted  by  fup- 
pofing  them  to  be  different  interpretations  of  an  abbre- 
viation iiN.  This  our  author  denies  j  he  has  affigned  no 
reafon,  but  he  probably  concludes  from  the  circumftance, 
that  this  mark  of  abbreviation  for  -syifiv  or  ■ur^cx.^iy  is  found 
in  no  manufcript  now  extant. 

PAGE  285. 

3.  The  readings,  which  arife  from  a  falfe  conjedure 
with  rcfpedl  to  a  faded  letter,   are  totally  different  from 

thofe. 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.   VI.    SECT.    IX.  507 

thofe,  which  are  occafioned  by  wrongly  interpreting  an 
abbreviation.  Nor  is  Griefbach's  hypothefis  unfupported 
by  fa(fb,  for  he  has  produced  an  inftance  from  TertuUian. 
See  his  Hiftoria  textus  epiftolarum  PauHnarum,  feci.  iii. 
§  6.  See  alfo  Semler's  Appendix  obfervationum,  printed 
at  the  end  of  his  edition  of  Wetftein's  Prolegomena,  p. 
587.  Mill  is  likewife  of  the  fame  opinion,  Proleg.  626. 
This  at  lead  is  certain,  that  if  we  rejcd  the  hypothefis, 
we  have  no  method  of  accounting  for  the  origin  of  fuch 
different  readings  as  tc-^ofAini^  and  i^ya.^^oy.ivt^y  avo/xiai/  and 

afji.apTia,Vj  ocXXuv  and  afxa^ruXuVj  uy.o(riv  and  uf^oXoysav,  &C, 

But  if  we  admit  that  in  the  antient  MSS.  of  the  four 
firfl  centuries  thefe  words  were  abbreviated,  a  difference 
in  the  mode  of  decyphering  them  affords  a  fimple  and 
an  eafy  folution. 

PAGE    286. 

4.  It  is  probable  not  only  that  this  reading  is  fpuri- 
ous,  but  likewife  the  former,  and  that  the  true  text  is 

sv\oyr,(xivn  »  ip^Q[j.ivr]  ^».7tXiix  ra  i3-aTpof  yi[/.uv  AafctJ*.      See 

Grielbach  in  loco. 

5.  Publifhed  at  Copenhagen  in  1773,  8"°. 

PAGE    287. 

6.  The  perfons  enumerated  Matth.  xiii.  55.  are  James, 
Jofes,  Simon  and  Judas :  but  they  are  there  mentioned 
as  brethren  of  Chrift,  not  as  fons  of  Alphaeus,  nor  can 
Alphsus  by  any  explanation  be  fhewn  to  have  been 
their  father ;  for,  if  aSiX(po<;  be  taken  in  its  proper  fenfe, 
they  were  the  fons  of  Jofcph  and  Mary;  if  in  its  moft 
cxtenfive  fenfe,  it  is  probable  that  James  and  Jofes  were 
the  fons  of  Cleopas  and  Mary,  the  fifter  of  the  mother 
of  Jefus.  Compare  Matth.  xiii.  s^.  with  Matth. xxvii.  56. 
and  John  xix.  25.  That  Alphaeus  had  likewife  a  fon 
who  was  called  James,  affords  no  argument  that  they 
were  one  and  the  fame  perfon.  The  reafon  therefore 
affigned  by  our  author,  why  Jxku^ov  was  written  as  a  fcho- 
lion  to  Afu»v,  is  without  foundation  ;  and  the  true  reafon 
isj  that  Alphsus  is  never  mentioned  in  the  New  Tefta- 

ment 


^08  NOTES    TO    CHAP,    VI.    SECT.    IX. 

ment  but  as  the  father  of  James,  except  Mark  ii.  14, 
the  paflage  in  queftion.  The  proprietor  therefore  of 
fome  ancient  manufcript,  accuftomed  to  the  expreflion 

lakwSov  rov  ra  AXipaia,  concluded  that  Asoii/  Toi/  T8  AA^aiJf, 

which  occurs  only  once,  was  a  falfe  reading,  and  ven- 
tured to  write  laKwSov  in  the  margin,  as  a  critical  though 
unwarranted  conjefture. 

7.  The  common  printed  text  Mark  viii.  24.  Is  BA£7rw 

rag  atO^WTra?,  wf  Stv^^oc  zTs^nroclavlag.  But  Wctftcin  and 
Mill   prefer  BAettw  mg  oiv^ouTrng  oli  ug  ^n/^^oi  o^w  zyi^iTrals]/- 

%g,  and  this  reading  is  fupported  by  the  beft  authorities. 
Now  that  the  latter  claufe  o\i  ug  hu^^ocy  k.  r.  x.  was  ori- 
ginally written  as  a  marginal  fcholion  in  order  to  explain 
a  difficult  paflage,  as  our  author  fuppofes,  is  improbable 
in  itfelfj  and  fupported  by  no  authority.  If  he  means 
only  that  ol*  and  o^w,  which  make  the  difference  between 
the  common  text  and  that  which  is  preferred  by  Wec- 
ftein  and  Mill,  were  inferred  with  that  view,  the  infer- 
tion  defeats  the  very  end  for  which  it  was  made,  as  the 
con{lru6lion  is  much  more  intelligible  without  them. 

8.  To  thefe  fcholia  may  be  added  another,  viz.  ija^a- 
irluifMuluv,  the  reading  of  the  Cod.  Claromontanus. 

PAGE  288. 

9.  Grielbach,  who  has  reje6bed  ^i^atr^at  vy.ug  from  the 
text  of  his  edition,  has  a  full  flop  at  the  end  of  the 
fourth  verfe :  and  it  is  more  reafonable  to  fuppofe  that 
the  fifth  verfe  commences  a  new  fentence,  than  that 
xapty  is  governed  by  i^uKotv.  Chryfoflom  likewifc,  in  his 
remarks  on  this  paflage  in  his  fixteenth  Homily,  Vol.  X. 
p.  555.  ed.  Montfaucon,  refers  to  x'^P^"  ^^  Sio^ivoi^  for  he 
fays,  Tt  SiO[/.ivoi  ufAuv  i  rviv  p^apjv  kxi  mu  xon/wnai*  rrtg  iicaio- 
viot,g  Trig  «'?  rag  aymg. 

10.  Theophylafti  Commentarius  in  2  epift.  ad  Co- 
rinthios,  cap.  viii.  4.  p.  384.  ed.  Lindfell,  Lond.  1638. 

PAGE  289. 

1 1.  Chryfoflom  makes  no  mention  of  an  ellipfis,  and 
if  the  feveral  parts  of  this  paffage,  2  Cor.  viii,  4,  5.  on 

which 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.    VI.    SECT.    IX.  509 

which  the  learned  father  has  commented  feparately,  be 
put  together,  they  form  the  following  text,  IVhra  ztoxxt]^ 

■z!ra/3«xA>!(r£wr  J'fOjtAEi/oj  rjUWi'  rr\v  p^aptf,  axi  rnv  Hoivuviocv  rriq  ^kx- 
aovtag  T»if  ug  r^si;  ocyi^g'  t«7o  »i/  >i/Aa?  zyxpiHaKnUj  ufs  Jijwa? 
civaSi'^oca-^'Oii   rrw   roixvlrw  J"taxov»av,   Koci    a   jtaOw?  7iX-7na-a,y.£v, 

That  the  claufe  between  sk  t8?  a-ytaf,  at  the  end  of  ver. 
4.  and  KOii  8  )ca0ws  nXTrnTocfji.iVy  at  the  beginning  of  ver.  5. 
was  not  intended  by  Chryfoflom  as  an  ellipfis,  appears 
from  his  very  filence  on  that  head,  and  that  he  really 
quoted  it  as  a  part  of  St.  Paul's  text,  appears  from  the 
introducing  it  by  the  word  (pjio-j.  Now  this  is  the  claufe 
which  Theophyladl  fays  is  wanting,  a  term  which  is  at- 
tended with  fome  obfcurity,  but  Mill  has  certainly  mif- 
taken  the  reafoning  of  the  Greek  father,  in  faying  '  in 
fupplementum  fententis  addi  debere  ava^n^aa-B-ixi  %y.a<; 
notat  Theophyla6lus,'  for  Theophyla6l  not  only  makes 
no  mention  of  any  imperfeftion  in  the  fenfe,  but  applies 
the  term  Xhtth  to  the  whole  claufe,  not  to  ava§ila(T^yA 
rjtAaj  alone.  Whether  this  claufe,  which  Chryfoftom 
feems  to  have  found  in  his  copy  of  St,  Paul's  epiftles, 
but  which  was  wanting  in  that  ufed  by  Theophylaft, 
and  which  he  faid  fhould  be  fiipplied,  be  genuine  or 
not,  is  another  inquiry. 

PAGE  290. 
12.  Our  author  here  ventures  a  conje6ture  againfl 
the  unanimous  authority  of  the  Greek  manufcripts,  in 
all  of  which  without  exception  is  found  0  ixn  oixoxoysi. 
It  is  likewife  the  reading  in  the  quotations  of  all  the 
Greek  fathers ;  it  is  in  both  Syriac  verfions,  as  well  as 
the  Arabic,  Coptic,  iEthiopic,  and  Armenian  :  it  is 
likewife  more  fuitable  to  the  context,  as,  St-  John  hav- 
ing faid  in  the  preceding  verfe  0  o^oXoyu  rov  I?jo-hi/,  it  is 
natural  to  expect  that  the  antithefis  Ihould  be  0  [xn  oij-o- 
Xoyn  Tov  Ijjo-av.  It  is  true  that  in  the  Vulgate  and  feve- 
ral  other  Latin  tranflations  we  find  folvit  Jefum,  but 
that  there  ever  exifted  the  Greek  reading  0  xvsi  depends 
on  the  relation  of  Socrates  (Hid.  Ecclef  Lib.  viii.  cap, 
32.)     Our  author  fays  very  properly  that  0  Aue;  cannot 

be 


5IO  NOTES    TO    CHAP.    VI.    SECT.    IX. 

be  a  fchoHon  explanatory  of  o  [xn  o[ji,o\oysi,  but  we  muft 
not  therefore  conclude  that  the  latter  is  a  fcholion  of 
the  former.  If  the  relation  of  Socrates  be  true,  it  is 
probable  that  o  Xvn  is  an  ancient  but  wilful  corruption, 
made  to  obtain  an  additional  text  againft  the  Cerin- 
thians.     See  Mill's  Note  to  this  pafTage. 

13.  This  reading  is  quoted  by  neither  Mill,  Wetftein, 
nor  Grielbach  j  it  is  probably  a  miftake  for  ofAoix  opottrsi 
cfAapocy^ivoo,  the  reading  adopted  by  Wetftein. 

14.  Griefbach  has  quoted  this  MS.  for  opxcig  (riJi-xpocy- 

15.  The  reading  of  the  Wolfenbiittel  MS.  or  Grief- 
bach's  Codex  30.  is  not  a  compofition  of  the  common 
with  a  various  reading,  but  a  mere  inverfion  of  the 
former.     It  is  nothing  more  than  0  jafra  mro  ^imSott^o- 

(pyjrrji;,   for  y,iTX  raro  0  ^l^vj^07r(>o(pYiTV}q. 

16.  The  German  title  of  this  book  is,  Knittels  neue 
Critiken  iiber  den  Spruch,  Drey  find  die  da  zeugen. 
Brunfwick  1785. 

PAGE    291. 

17.  See  Note  1.  to  fed.  i, 

18.  Noftra  vero  fententia,  quia  apud  Latinos*  ad 
quorum  codices  ilia  ledio  refida  eft,  Spiritus  eft  gene- 
ris mafculini. 

Wetfteln's  Note  to  Matth.  iii.  16. 

PAGE  292. 

19.  This  example  is  taken  from  the  Caflel  manu- 
fcript,  which  for  ^pD,  Dan.  v.  25.  has  b'pD}  and,  which 
is  extraordinary,  a  ftroke  is  drawn  acrofs  n  as  a  token 
that  it  ought  to  be  erafed.  Here  our  author  with  great 
reafon  conjedures,  that  the  ftroke  of  erafion  was  de- 
figned  for  the  Jod,  and  that  by  accident  a  wrong  letter 
was  expunged,  in  the  fame  manner  as  the  word  Dele, 
written  in  the  margin  of  a  corrected  flieet,  gives  fre- 
quently occafion  to  the  removal  of  a  different  letter,  or 
word,  from  that  which  the  corre6tor  intended. 

20.  Namely,  the  Syriac  text  expreiTes  not  or<  -sTpurn 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.    VI.    SECT:    X.  511 

t3-a(rwv  ivroXuv koii   oiyoc7rn(Tiig)   but  ZD-pwru  irao-wv 

iVToXuv xoci  0T»  ayxTrvKTiig, 

PAGE    293. 

IT.  See  Dr.  Semler's  Note  to  John  v.  4.  in  his  Pa- 
raphrafis  in  Evangelium  Johannis. 

22.  It  furely  lies  within  the  province  of  a  colleflor  of 
various  readings  to  take  notice  of  fo  remarkable  a  paf- 
fage,  in  fo  remarkable  a  manufcript  as  the  Codex  Can- 
tabrigienfis  :  and  not  only  the  Greek  text  of  this  pafTage, 
but  likewife  the  two  Latin  tranflations  our  author  has 
literally  copied  from  Wetftein's  Greek  Teftament.  The 
Greek  text,  given  by  Mill  and  Grielbach,  has  a  diffe- 
rent orthography  in  fome  of  the  words,  for  inflance  (/.txpa 

for  [AUKpXy  vnricv  for  vtrrov. 

23.  In  Gale's  Opufcula  Mythologica,  p.  627.  629. 

PAGE  294. 

24.  See  Griefbach's  Note  to  Matth.  xx.  28. 

25.  Another  very  convincing  argument  that  this  paf- 
fage  was  written  originally  in  Greek  is,  that  it  exifted  in 
Greek  manufcripts  at  Alexandria  before  the  year  616, 
as  appears  from  a  marginal  note  in  a  manufcript  of  the 
Philoxcnian  verfion,  formerly  in  the  pofleflion  of  AfTe- 
mani.     See  Adler's  Verfiones  Syriacs,  p.  90,  91. 


SECT.      X. 


PAGE  296. 

1.  Compare  Wetftein's  Prolegomena,  p.  22.  with 
Woide's  Preface  to  the  Codex  Alexandrinus,  §  87,  88, 
and  Spohn's  Note  to  this  laft  paragraph. 

2.  Velthufen's  Obfervations  on  various  fijbjeds  were 
printed  in  London  1773,  8'°. 

3.  The  reference  to  Wetftein's  Prolegomena  belongs 
rather  to  the  preceding  page, 

PAGE 


5ji        NOTES  TO  CHAP.  VI.  SECT.  X. 
PAGE  297. 

4.  In  the  Orient.  Bibl.  Vol.  VJI.  p.  138.  our  author 
has  printed  a  letter  written  by  Woide,  dated  April  i8'\'' 
1774,  in  which  he  relates  that  the  Codex  Ephrem, 
I.  Tim.  iii.  16.  has  OCj  where  the  ftroke  over  0?  fhews 
it  to  have  been  meant  for  0C.  He  relates  alfo  in  the 
fame  letter,  that  3-ho?  is  not  only  at  prefent,  but  even 
a  prima  manu,  the  reading  of  the  Codex  Claromontanus. 
In  defence  of  this  account  Woide  wrote  another  letter 
to  the  editor  of  the  Kielifche  Beytrage,  dated  Sept.  i, 
1776,  which  is  printed  in  the  third  volume  of  that 
work,  p.  147 — 188.  with  two  French  letters,  dated 
Bibliotheque  du  Roi,  Sept,  3*^.  and  Sept.  24"".  1776,  in 
oppofition  to  Woide, 

In  the  Orient.  Bibl.  Vol.  IX.  p.  143.  is  a  letter 
which  our  author  had  received  from  Dr.  Lefs,  dated 
Paris,  March  20"".  1775,  ^"  which  he  fays,  that  he 
could  difcover  in  that  palTage  of  the  Codex  Ephrem 
only  fragments  of  letters,  or  at  bed  detached  letters  in 
the  midit  ofchafms.  The  teftimony  of  Grielbach,  foF 
which  our  author  refers  to  the  Orient.  Bib.  Vol.  X. 
may  be  feen  at  large  in  the  preface  to  the  fecond  volume 
of  Grielbach's  Greek  Teftament,  p.  9 — 11.  With  re- 
fpedl  to  the  various  authorities,  for  and  againft  the  dif- 
ferent readings  i.  Tim.  iii.  16.  befide  the  notes  of  Mill, 
Wetftein,  and  Griefbach,  which  laft  critic  has  arranged 
the  evidence  in  the  cleareft  light,  may  be  confulted  Sir 
Ifaac  Newton's  fecond  letter  to  Le  Clerc,  which  was  firft 
printed  in  London  in  1754,  from  an  authentic  copy  in 
the  Remonftrants  library  in  Amfterdam,  and  more  cor- 
rectly by  Dr.  Horfley,  from  the  author's  own  manu- 
fcript,  in  his  edition  of  Newton's  Works,  Vol.  V.  p.  ^^^ 
— 550.  See  efpecially  Griefbach's  Symbolse  Criticjej, 
p.  iii — liv. 

PAGE  298. 

5.  The  Codex  Alexandrinus  is  not  the  only  manu- 
fcapt  in  which  unfair  pradices  of  this  kind  have  beer\ 

^dmitce(^. 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.  VI.    SECT.  X.  513 

admitted.  The  Codex  Ephrem,  and  Codex  Claromon- 
tanus,  have  fufFered  in  the  fame  manner.  See  Wetftein's 
and  Griefbach's  Notes  to  i  Tim.  iii.  i6.  Grielbach's 
Symbolas  Criticje,  p.  xiv.  and  the  preface  to  the  fecond 
volume  of  his  Greek  Teftament,  p.  9,  10. 

PACE  299. 

6.  For  that  reafon  Griefbach  has  rejected  them  from 
the  text  of  his  edition. 

7.  Matthai's  edition  of  the  Greek  Teftament  was 
publifhed  at  Riga,  in  12  vols.  8^°.  between  the  years 
1782  and  1788.  It  contains  a  great  variety  of  readings 
from  Greek  manufcripts  preferved  in  Mofcow,  where 
the  learned  editor  was  formerly  Profeflbr. 

PAGE  300. 

8.  By  the  term  ^  ancient  edition,'  which  without  ex- 
planation may  appear  obfcure,  our  author  underftands 
what  Semler  and  Griefbach  have  expreffed  by  the  word 
recenfio.  This  fubjed  will  be  examined  at  large  in 
the  chapter  reladve  to  the  MSS.  of  the  Greek  Tefta- 
ment :  in  the  mean  time  may  be  confuked  Grieft)acn's 
Preface  to  the  i".  vol.  of  the  Greek  Teftament,  p.  9. 
his  Symbolse  Critics,  p.  cxvii — cxxii,  or  his  Hiftoria 
textus  epiftolarum  Paulinarum,  fed.  i.  §  20. 

PAGE  301. 

9.  For  that  reafon  Griefbach  has  removed  them  from 
the  end  of  the  i6'\  to  the  end  of  the  14.'^.  chapter. 

10.  Repetunt  hic  (fcil.  Malach.  iii.  24.)  curiofi  qui- 
dam  Judaei  verfum  penultimum  confolatorium  poft  ul- 
timum  anathema  comminantem,  eodem  modo  ut  in 
Jefaia,  Lamentationibus  Jeremi^,  et  Ecclefiafte. 

Biblia  Hebraica,  van  dcr  Hooght,  Tom.  II.  p.  160, 

PAGE  302. 

11.  See  Dr.  Semler's  treatife,  De  duplici  appendice 
Epiftote  ad  Romanos,  Haljs  1767,  4}°. 

1 2.  Our  author  has  here  printed  a  letter  written  by 

K  k  Profciror 


514  NOTES    TO    CHAP.  VI.    SECT.  X. 

Profefibr  Birch  relative  to  the  Codex  Vaticaniis.  In  the 
page,  to  which  he  particularly  refers,  an  inaccuracy  is 
corrcfted  relative  to  the  five  Vienna  maniifcripts,  of 
which  Profeiror  Trefchow  had  faid  that  the  parage  in 
qiieftion  was  wanting  at  the  end  of  the  i6'\  chapter, 
but  had  negle(5ted  to  mention  that  it  was  placed  at  the 
end  of  the  14'''.  Now  as  Birch  quotes  by  the  numbers 
57.  67,  68,  69,  70.  according  to  the  prefent  notation 
in  the  Imperial  library,  and  Trefchow,  who  defcribes 
them  in  his  Tentamen,  p.  ^^ — 8j.  quotes  the  num- 
bers afcribed  to  the  Imperial  manufcripts  by  Lambecius, 
viz.  I.  34,  2Si  3^'  37-  i^  might  be  doubted,  by  thofe 
who  have  no  opportunity  of  comparing  the  two  cata- 
logues, whether  they  meant  the  fame  five  manufcripts. 
It  is  certain  however,  that  the  Cod.  Lambecii  i.  has  the 
paffage  at  the  end  of  the  14^".  chapter,  for  this  is  the 
manufcript  from  which  Alter  has  printed  his  Greek 
Teftament.  See  Vol.11,  p.  132.  of  his  edition:  fee 
alfo  p.  758.  where  it  appears  that  the  Cod.  Lambecii. 
35.  has  it  in  the  fame  place.  And  as  Alter  has  likewifc 
collated  the  Codd.  ;^6.  and  37.  and  has  noted  no  de- 
viation from  the  Codex  i .  we  mufl  conclude  the  fame 
alfo  of  thefe  manufcripts. 

13.  Alfo  in  the  Armenian  verfion,  and  the  Arabic  of 
the  Polyglot. 

14.  Griefbach  fays,  '  Reliqifa  ufque  ad  finem  epif- 
tolas  cunfta  difiecuit  Marcion.'  The  evidence  of  Mar- 
cion  therefore,  with  refpecl  to  the  pofition  of  the  paflage 
in  queftion,  is  of  no  importance. 

15.  I  have  left  this  fentence  as  it  ftands  in  the  Ger- 
man original,  but  it  is  neceflary  to  obferve,  that  of  thefe 
four  manufcripts  quoted  by  Griefbach,  the  three  laft  are 
crroneoufly  interpreted  by  our  author.  For  Cantabri- 
gienlis,  Bafil  2.  and  Regius  54.  muft  be  read  Claromon- 
tanus  a  prima  manu,  Sangermanenfis,  and  Regius  1886 
nunc  219.  In  the  lilt  of  errata,  he  fays  the  whole  fen- 
tence mufl-  be  expunged ;  but  this  is  unnecefTary,  as  it 
needs  only  the  corredion  which  has  been  here  given. 
Grielbach  has  like  wife  quoted  the  Cod.  Harleianus  SSS"^' 

but 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.  VI.    SECT.  X.  5T5 

but  adds  '  in  margine  docet  ev  roig  zraAaioK  a^T^y^alpoK  in 
fine  cap.  14.  h.'^c  inveniri. 

I  6.  Griefbach,  on  whofe  critical  accuracy  we  may  ia 
general  rdy,  quotes  the  Armenian  verfion  as  havmg  the 
paflage  Hkcwife  at  the  end  of  the  I4'^  chapter. 

17.  This  is  abfolutely  denied  by  Matthai,  the  editor 
of  the  Codex  Boernerianus,  who  is  heft  able  to  form  a 
judgement  on  this  fubjeft.  He  afierts  that  both  the 
Latin  and  the  Greek  texts  are  written  by  the  fame  hand, 
and  with  the  fame  ink.  See  his  Preface  to  tiie  Codex 
Boernerianus,  p.  xv. 

PAGE  303. 

18.  Our  author  Ihould  have  added  a  fecunda  manu, 
or  ex  emendatione,  for  the  Claromontanus  a  prima 
manu  has  the  paffage  at  the  end  of  the  i  6'\  chapter. 

19.  With  this  difference,  that  the    I4'\  chapter  ends 

with  El?  rag  aiwva?,  the   16^*^.  with  £»?  t8?  aimag  ruv  ocimm. 

See  Woide's  Catalogue  of  the  various  readings  of  the  Co- 
dex Alex.  Rom.  xvi.  27.  But  this  is  not  the  only  ma- 
nufcript  in  which  the  paflage  is  found  at  the  end  of  both 
chapters :  Griefbach  difcovered  it  in  both  places  in  the 
Cod.  Colbertinus  2844,  and  alfo  in  the  Armenian 
verfion. 

20.  See  Note  14. 

21.  See  Note  18. 

PAGE  304. 

22.  Our  author's  ftatement  would  have  been  more 
clear,  ifinftead  of  five,  he  had  made  only  four  divifions. 
I .  Of  fuch  authorities  as  have  the  paflage  at  the  end  of 
the  14"".  chapter  only.  2.  At  the  end  of  the  16'''.  chap- 
ter only.  3.  At  the  end  of  both  chapters.  4.  At  the 
end  of  neither  chapter.  In  confequence  of  his  arrange- 
ment, the  fame  evidence  is  produced  twice,  namely. 
No.  3.  and  No.  5. 


K  k  2  SECT. 


5l6'  NOTES    TO    CHAP.  VI.    SECT.  XIv 

SECT.       XI. 

PAGE    305. 

1.  Apparatus  Criticus,  p.  488.  cd.  2''*. 

PAGE  306. 

2.  The  German  title  of  this  book  is,  Knittel's  Bey- 
trage  ziir  Kritik  itber  die  Offenbahrung  Johannis,  print- 
ed at  Brunfwick  in  1773,  4'°. 

PAGE  307. 

3.  Becaufe  avliXtyov  and  xeyofAivoi?  had  immediately" 
preceded. 

4.  Wetftein's  7*\  rule,  Vol.  II.  p.  859.  is.  Inter  duas 
variantes  lediones,  fi  quas  eft  £U(pwvo1tpo?  aut  planior,  aut 
Grascantior,  alteri  non  protinus  prseferenda  eft,  fed 
contra  fepius.  See  alio  Grieft^ach's  Pref.  to  the  1".  vol. 
of  his  Greek  Teftament,  p.  14.  Note  (*). 

PAGE  309. 

5.  Griefbach  quotes  likewife  the  two  Perfian,  and  the 
three  Arabic  verfions. 

6.  See  Blanchini  Evangeliarium  quadruplex.  Part  II. 

p.  462. 

7.  Namely  Ephrem  a  prima  manu,  Cantabrigienfis, 

Stephani  n. 

PAGE    310. 

8.  I  have  taken  the  liberty  to  abridge  this  paragraph, 
as  our  author's  remarks,  with  refpedt  to  Dr.  Semler, 
breathe  rather  a  fpirit  of  perfonal  enmity,  than  that  of 
cool  and  critical  enquiry.  This  is  not  the  place  to  ex- 
amine Dr.  Semler's  principles  of  criticifm;  it  is  fufficient 
to  obferve,  that  they  are  held  in  high  efteem  by  the  beft 
judges,  though  his  conjeftures,  like  thofe  of  our  author, 
and  of  every  other  critic,  are  fometimes  ungrounded  r 
a  circumftance  at  which  no  one  fhould  be  furprifed,  as 
the  province  of  criticifm  is  confined  within  the  bounds 
of  probability,  and  can  feldom  or  never  extend  to  abfo- 
lute  certainty. 

9.  This 


NOTES    TO  CHAP.   Vr.    SECT.   XT.  517 

9.  This  general  ftatement  of  the  rule  given  by  Dr. 
Griefbach,  betrays  either  great  inattention  in  our  author, 
or,  what  is  worfe,  want  of  candour.  For  that  learned 
and  accurate  critic  adds,  in  the  very  place  to  which  our 
author  refers,  *  Excipe  tamen  le6tiones  breviores,  a)  ex 
homoioteleuto  ortas,  aliafque  talium  locorum,  in  quibus 
ad  omittendum  librarius  non  poterat  non  pronior  efle 
quam  ad  addendum,  (3)  e  difficultate  leftionis  plenioris 
cnatas,  y)  ingenio  ac  ftilo  fcriptoris  minus  convenientes 
quam  pleniores.  This  laft  claufe  in  particular  mud 
refcue  Griefbach  from  the  charge,  which  our  author  has 
laid  to  him.  Befides,  Griefbach  has  mentioned  four 
conditions,  which  ought  in  general  to  take  place  when 
the  fhort  reading  is  preferred  :  but  thefe  our  author 
pafTes  over  in  filence.  See  Griefbach's  Preface  to  the 
i'*  vol.  of  his  Greek  Teftament,  p.  14.  Note  (*).  See 
alfo  Wetflein's  9^  rule,  p.  862,  863.  of  the  2".  vol.  of 
his  Greek  Teftament,  with  Dr.  Semler's  remarks  on  it, 
p.  64.  of  his  edition  of  Wetftenii  libelli  ad  crifm  atque 
interpretationem  Novi  Teflamenti, 

PAGE    311. 

TO.  Wetftein  relates  the  opinions  of  Mill  and  Bengel, 
but  is  totally  filent  with  regard  to  his  own.  If  our  au- 
thor argues  from  Wetftein's  having  retained  the  com- 
mon reading,  the  inference  is  at  leaft  vague,  as  it  is 
well  known  that  Wetftein's  text  follows  in  general  the 
common  printed  text.  Among  the  manufcripts  which 
have  iv  l£^«/r«A»/A  are  the  Alexandrinus,  Cantabrigienfis, 
and  Bafilienfis  B.  VI.  21.  Griefbach  leems  to  prefer 
this  reading. 

11.  Ett  auTOj?  a  prima  manu,  iv  «utbj  ex  emenda- 
tione. 

12.  This  inference,  which  appears  to  be  extremely 
irrational,  is  founded  on  the  very  fame  principle  which 
Dr.  Semler  often  applies  when  he  rejects  a  reading  as 
fpurious.  Our  author  therefore  can  have  no  rcafon  to 
cenfure  a  critic,  who  argues  on  the  fame  ground  with 
bimfclf. 

K  k  3  13.  Here 


flS  NOTES    TO    CHAP.    VI.    SECT.   XI. 

13.  Here  again  the  Cod.  Cant,  for  a-iv  has  Aa/xSav«- 

PAGE   312. 

14.  Our  author  has  here  mentioned  Bengel  and 
Wecftein,  as  if  they  were  the  only  critics  that  adopted 
the  above-mentioned  rule,  and  has  pafifed  over  Grief- 
bach  in  filence,  as  if  he  were  a  critic  of  inferior  order. 
But  Grielbach  fays  exprefsly,  Prseferatur  ledio  obfcurior, 
minus  emphatica,  durior,  &c. 

Pr^fat.  ad  Nov.  Teft.  Tom.  I.  p.  xiv. 

15.  The  fix  manufcripts  quoted  by  Wctilein  for 
Ao-jaf,  are  the  Aiexandrinus,  Claromontanus  a  prima 
manu,  Auglenfis,  Boernerianus,  and  Stephani  £,  to 
which  Gneibach  has  added  the  Sangermanenfis,  and 
four  others.  It  is  alfo  the  reading  of  the  Coptic,  the 
7£thiopic,  the  Valgate,  the  old  Italic,  and  of  feven 
fathers- 

16.  Wetftein  relates  the  opinion  of  the  above-men- 
tioned critics,  but  all  that  can  be  referred,  wiih  refpedt 
to  his  o\wn  fentiments,  is  that  the  common  reading  is  at 
lead  intelligible.  Dr.  Griclbach  and  Dr.  Harwood  are 
fo  decided  in  favour  of  Ao-ta?,  that  they  have  taken  it 
into  the  text  of  their  editions. 

PAGE  313. 

17.  The  extent  of  meaning  to  be  applied  to  ctTra^^'n 
mufi:  be  determined  by  the  words  with  which  it  is  con- 
neded.  It  is  true  that  the  numerous  converts  in  Jeru- 
falem,  on  the  day  of  Pentecoft,  might  be  all  included 
under  the  title  uttoc^^^t]  tu?  li^oa-oXvfxui',  and  if  a  number 
of  Achaeans  had  been  converted  at  the  fame  time,  on 
fome  extraordinary  occafion,  they  might  have  been 
termed  colleftively,  a.7rci^y(ri  mg  A^aix?.  But  when  this 
title  is  applied  to  an  individual  in  particular,  it  is  rea- 
fonable  to  fuppofe  that  St.  Paul  intended  a  mark  of 
diftirrlion  that  was  not  common  to  a  multitude. 

18.  The  propriety  of  our  author's  conclufion  depends 
on  the  point  of  view,  from  which  the  fubjed  is  examin- 
ed. 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.   VI.    SECT.  XI.  5^9 

cd.  It  is  true  that  no  man  would  defignedly  alter  Acrtac 
to  A;^«(af,  Rom.  xvi.  5.  in  order  to  render  the  fenfe 
more  clear;  but  is  it  not  poffible  that  A;^a.«f  might 
have  been  written  for  A<n«?,  by  miflake  ?  As  the  ex- 
preflion  octtxc^v  mg  A;>/a.a?  occurs  in  another  paffage,  a 
carelefs  tranlcriber,  having  copied  in  this  place  «7ra^x^, 
might  imagine  that  m?  A^a'a?  immediately  followed, 
and  write  it  without  further  examination  j  or,  as  both 
words  begin  and  end  with  the  fame  letter,  an  abbrevia- 
tion migh^t  have  given  rife  to  the  miftake,  or  it  might 
have  been  occafioned  by  fome  trivial  caufe,  which  wc 
are  at  prefent  unable  to  aiTign. 

19  Our  author  here  contends  that  ev  tu  -s-puTw  \]/aX^M 
is  the  genuine  reading,  Afts  xiii.  33.  notwithftanding 
the  paffiige,  which  is  there  quoted,  is  taken  froni  thQ 
fecond  Pfalm,  and  that  Jturspy,  the  common  printed 
reading,  proceeded  from  a  tranfcriber,  who  made  the 
alteratton  in  order  to  remove  the  feeming  difficulty.  He 
obferves,  that  no  one  would  have  changed  Sunp'^  to 
•ET^coTw,  whereas  the  motive  for  changing  the  latter  to  the 
former  is  obvious.  He  explains  the  difficulty,  not  by 
fuppofmg  that  the  firft  and  fecond  Pfalms  compofed 
orio-inally  only  one,  but  that  tlie  firft  Pfalm  was  origi- 
nalTy  a  kind  of  preface,  and  that  the  numbers  prefixed 
to  each  Pfalm  began  wich  that  which  is  now  the  fecond. 
In  fupport  of  this  conjefture  he  appeals  to  the  CaOei 
manufcript,  in  which  the  firft  Pfalm  is  written  as  a  pre* 
face,  and  that,  which  is  noted  in  other  MSS.  n,  is 
marked  X.  Griefbach  has  taken  iv  tu;  zypuru,  xj^aAuw  into 
the  text  of  his  edition,  as  being  fupported  by  the  beft 
authority.  , 

00  Our  author  fhould  have  mentioned  the  argu- 
me'nts,  if  anv  exift,  by  which  ^ara  is  flicwn  to  be  the 
aenuine  reading,  in  addition  to  the  authorities  produced 
by  Wetftein.  Grieft^ach  rejefts  it  as  Ipurious,  and  pre- 
fers the  common  reading  x«i  rx,  which  has  likewife  this 
circumftance  in  its  favour,  that  KAITA  might  more 
eafily  give  rife  to  KATA,  efpecially  it  the  I  was  faded, 
than  the  latter  to  the  former. 

ick4  *'• 


520  NOTES    TO    CHAP.    VI.    SECT.    XI. 

21.  Extradls  are  here  given  from  Trefchow's  Tenta- 
men  defcriptionis  codicum  Vindobonenfiumj  publifhed 
at  Copenhagen  in  1773,  8^°.  As  this  work  is  written 
in  Latin,  a  tranflation  of  German  extradls  from  it  is 
unneceffary. 

PAGE  314. 

11.  They  wrote  i  over  Hti^O,  and  converted  it  to 

T\*2f  D,  in  which  manner  it  is  printed  in  the  Hebrew 
Bibles.  This  alteration  mufi:  have  been  made  in  a  very 
early  age,  for  Manaffeh  is  found  not  only  in  the  Syriac, 
Chaldee,  and  i^rablc,  but  even  in  the  Greek  verfion. 
Jerom  reftored  the  original  reading,  yet  the  modern 
verfions  have  in  general  Manaffeh. 

s  23.  Here  is  an  extraft  from  a  letter  which  Profeffor 
Adler,  at  that  time  in  Rome,  had  written  to  our  au- 
thor, relative  to  a  Syriac  manufcript  of  the  Gofpels, 
which  not  only  differs  both  from  the  Pefhito  and  the 
Philoxenian  verfion,  but  is  written  even  in  a  different 
dialeft,  and  with  characters  different  from  the  common 
Syriac.  This  remarkable  and  important  MS.,  which 
contains  what  critics  call  at  prefent  the  Verfio  Hierofo- 
lymitana,  will  be  defcribed  in  the  i  q}^.  fedion  of  the 
following  chapter.  Befide  this  and  the  Armenian  ver- 
fion, which  our  author  quotes  for  the  reading  Imav  Ba- 
^ciQQxv,  Grielbach  found  it  in  the  Codex  Reuchlini,  and 
the  Codex  Marfhi  24,  in  the  Bodleian  library.  Pro- 
feffor Birch  likewife  difcovered  it  in  a  Vatican  MS.  writ- 
ten in  949,  with  uncial  letters,  and  noted  in  the  Vatican 
library.  No.  354.  in  wiiich  is  a  marginal  note  to  Matth. 
xxvii.  16.  written  by  Anaflafius,  bifhop  of  Antioch, 
who  relates,  that  in  the  moft  ancient  MSS.  the  paffage 

was  as  follows.      Tii/«  B'^Xin  cc-n-o  tuv  $vu  UTToXva-u  vfji.iv,   |"[Q 

Toi/  |3«flaS?a^,  t;  IN  '^°''  Xiyouiuov  XN-  Adler's  biblifch- 
critifche  Reife,  p.  122.  See  alfo  Birch's  Note  to  this 
paffage,  in  his  edition  of  the  Greek  Teftament,  where 
he  has  quoted  four  other  Vaucan,  and  feveral  more 
MSS.J  in  which  the  fame  fcholion  is  found. 

PAGE 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.  VI.    SECT.   XI.  £21 

PAGE  315. 

24.  See  Note  17.  to  chap.  II.   fed.  12. 

PAGE  316. 

25.  I  have  here  taken  the  Hberty  to  omit  a  long  and 
tedious  note,  in  which  our  author  combats  the  opinion 
of  Le  Clerc  and  Wetftein,  relative  to  the  ftory  of  the 
adukerefs,  becaufe  it  is  impoffible  to  form  an  adequate 
judgement  in  any  controverfy  from  fingle  paflages,  or 
fragments  of  arguments,  detached  from  the  general  con- 
nexion. The  mofl  complete  information  may  be  had 
in  Griefbach's  Note  to  John  vii.  53. 

0.6.  The  Cod.  Cantabrigienfis,  Stephanin,  and  Guel- 
pherbytanus  A,  with  two  others  of  later  date ;  alfo  in 
the  Coptic,  iEthiopic,  and  Perfian  of  the  Polyglot. 
Griefbach  has  adopted  this  reading. 

27.  The  Cantabrigienfis  and  Cyprius;  but  it  is  the 
reading  of  the  Coptic,  iEthiopic,  the  Perfian,  the  old 
Italic,  the  Vulgate,  the  Saxon,  and  feveral  of  the  fathers 
of  the  four  firft  centuries.  Grielbach  has  reflored  it  in 
the  text  of  his  edition. 

28.  X^is-op  is  the  reading  of  the  common  printed  text, 
and  is  fupported  by  the  authority  of  feveral  ancient  ver- 
fions,  3-£o^  that  of  the  Cod.  Alexandrinus,  xu^ioi/  that  of 
the  Codex  Ephrem.  Wetftein  and  Grielbach  prefer 
xv^tov,  and  apparently  with  reafon ;  for  it  is  not  only  in- 
finitely more  intelligible  than  x?^^°^y  which  alone  indeed 
would  be  no  argument,  but  might  equally  give  rife  to 
the  other  two  readings. 

PACE  317. 

29.  For  ivx'^j  James  v.  15.  is  written  zF^oa-ivy^v  in  three 
manufcripts,  becaufe  ivx'^  occurs  only  in  two  other  ex- 
amples of  the  whole  Greek  Teftament,  whereas  ra-^oo-sup^^n 
is  ufcd  in  nearly  forty  inftances. 


PAGE 


522  NOTES    TO    CHAP.  VI.    SECT.  XII. 

PAGE  318. 

30.  This  ]aft  interpolation,  as  quoted  by  our  author, 
is  in  the  Cod.  Cant,  alone,  but  three  other  manufcripts 
have  a  fimilar  interpolation. 


SECT.       XII. 

PAGE    320. 

I.  Efpecially  by  Tertullian  andEpiphanius.  Marcion 
on  the  other  hand  acculed  Tertullian  of  the  fame  prac- 
tices. Ego  meum  (fcil.  evangelium)  dico  verum,  Mar- 
cion fuum.  Egu  Marcionis  affirmo  adultcratum,  Mar- 
cion meum. 

Tertullianus  adv.  Marcionem,  Lib.  IV.  cap.  4,. 

PAGE  320, 
£.  See  Note  10.  to  Chap.  II.  k6\:.  7, 

PAGE  321. 

3.  See  Note  24.  to  Chap.  IV.  fed.  5. 

4.  Vid.  Hieronymi  Opera,  Tom.  IV.  P.  I.  p.  392.  cd. 
Martianay.  Tertullian  alfo  (adv.  Marcionem,  Lib.  V. 
c.  1 8.)  quotes  Ephef.  v.  31.  without  this  claufe. 

PAGE  322. 

5.  See  Note  28.  to  the  preceding  fe(5bIon, 

PAGE  324. 

6.  Ambrofius  de  fide.  Lib.  V.   cap.   16.   Tom.  II. 

p.  586.  ed.  Benedia. 

PAGE  326. 

7.  Epiphanius,  in  mentioning  a  pafTage  in  St.  Luke's 
Gofpel,  in  which  it  was  faid,  that  Jefus  wept,  has  the  fol- 
lowing remark,  A\Xa.  y.0'.\  ^  Ey^Aa-jo-s'  xnrxi  tv  Toj  Kctloi  Auxai* 
iVOcfyiXito  IV  roig  aJ'sooGwroij  a.VTiyoci(pon;.  O^^o^o^oi  $£  «^fi- 
XovTO   TO   ^riTOVj   (poQnhvTcc,   zcci   ^n    voy)crciVTtg   «ut«   to   rsXog. 

(Ancorat. 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.   VI.     SECT.   XIT.  523 

(Ancorat.  cap.  31.  Tom.  11.  p.  ;^6.  ed.  PetavH).  The 
pafTage  which  he  means  is  Luke  xxii.  43,  44.  which  is 
omitted  in  the  Cod.  Alexandrinus,  and,  as  appears  from 
Birch's  edition,  alfo  in  the  Cod.  Vaticanus. 

8.  The  rpurioufnefs  of  i  John  v.  7.  has  been  fhewn 
by  Sir  Ifaac  Newton,  in  a  letter  to  Le  Clerc,  firft  pub- 
lifhed  in  London  in  1754,  and  more  corredtly  by  Dr. 
Horfley  in  1785,  from  the  author's  original  copy.  See 
his  edition  of  Newton's  Works,  Vol.  V.  p.  495 — 531. 
This  letter  is  lefs  known  than  it  deferves,  as  the  immor- 
tal author  has  difplayed  in  it  as  much  critical  knowledge, 
as  penetration  in  his  mathematical  inquiries.  See  alfo 
Porfon's  Letters  to  Travis,  publifhed  in  1790.  The 
queftion  has  been  likewife  examined,  and  with  great 
impartiality,  by  Bengel  in  his  Apparatus  Criticus,  p.  acS 
—482.  2\  ed.. 

PAGE  327. 

9.  Our  author,  by  fome  extraordinary  accident,  has 
entirely  perverted  this  rule  of  Wetftein,  and  applied  to 
the  orthodox  Wetftein's  explanation  of  the  heterodox 
reading.  To  prevent  confufion  therefore  it  is  necefTary 
to  quote  the  rule  at  full  length.  Inter  duas  variantcs 
ledliones  ea,  qu«  magis  orthodoxa  videtur,  non  eft  pro- 
tinus  alteri  prsferenda.  Leftionem  magis  orthodoxam 
voco  illam,  qua  dogma  aliquod  inter  Chriftianos  contro- 
verfum  in  illis,  in  quibus  degit  ledor,  partibus  vulgo  re- 
ceptum  confirmari  exiftimatur.  Ledionem  minus  or- 
thodoxam intelligo  non  manifefte  erroneam  quidem  il- 
1am  et  hrereticam  (quis  enim  talem  probarct  ?)  fed  qufc 
neutri  parti  favet,  et  fenfum  fundit,  qui  et  reliquis  fcrip- 
turcE  locis  congruens  eft,  et  ab  omnibus  Chriftianis  ad- 
inittitur.  Quin  in  dubia  re  hanc  leftionem  ilH  prcefe- 
rendam  efle  judico.  To  the  rule  thus  ftated  no  critic 
will  refufe,  to  fubfa-ibe.  See  Dr.  Semler's  remarks  in 
his  edition  of  Wetftenii  libelli  ad  crifin  atque  interpreta- 
timcm  N.  T.  p.  75 — 78. 

PAGR 


524  tlOTES    TO    CHAP.  VI.    SECT.  XIII. 

PAGE  328. 

10.  This  conclufion  would  prefiippofe  that  the  paf- 
fage  was  genuine,  but  the  prefent  queftion  relates  to  the 
decifion  of  doubtful  readings. 

11.  Our  author  in  the  whole  of  this  laft  paragraph 
has  not  argued  with  his  ufual  precifion.  It  is  true  that 
if  a  reading  undoubtedly  genuine,  in  a  work  afcribed  to 
fome  particular  author,  contradi6ts  the  tenets  which  he 
delivers  in  wridngs  of  undoubted  authority,  it  affords  at 
leaft  a  prefumption  that  the  work  in  queftion  is  falfely 
afcribed  to  him.  But  this  has  no  reference  to  the  pre- 
sent inquiry,  which  relates  merely  to  the  choice  of  dif- 
puted  readings  in  the  fame  paiTage.  The  ftatement 
therefore  fhould  be  made  in  the  following  manner.  Let 
us  fuppofe  that  one  fet  of  manufcripts  has  a  reading  in 
one  of  St.  Paul's  epiftles,  which  is  confonant  to  the  ge- 
neral doftrine  delivered  by  the  Apoftle  in  his  other 
epiftles,  and  that  another  fet  of  manufcripts  has  in  the 
fame  paffage  a  different  reading,  and  repugnant  to  his 
general  dodrine :  in  this  cafe  we  muft  conclude  that  the 
reading  contained  in  the  latter  fet  is  fpurious.  This  is 
probably  Wetftein's  meaning,  when  he  fays,  Ledtionem 
manifefte  erroneam  et  hssreticam  quis  probaret  ?  To  our 
author's  obje6tion,  that  the  rule  cannot  be  applied  in 
arguing  with  a  Deift,  becaufe  it  implies  divine  infpira- 
tion,  we  may  reply,  that  the  rule  as  here  ftated  is  equally 
applicable  to  the  manufcripts  of  Ariftotle  and  Plato, 

SECT.       XIII, 

PAGE  329. 

I.  Our  author  has  here  printed  a  letter  written  by 
Profeffor  Birch,  during  his  ftay  in  Rome,  relative  to  the 
Codex  Vaticanus.  Various  readings  of  this  celebrated 
manufcript  are  there  given,  which  were  before  unknown, 
all  of  which  may  be  {ccn  in  his  edition  of  the  Greek 
Teftament,  the  dde  of  which  is  quoted  above,  fed,  viii. 
Note  12. 

s.  Our 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.  VI.    SECT.    XIII.  525 

2.  Our  author's  explanation  of  iTraparo?  is  attended 
with  many  difficulties.  The  words  of  Suidas  are  i-na.^ 
^otTOi,  iTTOcyuyoi'  xai  iTroc^ocrogj  nrmaTapxrog,  Now  if  this 
paflage  be  genuine,  the  word  in  queftion  has  a  different 
fenfe  in  the  plural  from  that  which  it  has  in  the  fmgular, 
and  our  author  is  miftaken  in  faying  that  BTra^arog  is  fy- 
nonymous  to  t-n-^^yuyog.  But  Kiifter,  in  his  Note,  very 
juftly  fufpeds  that  Eirocyuyoi  is  here  fpurious.  With  re- 
fped  to  our  author's  derivation  of  nraoocrog  from  £7rapa?, 
it  is  contrary  to  the  analogy  of  the  Greek  language ;  for 
this  word  ought  to  be  written  tts-apa?,  with  an  Iota  fub- 
fcriptum,  being  the  part.  aor.  i.  of  £7rai^w,  and  it  is  well 
known  that  eTra-pxrog  comes  immediately  and  regularly 
from  B7roipoi0(ji.otij  imprecor. 

PAGE  330. 

3.  Griefbach  quotes  likewife  the  Codex  Colbertinus 
2844,  or  Wetftein's  Codex  17,  in  the  fecond  part  of  his 
Greek  Teftament. 

4.  But  as  our  outhor  himfelf  acknowledges  that  no 
reading,  fupported  by  the  authority  of  a  fmgle  manu- 
fcript  only,  is  entitled  to  the  preference,  unlefs  it  has- 
very  ftrong  internal  marks  of  authenticity,  it  does  not 
appear  that  we  are  warranted  to  pronounce  »iA£»  genuine, 
as  it  correfponds  neither  to  the  Hebrew  nor  the  Syriac 
orthography.  It  is  true  that  nXu  approaches  nearer  than 
lAwt  to  the  Hebrew  i^i^  i  but  as  there  is  no  fuch  word 
in  Hebrew  as  o-aSap^GaH,  and  the  whole  exclamation  is 
Syriac  (or  which  is  nearly  the  fame  thing,  Chaldee,  the 
mode  of  pointing  conftituting  the  chief  difference  be- 
tween the  two  dialefts),  it  is  reafonable  to  fuppofe  that 
the  Syriac  word  aui  is  the  genuine  reading. 

PAGE  331. 
5.  For  Bni^aOa  no  other  manufcript  has  been  quoted 
than  the  Codex  Stephani  -/i;  but  Grielbach,  who  collated 
this  manufcript  anew,  found  in  it  B-ziG^aOa,  for  which 
Wetftein  had  quoted  only  the  Codex  Colbertinus  2844. 
It  is  polTible  therefore  that  the  reading,  which  our  author 
defcribes  as  very  ancient,  does  not  exift. 

6.  Qri^ 


526  NOTES   TO    CHAP.   VI.    SECT.   XIII. 

6.  Griefbach  rejefts  iyiviro  on  the  authority  of  the 
very  bed  manufcripts. 

7.  See  Gricfbach's  Hiiloria  textus  epiftolarum  PauU- 
narum,  Secl.  i.  §  7. 

PAGE33J. 

8.  To  prevent  mlflakes,  it  is  necefTary  to  obferve  that 
N°  24.  was  not  affigned  to  this  manulcript  in  the  Bod- 
leian hbrary,  but  it  was  thus  noted  by  its  former  pro-f 
prietor.     It  is  Griefbach's  Codex  1 18. 

PACE  33S' 

9.  See  Griefbach's  Note  to  A6ls  xx.  28. 

10.  To  which  may  be  added  zjXioui^ixg. 

11.  See  Bengel's  Introdudion  in  crifin  Novi  Tefta- 
menti,  §  21. 

12.  Alfo  in  the  JEthiopic. 

PACE    23^' 

13.  The  example,  which  is  here  explained,  has  been 
already  given  in  the  preceding  page  of  this  Introdudlion. 

PACE  339. 

14.  Deut.  xxix.  18. 

15.  This  admirable  chapter  has  been  written  by  our 
author  with  the  coolnefs  and  impartiality  of  a  profoundly 
learned  cridc,  without  the  leail  regard  to  any  party 
whatfoever.  In  fubjedls  purely  theological,  he  has  at  all 
times  abided  by  the  eftabliflied  dodiine  of  the  Lutheran 
Church,  of  which  he  was  a  member ;  hut  in  points  of 
fimple  cridcifm,  he  inveftigatcs  the  truth  with  all  the 
aid  of  learning,  indifferent  as  to  the  event,  and  wholly 
unconcerned  whether  the  conclufions,  that  may  be  drawn 
from  his  inquiries,  are  favourable  to  his  own  fyftem,  or 
to  that  of  his  opponents.  The  attention  which  has  been 
paid  to  apparent  trifles,  both  in  the  text  itfelf,  and  the 
notes  of  the  tranflator,  may  frequently  appear  fuperflu- 
ous;  but  let  no  one  forget  that  accuracy  and  impartiality 
are  the  two  great  virtues  of  a  ciitic,  and  that  objeds  of 

no 


NOTES    TO    CHAP.  VI.    SECT.  JCIII.  527 

no  importance  in  themfelves  lead  not  feldora  to  confe- 
qiiences  of  the  greateft  moment.  Laftly,  we  may  derive 
this  ufeful  lelTon  from  the  foregoing  chapter,  that  charity 
and  mnderarion  toward  thofe,  whofe  fentiments  are  dif- 
ferent from  our  own,  are  the  greateft  ornaments  of  thofe 
who  bear  the  name  of  Chriftian.  Scriptura  facra  non 
data  eft  hominibus  prasferdm  Chriftianis,  ut  fe  invicem 
perpetuis  difpucationibus  ex  ea  refellerent  ac  damnarent: 
paci  deftinatum  opus  hoc  eft,  et  mutuam  caritatem  atque 
toicrannam  ubique  fpirat  atque  inculcat.  ■  Variationes 
illse  in  tenuiflimis  plerumque  apicibus  confiftunt,  ut  vel 
legatur  OC  vel  9^,  kc  vel  ^CC  '  "^  articulus  item  vel 
apponatur  vel  omittatur.  Quis  enim  fans  mentis  credat 
fapientilTimam  atque  benigniffimam  Dei  providentiam 
ab  iftis  apicibus,  qui  aciem  oculorum  fugiunt,  res  tanti 
momenti  ?eternam  nimirum  falutem,  vel  perniciem  ho- 
minum  fufpendere  voluilTe  ? 

Wetftenii  Nov.  Teft.  Tom.  II.  p.  864. 


END    OF   VOL.  I. 


PRINTED  BY 'BYE  AND  LAW,    ST.  JOUN'S  SQUARE,    CI^RfiJiNWELI.. 


I 


•i"!^^.. 


DATE  DUE 

'•VfvTr 

, 

1 

rj^^" 

f^W^ 

^ 

■  .W»» 

^lizi 

i)< 

CAYIORO 

miNTEOINU.S  A. 

BS2364.M619  1802v,l 
Introduction  to  the  New  Testament 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


00062 


^^    ^-